Here is the townhall transcript with speaker names added based on the context of the meeting. **Speaker Key:** * **Mayor Huber:** The presiding officer. * **Kim (Clerk):** The City Clerk/Administrator. * **Brad Reeves:** The City Engineer (joining remotely). * **Jennifer Hascamp:** The City Planner. * **Tom Carr:** Council Member. * **John Rack:** Council Member. * **Jeff Geer:** Council Member. * **Bob Tufty:** Council Member. *** [0:00] **Mayor Huber:** Okay, real good. Let's go ahead and start our actual agenda with the pledge of allegiance, please. 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. [0:27] **Mayor Huber:** All right, you've all had a chance to take a look at the regular agenda. Do I have a motion to approve? [0:35] **John Rack:** I move to approve the agenda. [0:37] **Mayor Huber:** Thanks, John. Second? [0:38] **Bob Tufty:** Second, Bob. [0:40] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Carr. [0:42] **Tom Carr:** Hi. [0:43] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Rack. [0:44] **John Rack:** Hi. [0:45] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Geer. [0:46] **Jeff Geer:** Hi. [0:47] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Tufty. [0:48] **Bob Tufty:** Hi. [0:49] **Kim (Clerk):** Mayor Huber. [0:50] **Mayor Huber:** I. All had a chance to take a look at our bill list and the things on the consent agenda. Do I have a motion to approve our consent agenda? [0:56] **John Rack:** Motion to approve consent agenda. [0:58] **Mayor Huber:** Great. Second? [0:57] **Bob Tufty:** I'll second it, Bob. [0:59] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Carr. [1:01] **Tom Carr:** I. [1:02] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Rack. [1:03] **John Rack:** I. [1:04] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Geer. [1:05] **Jeff Geer:** Hi. [1:06] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Tufty. [1:07] **Bob Tufty:** Hi. [1:08] **Kim (Clerk):** Mayor Huber. [1:09] **Mayor Huber:** I. All right. Let's turn to our city engineer Brad Reeves. Brad, do we have you here? [1:16] **Brad Reeves:** We do here council. Can you hear me? [1:18] **Mayor Huber:** We can. Very well. That's fantastic. Our our our clerk is incredibly multi-talented. Nice job, Kim. Brad, why don't you go ahead and launch into our first one? Yeah. Go ahead. [1:33] **Brad Reeves:** Yeah. So, mayor, members of council my first item tonight is we're seeking a motion to adopt resolution 2023-12 and sending the public assessment hearing for the 115th Street and Oak Court street improvement project. As you know this this project was petitioned by residents living along these streets. The improvements include street reclamation, a new bituminous mat, new gravel shoulders and some restoration. Um, as you know as well, the city council adopted the feasibility report for this project on March 7th, 2023. We ordered the public improvements for the project following the notice public hearing at the April 4th meeting. [2:26] **Brad Reeves:** City council approved the plans and specifications in order to have bid on May 2nd. Um, and then the bids were received just a week or two ago on May of this month. Excuse me, the bid came in just shy of $300,000—was $299,873 to be exact. Um, and so we will not consider awarding those bids until we get through this special assessment process, most likely at the meeting in September. Um, again, the project cost to be incurred for the improvement is estimated at just over $350,000. [3:13] **Brad Reeves:** Now this project cost includes the construction cost I just mentioned plus the engineering and a little bit in there for financing depending on how the city would choose to finance it whether it's bonding or just using their reserves. Um, again, using these dollar amounts and the city's contribution for this project is typically 10% and so I know that's quite a bit of different than what we had proposed the feasibility report which is around $100,000 but it came in really low and we felt that 10% is something that we could manage for this project and not have the assessments be too high. So with that, the bid amount, the project cost of $350,000, city contribution of roughly $35,000, the buildable unit assessments for this project is estimated at just over $12,000. So again, we're following the Minnesota State Statute 429 process. And so we're here tonight trying to consider the adopt—actually consider the public hearing for the assessments and we are proposing for that hearing be at the August 1st meeting. So with that said, I would be happy to answer any of your questions. [4:41] **Mayor Huber:** Okay. Just starting off real quick, Brad. Do you happen to have the preliminary numbers that you had come up with and juxtapose them against the $299,000 bid? We saved about—this came in about what $3,000, almost $4,000 light? [4:59] **Brad Reeves:** Yeah. You know, I want to say this project cost around $500,000. Okay. So we're about $100,000 less than I was estimating with the building. Okay. And I believe the—I don't really have the numbers in front of me, but I believe the city's contribution we talked about 20% of that time, which is roughly about $90,000. And so, um, again, the city contribution is completely up to the council. Um, but we felt like our staff and staff felt like the assessments were getting way too high at approximately $18,000 when we did the report and so we were able to reduce the city contribution and of course the project cost because the bids came in so so well. [5:50] **Mayor Huber:** Yeah, I'm very pleased to see that that's going to save everybody some money and we we know this needs to be done. So, additional questions, please, gentlemen. Tom? [6:04] **Tom Carr:** No. [6:05] **Mayor Huber:** Bob? [6:06] **Bob Tufty:** Nope. [6:07] **Mayor Huber:** John? Jeff? [6:08] **Jeff Geer:** No. Typically, do we donate money to road projects? [6:08] **Mayor Huber:** Brad, do you want to take that one? [6:10] **Brad Reeves:** Yeah. So, typically um council member, the city does contribute to these projects using city maintenance dollars. Um, the maintenance dollars for this project was again around 35% or $35,000. Um, and we have done this in the past for for similar projects. [6:27] **Tom Carr:** Yeah. Almost always Tom. Yeah. And it started a few years ago and we decided, you know, hey, if we can help a little bit with seal coating that we would spend anyway, some puddle patching some of the stuff anyway. And we don't have much maintenance on it then for a couple years. We we save some money that way. So, we figure it's a win-win for everybody kind of. [6:48] **Mayor Huber:** Yeah. And we feel—I mean to Tom's point which is a good one—those those maintenance funds were essentially dedicated to that roadway anyway right so Tom makes a good point you put them into that initial project you save some money for a few years and then as that road ages you start to look at you know repeating the process and overlay that road thicker road and better road that's right so uh this one's a pretty common sense and you are looking for what here Kim? [7:16] **Kim (Clerk):** A motion to adopt the resolution. [7:21] **Mayor Huber:** All right, real good. Looks like we've got a resolution in our hands here. 2023-12. Can I have a motion to approve to set the assessment hearing? [7:31] **Jeff Geer:** Motion to approve. [7:33] **Bob Tufty:** Second. [7:34] **Mayor Huber:** Mr. Geer and Mr. Tufty. Thank you, gentlemen. Kim? [7:38] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Carr. [7:39] **Tom Carr:** Hi. [7:40] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Rack. [7:41] **John Rack:** Hi. [7:42] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Geer. [7:43] **Jeff Geer:** Hi. [7:44] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Tufty. [7:45] **Bob Tufty:** Hi. [7:46] **Kim (Clerk):** Mayor Huber. [7:47] **Mayor Huber:** Hi. Thank you, Kim. All right, Brad. Looks like we're reviving an oldie but a goodie here. The Norwood Drive Street improvement project. Uh, looks like we have an older feasibility report. And I also would like you to discuss real quick here um the initial assessment roll and how that's generated and how that initial assessment roll becomes the final assessment roll that's presented to the project the neighbors of the project at that assessment hearing. So, if you can just please first go over the feasibility report and what we're looking at here tonight and then just a quick discussion on again assessment rolls in the beginning and assessment rolls when you have that meeting at the end. [8:24] **Brad Reeves:** Yeah. So, mayor, members of the council, this was a feasibility actually project was petitioned by residents living on street. Um, the the residents petitioned the city for roadway improvements. Uh, we did go through the process of the city ordering a feasibility report for this project and at at a certain point the city did adopt the feasibility report for all three streets. Uh, it wasn't—we did not exclude I guess Norwood Drive at that moment but we did not move forward with Norwood Drive at the public hearing stage. So, the feasibility report is still valid, I guess, for all three of these streets. And typically, what we do in these situations when when a project does not move forward through the public hearing process is that we can use these feasibility reports if the scope of work has not significantly changed. [9:36] **Brad Reeves:** Uh, the condition of the improvements... we can still use the feasibility report. I guess the only caveat there is that they did revised the cost because the costs that we used in the, I think it was the 2020 feasibility report, were a little outdated because of inflation over the last couple of years. Um, so I did revise the construction costs and the mock assessment for your review as part of the packet. Um, and then I guess I would recommend that we adopt that new feasibility report as part of this resolution so that we can move forward into the public hearing for the Norwood Drive project. [10:14] **Brad Reeves:** So, again, the assessment hearing or the the assessments that were originally computed in 2019 or 2020 were based on construction costs back at that time. And and so the assessments were probably quite a bit because we typically when we do these types of projects as a package. Meaning if all three of these roadways would have moved forward, we don't separate them into separate individual mock assessments. We look at them as a project as a whole. And that is that is part of the city policy that we look at these projects as a whole project, not just an individual street. And so I think that's probably the main difference that that we're seeing in the the assessments from back in '19 till now. We've taken away street and then they're not moving forward and now we're just dealing with Norwood Drive. So I think that explains the discrepancy in the cost and the mock assessments for each project. So, um, again, we move forward with this, we're looking tonight to adopt resolution 2023-13, in order to preparations for the plans and specifications and this public scheduling a public improvement hearing for the drive area. So, um, I hope that answers your question. I'd be happy to answer any questions council have. [12:30] **Mayor Huber:** Actually, Brad, my question is a little more pointed than that to be honest. What I want to know very, very quickly is how the assessed units, the preliminary assessed units, were computed and will those be recomputed via you and our planner in order to have a finished assessment roll if the project moves forward to the assessment public hearing. [12:50] **Brad Reeves:** Yeah. So each each lot that is a buildable unit, the buildable unit of course is described in our policy as any any lot that is adjacent to the roadway being assessed has a minimum of 330 ft and a minimum of 5 acres. Now beyond that we can take a look at you know lots that are larger than that have more frontage than that but sometimes you have wetlands or other land restricting areas for for a buildable unit. Jennifer and I can go through each lot one by one to determine if there are more divisible units I guess on this road project. But for now we we just simply looked at the um the area and the length of the roadway um to determine the assessments for this project. [13:31] **Mayor Huber:** Sure. One additional question. For example, a homeowner may disagree that a lot is buildable or may disagree that a section of land is buildable. For example, perhaps the cul-de-sac would violate our ordinances. We have limits on cul-de-sacs in terms of their length, in terms of access for fire equipment, that type of thing. If a homeowner had a question like that, where would be the proper time to sort of lodge some concern? Is that at the assessment hearing? Is that at the public hearing? When is that, Brad? When does that happen? [14:03] **Brad Reeves:** You know, it doesn't hurt to express those opinions at the first hearing, which is the public hearing. But those decisions are finally decided at the special assessment hearing. Um, Jennifer and I can certainly meet with property owners and and review a certain lot if if somebody's concerned about them. But those those decisions are going to come at the assessment hearing which is you know three or four steps down the road here. [14:34] **Mayor Huber:** Sure. But there's—I just want to establish in everyone's mind here both in the audience and amongst the council that there is a process to look at how these assessments take place and there's a process to determine as we move forward down to the assessment hearing following the 429 process from the state where people can contest these assessments depending on the land. Right? [14:57] **Brad Reeves:** Correct. [14:58] **Mayor Huber:** That's what I wanted to know. Other questions gentlemen? Tom? [15:14] **Tom Carr:** Okay. So, yeah. And then that's good and I know it goes forward, but it's obviously good to get some questions out early in the process so that we can flush them out with you, the residents, and everybody else. I talked to Brad before. Brad, how long is Norwood right now? Is it over a quarter mile or a quarter mile? [15:31] **Brad Reeves:** Yeah. I'm not sure it's quite that long, but it's... I don't think it's quite that long. [15:40] **Tom Carr:** Oh, that's fine. So, yep. Okay. So, there was a stub put in as good developers do and good planners do when land's being developed. There's some land to the north that's kind of landlocked. So, we would put a stub in there in case somebody wanted to develop that land. The reason for that is that then they could tie into that and put a road through. And here would be up through Lansing if anybody wanted—there's like 100 acres to the north of that. Otherwise, it looks like they got a shared driveway or something. I know we talked earlier about that. So, we have not abandoned that, have we? Is that still buildable? [16:09] **Brad Reeves:** As far as I'm aware, there's a right-of-way. You know, I haven't looked into the detail of it. I don't know if it's east or right, but it still exists. [16:16] **Tom Carr:** Yeah. And it was platted that way on purpose, which is good planning. So, I guess only thing I would be concerned with going forward is if somebody wanted to attach to that and this road—the cul-de-sac is not that long and they could punch a little bit more of a longer cul-de-sac in there and then have two developed lots. I mean, and we talked earlier, but I think I think that would be... I'd like your opinion on what that means. You know, if if if those are assessed lots and they should be assessed at this point. Obviously, if we didn't and then they developed that land and punched a road in all the way up through Lansing, then it wouldn't matter because they're going to have to do it to our standards as a paved road and then it's moot. But I just want your opinion on that for— [16:53] **Mayor Huber:** I'm going to step in for just a second. There are so many guesses and things you don't know in giving that opinion. If you don't wish to give that opinion for professional reasons, I'll understand because we've already laid out the process for folks to go ahead and bring those concerns up as you move forward. The problem is you probably don't have the information to answer them. If you do, please do because I'd love to hear it. But if you don't, don't answer it. I don't want guesses. [17:14] **Tom Carr:** Well, I don't either. I'm just asking for his opinion later on. So, that's giving him my concerns. [17:21] **Mayor Huber:** Yep. [17:22] **Brad Reeves:** Nope. That's a good question. You know, my immediate response would be that again, we have not in my time here, we have not assessed the part of land that doesn't have the minimum requirements of a lot. And even though we've got access to a bigger lot, we've never assessed the property based on their accessibility to a roadway. I guess what I would say in the future maybe this is something we consider that if that property were to ever develop the developer would be potentially on the hook for those road improvements if we wanted to have an extended road and redo the cul-de-sac and do all that work without looking at it any further I guess. That's my opinion on that. So you'd handle it in the development agreement moving forward. [18:19] **Mayor Huber:** Correct. [18:20] **Brad Reeves:** Yeah. Right. If there were improvements for that lot, I think a roadway extension would have to be handled through the development agreement. [18:30] **Mayor Huber:** Right. Okay. Real good. Then we've laid out the process for homeowners who are concerned about the assessment process and whether or not the land is going to be assessed or not going to be assessed. And I don't know which of those concerns were being expressed. And it doesn't matter because you can get either one of them through this process addressed through the engineer and the planner and of course through the council if it becomes necessary. So, real good. I think we've got that answered on those, Tom. [18:57] **Tom Carr:** Yeah. The only other question is why why do we on the resolution do we have to reference 105th and Inwood if we're only doing Norwood? It's kind of confusing. [19:15] **Brad Reeves:** Well, yeah. The original report contained all this. Instead of having to go all the way back and redoing the entire report again, we're just adopting a revised report even though we're not moving forward and so that's the way you think it should be written then? [19:27] **Kim (Clerk):** That's correct. Otherwise we have to go all the way back and do another report. [19:29] **Jeff Geer:** Kind of tacking on to that. So, Brad, did you re-engage with the residents on 105th and Inwood to just see if anything's changed in their level of interest? Or I can't remember what the numbers were from before—was it significantly low numbers that you didn't think it was worthwhile to see if they were interested because three years is fair amount of time and things might change. [19:59] **Brad Reeves:** Yeah. So the original petition I think there was over 65% of the people on petition for the roadway improvements and the champion of that petition in 2020 decided to not move forward and so we didn't move forward and now she's come forward again and says now she wants to move forward. So, um, that is, you know, the real reason we're here tonight is because of the communication we've had with that one resident. Now, we haven't gone back out and reached out to all the petitioners or everybody who signed the petition to figure out if they're, you know, still in favor of the project or not. I think that would be a difficult task for us to do. We're just assuming again that the resident that championed the original petition—she's engaged with her neighbors and everybody that has signed the petition is willing to move forward and of course you have the public hearing process coming up and each of those individual homeowners are noticed of that public hearing. Correct? [21:08] **Brad Reeves:** That is correct. That is the best way to to get folks engaged to come out and and voice their opinions one way or the other and we can decide as a city or council can decide whether or not we want to move forward with the project or not. [21:24] **Mayor Huber:** Yeah, that's that's the the way I see it on this one because we are kind of reviving this feasibility study before it's gone. Because we have that three-year limit. Um, is to hold that public hearing and pay very, very careful attention to what's said there. Make sure that we have those folks and have that old signature sheet there with you and just talk to the residents and make sure we're clicking off on those residents, right? Make sure we still have it. Make sense? [21:52] **Brad Reeves:** That makes sense. [21:55] **Mayor Huber:** Okay, real good. Then if there are no more questions, gentlemen, we should at least start the process for the homeowners that are championing it. Since we already have the money into the report, we might as well re-approach those residents and see whether or not they'd like their road done. So, need a motion on resolution number 2023-13 as presented, please. [22:15] **John Rack:** I'll make that motion to approve resolution 2023, lucky 13. [22:25] **Mayor Huber:** All right. Real good. Kim? [22:28] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Carr. [22:29] **Tom Carr:** Hi. [22:29] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Rack. [22:30] **John Rack:** Hi. [22:30] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Geer. [22:31] **Jeff Geer:** Hi. [22:32] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Tufty. [22:33] **Bob Tufty:** Hi. [22:34] **Kim (Clerk):** Mayor Huber. [22:35] **Mayor Huber:** Hi. Thank you, Kim. All right, Brad. Looks like we're... do we still got Brad? I think we still got Brad. Brad, you worn out yet? We got more for you. [22:45] **Brad Reeves:** I got one more. [22:47] **Mayor Huber:** Okay, you got one more in you. I'm glad to hear it. Excellent. Excellent. [22:55] **Brad Reeves:** So, today I want you to approve T6 for roadway improvement project, usually the pavement aprons that we've done in the past. We went out and got quotes. We received actually two responsive quotes, one from SH and one from OMG for roadway improvements. The roadway aprons on Keats Avenue at 67th Street, Jasmine Avenue at 65th Street and 88th Street at Kimbro Avenue. Um, I do understand—I did talk to Ken Johnson earlier today and he had mentioned that they had done all the gravel work over at Imperial Avenue where there was some roadway that was failing at a culvert. So the gravel work has been completed, but I would still recommend that we at least do the apron off 120th Street for Imperial Avenue. And then it was brought back to my attention earlier today that we did not complete 80th Street last year. And so I would recommend that we complete that and go from where they left off on streets to across the hill. So with that said, the bid for the work that we quoted was $52,000. Uh, I think with the the gravel that we did as part of this project, we should have sufficient money in the bid to complete the rest of the work around 80th street. Um, but again I think we just—whatever the quantities are we we may overrun that a little bit. I would suggest that we complete that portion of 80th. So with that said, I'll answer any questions. [24:36] **Mayor Huber:** Yep. Just real quick, Brad, I'm looking at these. Keats Avenue at 67th and Jasmine Avenue one. I think we just had a small typo there. That's actually 63rd. Yeah, it's just 63rd. I think I think we had a typo there because we were working on another one in another place on a 65th. So, yeah, no big deal. 63rd on that one. 88th Street at Kimbro. The one on Imperial. I did go down and take a look at that one. Talked to the contractors and I'm hoping it's not a state secret here and I should mention this but I'm going to—Dellwood's doing some of their roads and one of the best ways to pack and grade a street before you fix it is not using class 5 that turns into mud. It's using old asphalt because it doesn't hold water and we have normally been accustomed to paying $350 to $380 a ton for that stuff. Okay. Um, our contractors, the smart guys there with lots of friends, made a deal with Dellwood and got all of that material for free. That's a good deal. We saved ourselves an awful lot of money on that. [25:43] **Mayor Huber:** And my information is as well that they may even be storing some of that material for further improvements where necessary. For example, Ideal Avenue South, which is actually tailings, right? Which is compressed tailings. So if we need repairs there, we'll have the compressed tailings without going out buying it for $300 a ton. I just want to say nice job contractors. Good job getting that done and getting that material in for free. The apron on 80th... yeah, there was a problem there. We had talked about that last year and really our conversation probably got a little too in-depth to be very, very honest and probably my fault. Uh, what we were looking for is that to be paved down that hill so our salt and sand would work better there so that we were controlling water runoff. And we compared that project to the one on Jamaica Avenue South where it comes from 75th up and over. So you don't see gravel coming down that road by the rain or vehicles carrying gravel because they put that apron on further just like an apron on any any of our gravel streets. So bringing that up and over the crest makes sense. And I I apologize. I probably lost control of that conversation that time and it got a little confusing. So what we're looking for here then is a special roadway improvement project vote. Uh, and Kim, is there a resolution on this one? [27:01] **Kim (Clerk):** No. Yeah, just looking for a motion. [27:03] **Tom Carr:** Go ahead Tom. Yeah. And I since we don't have any—we don't want a problem like we had last time. So, we're going to the top of the hill and we have $52,000 and I think I heard you say that you might have enough. So, let's make sure we do. So, maybe the council's going to authorize up to whatever over this. Let's authorize a number. Let's just tell them to get it done because I don't want him to have problems like you had last time where he had $50,000 and he—I know. But I don't want to just authorize it. Yeah. I mean, we can guess at what that would be, but I don't want to authorize anything. I mean, but can you... I just thought we'd give it a number. If you don't want to do a number, that's fine. [27:38] **Kim (Clerk):** Mr. Mayor, Council members, may I just suggest a motion is made to approve the special roads projects, the bid from Chipsky's with the addition of the completion of that apron? [27:48] **Mayor Huber:** There you go. I don't know. Okay. It's whatever. We'll look at the numbers next month when we get our bill list and we can determine whether or not we've been robbed or not, though I very much doubt it. Um, I'm glad to see Shift's doing it. It's been a long time since I think we got a bid from them we used, isn't it? [28:04] **Tom Carr:** His bids are getting a little more reasonable. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, they're kind of going down a little bit. It's good to see. [28:13] **Mayor Huber:** So, that's the motion we're looking for, guys. Keats at 67, Jasmine at 63rd, 88th Street, Kimbro Avenue. So, basically motion as suggested by the clerk with the addition of 80th Street. Do I have a first on that? [28:22] **John Rack:** I'll make that motion. [28:25] **Bob Tufty:** I'll second it. [28:26] **Mayor Huber:** Thank you. Kim? [28:28] **Kim (Clerk):** Council Member Carr. [28:30] **Tom Carr:** Hi. [28:31] **Kim (Clerk):** Council Member Rack. [28:32] **John Rack:** Hi. [28:33] **Kim (Clerk):** Council Member Geer. [28:34] **Jeff Geer:** Hi. [28:35] **Kim (Clerk):** Council Member Tufty. [28:36] **Bob Tufty:** Hi. [28:37] **Kim (Clerk):** Mayor Huber. [28:38] **Mayor Huber:** Hi. Thank you. Do I see Jennifer's name on here? Is Brad going off my television? Yes. Brad. Thank you. Good job. Nice work. Jennifer. You are up. Our city planner, Jennifer Hascamp. [28:55] **Jennifer Hascamp:** Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. Hello, Jennifer. Hi. Uh, so before you this evening you have a request for a conditional use permit at 8495 80th Street North. Uh, it is for a small scale agricultural production operation and also a supporting or associated agricultural events. So um I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. It's a fairly short presentation this evening because it's pretty straightforward. Good news is I can see your screen on my screen so I can tell you can see it. So, uh, hopefully we're going to move. Hold on. There we go. [29:41] **Jennifer Hascamp:** So, the applicant this evening is also the owner of the property. The property again at 8495 80th Street North. The property is guided rural residential agricultural lot size. If you look at the whole parcel it is approximately 9 acres with approximately 5.6 acres proposed for the agricultural production of that field. The request this evening is to actually permit and protect the agricultural production on the site. So it is intended to try to memorialize the use of that portion of the property for agricultural use with offsite sales and also to construct an agricultural fence around the perimeter of that agricultural plot. Uh, the fencing that is proposed this evening is not what we traditionally look at. It's more of a deer fence or some even call it temporary fence. It doesn't have footings. Uh, so as a result they're looking to kind of protect that agricultural plot. The public hearing was held on June 13th and the Planning Commission did consider those requests. [30:48] **Jennifer Hascamp:** So again, the protection of continued agricultural production is something that's a little bit unusual. We'll talk about that in just a few moments. Uh, and then to install a post agricultural fence is proposed to have those wires that extend between those posts to a height of 8 ft tall which is why we have this application this evening. Uh, the operations that are proposed are obviously through our typical growing season which of course in Minnesota seems to be a little bit longer each year. Um, but essentially they're looking at field days Monday through Thursday—I'm sorry that's Monday through Sunday. So just like most of our agricultural production with farmers market days on Saturday and Sunday. So, the intent in this case right is that actually the product that's being grown on site is actually brought to the farmers market on the weekends and sold off site. [32:00] **Jennifer Hascamp:** Again, we did hold a public hearing at our planning commission meeting. Um, members of the public did provide public testimony. Uh, most of their concerns are related to the quality or the design of the fencing and also concern just maintenance of that fencing that is proposed this evening. We'll look at that in just a little bit more detail. Uh, the planning commission also discussed the design of it as well and had a recommendation with respect to how to address it and also talked about the location. So the way that it's proposed this evening is actually that it essentially is set back slightly from the side and also from the rear yard but does not meet our full yard setbacks. So as a result they're asking for some flexibility so that they can utilize the entire field area for the agricultural production. Uh, so after the public hearing was closed the planning commission discussed the public testimony. They proposed the following adjustments to the conditions that were drafted initially. So one, you know, that the fence had to be set back consistent with the existing fence line or there was a fence that was on site that was set back or set off the property lines and that a design would need to be confirmed with both the building official and the city engineer. [33:20] **Jennifer Hascamp:** This would be just questions? Okay, so there's CUP criteria that obviously is in our ordinance. We take a look at this all the time. Section 32-141 establishes criteria for granting a conditional use permit. I mentioned this is a little unusual. Uh, but section 32-345 actually establishes the city has a right to farm community. So that actually implies or states that essentially we allow agricultural production throughout the community districts. Under certain circumstances we request that that agricultural use have a conditional use permit. While the language is not specific to what we're looking at here, I do understand that the applicant would like to secure it partially because what's being proposed is actually surrounded by rural residential uses. As a result, they want to ensure that they maintain this five, you know, five and a half acre portion of their property for agricultural production. Uh, and obviously like all conditions, reasonable conditions including site operations can be included in terms of our conditional use permits. [34:30] **Jennifer Hascamp:** So, the property for its recent past and currently was used for rural residential uses. They have actually planted an agricultural field for this growing season. There's an existing principal structure and barns located on the site. Adjacent properties are primarily for rural residential uses. Just a quick aerial because I think that describes it a little bit better. You can see that the property—that whole southern area is relatively open. That is the area for the agricultural production as well as the fence. This is a site plan that shows you where the applicant is proposing to set the fence. Uh, so between the planning commission meeting and this meeting tonight the applicant did provide updated site plan and it shows that they are proposing to put a fence up approximately 5 ft off the property lines. And you can see that those fence posts are set approximately 20 ft spaced apart. And then they have a wire, a barbless wire that connects the two posts. So, I'll talk in just a moment about what the city engineer and the building official proposed, but this is what was designed and submitted for review. [36:16] **Jennifer Hascamp:** So, in our agricultural standards and parts of the code, it says that you need to have five acres to carry agricultural production if you will. It doesn't distinguish between whether it's a full parcel or whether or not it's 5 acres of agricultural land but it doesn't indicate that there's five acres. Obviously all the other lot standards remain in place. Uh, I do want to call your attention just briefly to the fence standards. If it's determined that the fence standards that are in the code do apply to this type of fencing—which is certainly up to you in terms of whether or not you believe that or not—the way the code is written is that all fencing is permitted to be along property lines up to six ft. If you're proposing an 8 ft fence, which is what we're looking at here, it has to be outside the side or setbacks, which in this case are 20 ft. Um, and you would have 8 ft of your yard. So if the standard unit strict interpretation is applied, then those would be used as proposed agricultural area approximately 5.6 acres exceed the minimum as a result obviously that complies with the standard. [37:44] **Jennifer Hascamp:** In terms of fence standards section 32-315 deals with fences. Uh, it does not specifically address agricultural fencing only because this type of construction that is post construction is fairly open. Uh, the posts don't typically have footings as a result. When I talked to Jack about it, these haven't really come through the city very much. We've not really given them given them building permits in the past and yet we know that they are all over the city in terms of this fencing that is you know put in place to protect short crops. So, um, from that perspective, not really looked at them as staff. So, I I bring that up in terms of how we look at the code and how we're looking at what's been proposed this evening. As I mentioned, the strict interpretation of the code is enforced with the fence—we would need to be at 20 ft on the side, and 8 ft on the rear yard. Uh, just a note that on the southern line which would be the rear yard in this case, there was an existing vegetation screen that was required as part of the school athletic field. So in terms of reference there was a screening that was proposed in terms of literally you can see that row of trees. [39:20] **Jennifer Hascamp:** So in terms of the fence detail, you can see that we've got materials here. It shows the post above ground and then the wires and the configurations and the manufacturing details coming through with the square that is shown on the bottom. So, the planning commission recommended that both the building official and the city engineer take a look at the proposed design to make sure since obviously neighbors identified the look or the maintenance of this being critical to their comfort with it. Uh, so both the building official and the city engineer looked at the proposed plan. They came at it with the following. The city engineer's recommendation was more restrictive than the building official's. So I would recommend going with the city engineer in this case. They said that the post should be spaced no further than 12 ft apart from each other. Uh, the building official said that he believes that the two-foot buried depth is adequate. It does not require footings since there will be little wind shear given the proposed design. So again I mentioned the fact that we got deer fencing all over the city and all it is kind of installed to our knowledge similarly—once again we've not issued building permits for it. However if you look at what's around town it appears that this is probably installed consistent with the manufacturing details. Um, and then finally once again we haven't in the past required the building permit but that is not to say that for this particular conditional permit we could not require it and make that a condition of what we're looking at this evening. [41:02] **Jennifer Hascamp:** In terms of the operation the applicant is proposing they believe that the property is homesteaded. All of their family members are only those that would be on site. There are no employees that are proposed as part this operation. They've got their field days identified as Monday through Thursday. Um, again, Friday through Sunday, they'd be going to the farmers market bringing the agricultural product to local farmers markets. There are no on-site sales proposed. Everything is offsite and there are no retail sales proposed. So, in terms of the conditions that are passed on to you this evening, uh, there's obviously a list of 16. You'll note that on condition number 16, I did make an adjustment from 15 ft of spacing to 12 feet of spacing based on Brad's recommendation. Because that came in after draft conditions. The building official said 15 ft. So I brought that one slightly to the 12 ft. Uh, and all the other conditions are established. Uh, the way that the planning commission passed around to you is that in terms of the setback for that fence line is that it would have to follow the existing fence line that's out there which is somewhere between 5 ft set back from the property line. So with that Mr. Mayor members of council I pass it back to you for any questions. [42:15] **Mayor Huber:** Uh, Jennifer I didn't hear you mention when you were talking about the engineer for a second—the engineer had asked that the spacing on the post be 12 ft. Did the engineer agree with putting a post down 24 inches into the frost line? [42:35] **Jennifer Hascamp:** So Brad and I... I don't... it was like Brad did talk about whether or not depending on if there were sturdier or more permanent posts that were put in that those would require footings. So, like we talked about the corners for example requiring footings and making sure those go down to the frost footing at 42 inches. So again, this is where our ordinance is a little tricky because it doesn't contemplate the type of construction. It basically talks about the type of construction where that we typically think of like privacy fences and those types of things that all of the posts because of the wind shear require them to have very solid footings essentially. And this type of fencing doesn't really have that. [43:22] **Mayor Huber:** In this case, obviously, I'm not worried about windshear. I am, however, quite concerned that with some spring heave, this fence is going to look like this pretty quick. No matter what kind of post you use, if you're not down 42 inches on every post, not just corner posts. Uh, if they if they go down 42 inches with a post and brace it on either side, it's probably going to work with this type of wire, but you're going to have heave at 24 inches badly. Mr. Rack, do you want to go ahead and jump in here? [43:54] **John Rack:** Um, I I I I do. So, I know that there's an existing fence line fence that's between one and and four feet or five feet, whatever it is. You know, I just don't think an 8 ft fence should be in the same as a lower fence. I just think we should stick with the 20 ft as it as it's stated. So, that's that's one of the things that I was thinking of. Um, the other thing I was thinking of is the property that is to the west. Um, you know, I was looking at it online and and it looks like it's a nice house and I believe it's in the 1.8 million range according to the Washington County website. So, when you have this this this fence and you've got people going to be there sun up to sun down weeding, I think if you have it at 20 ft, you could require screening for the that that people next door for their pool and everything because now you have people that will be there all the time, right? [45:14] **Mayor Huber:** I'm not sure with the right to farm ordinance, John, you're going to be able to get that one by. Um, the screening may actually because of the right to farm ordinance actually be kind of that duty may be on the surrounding homeowners. I'm not sure. Jennifer can step in with that if she has any information you think may be helpful with John's suggestion there. And I'm not disagreeing. This is... we have a right to farm ordinance, gentlemen, and and people should be able to do what they want with their lot. This is more intensive and we're asking for an 8 ft fence which we rarely do. The 8 ft fences that we have approved to this point are almost exclusively on county roads for example wineries and that type of thing is where we we see these fences. So I'm a little hesitant to go with the recommendations of the PC here. Jen, what do you think? Uh, requiring screening for this—is that something that would even be possible or does our right to farm ordinance preclude that? [46:19] **Jennifer Hascamp:** Um, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I think this one's tricky to be perfectly honest with you from the standpoint of they could farm it and put their 8 foot fence up provided it meets the setback without a conditional use permit and they wouldn't get in front of you. So, uh I think their goal here is they'd like to protect that agricultural right which is why they're in front of me this evening because there's some concern that that might be infringed on in some way. And so, um my answer is I think it's tricky because really they have a right to farm this property based on our ordinance. And so the screening of it sort of is kind of intuitive to that that that part of the ordinance if you will. [47:38] **Mayor Huber:** Yeah. I I think that we also have a problem and I want to talk to you at the end here about 32-315 when we're done here. Um, just have a quick conversation in front of the council. So the screening is going to be problematic. I think John brings up some good points about not replacing one fence, which is a residential type fence, with what is a farm fence, which is 8 foot, and having that on the line versus following our ordinance, which is always a defensible and good thing to do for neighbors and other folks, where fences located within the buildable area of a lot or 8 ft or more from the rear lot line may be up to 8 ft in height. Okay. So, um, following that may may be the best way to go and I think I have some sympathy toward that view. Um, Jennifer, what what are your your thoughts on doing that? And as I understand it, these folks are in front of us and I'll just restate it so I can understand it. These folks are in front of us today for this cup for the express purpose of not really putting in an 8 foot fence because they can. They're really here for the express purpose of putting that 8 foot fence on the property line? [48:45] **Jennifer Hascamp:** 5 feet. Uh, yes. And to protect agricultural production, which there is a section that allows for that. The way that it's written is is more about uh, you know, whether there's intensive parts of what's going on the agricultural production that they would like to protect. So, it's a similar type of request from that perspective. And, and to be honest with you, I think we might face things like this in the future. Um, from the standpoint of since our code was originally adopted, the city really has transitioned to more of the rural residential predominantly rural residential use. We don't have a lot of agricultural production happening in a lot of areas. And so this sort of—I wouldn't call it a conflict because I think that's too strong of a word, but this relationship between agricultural production, smaller parcels, and our rural residential uses. I would expect you might see requests like this in the future and wanting to protect that that crop field, that agricultural production. [49:21] **Mayor Huber:** And again, again, I'd like to have just a quick conversation after we've gone through this process with the CUP about 32-315, the fence ordinance, and how we can approve that. Tom? [49:30] **Tom Carr:** Yeah, we have a right to farm, not a right to fence. And come over to my house. I got some stuff that I'm worried about the deer getting at in the fence. And some stuff's in the yard. So, doesn't mean they can't farm the 20 feet along the side. If we have the setback, meet the setback. They can farm. They can plant stuff out there. Raspberries. I don't know. We have a lot of farms out here. They don't have fences around them. I'm not done. All right. So, anyway, so yeah, I mean, so I think that's the key. I didn't hear anything about giving them a variance. So, I I don't I'm not going to give a variance for a side setback or a back setback. They can put their fence in, just as to the screening, um if you want to see my fences, they're self-screened. The grape vines, the wood vine grows up it, they can plant grape vines on it if they want to. I really don't care. [50:18] **Tom Carr:** And then there was some comments about engineering trying to keep their fence up. Well, if they're smart and they don't want to repair their fence all the time, they're going to have some engineer tell them. We don't have to tell them that you need to put the posts in and every fifth one needs to be cemented in so the thing doesn't collapse on them. That's not our problem and then they have to put it up. So to the neighbors to the west I understand they have a big house. First thing if you look at the house the other side they planted a bunch of trees and the other neighbor plant some trees but you you you can't require the neighbor who's doing something that they can do to screen you just because you don't like it. You're ingrained. I see I got a corn field right behind my house and I planted some trees but I... so I think that's not on them to do. So I just I agree with John. I think it should be the standard setbacks. I think the 8 foot fence is fine. They better figure out their own engineering—we could suggest but if we need to require then I'm not sure how that works because then we'd be involved with everything required getting the building inspector involved and that's fine. We can do that but I don't know if we have to. So, I think that's on them, too. But I don't think I want to give a variance on this, but wish them well. If they want to farm, they can still farm the whole thing. They're just 20 feet along the sides. They're going to have to put something else in that the deer won't eat. So, that's my comments. [51:15] **Mayor Huber:** Yeah. So, good point. Uh, moving that into the normal setbacks does not preclude them from farming. It does not preclude them from from doing whatever they'd like to do on their lot according to our laws. I will disagree with Tom on one point is that we have building standards for a number of different things. And if the engineer is telling me they need to be down 42 inches, they need to be down 42 inches. And giving them a building permit would then give us some oversight on that construction process. I can't build my house however I like. If I don't go to state standards, electrical standards, HVAC standards, I'm not building the house. I'll be stopped by the building inspector. So, uh, what we have so far, if I understand our discussion, gentlemen, looks like we're all online with the 20 ft as stated. 32-315B3 and per engineer build directions which were the the tougher build directions. I would also say that a building permit shall be procured for this fence so that there is some oversight on the building of the fence. Again, when these have been done before, they've been on commercial sites and we've had building permits in place on these things. Okay. Um, so I would I would suggest that as well. Um, anything else that you gentlemen can think of regarding this fence, the setbacks, construction standards, anything else coming tomorrow? [52:38] **Tom Carr:** Well, just addressing screening. I think it I think it'll self-screen. I think they'll plant stuff. They'll plant apple trees. There will be vines growing up the wires. Yeah, it's grand. Every every weed grows here. Look at my yard. Um, so I don't want to... so, yeah, I know. That's why we're screening. [52:55] **Mayor Huber:** 20 foot off the line then. Building permit per engineer build instructions. Jennifer, is that pretty clear or are we missing some stuff that you'd like us to to talk about? [53:05] **Jennifer Hascamp:** Members of the council you covered it. [53:11] **Mayor Huber:** Okay, very good. Let's talk real quick then about 32-315. Do you have specific changes you'd like to see there or are you looking for this council to grant a moratorium on these on on fencing overall? I mean, what what are we looking at here? You kind of advise. You're you're the smart one here. [53:25] **Jennifer Hascamp:** Mr. Mayor. Yeah you. Wait a minute. Trust me, you're the smart one here. [53:30] **Mayor Huber:** Maybe I wanted to talk. [53:33] **Jennifer Hascamp:** Mr. Mayor, Council, um I don't think we need a moratorium and I don't think that but I do think it's something that we should address moving forward because I don't think that we've run into this a couple times. Actually the last time I I remember it was actually about a sporting facility that we had the same—like these standards are here but they're not really about the types of use we're talking about. So I think it's clarifying those those standards that are here to make sure that they actually want them to and maybe maybe we can do that actually the way they are but I think a discussion probably council in the future. So I don't think we need to have that tonight. Uh, but I do think... and I don't think we need more. This has come in the 10 years, 11 years... this has come up that I can recall four times, maybe three or four times in 11 years. [54:31] **Mayor Huber:** Great. So will you then discuss this at the meeting of the professionals at the after meeting? Yeah. Okay. Great. Yeah. Sorry to shock you with that moratorium word. I wasn't sure. Sorry I threw it out there. I look—you looked a little shocked. So, gentlemen, it looks like we have come to an agreement on this fence if we're all still there. Regular setbacks, engineer build directions, and a building permit. Does that encompass our our discussion here? [55:04] **Tom Carr:** Yeah. Only question I would have too is that's not what that's not what the planning commission said. We got a we got a resolution here. That may not be what we've had this conversation for. I don't know why, but uh it's not what they may want. So, we can approve it with something they may not want, but we still approve it. I think that's our standard. If that's what we do, they don't like it, then they could say something, but I think that's we've done it before. So, we're adding—the attorney's not here. So, we're adding to their conditions as always. [55:40] **Mayor Huber:** Yeah. Yep. We're changing Well, we're changing condition right? They didn't want—they wanted it on the property line. We're not giving it to them on the property line. So, that's the way it goes. We approve it, we move forward. If they don't like it, then that's the way it goes. [55:48] **Tom Carr:** Well, is there is there I mean is there anything to approve if we're saying you got to follow the ordinance? [55:53] **Mayor Huber:** Watch Kim. Watch. [55:55] **Kim (Clerk):** Mr. Mayor, council members, absolutely. You can approve this resolution with revisions, the three added conditions and strikeouts of what the PC said were their setbacks. [56:06] **Mayor Huber:** Do you mean the same thing we've done for the last 15 years? Right. Is that what you're proposing right now? It says revising. Holy moly. [56:15] **Tom Carr:** And my point is we can deny it with their conditions or we can approve it with our conditions. That's what I was trying to say. So that's what we're doing. Yeah. [56:20] **Mayor Huber:** I would recommend you approve it. Yeah. Yeah. That's what we always do. Yeah. Yeah. I'm glad we had that discussion. It is. Well, it's good because then people listening can hear it and the applicant would probably like to hear. Okay. So, let's go ahead and get a motion to approve it. Based upon the following modifications which we have just discussed and I'm sure Kim has written down. [56:39] **John Rack:** Hold on. I I I think... should we also require that the existing fence be taken down? [56:45] **Mayor Huber:** John, we are not here to enforce existing code because that's that's kind of not okay where we where we are in the process. It's a great question. It's a great question to condition a building permanent upon that, but we're really not here in in this case to do that. Um, but approving this with the planning commission's recommendations as well as our modifications. That's how we do it. That's how we've always done it. Okay. And the applicant knows now because we said so. There we go. [57:13] **Tom Carr:** Well, if the applicant thought that the planning commission was going to—should have called someone. [57:22] **Kim (Clerk):** Mr. Mayor, we're looking for a motion. [57:25] **Mayor Huber:** Yep. Motion as stated. Gentlemen, entertain a motion? As stated, planning commission plus the additions that we made, changes and additions that we made. Go ahead, gentlemen. [57:38] **Tom Carr:** I will move to approve this with the additional motions or addition additional um conditions that we put in. [57:41] **Mayor Huber:** Good. Got a second? [57:50] **Bob Tufty:** I'll second it. [57:51] **Mayor Huber:** All right. Mr. Tufty. Kim? [57:53] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Carr. [57:54] **Tom Carr:** Hi. [57:54] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Rack. [57:55] **John Rack:** I. [57:55] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Geer. [57:56] **Jeff Geer:** Hi. [57:56] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Tufty. [57:57] **Bob Tufty:** Hi. [57:57] **Kim (Clerk):** Mayor Huber. [57:58] **Mayor Huber:** I. Jennifer. I look forward to hearing your recommendations on this ordinance. Hopefully we can hear those from you maybe next month. You think, Mr. Mayor? [58:10] **Jennifer Hascamp:** Well, actually, too bad. Go ahead. I was hoping to get them done. You know, moving forward. Moving forward. Can't move forward. [58:13] **Kim (Clerk):** Mr. Mayor, council members, any changes to that ordinance and the standards would require a public hearing just like all your other ordinance revisions. So, it would go to the PC, I'm assuming. Um, yep. [58:24] **Mayor Huber:** But we we look at it, right? We get— [58:26] **Kim (Clerk):** Of course you look at it. [58:28] **Tom Carr:** Yeah, that was my question. But we in the past we've had little work sessions to talk about these ordinances. Do you guys want to provide some direction via email? Sure. Or a survey—like send out another survey. People can answer a survey. [58:43] **Mayor Huber:** Slick for those of you that answered it. Yes. That sounds good. I like it. Let's move on here and get out of here. City attorney is not with us tonight. No action items. 2024 budget work session. Kim, do you have something in mind since we're going to have that public or that assessment hearing next month? [59:04] **Kim (Clerk):** Mr. Mayor and council members, I would recommend you do as you typically do. You take about an hour prior to your regular August meeting. And then if you want another hour before the September meeting, which at the September meeting is the time you adopt the preliminary budget and preliminary levy. Um, in December you do the final. As you well know, you can go down, but you can't go up, right? That's the first, right? August. So, meetings 5. Yeah. So, an hour before. [59:29] **Mayor Huber:** Yeah. So, 5:30. John's got his hand up. Mayor? [59:45] **John Rack:** Yeah. Go ahead, John. Um, was just wondering, um, if we, you know, from from the word moratorium, which we had on storage, are we... I think we all had input. When do we kind of review that? [59:54] **Mayor Huber:** Yeah. So, if Jennifer were to come forward with that, when do we review that? As as Kim just kind of laid out the process, we would hear some stuff on it first. We'd probably get a memo from Kim or Jennifer and then it would go to the planning commission for them to flesh it out and then it would come here and we would make the final decisions of course in conjunction with the staff. [1:00:12] **John Rack:** Gotcha. Okay. I was just seeing that we have a something to violate. Yeah. [1:00:17] **Mayor Huber:** Oh, definitely. You'd have—you're definitely going to have some input so we don't get kind of blindsided on anything. So, are we all good with that then? August 1st at 5:30. Is that good for our budget meeting, Tom? You think? [1:00:28] **Tom Carr:** Sure. Yeah. I don't have my calendar. Jeff, you good? [1:00:32] **Jeff Geer:** I think John might be one that might be... yeah, you might have kid duty. Who knows what our kids are doing? We might have kid duty. Let's see. I did today. Um, August 1st... I don't have anything. [1:00:46] **Mayor Huber:** Excellent. Sounds good. We've got you. Throw us in and we got you for that budget meeting. Let's get it figured out. Okay, let's move on. Kim, we have an updated joint powers authority with Washington County 2024 elections. [1:01:04] **Kim (Clerk):** Mr. Mayor and council members, the current GPA joint powers agreement with Washington County around the elections had expired. Um, they sent out a new one for the 2024 elections, keeping in mind there's an extra election because the state of Minnesota chose to be a primary state, presidential primary. Um, so before you is the new joint powers agreement which shows the changes and I just need a motion to approve that. [1:01:31] **Mayor Huber:** Gentlemen, motion to approve? Do we have a second? [1:01:40] **Bob Tufty:** Joint powers agreement... second it. [1:01:42] **Mayor Huber:** Joint powers agreement by Mr. Tufty seconded. Kim? [1:01:43] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Carr. Hi, Council Member Rack. Hi, Council Member Geer. Hi, Council Member Tufty. Hi, Mayor Huber. [1:01:47] **Mayor Huber:** Hi, Kim. Any updates? [1:01:50] **Kim (Clerk):** None. [1:01:51] **Mayor Huber:** Jennifer? [1:01:52] **Jennifer Hascamp:** Oh, I'm sorry. I I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about the audit. No, I do have a couple of council or staff updates. Um, if in fact that we are going to start some work on your fencing ordinance, would you like to include in that time looking at your sign ordinance? [1:02:15] **Mayor Huber:** Tell us why you think looking at the sign ordinance is a good idea. [1:02:20] **Jennifer Hascamp:** Uh, I think it is because it's about 14 pages long. It's very confusing. Um, people really can't read that and know what kind of signs are allowed or and what needs permitting. That being said, you've had that sign ordinance for quite some time. Jack is good at kind of deciphering that. So, if you would not like to take the time or dollars to look into it, that's fine with me. Um, it's a mess. [1:02:45] **Mayor Huber:** I, for one, do not like residents or businesses who have to decipher because it's difficult to order signs. It's difficult to place them if you're trying to decipher an ordinance. You end up working with the planner... not with the planning commission, with with the building inspector to have him kind of tell you what you need and that's that's cumbersome. What do you guys think? [1:03:07] **John Rack:** Yeah, clear is better. Clear is better. Absolutely. [1:03:10] **Bob Tufty:** Clear is better. [1:03:12] **Mayor Huber:** Bob, clear is better. So, should we add that to the discussion that the staff will have have regarding fences and they'll also discuss the signage ordinance? [1:03:20] **John Rack:** I generally prefer confusion, but yeah, an obfuscation. I think keep them on their toes that way. [1:03:28] **Mayor Huber:** Okay, we're going to go for clear. Okay, we we'll start the discussion at a staff level. Um, it has come to my attention that the school district is having an election in November. So we need to change our November meeting to... oh... our November meeting would have been on November 7th. I am suggesting we move it to Monday, the night before, November 6th on Monday night. As we know, we can't have public meetings during an election. [1:03:59] **Tom Carr:** Yeah. Uh, wait. November. Say the day again. [1:04:10] **Kim (Clerk):** The first. The Monday. Monday the 1st. No, Monday. November 6th. Pardon me. That's the first Monday of the month. The election day being the 7th. [1:04:15] **Mayor Huber:** Seventh. Gotcha. That's okay. I mean, it starts at 6:30, sunsets at 5 something. Okay, that's fine. Others? [1:04:30] **Kim (Clerk):** Uh, one last thing. One last thing, guys. Um, you guys have done a lot of work at your town hall and improved it immensely. I just since I now have somebody that will put new improved shades up... um, would you guys like me to order some shades that are a little bit more insulating and a little bit more color-coded and um, will help with people looking in the windows? In terms of... you have a lot of video. How about provide security for all the stuff you see in here? [1:05:04] **Tom Carr:** You got money in the bud? We don't want people hiding out the... [1:05:10] **Kim (Clerk):** There's typically $1,000 in the town hall improvement. [1:05:14] **Mayor Huber:** Yeah, I know we had that in there. Thought we had... I don't need a motion or anything. I just wanted to know if you guys were okay with that. You're so directed to pick up some shades and have Kevin put them in. [1:05:21] **Tom Carr:** Okay. Make sure they're lovely shades though. Lovely. [1:05:25] **Mayor Huber:** We want lovely. All right. Question for you. Since we're talking about elections, what's the cheapest special election the city could hold if someone unfortunately passed away or something and we had to hold a special election to fill a seat? Just answer the question as stated, please. [1:05:41] **Kim (Clerk):** Whatever it is for the county to run that election, about $45,000. You're you're—you get charged per precinct, right? And it was like $9,000 per precinct. So, it would be the same charge. Okay. [1:06:03] **Mayor Huber:** And what's our our normal general elections? What does normally that bill come in at? [1:06:10] **Kim (Clerk):** This same same—about $9,000 per precinct. [1:06:15] **Mayor Huber:** Well, how many precincts do we have? [1:06:18] **Kim (Clerk):** I don't know. We have two. [1:06:20] **Mayor Huber:** We know two. That's what I thought. I thought we went 40,000 last time. Why do we remember 40,000? Was that a presidential election year or something? I I don't know. Okay, real good. So 18,000 real good and we're done there. Time for city council updates. Gentlemen, Tom? [1:06:22] **Tom Carr:** Well, I was going to do something in June. Send something to Kim. We got that policy that we have about not talking to the staff, which I think is onerous and uh but I don't want to get rid of it, but I think we just had to modify it. So I sent something to Kim. I was going to bring it in June, then we didn't have a June meeting, then I forgot it. I've got some in handouts, you know, pictures and color pictures with arrows and on the back of each one's restaurant. Anyway, um, but I think I got some language. It's pretty simple. I'm not really asking to change the whole thing, but I talked about it before. So, if we want to put that on the agenda, I can send it to Kim. She can send it to you or put it in your packet and we can see what you think. It's just the one paragraph. Who wants to look at it? I... Okay. [1:07:15] **Mayor Huber:** All right. You want to look at it? On next agenda, take a look at the language. Tighten it up. It's a little tough. Um, city council reports, future agenda items. I don't have anything else, Jeff? Oh, wait a second. I did have one. Mr. Schaefer was a little bit upset about not being the fire warden anymore. Mr. Schaefer, keep in mind, I should tell you, I'm only one person. There's five of us up here. So, when a votes taken, I would assume that people vote because they feel a certain way. And in terms of why I voted, you imputed a motive. So, I'll go ahead and tell you my motive. [1:07:49] **Mayor Huber:** You walked away. You quit. How did I know you wouldn't quit being a fire warden when that got uncomfortable? I didn't. That's why you're no longer the fire warden because I found you to be unreliable. Apparently, four other people did, too. Because it wasn't a split vote. So, unreliability, especially when someone tries to trigger a special election to the tune of $18,000. Instead of let the process play out, you tried to time it. So, we had to have a special election, which you've admitted to helpfully. So, you know, unreliable is why I made that vote. I was looking for reliability. So, now you know why I made that vote. And you don't need to guess anymore. Okay. Real good. Who would like to read our community calendar? I think it's John or Jeff. No, it's Jeff. It's Jeff. I know it's Jeff. All right. [1:08:37] **Jeff Geer:** All right. Public Schools Board meeting Thursday, July 13th and July 27th. District Education Center 7 p.m. Stillwater Public Schools Board Meeting Thursday, July 13th. Stillwater City Hall 7:00 p.m. Washington County Commissioners Meeting Tuesdays Government Center 9:00 a.m. [1:09:00] **Mayor Huber:** Perfect. Who would like to adjourn? [1:09:04] **Tom Carr:** I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. [1:09:06] **Bob Tufty:** I'll second it. [1:09:08] **Mayor Huber:** Mr. Tufty, you're on top of this stuff. Kim? [1:09:10] **Kim (Clerk):** Council member Tufty. [1:09:11] **Bob Tufty:** Hi. [1:09:11] **Kim (Clerk):** Council Member Rack. [1:09:12] **John Rack:** Hi. [1:09:13] **Kim (Clerk):** Council Member Geer. [1:09:14] **Jeff Geer:** Hi. [1:09:15] **Kim (Clerk):** Council Member Carr. [1:09:15] **Tom Carr:** Hi. [1:09:15] **Kim (Clerk):** Mayor Huber. [1:09:16] **Mayor Huber:** Hi, everyone. Have a happy and safe Fourth of July. [1:09:20] **Bob Tufty:** You, too. Don't blow off anything important. That's the key. [1:09:25] **Mayor Huber:** That's what my mom told me when I was young. Yep. DON'T BLOW OFF YOUR FINGERS. DANG IT.