Everyone rise for the pledge of 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. Any changes to the agenda? No, Mr. Mayor. Any motions? Motion to approve the agenda. Motion by Josh. Second. Second by Amanda. All in favor? Agenda is adopted. We have a couple presentations. First, uh, watershed plan update from Melissa. Welcome. My name is I am the senior resources for natural resources. Okay, thank you. Sorry. Do you need me to start over? And the Scott wershed management organization. Wow, that's I just wanted to get in front of you tonight. We're trying to get in front of every city and every township to let you know that we're starting the update of our 10-year watershed plan. Um, and thank you Renee. I sent Renee this uh map. Oh, it just disappeared. So, a quick introduction to a wershed plan update process. In the 1980s, um the legislature passed what's called the um Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act. It requires all metropolitan counties to manage their water resources through a watershed management organization, wershed district, or joint powers. There are four watershed jurisdictions in Scott County. The beige area on that map is the Scott watershed management organization. We cover 283 square miles of the county. The other three are the northern part is the lower Minnesota River wershed district. The middle area is a lake spring lake watershed district and then the southeastern corner which covers most of the city is a vermilion river wershed joint powers organization. So the Scott demo is the largest of the organizations. Um this plan update is takes about two years. There's three phases. Our first phase is a public input process and that's why I'm here tonight. Um I created some flyers. We're asking all cities and echo driving you nuts kind of. Do we have a solution for that or is that what you're working on, Tom? Unless I move it away a little bit. We created a flyer. We have a a web page. If people want to scan this, they'll take you to our web page. We have all different kinds of opportunities for our residents to participate. Online meetings, a survey, a mapping tool. Um we will have in-person meetings and we're also going to get in front of the communities um late July throughout August with tableabling events with our survey there as well. Um we also are required to have a kickoff meeting presided over by our county board. That is July 22nd. I did send the city and all the rest of our stakeholders that public announcement um that's being presided over by county board and our wershed planning commission. So that kicks it off on the 22nd. Um the update process we have three different bodies that will oversee and make decisions. One is our technical advisory committee. We will be inviting cities um all of the other stakeholders and organizations to that. So the city will be invited to participate in that. Um, the other thing I want to mention is that city staff, this is important because the state board of water and soil resources with their clean water funding will not projects in our implementation section of our plan. So, you'll want to participate in the TAC and get those projects in there. Otherwise, if the city is willing, I brought some handouts, a flyer if you're willing to post this by your customer service area. um that way residents can know about that. We'll have lots of social media posts so that everyone if you're on social media we'll get those um announcements as well. And that's all I have. If anybody has some questions otherwise that's all I wanted to tell you. Anyone who have questions any questions? No. Thank you so much. Who could I leave this? Rich would be the guy. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next item, the the audit. either. So I would ask the council to move on and when Mr. Grace shows up. Okay. Presentation. Public comment. Is anyone in the audience here to speak under public comment tonight? Once, twice. All right, we'll move on. Consent agenda. Anyone have any items on consent they would like pulled or maybe a quick question on motion to approve consent agenda? Kate second. Second by Gina. All in favor? I passes. You want us to go into the public hearing? We'll just keep rolling. Mr. Mayor. Okay. Uh so we have a vacation and drainage of a utility easement uh hearing tonight. Uh Jake will give a brief overview of that. I don't have a presentation prepared uh for you tonight, but the packet uh explains it. It's a lot up in Pete's Hill. Uh it's just a singular lot there. The rear property line for the drainage and utilities just moving back five feet. Still meets the minimum required setbacks. um they just needed a little extra room to fit the house they were planning on building. So, no issues. I we can foresee with the drainage in the area. It's not going to affect neighboring property owners Yep. We are uh the reason that we have a hearing tonight is because it is required under statute. Um but we've received no comment and didn't expect any tonight. Okay. Does anyone have questions before I open the public hearing? All right. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Does anyone here for the public hearing? once, twice. Okay, we'll close the public hearing. I'm assuming there's no questions that came up during that public hearing. Um, any any motions on the resolution in front of us. Motion to approve uh number or resolution 2449. Motion by Kate. Second. Second by Amanda. All in favor? Motion passes. Going to general business. We have a concept plan to take a look at for Pheasant Hills. So Renee is online this evening and but she will be giving the presentation. What uh what's going on? Sorry about that. I was having trouble unmuting myself there. I'm going to share my screen. Okay. Um, tonight uh or the city received application for a concept plan review for a proposed development located in the south uh west portion of the city. The property was uh formerly known as or referred to as the pheasant hills development. Um Mr. uh Bob Mahachek is the applicant. um believe he is in the um audience tonight. Um the concept plan is for a 44.43 acre property located south of Harvest Drive and north of 270th Street. The de um development on the property was previously approved by the city of New Market in 2005 and the de development was abandoned due to the recession 2008 recession. Um this is the city's comprehensive plan map um that shows the location of the property in the southwest area of the city. Here you can see it's all guided to this uh low density residential. the neighborhood um conditions, the surrounding properties are primarily large lot rural residential and agricultural properties on the west um the south and the east sides and then on the north there is municipal residential development theor rowina ponds development again the um property is guided by the city's comprehensive plan to low density city residential. Uh the density requirements as stated in our plan are 2.5 to 5 units per net acre for that land use designation. Uh the concept plan that was submitted shows 89 lots on 28.6 net acres uh which calculates out to 3.1 units per net acre. Uh the proposed use of the property for single family residential development does meet the intent of the city's comprehensive plan. Uh the property is currently zoned PUD and this uh PUD is a carryover from 2005 zoning approvals that were approved by the city of New Market. Uh the property uh must be reszoned to a zoning district that is consistent with the city's current comprehensive plan prior to development. Uh based on guidance from our comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, the appropriate zoning district would be R1. It's a single family residential. Um, the applicant is requesting an updated PUD zoning to allow for a deviation to the lot size, lot width, and setback uh standards. Um, the intent of PUB zoning is to allow some flexibility and variations from city regulations in order to improve site design while at the same time incorporating um elements that would exceed city's minimum standards to offset those variations. Um this is just a concept plan showing you can see Harvest Drive on the north um uh 270 street on the south and fair amount of wetlands and ponds and a series of local roads. Um the zoning ordinance has criteria that must be considered as part of a request to reszone property. Um staff believes that the request to reszone the property meets the criteria for the for reszoning except for uh number five shown here that addresses uh capabilities of ser streets serving the property which will be addressed as the presentation progresses. Um this table kind of shows a side by side of the lot standards for the R1 zoning district versus the um what is being requested uh by Mr. Mahhatic. Uh 12,000 square ft versus 8,400 ft. Lot width of 85 ft versus 65. Uh front yard setbacks of 30 versus 25. uh side setbacks of 10 versus seven and a half and um rear setbacks of 30 versus 25 are kind of the primary differences within this development. Um utilities are available to the property. The top left map shows the city's uh comprehensive sanitary sewer plan. Um you can see this sewer shed here and the property with located within it. Um a sanitary sanitary sewer is available on the north side of the property along Cedric Lane and there is a sewer stub stubbed out to this property. Um a sanitary sewer lift station and force man will be needed uh in order to serve the proposed development and that would be located in the most southerntherly portion of the property because that is the lowest area. Um the uh the map on the bottom left it is show shows the city's comprehensive water plan. Um it depicts a 12-in trunk water mane on the north and Harvest Drive and one in the future in the south along 270th Street. Uh water is available on the north side uh via a 12-in trunk water mane that already exists and there is a stub there at Cedric Lane and Harvest Drive. Um and then storm water from the entire property uh basically flows to the south to a wetland complex on the south side of 270th Street. Conceptual ponding areas have been shown on the concept plan. Um a wetland delineation will be needed to further identify those wetlands within the subject property prior to development. Um, and we do know that there are no FEMA designated flood planes or DNR protected waters or wetlands on the property. Uh, moving into transportation. Um, the proposed development again borders on Harvest Drive on the north and 270th on the south. And the city's transportation plan identifies Harvest Drive as a local street. um 270th Street on the south as a future major collector street and Cedric Lane uh which would be the main north south road running through the property as a future minor collector street. Um and then a little more detail on each of these roads. Harvest Drive. Um the local streets, this is the segment uh that staff has concerns with uh the condition of the pavement on Harvest Drive. And staff are recommending that Harvest Drive between Webster Street and Cedric Lane, which would serve as the primary entrance to the development, um be repaved as a condition of the development. And because this section of Harvest Drive is a township road and entirely under the jurisdiction of the township, any improvement would require coordination and approval with New Market Township uh likely through a joint powers agreement with the city. Um 270th Street East on the south. Again, this is the future future major collector street. The city would typically require Cedric Lane um the lo uh the street within the development connect to 270th Street um and that 270th Street be improved as to a major collector street standard. However, in this case, staff does support um that Cedric Lane would have a temporary culde-sac and not connect to 270th. Um the street is entirely outside the city limits and it is a gravel street. um and our past um relations with the township. They prefer no connections to their streets. And then Cedric Lane is the minor collector that is proposed to run um north south through the development. The city's transportation plan does show this as as a continuous street. Um staff notes that the concept plan um submitted shows a is showing a 90 degree jog in that street. So we're recommending that this be realigned um to show a continuous street as depicted in our transportation plan. Um moving into sidewalks and trails. Based on the city's ordinances, uh, sidewalks would be required on both sides of Cedric Lane running north south, on one side of all other local streets proposed within the development. Um, on the north side of 270th Street, and along Harvest Drive. Um, staff notes that there are no other trail connections or sidewalk connections on either 270th Street or Harvest Drive. so that uh those improvements be deferred to a date when those roads are improved with trails. Um and should the development proceed, staff would be seeking a recommendation from the parks commission regarding the location of sidewalks and trails within the development. uh parks. The city's 2040 park and trail plan does not depict any uh neighborhood parks within the subject property. Um it does identify a neighborhood park search area just to the west. Um it is generally recommended um under our comprehensive plan the time has come that all uh neighborhoods be um that a neighborhood park be located within a half a mile of all um developments is kind of a a high level recommendation. Um the closest parks to the proposed development here are um Wagner Park and Rowanapon Park and then there's an undeveloped park in in the farm. Uh Wgner Park here is approximately seven miles from the proposed development. Um that would be walking through neighborhoods. Um and again further input would be sought from the parks commission should the project move forward to application for a preliminary plat. A few miscellaneous items to point out is um the developer has provided kind of a ghost plat or concept showing how the adjacent property to the west could be developed with the street layouts that are being uh proposed by the applicant. And again, this uh does not indicate any city support or approval of that particular layout, but rather shows the potential for future development based on the roadway alignments within the the flat. Um, one other item that staff uh brought up to the commission is that uh planning commission is we raised the question whether additional road connections should be provided to properties to the north. Um these large lots uh to the north uh would be eligible to be you know redeveloped under our comprehensive plan to um more intense uh development or further subdivided into municipalized lots and um having those additional connections could provide uh a more contiguous neighborhood. uh the planning commission did not feel road connection additional road connections were necessary and then finally staff did note that there uh the property is uh very rolling there's approximately 100 ft of elevation changes throughout the property and there is a potential that uh some lots may require elimination during final design dur due to steep grades. Um, most notably, uh, there's a couple lots 8 85 and 86 on the far east edge of the plat have very significant slopes. Um, miscellaneous information regarding traffic. Uh based on the IT generation trip generation manual, uh the development as it's drawn today with the 89 proposed lots would be expected to generate approximately 890 new vehicle trips per day. um ingress and egress from the proposed development will primarily um be from the existing segment of Harvest Drive on the north side of the property until other alternative accesses are made to the development. Um most recent traffic counts on Harvest Drive are from 2021 and indicate that there are exist uh 469 um average vehicle trips per day east of the proposed development. Um and adding the development traffic would increase that to less than 1500 vehicles per day on Harvest Drive. Um, and in reviewing this with the city's city engineer, it is staff's opinion that Harvest Drive has the physical capacity to handle the proposed increase in traffic, however, lacks the structural capacity due to the degrading pavement surface. Um, and based on consultation with um the city's traffic engineer, we are not recommending a completion of a traffic impact study. We we know enough about the projected vehicle trips and routes that they would take. Rene, can I ask a question? Can you go back us back to that last slide? Can you just I I'm not really sure what the difference is between the physical capacity and the structural capacity. I'll defer that to Rich. The geometric capacity, the area, the width of the road, the lane configuration has capacity for that many vehicles. Okay. But the pavement doesn't. So the design works. This is just the act. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, the subdivision ordinance also does create I'm kind of pounding on this uh this roadway issue, but um the subdivision ordinance also contains uh clauses regarding premature development and subsection um title 11-4-7 states that existing roads providing access to subdivisions shall have the structural capacity to accommodate projected traffic from the proposed subdivision or the develop veloper um should agree to to pay for improvements and structural corrections. Um again, that's I think we've hit that home. We're recommending uh that particular section between Cedric and Webster be improved. The city engineers recommended milling the current pavement surface, paving a 2-in base course and a one and a half inch workhorse on the section of Harvest Drive. Um, however, the recommendation is subject to township approval because Harvest Drive is a township road. Um, and staff has not spoken with the board as a whole. We have spoken uh with the uh planning commission liaison uh that serves um regarding this particular matter and uh seems there wasn't any uh great concern or objection to uh what is being supported by staff. So just to touch on the reasonzoning we touched on this earlier uh staff's opinion is that all criteria is satisfied. Um if harvest drive is improved. Um additional comments were sought from uh the city engineer and public works director, city attorney. Those uh rec comments have been incorporated into the um staff report and presentation tonight. Uh the police department, fire department, and building official have not yet commented on the plan. Additional comments just to be crystal clear here that this uh the site itself is entirely within the municipal li city limits is under the jurisdiction of the city Harvest Drive and 270th Street. The full road rightways are located in New Market Township entirely within the township. Um and then again, New Market Township has not yet provided comments regarding the proposed development. Um and the city would coordinate with the township because of the road access uh issues. Uh the planning commission reviewed the concept plan on May 28th, 2024 and recommended that the property uh comply with the R1 zoning district standards and noted um 18 additional conditions. Um most of the conditions are kind of standard conditions. Um, all the conditions have either been reviewed here as part of my presentation um or just purely standard conditions. Couple additional notes. Uh, staffer uh is in in consultation with the city engineer and uh the other management team. the 12-in trunk water line along 270th Street as shown in the city's comprehensive water plan. Um we recommend that be constructed in the future and not part of the proposed development and that um the segments of sidewalk along 270th and Harvest Drive also be constructed in the future. And the culde-sac proposed at the southerntherly end of Sedric Lane is would be considered temporary will ultimately connect to 270th Street and again do not recommend a traffic impact study be completed. Uh the city council is being asked to provide feedback regarding uh the concept plan and make a recommendation for the record. um the city uh so I guess here's the the questions being posed to the city council is uh do you support the concept plan as depicted subject to the comments and recommendations of the planning commission um and does the city council support the planning commission recommendation regarding lot sizes and standards meeting the requirements of the R1 district R1 zoning district um or do you support a smaller lot size Um, also just want to point out that uh, Mr. Mahachek may be in the audience may have something to add and the city administrator did receive an email that was forwarded to um, the city council that just stated kind of neighborhood support for that lot size, the R1 zoning district. And I can stop sharing my screen want to discuss or you want me to keep sharing it? No, you're well maybe leave that slide up. Um, thank you Renee. Does anyone have any questions for Renee? Maybe just uh follow up to the density stuff and I can't remember where I saw it if it was in the packet or in an email or somewhere. Can you speak to the Met Council density requirement piece to this that may be in play for whether this would meet the requirements of whatever they require of the city to for density requirements in the residential stuff? We believe it would today based on this layout. So, our comprehensive plan states that anything within the area guided to low density has to meet a 2.5 to 5 units per net acre density. And as it's drawn, and again, these are kind of rough calculations because we don't have a wetland delineation yet, but the way it's drawn, we believe it's about 3.1 units per net acre. So, that is important. Um and and if it were to go to the uh the lower density requirements, what would that change that per unit per acre? Well, I don't know because I don't know how many lots would be proposed. M we haven't asked Mr. Mahachek to to draw that. Not sure if he's willing to draw that, but uh we don't know how many lots could be uh proposed in this property meeting those standards. Rene, do you know Sorry, go ahead. Do you know off the top of your head if if those two lots I was 85 and 86 if they were lost what that what the how that math works out? I don't remember what the acreage was. I'm just curious if that how close that puts us to the requirement. A second. Um, it's three unit three units per acre. Pretty insignificant. Okay. Yeah, pretty insignificant. But I think Josh does raise a a really good point because um that it is a concern if we do go with the R1 standards. We do have to still comply with 2 point at least 2.5 units per net acre. If it was 2.4 or 2.3, the Met Council will not approve the sanitary sewer extension permit. So just for your reference, the R1 is about 42% larger than what's proposed. R1. Okay. What other questions do we have for Renee? Thank you, Renee. Mr. Mahek, am I saying that right? Yep. Do you have any comments before we start talking about it or Not really. I'm just looking for your your comments and feedback. Okay, sounds good. Council, what are your initial thoughts? Who wants to go first? Go for it, Josh or Amanda. My initial thoughts, I guess, are well, I'm thinking about Harvest Drive and the amount of traffic that will be increased there and that I would like to see a sidewalk just because that's a lot for one. That seems to be I mean I know Har well because Harvest Drive connects to 270th so that's like the long way out but there's not going to be many people that are going to take that way to exit the well the existing neighborhoods that are there and then the new one. So I think it would be I don't know I think a sidewalk should go on Harvest Drive or it should be required for that piece. I would agree with Amanda. Um I I think that when there's improvement done to that road, a sidewalk has to go in. There's so many people that walk up and down that road. Um yeah, they need some place to walk other than in the middle of the road if there's going to be that much traffic. Now, as far as going from PUB R1, um I would be interested in knowing what an R1 gives us as far as how many homes and if we're close to that 2 and a half to five, where do we fall? Um, and then I if there's not a happy media, if if we don't reach the two and a half to five homes going to an R1 at 85 and 8,400, what if we split it and went 75, you know, kind of wiggled those numbers a little bit? I I don't know. I I'm not a fan of going down to 65 width lots. Um because all those homes around there are on acreage and I just don't know how that's going to look shoving in 89 homes back where these beautiful houses are with their acreage and then you have this one. So something a little bit larger lot might be nice, but I don't know how that works out with the 2 and 1 half to five homes. I can give you a little bit of just quick numbers just converting things uh which and you wouldn't get as many as I computed because the sizes make everything change. and you probably get the same number, but just a quick conversion of areas, you'd smidge over two uh for a ratio going to 12,000 square foot lots. Want to go next? I mean, I agree about the sidewalk and staff's recommendations. I don't have anything else. you agree with the recommendation to keep the lot sizes at standard R1. Yeah, I mean I'm not strong either way on on which direction, but um Josh and Well, I mean I I for sure agree with Harvest Drive and the improvements there. I mean, I am totally open to negotiating or doing being flexible with lot sizes, though. I mean, I think uh in order to make some of this area work, we're going to have to get creative just with the the way that the land is there. Um, and thinking into the future, I mean, this is going to potentially be these size lots all across, you know, over uh to the other side of 91 and whatnot. So, I just I'd be totally open to the smaller lot sizes um and whatever would actually make the project go forward. Um, you know, so if we could go a little bit bigger than the 65, sweet. But I mean, I'm not stuck. I don't think we have to stick to the to the the the larger lots, the R1, the 12,000, you know, everything. I think we have to get out of our own way sometimes and and allow development to happen. Um, so I would totally be for that. I um I'm actually with Gina. I I I think we have I mean we have designated lot sizes for a reason and we can't deviate from that with every development that comes up. This one there's some logic to why the lot size are a little bit bigger than at other spots in the city. Um I'm not going to lose sleep over it. If if at the end of the day we decide to compromise on someone I I'm fine with that. But my preference would be to leave it as R1 zoning as is. Um, as far as sidewalk, I'm good with whatever what everyone else has to say on that. So, I mean, Gina, let me ask you, how open are you to compromise? I'm a lot. I'm open to it. I mean, I I like staff's recommendations, but I mean, I'm definitely open to it. Yeah. So, I think regarding the lot sizes, it's or Amanda, did you weigh in on the loss sizes? Not necessarily. I guess I would be curious like what is the process? Does does like this conversation go back to the planning commission to be like, hey, find the the middle. I think we're our football at this point. I mean, planning commission gave their recommendation as I understand it. commissioner was trying to farm a negotiation on on lot sizes a little bit, but at the end of the day, they voted how they voted. So, I think it's in our lap to decide what we want to do. Um, I'm kind of picking up a feel that we're open to seeing what we can do when not being too rigid about the lot sizes. Does that sound fair, everyone? Amanda? Yeah. I mean, I'm stronger. I'm leaning stronger toward towards the leave it as R1. Okay. Um I think we have other developments that are potentially that they're possibly on their way that would meet the I guess other lot sizes and where this one is and the surrounding area I just think makes sense to to have it be R1. So, would it be a fair summary to say in general we're kind of leaning towards wanting the larger lot sizes, but we're open to open to different ideas or is that not fair? No, I mean, I think that's very fair from my perspective. I think the only thing to consider is back to the the really disjointed question or comment I made earlier. You know, if it checks the box and it's within the 2.5 to five, I mean, I think we have no reason to deny uh a request for something like this. and thinking about what we would do across the city um as well. So, you know, it's PUD, so we don't know what, you know, improvements or or things like that would offset the the compromises in the smaller lots. So, maybe that would persuade things, but if PUD would go away. Fine. Well, if we don't if we stick with R1, but then if we stick with R1, correct me, Renee, or somebody, it wouldn't necessarily meet the density requirements then of the Met Council. Correct. There there there's a there's a chance. So yeah, if I may, I what I'm kind of hearing is that the council would be clarify, please. The council would be open to um some modification to the standards to get it to the 2.5 that we've identified for our density if it can't do it on its own, so to speak, under the under regular standards. Is that a fair statement? Yeah, and Josh is right. I mean, it's got to be in that 2.5 number. um how do we get to that 2.5 number and still keep you know relative lot sizes respectable to the rest of the community? That's the challenge. Um so what I would be hearing is maybe some direction or feedback to Mr. Mahachic that if you wanted to continue to pursue this is to take a look at what would it take to get to 2.5 and and what would that mean from a design standpoint? Is that fair? I think so. Um and it's not that we don't want you to make money. We want you to make money on the development. Um but we have to have this structured in a way that kind of works within our community. So Renee, is there any questions that you have for councel to get clarification that you and your staff would need to continue to work with Mr. Mahhatic? I don't think so. I think you summarized it, but what I heard is that you support um all the planning commission recommendations. uh you would add a recommendation for a sidewalk along Harvest Drive from Webster Street to Cedric Lane and that you would recommend um that lots meet at least 2.5 units per acre. Yeah. Whatever size that might be. That's a good synopsis. Yep. So, um, you feel you have what you need? I feel I have what I need. If Mr. Mahhatic feels that he has what he needs, sir, I think so. Okay. Okay. Any any questions or anything for us before we keep moving? I don't think so. All right. Well, I appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks, Renee. Thank you. Uh, next item, hours of operations. Before that, Mr. Mayor, I think we have an update on the audit presentation. Oh, yeah. Um, we believe what may have happened is, uh, in discussion with the auditor a few weeks ago. We were fairly certain that we were going to be having a work session tonight and we think it did not the communications did get not get through that our meeting, business meeting started at 6. So, I would guess that we'll see Andy rolling in in about 10 minutes or thereabouts. um for what he assumed was a seven o'clock meeting. All right. Well, let's tackle the rest of the agenda in the next 10 minutes or not. Uh hours of operation and construction and grading activity. All right. Well, you put me on the spot to go quick now, so I'll do just that. No pressure. All right. So, uh, staff was tasked with amending two sections of code related to grading and construction hours of operation. Um, staff had been referencing title 552 for all hours of operation related information. Um, and after concerns were brought up by the community, um, it was noticed that there were other code uh, other time constraints within title 1111 grading operations. Um so staff was tasked with amending these two operations um or these two sections of city code to provide all the relevant oper uh hours of operation within one section title 552. Um so it's been discussed by both the city council now and the planning commission and they provided their input on the matter and the result is as follows. Uh the planning commission recommended that title 11118 uh be amended to remove the hours and put them into city code section 552. Um staff changed the grading operations to heavy equipment so it's more all-encompassing. Um and staff also added a ca a caveat as recommended to include some discretionary ability for the city administrator in case of unique situations. So the section changes results as followed. Um I'll just read the whole thing. So see construction activities. Uh no person shall engage in or permit construction activities involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel or gas powered machine or other power equipment except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 900 a.m. and 700 p.m. on any weekend or holiday. Um operation of heavy equipment was grading. and no heavy equipment shall be performed between the hours of 7 a.m. and 700 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Um, such activity is also pro prohibited on a few holidays and the city administrator may upon good cause being shown vary these days and hours uh in writing and heavy equipment definition would include compactors and rollers, cranes, dozers, dump trucks, etc. and other pieces of equipment that generate similar levels of noise. So, um, council is being asked to adopt ordinance 298 regarding construction hours of operation, um, which have, um, clarified all of the points that were recommended to us. Thank you. Any, uh, any thoughts? I have a question or a comment related to the city administrator piece uh, and the flexibility. I mean, obviously I think I pointed that out or thought that was a good idea to do, but I I wonder should there be some uh asterisk or some for a limited time or for you know so it's not just a complete waiver of this and I don't see that in there and maybe that's kind of implied in there but is there something that would cause it to be brought back to the council if it was going to be a if we get a request and it's determined by the administrator at the time um to just wave it all together. Is there some boundaries or anything? I guess is what I'm asking. Um was the intent. So if somebody at the beginning of the season is asking for a waiver for the entire season, have to have a really damn good reason for it or extend circumstances. This is mostly going to be for a situation where the project needs to get closed up by October 1st and because the weather's changing and it's been a really rainy and they've got two weeks to do four months. Uh they have particular aspects of the project where they're going to have to because of the nature of the work might have to go beyond hours because it's something that once you open up items like that. So it'll be very dependent on the circumstances. If the council wants to place further restrictions on it, they can. Thank you, Jake. Um if they want to place further restrictions on it, they can. Um was subtle. It was um uh but it's not something that would be handed out, you know, like Steph hands out, you know, um suckers at the front counter. So um I think we have to if it's just it's pure discretion and we kind of have to trust your judgment if we're going to approve it. Yeah. I mean to to be blunt in practice if it's something that might be a little controversial I'll probably seek some sort of feedback formal informal from council before it's done. Okay. So hearing that and just having it on the record. Yes, that would be very much appreciated. Yeah, I'm with Josh on that. But I do I trust you. But um yeah, I think I don't want it to be taken advantage of. So I don't trust you, Tom. But but I'm used to And I see it in here and I just want to clarify for everybody if they see it or whatever, but like public works stuff andor you know road construction that's done on city roads and stuff that's different. It it falls into a different cate is it one of the exceptions in here? Yes. So there is a separate section which exempts um public works works and p you know public works. So, if we got to replace a gate valve and it has to run late, one of those things people's water's off, you got to get it replaced. So, if we're doing city work on city projects, us and our agents can continue to do it. Um, also in the other section, there's there's the other section, which is still 7 to 10, that doesn't include the items in this section. So, some guy swinging a hammer in his basement or a contractor putting up insulation inside of a house is not a diesel engine or, you know, motor and those types of things. So certain types of work can continue to work during those broader time frames. This was really about based on the council discussion and the concerns that brought it up about heavy equipment operating later in the evening and then other pieces of equipment that create have a notable impact off property um would be regulated to a greater degree than on hand. Cool. I appreciate staff and everybody kind of putting this all together. Any uh any motions to adopt this ordinance? Motion to adopt ordinance number 298 amending construction and grading hours of operation. Motion by Kate. Second. Second by Amanda. All in favor? I um let's finish general business supplemental compensation study information. That would be me, Mr. Mayor. So tonight we are preventing presenting supplemental compensation study information and seeking direction from the council related to the information that we had presented. So we are going to present the supplemental compensation study information that was not available for the council at the end of last year when they adopted the new salary schedule and and accepted the majority of the study. Um we are going to seek that feedback and direction. Council recall that in October 2023 the position classification and compensation study um was completed. Um however the council accepted the study and then in December the council approved the 2024 salary recommendations. However, there was additional information that we had requested in the study that wasn't complete at that time. Um, the initial survey work that was conducted by ABDO yielded a poor response from the market group. Um, we know from ABDO's relating it to us, but also our experience as staff and talking with other cities. At that point last year, cities were in a point of just complete apathy related to salary surveys because everybody was doing work on this and they had received lots of them. And so, um, we found it was necessary for staff to supplement that because we knew it was incomplete after a reasonable try by ABMO. Um, additionally, police officers requested a review of some additional premium pay items and the timing lined up. So, we were able to accommodate that when we were doing that additional work. So for the benefit of the council um we uh looked at a number of items which included years to max step holiday pay over how overtime was calculated call back shift differential longevity pay court time and shift extension. Um we did this primarily for police and public works although reasonably some of these would apply to all employees in their work units and some are very specific to just police. So years to max step. So this would be how many years from if you start at step one, how many years until you'd be to top step. Currently the city has seven years to top step. We have an eightstep scale. What we found when we look at our market group for the police department is that the a to top is an average of 5.8 years. If you take out the high and low, it's 5.9 and the mean is six. So it's pretty clear that the market position for law enforcement is six years. for public works at 6.9, 6.6, and 6.9. So, it's pretty clear the market position for that is seven. Uh, consistent with our current salary schedule. Um, would the council like me to run through these first and then come back and talk about them one by one or do you want to take one at a time as we go through? Council, how do you want to handle this? I mean, has everyone read through everything that was in the packet? Okay. on maybe high level high level. Okay. So, um so on the MAC years to max step I guess I was looking for direction from council. Do we want to handle direction for each item or do you want to handle it as a package after we get to the end? I I would hand Oh, go ahead. I was going to say the opposite of what you're going to say. So, I'm I'm open for whatever. I was just going to throw something else. I want to do everything in one. Okay. So, just high level. Um then moving on to holiday pay. Uh what we found is that there was a very strong position for police department to get um holiday pay at one and a half times base pay for all holidays. Um currently the city has seven premium holidays that' be like you know Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year's Day where you get double pay and what you would call like the government holidays, the nonpremium holidays are just straight time. You just get to bank your time. Um what we found with public works is it was a lot more diverse. um about half of them uh do the one and a half times pay, but the other half does it differently in roughly quarters. Um so there is a what we would consider to be a weak market position um to go with the one and a half times base pay. The one thing to note on this one is that there's probably a difference um with regards to maybe emphasis. Police officers work all holidays, right? So for them it balances out and it makes sense for them to get holiday pay for all holidays at one and a half times and that's the market position. Public works typically when they're working holidays is when they're plowing snow. So that's typically what would be under our policy double time holidays. Now you'll note further down in the fiscal review the actual difference is not substantially different in the total amount of pay we would pay out. Um, in fact, if we went to the one and a half times, we would save a little, we would be projected to probably save a little money as a city, the way it works out. So, for the cops, what it really comes down to is being fair. You you ended up working all the government holidays and you ended up working the the good holidays. For the public works guys, at least from an optic standpoint, if not an actual financial standpoint, um, the perception would be, well, we're usually plowing over the holidays, and that is typically true. um if they're going to be working on a holiday and that would be at double time. Um so they might view that as a as a loss. So just keep that in mind for the discussion. Um overtime calculation uh little bit different. So currently the city does not currently count paid time off towards counting overtime. We follow fair labor standards act. You have work 40 hours more than 40 hours a week of actual work to get overtime. If you run a shift um rotating shift position like our police officers, they have an 80 hour work. So if you work more than 80 hours, um the concern here especially from the police officers is well if in a if in an 80hour period I take any day off I don't get any overtime for working longer hours. When we went and looked at the market, what we found was that everybody in our market group 100% counts paytime off towards calculating overtime. So there is a very very it's as strong a market position as you as you can get. So we are not currently with the market in that respect. Um if we go to um call back. So just be clear what call back is. This means you've gone home or you're at home that day. You're on a day off or you're outside of your normal shift. you've left work or not at work and you're getting called back for a reason. So for police department, it could be like a major incident. Um we had uh a robbery and we need to have extra people come in and so sorry dude, you need to come back. I know you went home four hours ago, but you're you're coming back. Um for public works, it might be, oh, guess what? You have to call back because we have an alarm because there's an overflowing lift station and you need to run in. So it's you've left, you're not scheduled and coming back. It's not it's not sift shift extension and it's not a altered schedule. What we found is that for police it's split and what we find in both police and public works it's either two hours or it's three hours minimum pay. If you work more than that you get the additional pay but you get paid at least that amount for having to come back outside of hours. With police it's a straight split. It's 2.5 is the average. When you get into public works you find that it's still a split but it's weighted more towards the the two. Um we currently pay two hours. We would recommend to the council that whatever you do, it's consistent across the board because this would also apply to call back for other staff even though it's much much much more rare. Um shift differential. So this is I am working longer than my scheduled shift. So if you're a police officer, I arrest a um intoxicated driver 10 minutes before the end of my shift and guess what I'm doing for the next five hours? time processing that individual. Um, for public works, it could be something came up at the end of the day. We just needed to get it done. Uh, we currently shift, oh, shift or shift differential, sorry. Um, shift differential is just you're working nights. You're working outside of what the standard day shift is. Um, some industries will provide like a a bump on your hourly rate for working shift differential. What we found is there is no market position to provide that pay in any of the work groups. So we say the sh the market position is no for longevity pay. Longevity pay is paying somebody once they've reached the top of the pay scale for years of service. And that is in the traditional sense to recognize the value that that individual provides to the city because of that experience and the institutional knowledge that they carry. they can do it better and they can do it more efficiently albeit not growing at the same rate that you would have when earlier in their career but there is some incremental benefit to that. What we found is in law enforcement that is very much the market position. Um although how it's provided the value of how it's provided is all over the board there. There's no standard whatsoever. Um the biggest difference is probably how aggressively they apply it once the person has reached the top of the pay scale. um in public works it's not a it's not a strong market position. Only about a quarter of the uh market group actually provides it. So we would say there's no market position for that. Um currently we do provide it only for the PD. Last time we went out and looked at this in our former market group. Uh we found out that it was only provided for PD. It was overwhelmingly provided for um police officers. And at that time uh we had worked with the police officers to come up with a structure that provided um in year 11 so that would be three years after top step an additional 3% pay and then three years after that an additional 2% and then another three years after that an additional 2%. Any questions on that? Okay. Uh court time. So this only applies to police officers. Um this is when you have to go to court on your day off. If you're already on assigned for your shift, you're already getting paid, you're going up there in uniform. Anyways, this would be um you know, we have to prosecute the bad guys and courts on Tuesday and it's your day off. Guess what? You got to go to court. Um so, we're going to pay you at least three hours of time and a half. And if you're there longer, great. Um because a lot of times, quite honestly, officers will get there, they'll drive all the way in, they'll be ready to go, and then they'll settle it like right before even though the officer took the whole day off. took their whole day off to do that. Um that is normal um in all police departments to get that. The standard in our market is three hours. We're currently at two. Um any questions on that? And then shift extension. The definition I provided earlier, this would be when you work beyond your regular hours. There is no market for shift extension. And that's logical because of the entire market provides all paid time off counting towards overtime. It naturally means that if you're working over your normal shift, you're automatically going to be getting um shift extension pay by default. So logically, nobody else provides it. We do currently provide it because we don't count paytime off um towards overtime and we do it um at one and a half times for the PD after one hour. Um, so everybody works a little late, but most often, and when Kelly found this when she was going through the information, when the police officers stay late, they stay late because it's similar to the scenario I previously described. So, any questions on any of this? So, we would be looking for direction from council if you wanted to pursue any changes to our current policy or the labor contract with the 49ers based on any of this market information. Is there a list of staff recommendations on this? Um, I will give you my generic recommendation that I always give you on this stuff is that there's two things is the trident test and the market test. If the goal of um recruiting and retaining employees is to be consistent with your market, you want to follow strong market positions. Um the trident test is it just makes sense because it's common sense and if you pulled five random people off you know like five dentists if you fi pulled five random people off the street and you explain the situation they'd all agree it was a good idea and fair to do. In this case we weren't doing that analysis we were doing what the market is. So I do feel that there are some very strong market um positions uh that the council really should consider. Um the first one obviously is um uh the and the most expensive one is going to be the overtime calculation that is the entire every respondent. So we would recommend to do it. Here's the reality of that. Um if the council doesn't do it proactively, it's going to happen in the next contract negotiation with the 49ers and then we'll naturally filter out to everybody else. the police department. When we talked to the officers, they of everything that applies to them, this is the one they felt was probably the most important to them. Um, okay. Um, and I'll just go maybe staff's opinion where we have one on the years to max step. Um there's obviously some benefit and a level of fairness so to speak amongst employees with regards to the um number of steps to top step. However, you can have different rules for everybody else. We have court time for cops and not for everybody else. Right now we currently provide shift extension for cops and not everybody else. We provide longevity for cops and not everybody else. But those are things that are very unique to that. I think the issue here is is there enough of a difference from a recruitment and a retention standpoint and enough of a difference in compensation for going from um uh to justify six years to step compared to the seven for everybody else. There's a clear market position in that difference. Um, and in speaking with Kelly, of all the things here, this is the one that's the most easy to accommodate within payroll because you can just set up that payroll scale for that class of employee. Um, I think it's just a what's appro we just believe it's a what's appropriate from a council perspective. So, I I have a quick question about that. So, the market average is 5.8 years to maximum, but how many steps is that? Like you state ours is at eight steps. That would be a seven step. They are a sevenst step. and they go 5.8 years. We're an eight step and we go seven years. Correct. Because you're starting at I'm just trying to figure out the differences. Okay. Well, the actual steps in the scale add one for the first step. What's the what's the time timing situation on this? Um I do know from talking with the officers that they they feel this is important. Uh public works just recognizes that they just signed a contract. They knew that this stuff was hanging out there. I think their hope would be that if there's things that the council feels fair within the market, they would make the change, but they recognize that their situation is a little more complicated um for two reasons. One, there's an existing contract, so you'd have to amend it, which isn't that it's not super timesensitive. Oops. Okay, that that's all I needed. No, I I but because the reason I I asked that is because I have a really tough time looking at a list without like clear staff recommendations and we can look at that and deviate or deviate from it if we want or how we actually approach it. I have a tough time looking at this and just have as a council the five of us are going to pick each item and figure out the best route to go. I mean, if you I mean, if you want a recommendation from me on this, I can give you one right now. I I kind of do. Um, but I mean, what's the rest of the council think? I mean, I think the overtime calculation, the years to max step are no-brainers. I would be curious what the um longevity pay for all employees would equate to for a fiscal impact. Um, because I think that's something for retaining staff in today's market is important. And when I worked for state government and on the step system, like it just blows my mind that you hit a certain point, you're capped out. Um, me too. It just does. So I would be very open to figuring out what that one would look like. But I mean otherwise all the other market ones if we're not at market we should be if not better. Is that kind of our general consensus? Let's get to the market. I mean we I I remember at one point we had this conversation and we kind of specified I I don't know if this was a year ago but I don't know how specific we were but we kind of point out where we wanted to be in the market and I think If I remember it was like slight yeah slightly above the market and I would I would kind of be in the position that if staff wants to come back with boom boom boom boom these are recommendations of the changes that we would make kind of with that in mind I'd be open to putting on consent agenda and just approving it. What do y'all think? Sounds good to me. Is that too big of an ask? No, but I would like to summarize for you what that would look like and get some at least positive body language. So under the shift uh going just through them under years to max step if the council's goal is to be consistent or slightly above market for recruitment and retention uh based on the council that broad council direction we would say go to sixear step for police and stay where we are with staff because that's where it's at. With regards to holiday pay, I do think that there isn't a clear that's not absolutely clear. Um, I would just say whatever you do, do it for everybody. Um, that becomes a payroll nightmare to have different holiday approaches for everybody. I don't know that we can give you a clear staff recommendation on that. You just need to decide if you want to go to one and a half or stay where you're at. Okay. So, let's maybe let's talk about that one quick. I mean, it is kind of a broad opinions. I've kind of grouped it where I would opt for time and a half for all holidays. That's the majority of where the market's at. And then I'm I guess I'm kind of compensating for that in the overtime calculation and saying that paid time off be counted in overtime. Because it is ultimately a package for everybody. Y So that's where the council's at. We'd we'd go to time and half. Y well stated. Okay. Y um now with that that that would just be a policy change. So like it or not for all non-UN employees that's just the way it would be. We would have to negotiate that with the 49ers, but given some of the other things the council's doing to Amanda's point, but we'd have to have that discussion and bring that back to council. My goal would be if they're amendable to it, we'd bring it as a package. Um overtime calculation, the recommendation council, it's it's the market. um like it or not, that's the market. Um so we would recommend if the council go to get market, we do that. Is that fair? Okay. Um call back. Um it is split. Uh I think you can go either way. You can say, "Hey, we're doing other things." So we can stay at two hours. But if your goal is to be at slightly above the market, if you have to default one way or another, I'd go to the three hours. It's not a lot of money in the total budget when you look at the fiscal sounds great and it'll come back in a contract negotiation. So, might as well just go there. Um, shift differential. Um, I obviously there's no market saying that we should do it, so I don't think we should do it. Um, longevity pay. Um, the market is to provide it. There isn't any guidance on how to do it. My personal opinion is the logic as to how it was structured originally is sound and that we haven't there's no data to indicate that we should make any changes to it. Um I think the rest of staff would appreciate the comments by council member Berg whether or not to look at the cost for doing it for all employees because to be blunt the logic for providing longevity pay isn't any different for police officers. But it was a unique aspect and we've talked about this. It's a unique aspect that evolved within the law enforcement. When they were competing for people, they went to shorter pay scales. But when they got to shorter pay scales, you top out after only a few years. So what is the next thing you do? You negotiate for additional pay somehow. So then longevity pay. That's why it's very unique just to law enforcement because of the generally shorter pay scales. Um but the logic for traditionally providing longevity pay is across the board. So it becomes do you go with the market approach or the Trident Gum approach? Um so we'd want some direction from council on that. Do you want us to come back with that number? Can I ask can I ask a quick question? Um has there been any Sorry. Has there been any talk from the police department that they don't like how this is set up that they want it changed differently or are they okay with the way it is at 11 at 3% 14 is at 2%. Um there is talk that they should be pushed down especially if we drop down if they drop down now to less steps you know that they should be shifted down and that's what for law enforcement we're seeing or we feel we're seeing more and more is that those longevity steps are coming closer to the end of year steps. Um especially when our careers are shortening. We're seeing more and more officers getting out sooner. not doing 20 years anymore, not doing 30 years. So, I don't know if that might help keep officers around, keep them from leaving. Um, that's the only kind of our recommendation would be maybe to push them down, you know, one year, two years, but other than that, no. I would agree that if we're going to go to six steps, we do, at least for the police officers, we would adjust it um and stay with something if you did something for non-law enforcement employees to do something more similar to that. When we arrived at this, the idea was you want to recognize from a the benefit to the organization. You want to recognize that additional benefit and it's incremental. It's not at the same level of growth it is through years one through eight. It starts it does start to flatten out after a period of time just logically. But the other part of it too is you want to the other part is retention. You want to have enough of a carrot out there far enough out that you have somebody here to a point that quite honestly to use a term that Craig's used in the past. You get them in golden handcuffs. It's now okay. I've been here. It's not worth me to look any place because now I'm within this distance of the end of my career. So you get to keep those really good people who have options to go someplace else at that point. Um and there's a little bit of judgment to that. So, I guess we'd be looking for direction if the council wants to push that down for law enforcement or for um everybody or how you want to approach it. We would need some direction on that. I think for law enforcement definitely. I would agree. I would be okay going down one year on each of those. So, 11, 13, and 16. Um, but I I mean, if you could do this going to ask a lot, and if you can't, I completely understand. If you can do all of the staff at 11, 13 and 16 and then break it out where it's just PD at that and then the rest of the staff at the 114 and 17 so we can see what the difference would be. Yep. So, what I'm hearing that at least on these items before we come back with the whole package, we'll need to come back with a fiscal analysis and some options for the council to take a look at on this. Okay. Okay. Anything else on that? Okay. Uh court time, um I'd go to three. That's clear market for for law enforcement, our market group. Okay. Um under shift extension, I think if council, based on the feedback I just got, we're going to go to paytime off counselors overtime. It's a moot point. So, we would just eliminate from our policy. Um the last item that wasn't included here and forgot to mention is um field training officer pay. So we did review that during three years ago, four years ago during our last market study and at that time we provided it and because previous to that we weren't and we provided it at the rate that was the average for that market. The market that we're in provides much more compensation for the field training officers. Um and we'd be recommending after some discussions with um the chief on this that we would go basically a flat eight hours, $8 per hour increase for field training officers. that is everybody does it differently, but when you kind of do a swaggy generalization and you try and break it down to an hourly rate within our pay scale, it kind of comes out to about eight bucks an hour. I mean, it sounds reasonable, so it's fine. Okay. 15 bucks. Okay. So the plan is we will go we'll come back to the council at a future meeting with some estimates and scenarios related to longevity pay. Then once we receive that direction, we'll come back with a um package for the council to consider action on. And in the meantime, we'll have discussions with um the 49ers for the items that would affect their contract and hopefully bring it all together as a single package. Sounds good. All right. Is it out of time yet? I could do that. Sorry, Andy. It appears that there was some miscommunication on this. No worries. Welcome. Thank you. Rich, are you taking off? I am. Did you have an engineering report? All right. Thanks. Uh for the uh council's benefit, for those that don't know, this is Andy Grace. He is the lead auditor for Bergen KDV. Um Andy has actually been our guy for a long time before he moved up the ladder and is now the top guy um within the firm. So we have the benefit of having the top guy um who's familiar with our books. Um so Andy tonight will do the usual. He gives us a overview of the uh financial statements audit and the communication letter, answer any questions for council. Um the council already adopted the audit by the way, so we're good to go there. Well, thank you uh for having me here tonight. Um here to present the audit report for the year ended December 31st, 2023 and wanted to start just by highlighting our independent auditor's report included in the city's financial statement. Uh this highlights what our role is as your auditor and also the role of management and that it is management's responsibility to prepare the financial statements and it's our role as your auditor uh to provide reasonable assurance that those financial statements are fairly stated in all material respects. uh and we do that through our audit opinion and we did issue an unmodified opinion. That's the best opinion that we can give as your auditor. The next slide talks about the other reports uh that we provided. A couple of these are within the financial statements themselves. Uh one is the report in accordance with government auditing standards. This report talks about our consideration of internal controls over financial reporting. So we take a look at the policies and procedures uh related to financial reporting and if we come across any deficiencies in internal control that rise to either a significant deficiency or material weakness level we are required to put those in writing. Uh there were two findings this year that did rise to a material uh weakness level and that's a lack of segregation of accounting duties which I know the city um is is used to seeing just based on the size of the finance staff at the city. And the other uh there was some material audit adjustments. So whenever we come in and propose any adjustments to the books that are material, we do have to acknowledge that in that report. The next report is our report on uh on Minnesota legal compliance. Uh that report talks about the legal compliance guides issued by the office of the state auditor and our role there is to provide um um any written findings that come to our attention um related to conflicts of interest, the city's deposits and investments, contracts and bidding, other miscellaneous provisions and there were no findings to report for 2023. And the last piece is our communications letter that includes uh our required communication and also some financial analysis. Um and typically we don't spend too much time on the required communication but there were uh some um audit standards that did change um some of the communication in there and um it relates to significant risks as it relates to the city's financial statements. So we have um four bullet points in the required communication that highlight the significant risks and these are inherent risks. So I don't want that u you know reviewing that component of the report to be alarming. These are inherent risks that the city cannot control. These are risks for all other cities that we audit within the state of Minnesota and and and other states as well in that there's always a risk of uh the misappropriation of assets because assets have a value. There's always a risk that management could override internal controls based on the nature of the management position. Um audit standards say that you should consider revenue recognition as a risk uh in all engagements because of the impact that it has on financial health and the financial position of the city. And there's one new bullet point this year related to significant accounting estimates. These are estimates that have a high degree of uncertainty uh and have a sign and have a significant magnitude as it relates to the numbers that are uh included in the financial statements and that's related to pensions uh in which we use a specialist. There's an actuary that provides those numbers but again because of the complexity and and the level of uncertainty there's always a risk that those numbers could be misstated and the other u risk is related to capital asset valuation. So currently there are uh there is no formal capital asset system that that the city uses. It's done via spreadsheets which can provide some additional risk. So because of that um um manual u part of the process related to capital assets, we see that as a risk as well. So just wanted to highlight that change here for this year. From there uh we'll highlight some of the financial results first by taking a look at the general fund budget. Um revenue uh was budgeted at $2.8 $8 million. Expenditures were budgeted at $2.6 million. Uh there were transfers out uh to capital funds of $199,000 and is anticipated that there would be a $10,000 increase in fund balance for the year. Also used as a contingency. When we take a look at actual results, actual revenue was at uh uh just under $3 million. That was $116,000 more than anticipated. That was driven by licenses and permits as well as investment income. um that coming in better than anticipated related to current year market conditions and being conservative for that activity as those can uh vary um from year to year. Expenditures uh were at $29 million about $228,000 more than anticipated. There was a significant land purchase uh that was not included in the uh uh budget that was adopted and that uh there was a variance in that capital outlay category and then public safety was over budget related to overtime. Uh there was no variance related to uh the amounts trans uh budgeted for transfers out to other funds and as a result uh overall there was a decrease in fund balance of $12,000. Ending fund balance was at $1.2 million which was 43% of actual general fund expenditures. Next we have um some trend data. So, we have five-year history and also looking at uh some pie charts here for general fund revenues just to show um the s um each proportionate share of general fund revenues with taxes being the most significant proportion there at 77% of total general fund re uh revenues. Overall revenues increased $157,000 or about 5 a.5% compared to the prior year. Uh taxes was the main driver there which increased about eight and a half% or $180,000. Licenses and permits increased about 16% uh related to an increase in development activity. Inter intergovernmental revenue decreased about um 8% related to um state police aid and other grant income that was less uh than than the prior year. And then miscellaneous category had a decrease of about uh 40 or excuse me $26,000 uh related to the reimbursements uh um of AUAR costs in uh related back to 2022. But overall fairly consistent in terms of the proportion of uh revenues to each of those categories. The next chart shows general fund budget to actual results and again um really driven by licenses and permits coming in over budget budgeted at $156,000 and it ended up being $244,000 for the year and again interest income related to better interest rates here in 2023 was budgeted at $7,400 and came in at $31,000 for the year. The next chart shows the general fund expenditures allocation by function uh with the public safety uh category being uh the largest at 39%. It was down a little bit compared to 42% back in 2022 and that was driven by increases in other categories. Again, capital outlay um with that land purchased increased from 1% up to 5% here in 2023. public works increased about $100,000 overall which um drove that increase from 14% to 16% related to street maintenance. The other categories were fairly consistent with the prior year. Looking at the budget to actual results in the general fund, um all categories were overbudget except for the park and recreation program. Um overall again an eight uh 8.7% variance. Um the most significant was in capital outlay again with the land purchase public safety related to overtime and also um benefit election and other costs um uh also cause budget variances in all categories that uh next chart shows the general fund fund balance over the last five years and with the uh decrease in overall fund balance uh that decreased from 1.3 million to $1,227,000 again that represents 23% of 2023 actual expenditures. measures. Next, we'll take a look at the city's enterprise funds. Um, these present a bit differently and these are are on a full acrruel basis of accounting. So, we get a full picture of the uh related costs for providing these services to citizens within the city. First, taking a look at the water enterprise fund. Operating revenues increased uh from about 1.4 million uh up to uh $1,561,000 with an increase in rates. There was also an increase in operating expenses increasing from 1.2 2 million up to about $1.5 million uh dollars related to some engineering fees. Uh and that resulted in an operating income for the year of about $103,000. We also provide that same metric excluding depreciation because depreciation is a non-cash operating expense and gives you a better idea in terms of cash flow uh for the year. And one other thing to keep in mind this year is there were some internal loans that were established. And so we'll look when looking at the net position or the equity position um internal loans do not count as an offset to investments in capital assets. So typically uh in the net position category again that's the equity position of this fund. There's two categories. Investment in capital assets net or related debt and then the amounts that are unrestricted which are which would typically be the amounts that would be available for future use. Whenever you use internal debt that debt actually offsets that unrestricted category. So, I just wanted city council to be aware of that uh when looking at that component of uh net position. But looking at um cash is another way to just evaluate what those reserves are in the enterprise funds. With current year operations, uh there was actually a decrease in cash of $165,000. Uh that decreased cash to amounts of $646,000 and that relates to the nonoperating expenses within that fund. the debt service related costs exceed the amounts that were provided from operating activities for 2023. Next, we'll take a look at the sewer fund. Uh the sewer fund did experience an increase in operating revenues with an increase in rates. Uh and as a result with the um um at council or the sack fee charges, excuse me, um the operating expenses increase from 1.1 million up to $1.3 million. That resulted in an operating income of $189,000. uh $473,000 excluding uh depreciation and with current year operating results, cash increased from 154,000 up to $255,000 for the year. So again, um as it relates to all enterprise funds, just continuing to encourage city council to uh continue that evaluation of um reserves within these enterprise funds as it plans for future capital activities. uh you know, aside from financing for those capital activities, ensuring there's um sufficient resources there for for those needs. The last one we'll take a look at is the storm sewer fund. Uh this fund was fairly consistent in uh in operations overall uh but did end with an operating loss of about $26,000. um that decreased uh um um the other metric as well without depreciation uh going from $14,000 um surplus to about $72,000 for the year. That's the lowest in the five years presented. And overall cash decreased about $27,000 and ended the year at $415,000. That's a high level look at the audit results and the financial analysis. And next, I'd just like to open up for any questions. Council I wish we had more questions for you, but no, that was great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. We already adopted it, so All right, on to reports. Should we tackle administration? Yep. So, we have uh two items related to cannabis. Um, and our uh expert internally on cannabis stuff. Um, is uh Brandon. So, but he's been the staff person assigned to this particular topic area and has been working on it in a variety of of facets. So, um he's going to be giving both presentations. So, take it away. All right. All right. So, we're starting with the municipal cannabis discussion. Um, I believe you guys started this discussion before I worked here, but uh this is where we're at now and what we've been working on, what I've been working on for the last few months. Um, so, as you guys know, uh, Governor Walls signed it uh, to be legal um, in 2023 and it became effective August 1st. Um, it also established a framework for adult use cannabis and established a new office of cannabis management. Um, the OCM will regulate cannabis, issue license and develop regulations outlining how and when businesses can participate. And the law is unique compared to other states and that it allows for us to have the potential of a municipal retailer. Um, which we is the only state like that. Uh, more of the background. So, Minnesota statute chapter 342 was modified in 2024. Let me make sure I have the right presentation here. I don't. It's a good start, but the beauty of it is the first slide is pretty much the same. All right. So, yeah, staff is providing the council with an update on the topic of municipal cannabis. Um, yep. And so, originally, uh, social equity applicants would get first priority for lensure. Um, if there were no candidates in Okinu market, it would have given the city the chance to be in the lottery system. Something different. Nice. Cool. Do you need a minute? I mean, we can jump to another report. Need a second. Let's do that. Let's do that. Chief, please. You're up. Barry is up field and I just want to say on the officers I was part of them. They really appreciate you guys. compensation for them. It's huge for me as we look at retaining officers big boys. Thank you. You did a great job tab dancing. Beautiful. Okay. So, originally social equity applicants would have gotten first priority. Um um if there were no candidates in open to market, it would have given the city the chance to be in the lottery system along with everybody else. Um the licensing process provided for one license to be allocated by the OCM at a minimum to a jurisdiction of 12,500 people. Um during the 2024 legislative session session, uh city staff along with council member Berg spearheaded efforts to provide a clearer path to a municipal license within statutes. Um and this language separated municipalities from other applicants, including social equity applicants, essentially providing for reserve license for municipalities. Um well various work groups have been exploring the topic of municipal retailer cannabis. Um including Tom and I are in a work group with city of Weisetta who is charging um this as well and also a different work group with that Tom and I have led um with other cities who have um showed desire. Um so there may still many unknowns uh related to this topic. Um there are variables in determining feasibility for mun municipal cannabis retailer including but not limited to uh licensing, insurance, banking, staffing, potential impacts on federal funding, location and just general feasibility. So the city of Elanu Market um would be eligible for a license from the office of cannabis management as a municipal retailer. This would be for a single licensed location. Um another licensed retailer in the city would not be excluded because of this. um a municipal retailer license would not affect licensing for social equity applicants or members of the general public. Uh the OCM stated that the social equity applicant verification process opened on uh June 24th, 2024. Um and this licensing allows for the sale of recreational cannib cannabonoid products to begin on the 1 of next year. Um so the details of licensing process for municipalities has not yet been established. I have reached out to OCM and I'm waiting response. Uh so the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has stated that they will not ensure municipal cannabis retail operations. Um they've pretty much wanted to stay away from this topic altogether throughout the process. Um so however information provided in the Wisetta group that I mentioned um by an industry expert indicated that insurance should be available through private private insurers that specialize in the industry. Um and I'm sure you guys all look through the packets and that industry expert I'm referring to here is the 7 group. They've been the main um experts on anything cannabis so far that I've been um in contact with for my various work groups. Um so additional research on insurance will be required and the following slide will list some of the typical insurance requirements. So this is just a few of them. Um alarm system requirements various types of alarms. Uh video surveillance systems obviously it would have to cover all the areas. There are requirements for a certain resolution, a high resolution of 9 9600 DPI or greater and along with a DVR and backup storage that is robust. Not exactly sure what that means specifically, but that is the term that they used. Um, access control systems including keys, passwords, and other means of access to only authorized personnel and to maintain a log of permissions. Um, employee background checks, no employees to be employed that has any criminal history whatsoever. And rest restricted use on premise. can't uh can't use it when you're on the premise and third party security or armed guards would be necessary. So uh the property most major cannabis programs offer at least 20 to 25 million uh per location and a select few have secured reinsurance over time and can offer 40 to 45. However, there may be trade-offs with these higher coverage limits such as gaps in coverage or unfavorable coverages somewhere else. Um protective safeguard endorsements. So markets are required requiring protective safeguard endorsements be included in policies to protect carriers in the event of a fire claim. Um equipment breakdown though options are still abundant. There has been mounting pressure to perform or cut capacity or take drastic moves such as not offering coverage to programs. Uh product liability because more states are legalizing carriers have become uh more competitive. So appetites are loosening for specific cases and offering more flexible terms and limits. Um and crime uh obviously cannabis operations located in high crime exposed areas are seeing an increase in rates and additional safeguard warranty exclusions. Um so going to the banking section of it. So the topic of banking for cannabis operations is complicated um by federal banking regulations as they relate to funds associated with businesses selling a schedule one substance under the controlled substances act which cannabis marijuana is still classified as federally. Um the number of banking institutions that are seeking to participate in this space is limited. However, information provided provided in the wisetta municipal cannabis work group by banking experts indicated that banking for cannabis retailers is possible albeit more complicated than a normal retail. Um staff has contacted New Market Bank and New Market Bank has indicated that they're considering participating in this space. So um a meeting with their cannabis team has been tenatively scheduled for I believe two weeks from two weeks from now. um depending on direction from council tonight and additional research would be required. So this is just some potential uh cash logistics obstacles. Um an overview appro approximately 19% of cannabis non-cannabis transactions are cash and up to 90% of cannabis transactions are cash. Um the major credit card processors prohibit can cannabis transactions through their networks. um which means that cannabis payments must be transacted using other methods which is most popular is cash. Um most banks prohibit the presentation of cannabis related cash at their branches. Uh this restriction is not only due to security concerns arising from handling such large volumes of cash but also because uh it smells the cash has a distinct odor. Um security cannabis businesses deal with significant amounts of cash making them vulnerable to theft and robbery. Um so thirdparty armored services uh armored service providers offer secure transportation of the cash and protection for cash deposits reducing the risk um of loss or harm to employees. Uh cash on site. So these are different ways that cash logistic companies help mitigate the issues. Um so the cash on site a cash recycler is a system that streamlines the process of accepting and dispensing cash. It allows you to securely hold your cash on site while providing visibility to the cash you have on hand. Um, and the use of a smart safe which is a secure device that automatically accepts, validates, records and stores cash. Um, these devices have the ability to connect to the internet POS systems and other cash management technologies. Uh, cash couriers. So, couriers collect cash according to the terms of the agreement. Um, the cash is then transported to a secure vault separate from the bank because of the smell where it is counted and the total amount is communicated with the bank. Uh, the terms of your agreement will state the time frame it may take to gain access to the cash deposits following pickup. Uh, ATMs, we all know what ATMs are, but I'm still going to go through it. Um, so customer convenience, offering convenient payment options such as access to an ATM can enhance the overall customer experience and foster loyalty. Uh customers who can easily access cash at a cannabis dispensary are more likely to return for future purchases. Um cash transactions. Cannabis businesses frequently deal with large volumes of cash, as I've said, and having an ATM enables these businesses to replenish their cash reserves easily, facilitating day-to-day operations such as making change or paying suppliers and covering general expenses. Uh security handling significant amounts of cash poses security risks. U by providing an ATM, businesses can reduce the need to store large amounts of cash on the premises. Um some urgent processing obstacles. So federal regulations again the primary reason stems from the fact that cannabis remains illegal at the federal level in many countries including our country. Um so Visa and Mastercard are subject to federal regulations and facilitating transactions related to a fedally prohibited substance could expose them to legal risks. Um, so other payment options to explore, some companies offer digital payment solutions for purchasing cannabis products in store, online, or for delivery utilizing direct a bank transfers. Um, after you sign up, customer can easily scan a QR code or whatever and confirm the order on their phone. Um, however, it's important to note that there's a fee with these. Um so bank fees risk premium uh banks may charge higher fees to cannabis businesses likely to compensate for the increased risk associated with serving them. This risk premium reflects the potential legal and regulatory challenges as well as the cost associated with enhanced due diligence and many compliance efforts. Uh these costs are often passed on to the clients in the form of higher fees. Capital intensity. Serving cannabis businesses may require additional capital reserves to mitigate risks uh which can increase the overall cost of providing financial services to our clients. On opportunity cost, banks may perceive serving cannabis business as diverting resources and attention away from the traditional less risky sectors leading them to charge higher fees to compensate for potential loss. All right, so getting into the actual business feasibility now. A feasibility analysis considering factors such as the market, location, staffing, security, inventory, supply, etc. would need to be completed in order to determine um if this would be profitable. And the city does not have the internal expertise. I know Tom thinks I am an expert. I am not uh to be able to conduct such an anal analysis within a timely fashion. So yeah, if the cannabis or if the council wants to continue to pursue the possibility of municipal cannabis retail operation, staff would recommend engaging an industry expert to assist the city with a feasibility analysis. Um staff sought a proposal from 7 Group, which is the group I mentioned, a firm that specializes in consulting to private entities, but um since this legislation has passed, they've expanded their scope of service to include municipalities. So point 7 group have provided staff with a proposal to complete an initial uh phase one feasibility analysis. This scope of work would assist the city with the exploration of the operations and financial modeling of a potential cannabis retail operation. Specific elements of the scope of work include but are not limited to um developing multiple scenarios that will consider revenue assumptions, startup expense assumptions, operational expense assumptions, personnel as well as many as an annual and monthly income statement, a balance sheet, and a statement of cash flows. And this analysis would also include some market research. So now I'm going to just start going through the actual proposal for phase one that they gave us. Um weeks one and two are discovery calls, people facility. So yeah, they they'll conduct in-depth discovery calls and um help us with some deliverables including two to three organizational chart examples and salary and wage information, job descriptions for each position, uh dispensary specific retail site consideration. Um yeah, some design and some facility area descriptions. Uh the next two week three to five next three weeks will be um exploration of operations and financial modeling. So point 7 will work with client to define three unique operational pathways. Once defined point 7 will guide the client through four dedicated financial modeling discussions. Weeks five through seven would be the written feasibility summary. um they'll provide us with a written finance plan that describes the model, the assumptions and data used within the model for each of the three different scenarios they would provide. And then week eight, they would virtually present um to council. So the fee is 15,000 for up to 80 hours of consulting time. And this is just for phase one. So the uh the budget impact for phase one is 15,000. This item was not anticipated during the creation of the budget. Um, thus it would be funded via the general fund professional services and any remaining costs would come from reserves. But I will say that the professional services was um maxed out. We budgeted 22,000 for it and we've used it already. So this would essentially come from the general fund from res from reserves. recording in progress. And additional research on insurance and baking would be done by me and would not have any additional cost. All right. So, here's my questions posed to the council. Um, does the city want to continue to pursue municipal cannabis? And if yes, does the council want to move forward with a feasibility study? I mean, I say hell no, but that's just my opinion. The rest of the opinions out there. I'm a flat no. You said you're [Laughter] Anyone else? I mean, I'm I'm for it, but I'm not I mean, I'll I'll go with what the majority wants. So, we're going to be split right now. I can tell you that you guys are for it. I'm not necessarily against like gathering more information. I guess I'm curious. I mean, I saw your social media post and there's I mean, there's not not everybody's going to comment on a post of that nature. I don't know if you got any other comments. Uh, I got some messages, but they were kind of following the same train of thought. My original thought, um, I mean, I know Lakeville makes a lot of money, a lot of revenue from their liquor sales, and I know marijuana is not liquor, but it's pretty significant for them. So, I was just looking at it as another way of another revenue source, but I would want it to go somewhere useful and make sure of that. So, we're we're talking about spending just a ton of money buying property or taking existing property. We're going down a path of a business that we have zero experience doing and we're taking away potentially taking away the opportunity for someone to come into our city and invest money, buy property, and put up a retail business. Is that really what we want to do? But how are we taking away that opportunity? It doesn't prevent another person. It doesn't. But we are kind of shortening or yeah, shortening the market a little bit. We're making it less attractive for someone to potentially come here. Have we had anyone ask any questions, any inquiries about bringing Yeah, we've had one taking questions from Florida. Sure. How many cities in Colorado, which is a state that legalized cannabis a long time ago, how many cities already have municipal operations? Um they they have zero because uh Minnesota is the only state in it that allows for it. I think we're taking on huge risks. Are is the city going to try as hard as I'm going to try? Like I'm in it to win it. I don't know if the city's in it to win it. I'm trying to get out of my business to get into this business. So if you want competition, I'm here. But I would rather work with you guys and support the community myself. You guys can check and balance me and don't have to check and balance you. Well, I'm sorry. I get No, to that point. I trust you to do something if it's going to be your 100% priority when we as a city have about a million different priorities. Why are we competing with private business? Only looking at it from the standpoint of revenue for the city, but most most unis struggle. I mean, Lakeville is kind of an exception. 80,000 people. We have five. Yeah. why you want to jump into those waters when 10 years from now the market's going to be so you guys are put millions of dollars into something that may fail in 10 years. You may get the the thing right now, but Lakeville has the 80,000 people. That's why their municiples work. We don't I don't we don't have the kind of money to do this. I just don't know why we're going to try to burden our budget to do this. It's Yeah. I mean, I I really want to hear the case as to why we should do this. So, let's let's hear it. My only thing was like I wasn't aware if we have anybody pursuing this area and if it's like a something that our community is looking to have, this would be an opportunity for us to bring it forward. I don't it's not an amenity, but it's like something that, you know, we get a ton of frustrated members of our community talking about why don't we have a grocery store? Why don't we have a hardware store? Why don't we have this is one thing that we could do. I mean, we can't have a we're not going to have a municipal hardware store, but we would be able to have municipal c cannabis. But if we have somebody who's pursuing this area, I don't want to take that opportunity away from them. I think it would be fair to assume that if we go into it, there will be competition. I've heard from a lot and from purely on the banking side that wants to see if we would when I was at New Market Bank, they wanted us to and that's why I thought if we're going to do it, we should do it now. Um, and I I mean I was only thinking of the taxpayers and being able to use it in that sense. But what do you think, Josh? I don't really care. Um, I mean, honestly, I want it to be a choice. Guess I want it to be an option. I am interested in getting more information, but I'm also not interested in distracting anything from right now. There's a lot of unknowns. There's a lot of things that still have to get figured out. You know, I I I appreciate the comments from a private business owner, but they don't want competition. So, they certainly are going to say the things that they're saying because they don't want the city to get into it. So, I can appreciate that. Um, I would sell it to the city. I I plan on having the whole license and all. So, it would still be community effort to get it to the city. Like, I'm willing to work with the So, so we can't put that baggage out there. Hey, I'm supporting your comments, but I got to cut you off. No, I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. It doesn't come to these things. I got you. No, you're you're good. I appreciate it. Thank you. No. So, I mean, you know, I just wanted to tee up the conversation, give us an opportunity to have the conversation. You know, not that I don't care about the Facebook p like questions and stuff like that, but you're going to get a certain group that are vocal on it and and you're not going to get to to Amanda's point, uh, a lot of people, if they are in support of it, they're not going to come out and say it. Um, so I think that's one way to hear it. Are other cities interested in municipal marijuana that there there are what you're finding is this may come as a surprise but government moves slowly. Yeah. Um so we we should open businesses. Yeah. We quite honestly we are at the very tip of the spear um with just a handful of municipalities that are this far down the the road with regards to the conversation. Um, even as we were working and looking at the statute, we found that there was a lot of people who were just kind of really becoming aware, just starting to have the conversation even though the statute had been on the books for, you know, for months. Um, so I think there's I think there is an interest. One thing we should be clear and also clear for our audience, the city is talking only about a retail operation, not cultivation or manufacturing. Um, and we've and we've had inquiries in all of those in all of those areas. Um but yes, there are cities are looking for to do it. I think it will be evolving to see how many cities actually do it and I don't think people really know yet. Um let me ask a question. Is there any thing that could we impose like a separate tax specific to marijuana sales? I don't believe we have the statutory authority to you don't believe we do. Okay. Could we have a separate fund for the revenue from it? We would have to. So it would be an enterprise fund just like there's a separate fund for water for sewer for you know some places have them for their community centers. But I mean like if we're so if we're collecting tax revenue off a business that's selling marijuana products are we able to designate those funds for Okay. That is that what you were asking? Um that's what I was asking. I mean I guess so we could see how much revenue we would actually Oh yeah. we're we're making and then maybe it would be have to be a standalone fund just for accounting practices but also from a banking standpoint. One of the areas that's still being researched is you have this enterprise fund over here that doesn't necessaril may not be able to interact with everything exactly the same way. So there's still conversations inquiries with the office of the state auditor about how you how those funds from that operation would intermingle or have to interact with your larger general fund. Yeah. And the idea would be money from that fund being able to help supplement other things for the city. Yep. Most uh a lot of cities will do a couple well they'll do a couple things. Sometimes they'll just take excess revenues and they'll just dump it into their general fund or they'll or they will by policy decide where it would go. Um I know early in the discussions you guys had said well we would use it for the park system for example. So that would just be a policy decision on how you would want to use it. But those excess revenues generally would be discretionary. you could use them however you want. Um there's a reason Lakeville has really nice big facilities um that they have. And to get to the comment with regards to munis, what I've heard from my peers in cities that do have munis, the biggest differential, and this is the biggest challenge with any operation, it's the management. Um most um bigger systems like Richfield and like um Savage and uh Lakeville, they're bigger operations. they can pay to have the best better managers and they do well. Um smaller cities sometimes where the pickings are a little bit thinner for your mun manager um you struggle a little bit more. So a lot of it part of its market but a lot of it is the management of the of the operation. I would definitely want to designate it for like parks or something specific. But I don't even want to spend $15,000 out of reserves to research it more. I just I think we just kind of maybe put it on the back burner and and listen and watch and then maybe this gets brought back up in a few years. Great. On that same note, do we want to do a I know staff has mentioned the moratorum idea. Is that something that or is that something we're about to get into next? separate items for like New Prague or Lakefell to do it before us and then we lose that base if especially if it's really successful. Yeah, I mean I'm hearing consensus of no not at this time and I I can feel that. I just I challenge us to to think more like a business because we are a business running a city and um you know I think that's where we have an opportunity to be innovative and creative and whatever. I also hear the there's places that are going to fail and let's watch them fail and learn from it and then let's act like a business and go in and scoop it up and and take it then. So I can go either way. I don't see them failing but All right. So we're not we're not actively pursuing this. The consensus is let's wait and see. Yes. Okay. Should we I mean can we talk about a mortorium or do you want to go through a presentation? Let's vote. Who wants to see the presentation? I do. He wants to see the presentation. Let's do it. You got to go, Josh? I do. Do you want to You give any preliminary comments before you go on a moratorium? I support I mean, are we solving a problem? I don't know. Uh, you know, my feelings on the press. Moratoriums have been they seem like a waste of time and this is only going to be a six-month or fivemon moratorium anyway. So, I don't know. What's the point of it? What's the point? Okay. Have a good night. What's the point? Drops. All right. Well, I'll get into it so I can hopefully make a point of why we might want one. Um, so yeah, so Minnesota Statute Chapter 342 was modified this last year to enact uh the session laws. um an LGU may adopt an uh interimm ordinance and staff had been waiting for the office of cannabis management to release their model ordinances which they just did a few weeks ago on June 18th which originally we thought was going to be much earlier. Preface that. Um so originally all licenses including cultivation were set to begin being distributed in the beginning of next year. Um this change does not relate specifically to retail and staff is working on gaining more insights on when those licenses may become available. Again, I've reached out to OCM about this and am awaiting response. Um, the OCM just closed the social equity verification process uh yesterday and anyone who has been verified will be able to submit applications for license pre-approval uh in the coming weeks and licenses are expected to be issued shortly after. Um, so the scope includes, but is not limited to, uh, definitions for cannabis products, zoning and land use, hours of operation, maximum number of licenses, municipal cannabis, uh, which doesn't matter anymore, and to amend the city code section 443, um, which, let's see here, I don't have it in my notes, but, um, it's essentially saying that it's an exemption for a license to be required for anything grown on a farm. Um, so staff is asking city council to consider adopting an interim ordinance regarding the lensure of cannabis related businesses so city staff can have more time to discuss with city council what it wants for various aspects of rulem um and the planning commission for that matter. So if council is in favor of an interim ordinance the public hearing will need to be scheduled for the next meeting and this ordinance could be placed until the first of next year. I thought I had more information there. I don't. Um I think that in general a moratorum from my perspective would just help give me more time because there's a lot of different things that we'll have to talk about and decide upon. And the fact that they pushed up the cultivation licensing to now rather than the end of the year which was expected is why we would be requesting additional time to work on these various parts of the ordinance. I think this slide best represents it. Those are just a few examples of things we'll need to bring in front of the planning commission and the council on the bottom there that will need more discussion. That's all I have. I'm a hard no on a moratorum. Um I I just the whole concept of telling a business that may want to come to town, we don't we can't figure out our stuff, so we're going to have to wait drives me insane. I don't see any practical reason why Choice should do. I understand what you're saying. Um but I The whole concept just I don't know makes me sick to my stomach to be honest with you. Well, you don't want to fight with anybody. We want to go forward and man I I can't we can't do this. No, I'm sorry. I thought this was that was kind of like a oneoff deal. So, no, you're good. Um I don't know. I mean, if you if the three of you all decide to do a moratorum, go for it. What does staff think? What would I mean I I heard you say that you would you're for it. I mean I don't have an opinion. I think it would be easier but I will get what done what I have to get done no matter what. Here here's the reality. Um when the council decided not to do a mortorium last time the reality is it had no practical effect. Um they weren't going to be issuing licenses till after the first of the year in 2025. um they were going to be bringing out model ordinances midy year and we'd have plenty of time to develop model ordinances based on the work that the OCM was doing that would be consistent with what was being developed statewide is all logical in the last session they decided oh guess what we're going to start the licensing process six months earlier then we'd be telling everybody and we are at the same time just going to get you the model ordinances the reality is it takes time even with the model ordinances to go through the process let alone any of the discussions related to the aspects that might be included in the ordinance because they've started the process and they haven't said exactly when they're going to issue licenses. It increases the risk that we could have licenses licensed individuals um locating in the community in a manner in operations that we would not have allowed if we had our stuff together. So, I don't it I understand what the mayor is saying, but it's not that we don't have our stuff together. It's that the state isn't doing what they said they were going to do and we're having to respond to it. As far as how long it'll take, we don't know. Um, I mean, we can easily be bringing this to the commission, but that would be at the August meeting. We'd get direction, and it really depends on how long it takes the c the commission and the council to do their business related to this to how quickly we can get it done. But even under normal circumstances, developing it, holding a hearing for it, and adopting it is typically a few months. Um, and it's possible now because the licensing period has already been open that they could be issuing licenses by then. So, it's a risk. Is it a guarantee that somebody would or that they'd even issue the licenses within a time frame for we get it done? We don't know. It's just that the risk exists. Um, and I will go city attorney, but if that license if that business locates without having those regulations in place, they have the potential to become grandfathered and then continue to operate in that manner. and we can't retroactively make those changes. And if I can scare me at all, though. I If I can. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Me first. Go ahead. Okay. Um, the one concern that I have um is that the zoning ordinances are not set up to adequately deal with cultivation. And I think that there would be some concern that you could be challenged if you denied something based on some place that you don't want it. that perhaps somebody could interpret the ordinance to say that that is allowed. So that would be my concern. Another option is for you is if you don't want to do a moratorium on everything to at least do a moratorum on cultivation um until January 1st or until you get your ordinances updated sufficiently because really it's the zoning and the cultivation issue that's of primary importance. When you say cultivation like on what scale of cultivation? We don't know. But I mean like my neighbors have a couple plants that they grow. No, this would be commercial cultivation. That's what that's what I'm saying. So commercial cultivation, but warehousing that that's the concern. And when you look at the supply chain, the greatest nuisance aspects related to marijuana production and sales. It's not the retail side um were the greatest nuisance. That's more of a location impact of the business. But the nuisance issues such as primarily odor um associated with it um is associated with the cultivation which is the piece that they've accepted the licensing for at this point. Ultimately it's likely that these would go in your eye district. Mhm. Um but it it's ideal to have this time to uh analyze uh any conditions that are appropriate if you put it in the eye district and have your ordinances clearly identify this type of use and those um restrictions which you don't have at the moment. You all know how I feel. I'm not going to keep beating the drum. Whatever you guys decide. I mean, I don't I don't think it's necessary if that's how you guys feel. Well, I will be the odd duck here. Um, I kind of agree with Andrea. I wouldn't mind a moratorum on the cultivating side. Um, I personally don't want someone cultivating in an area that's right next to housing or right next to another business that's not a industrial user, I guess. How How long has it been since you've lived lived in an apartment, though? Me? Yeah. I've never lived in an apartment. Anyone that's lived in an apartment knows there's always that that apartment that just smells up the whole hallway through. Yeah. But that doesn't mean that we have to allow it to happen. It's not it's all right but I'm fine with that being the only moratorum is just on that. That's my thinking. I don't think we need one. So it doesn't matter what I think. I mean I think it would be a good thing. I mean I'm leaning towards that with Kate as it being a good thing but it wouldn't break my heart if we didn't do it. So well me me and Josh are both nos. You were a yes. You were a no. Partial. Yes. She's an industrial zoning morator. But the others I'm fine. So I don't know what that means. So you could do a morator. No, I know what that mean. I'm just like for the math of does anybody want to explore? We're not technically voting really. I guess I'm just trying to come to some general consensus. Does anybody want to pursue a moratorium on cultivation? Well, I would like to, but if nobody else wants to, that's fine. We'll just move on. Yeah. And I'm exactly feel like you like that. I would like to, but it's by my math here, we got three nos and two, two cultivation only. Yeah. Jake's like, I want to go home. All right, let's keep going. So, we have direction. Um, Corey did not have anything additional additional under public works, community development. Nothing in addition to the minutes. I just want to check with Renee real quick. Did you have anything to add in addition to the planning commission minutes? Renee, you left on Motor. Oh, did she exit? Um, I do not have anything to add. Thank you. That was a lot of buildup. Uh, anything for parks that uh just quickly I'll add on behalf of the parks commission. Big thank you to the fire rescue days committee um and Linda Euro for helping put a lot of that on the ninja course. It was a huge success. So, um, additionally, we received more, um, public park dedication from Park I35 than initially anticipated. I think it was around 85,000 initially, and we ended up getting closer to 140 150,000. So, um, the parks commission is pretty excited. We're looking at some of these projects that we haven't had funding for in a long time, and we're hoping to get some of that done. Nice. Pickle ball. Here we go. Let's do it. How many minutes do we want to spend on pickle ball? Let's keep moving. Uh CCec, I don't have anything. And their meeting for this month is canceled if Yes, we are not meeting next week. Uh there's no scale in July. I'm assuming you have nothing. Josh sent me a text saying he had nothing for I35. Um so discussion by council. One thing, um, I was hoping that they were going to show up today, but they did not. They stopped me at, um, fire rescue days. Um, Mr. Bergstrom, Kyle Bergstrom, would like to address or talk about being able to hold his wedding at Wagner Park. Um, and to also rent the field so that the wedding and the ceremony and the could all be right there. Um, and I guess he was told no. And so I wanted to bring it forward to the council to find out what your guys's thoughts are. I don't have any issue with it. Uh, I don't have any issue with it, but I'm just wondering how how do you keep other people out from the community if we're all going? I guess I I would I'm going to say I don't want to put staff on the spot with a weird situation. I mean, I I would be open to discussing that too, but you want some time to Well, st the staff response was consistent with the policy that the planning commission just recommended and the council just adopted recently related to field rental, which is we don't rent out the fields to individuals, only to organizations. Um, so if you want to revisit that, we we can, but we simply responded to what you guys had approved. it it would open the door. Anyone could rent the field for any reason basically at that point and we don't currently charge for the fields because we only do it to sports organizations. We can discuss this and and and maybe do it in a workshop in the next meeting. What are you looking to do like are you looking to do like a specific I just want to know how we can make it work. What can we do? I mean the Bergstroms have been in Elco New Market forever. They run the baseball. They run the Muskies. Um, if the if the baseball team then rents it out, is that okay? I mean, I I I just figure out a way to figure to be blunt. We suspected when we told them no that this is what happens when you're dealing with longtime residents. They go to the council when they don't like the policy and the council's put in a position to just say, "Well, let's change the policy because of these people." The reality is that now we have seen a growing increase in people wanting to rent that facility for things like receptions. If we start including the fields, then are we renting the field out for receptions? We can do that, but we have to look at it beyond, hey, there's this one specific individual or group of individuals. How does this apply to the larger policy? So, I would just recommend that we don't do it based on a specific, but we look at it since it's a policy globally. And I would also recommend doing a oneoff because somebody's special um because that would be hard to defend to other people because there's a lot of special people out there, right? Yeah. I mean, we'd have to open it up that option I think to everyone if we do it for one person. I mean, if there's nothing going on on the field, why not open it up and let somebody rent it and just speaking on some staff concerns that have come up in the past for like weddings, for instance, it's the chairs that dig into the grass. Um, and then you have the dance floor potentially covering a big piece of grass, trash refues, and we can't. And so it's great to say no, they'll pick it up or you can charge them a deposit, but the reality is then the next you it still has to get picked up. Again, all those things can be addressed, but it would require a policy change from what we've done and what we received. And again, I would recommend that the council consider it globally um for that purpose. And is there a timing frame for this urgency? Cuz is this is a situ is this an item you want to go back to the parks commission for their input? I just wanted to see what kind of feeling I had from the rest of the council to see if it was something that we needed to put on and talk about. So I'm kind of I don't know. I think I'm kind of with you in the sense of gosh, I'd really like to help, you know, really like to do something, but yeah, then we're kind of I don't know. I'd have to chew on it a little bit because it is I mean we're kind of contradicting ourselves if we allow it. Um I don't know. Yeah, I just feel like we have to be fair if anyone else wanted to. I think we do too, but did we put ourselves in too much of a box? Um and then what happens if there is a lot of trash or something then our city works would have to right well but we could maybe address like with deposits or something and you can amend it. You can try it and if it doesn't work you can always change the policy back. Staff's position is that though we need to change the policy. We would recommend you change the policy rather than provide an exception and you just consider the more global impacts. But if you do it and it ends up not working, you can always change policy back for the following season. Can we do this? Can we kind of reopen it, put it on general business for the next meeting and actually have a good discussion. We can review the policy and we can talk about different ways that we want to I know we just did this, but this is kind of a scenario that I don't know any of us really envision. Is that something we can do? Yes, council. Is that something you're okay with? I think that would be good. I think we own the conversation. Yeah, and I am trying to find out what his wedding is. I have one other thing if while you're looking for that. Um, do you have any updates on or I know Rich left but on looking at uh County Road 91 and Aaron Drive that intersection like doing a traffic study or I haven't spoken specifically with Rich on it. He was going to be contacting um following up with the county transportation engineer Mark Callahan. you had reported that um Mark had talked about possibly a traffic study. Yeah. So Rich was going to speak with him about what that would look like from like a scope standpoint and also who pays for it. Um and then return with a report on that. Um I think you guys are all aware that Rich's time has been 100% almost devoted to another topic for the last several weeks. So that was one of the things he was going to begin working on um after he got out certain letters which have been highly talked about. Yeah. Um out to the general public. So I just don't want to drop the ball on it because it was a number of residents that live right there. So I just No, it's on the list, but there have been just practical issues with um immediate fires that he had to devote his time to. So and I've I've followed up with him and he's aware of it. So Okay. All right. Are we motion to adjurnn? Motion by Amanda, second by Gina. All in favor? Thank you everybody.