**[0:01] Brian Douglas:** act on issues raised by the public input but may choose to schedule consideration of the item on a future agenda. Mr. Kurtz. **[0:18] Greg Kurtz:** Hello. I'm at the Cannon Valley Fair. You state your name please? Greg Kurtz, Cannon Valley Fair. Uh, I've just got some sheets here I'd like you to take a look at that we're planning on doing over at the fairgrounds. We've talked about this once before, but I just wanted to bring it to you now and, and uh, so you could see what we're planning on doing if I could hand these out. **[0:50] Brian Douglas:** Thank you, sir. **[1:04] Greg Kurtz:** What uh, we're going to do is put up a uh, informational sign on our front ticket office so we can let the public know what's going on during the fair, what events we might have coming up at the fair. As you can see, there's the—the sign is 78 inches long by 16 inches high. Uh, as much time as I've spent over there this summer, I've paid attention, and then I'm going to say an hour's time of mowing over there, I've witnessed 50 cars go by it, so it's a busy highway. And I think for the public to know what we have to offer is a—a good deal. We've got a couple horse races coming up yet this year. This uh, Saturday, we've got a wedding that's taking place there. So we've got stuff going on. And I know all of you have—if you stood at that front gate and went from right to left and just looked what you see is the City Garage, the swimming pool, two houses... those houses are approximately 300 feet from our front gate. And Hannah has been... so as far as uh, a nuisance sign, I don't believe that it would be. We would have the option to turn that sign on and off. We would have the option to tone it down so it isn't as bright. But it's something that—that the fair board feels we need just so we can give the public information on what's going on. I haven't ordered it yet, but I wanted to let you guys know what we're going to do. That's probably it. If—if you've got any questions and I can answer, I'd be more than happy to. **[3:24] Brian Douglas:** We usually don't act on anything that's brought up at uh, public input, so appreciate your information. **[3:24] Ryan Jeppesen:** I had a question. You talked about weddings. Is that when you get exempted from zoning ordinances? Is for agricultural fair purposes... is that a fair purpose? **[4:09] Greg Kurtz:** Say it again? You know, I'm sorry... **[4:09] Ryan Jeppesen:** I say, it's your exemption from zoning ordinances is for agricultural fair purposes. Or rental of the fairgrounds... might want to talk about that. **[4:09] Greg Kurtz:** Okay, we've already had—we had a wedding here last year, yeah, it was no big deal. **[4:09] Ryan Jeppesen:** Talking about signs from zoning ordinances because them—them signs don't—don't and don't comply with our zoning code in that district. So if it's not for agricultural fair purposes, I wonder if it's legal to have a wedding there. **[4:09] Greg Kurtz:** Is that what you said about the wedding? **[4:09] Ryan Jeppesen:** It's about the sign put up. If you're going to put up advertisement for horse racing, I understand what you're saying, and go-kart races and weddings and stuff like that, that's not for agricultural purposes. **[4:56] Greg Kurtz:** Well, it—it—it is to benefit our property. **[4:56] Ryan Jeppesen:** Well, I think it is, so yeah, I don't know, I see what you're saying. See what you're saying. But—but if you read deep in—and I put in just this one little exemption here, or not exemption but uh, at 38.18, that's the Minnesota AE exercise that we belong to, which if you read deep into it, I think you'll read that... **[5:43] Brian Douglas:** Well, we might want to before you spend the money, yeah. **[5:43] Greg Kurtz:** Like I say, I haven't ordered the sign yet, uh, but I just wanted you all to know. **[5:43] Ryan Jeppesen:** You might be limited to what you can put on the sign. **[5:43] Greg Kurtz:** We might be, yeah, we might be limited to advertise for uh, a Bears game. A Bears game. We might be limited that we can't advertise there's a Bears game going on. I'm sure that the city—and I remember the city having one of those—those cord things across, they counted traffic. You would be surprised in an hour how many cars go by down there. **[5:43] Diane Johnson:** Uh, okay. I was gonna say yeah, when you were saying Mr. Jensen [Jeppesen] about it might not conform... is that because of the size or because of lighting or because it would be a second sign on the property or verbiage? What does that mean? **[6:29] Ryan Jeppesen:** Well, it's not allowed in that district. **[6:29] Diane Johnson:** Oh, the sign is not allowed in that district? **[6:29] Ryan Jeppesen:** No, yeah, digital signs aren't allowed in that district. But if he says he's exempt, we might want to look that up, right. And also the content might be questionable if he's going to advertise weddings and advertise go-kart races and stuff that is not agricultural purposes. **[6:29] Diane Johnson:** Right. Yeah. Um, yeah. Now is that one of those things where one could request one of those variances for that or is that not... **[6:29] Brian Douglas:** We'll have to look into that. Okay, yeah, so just more research before you buy the sign. **[7:15] Greg Kurtz:** Yeah. And is that what—what is that? That's res... that's our... **[7:15] Brian Douglas:** I believe it's our R2, which is residential. **[7:15] Greg Kurtz:** Residential. R2 or R3? I don't remember what... and it's been that way for as long as we've... none of us probably know, but is there a reason that it is that? Well, you know, you all know where I'm talking about, you all know where the fairgrounds is. Do you see any spot down there where there's going to be a housing development built that it would have to be residential? I understand what you're saying, but this is for information purposes. **[7:15] Brian Douglas:** We can't debate this because we're not—we don't have our information. All we have is yours. **[7:15] Greg Kurtz:** Sure, no, I just wanted to present what—what we plan on doing. **[7:15] Brian Douglas:** Okay, thanks. **[7:15] Greg Kurtz:** Okay, thank you. **[8:03] Brian Douglas:** Thank you. Okay, next up is public hearing for Leon Endres, uh, the amendment to uh, there's a city code relating to well and septic utilities. Mission... **[8:03] Zach (City Staff):** Um, Leon Endres, on behalf of the Timber Ridge Development, is requesting to amend city code 151.112 to allow for a well and septic system to survey residential lot. Um, more specifically, he is—he wishes to serve the estate lots located in the southeast corner of the development, um, as they are separated from the main portion of the development. The current city code requires water and sewer lines be connected to the city's public system. **[8:49] Brian Douglas:** Okay, so at this time I'll open up the public hearing relating to that amendment. Uh, is there anyone wishing to speak to that amendment? Second call, anyone wishing to speak to that amendment? Third and final call, anyone wishing to speak to that amendment? I'm going to close the public hearing. We discuss that now or go to the next public hearing? What do you think? Should we just... it's up to you. Uh, we should discuss this first and then move on. How do you feel about that? **[9:37] Ryan Jeppesen:** That sounds good. Yeah, so um, the—the—and this is conditional upon when sewer and water hookup is available that those four lots or those two lots for buildings would hook up to it, correct? **[9:37] Diane Johnson:** I have a basic question. Um, is the city unable to service those lots with sewer? **[10:24] Brian Douglas:** They—they are so far away from sewer and water. It'll be 50 years before uh, we get through that valley. It's out on 24. **[10:24] Diane Johnson:** Yeah, I know where it is. Yeah. **[10:24] Brian Douglas:** Okay, um, the right on... I can't remember his first name... Don... Don Ryland. Ryland. That's got to come through his—the sewer has got to come through his property, come through the valley and head up the hill. So it'd be—it's kind of... I hate the word "leapfrog," but it feels like if... **[10:24] Diane Johnson:** Well, it has to... it would have to develop up to it. **[10:24] Brian Douglas:** Yeah, and I don't know how long that would be. So see this—that property got cut up, yeah, from 24. Got it. **[11:11] Diane Johnson:** Um, but the amendment is to change the code entirely, not for specific property, correct? And that's where I have an issue. We'd be opening ourselves up for other opportunities there. I mean, if—if we put... I just don't... I just think it would have to be for those specific properties and not for a total change of the uh... **[11:58] Brian Douglas:** Do you want to tighten it up a little more? **[11:58] Ryan Jeppesen:** Um, because under the—under B, "Water Supply," it's—there's an exception as approved by the city council based on one, two, and three. Um, it's under the ordinance. If you scroll back... maybe I didn't get that... another page... **[11:58] Brian Douglas:** Yeah, I know, I'm on my way. See that? **[11:58] Ryan Jeppesen:** And maybe uh, under one, uh, you know, the developer when that time comes is going to be long gone and it'll be probably the third homeowner on the, yeah, on the place. Um, but maybe it just states that when sewer and water become available, the landowner will be mandated to hook up. So we could just make it specific to these places and not change the whole... **[11:58] Brian Douglas:** Well, I think if you left it generic enough that if another situation comes, but tighten it up enough... **[12:43] Ryan Jeppesen:** Yeah, that not everyone that comes available can be available, yeah. Um, how do—how do we determine... **[12:43] Brian Douglas:** I think they're not available. **[12:43] Ryan Jeppesen:** Um, let's just take what we dealt with a couple months ago. If they wanted to put in individual systems, water was right next door, you wouldn't allow them to put individual system in when it's right across the road. That—so maybe somehow we tighten that up that within a reasonable distance... what's reasonable according to the Planning Commission, according to the Council? Yeah, at the time, right? Maybe it's not a footage... oh, well, I made it by five feet, I can do this, right? Maybe it's reasonable where it gives the Council discretion to say yes or no. **[13:35] Diane Johnson:** Yeah. Yeah, because I would hate to see it, you know, become anything other than the exception. Because, you know, it's a half a mile for—for it today, that's an exception, right? **[13:35] Brian Douglas:** And that's what I mean. But not 200 feet. **[13:35] Diane Johnson:** But you say, you know, it's a—a two-plus acre, so somebody's going to say, "Well, you... is it for all two-plus acre...?" **[13:35] Brian Douglas:** Correct, lots. **[13:35] Diane Johnson:** Correct? **[13:35] Ryan Jeppesen:** No, but it's got to be—it's got to do with the availability of sewer and water. Yeah. Yeah, so we just don't want it to open up a whole can of worms, and I agree with that. **[14:22] Isaac Naatz:** Question: All of a sudden, that would be my—my biggest thing too. Who determines when it would have to be hooked up then? **[14:22] Brian Douglas:** If it develops right when water and sewer runs by the place. **[14:22] Isaac Naatz:** When it runs by the place, yeah. And how close would it have to be to do... **[14:22] Brian Douglas:** I would say in the—in the intersection or intersection in the ditch or wherever it's going to be when it goes up that hill, yeah. Because in that instance, right, yeah. Got it. **[15:08] Diane Johnson:** Okay. Well, I just was concerned that a development would have two-acre sites on it with everything else being regular lots and just the two-acre sites would be ex—you know, their own sewer. **[15:08] Brian Douglas:** Yeah, I don't—I don't think we're looking at size. Yeah, in fact, I know we're not looking at size. We're looking at availability. **[15:08] Diane Johnson:** Okay. **[15:08] Brian Douglas:** Okay, but I—I agree, you know, Diane was talking about that. Um, I think number one covers that, but I think the developer agrees in writing... well, you know, the developer is going to be long gone. Yeah. Um, so it's got to be like almost like a covenant in that. That... now—now let's talk about standards of sewer and water that they have then. Who determines what standards them? **[15:08] Ryan Jeppesen:** That's also in your—it's in the ordinance. **[15:08] Brian Douglas:** Okay, yep. And that's about a state or county, whatever is higher? **[15:08] Ryan Jeppesen:** No, that's a city—City, which is higher. Which is higher? **[15:08] Brian Douglas:** The city, yeah. Yeah, the standards of the type and size of septic system. Yeah, we have—we have specs that we have based on what—the kind of buildings and property... **[15:08] Ryan Jeppesen:** No, well, it's engineering specs of what we have to put in. It's either cast iron or plastic, eight-inch or larger as an example for water. Yeah. Um, we have engineering specs that—that's what we put in as far as... my concern is on the larger acres, you know, two acres, you could have a lot of buildings or bigger houses, more—more water usage. **[15:08] Brian Douglas:** Yeah, our minimum size is eight inch. Yeah, and—and that the septic system is my major concern. **[15:08] Ryan Jeppesen:** Oh yeah. Um, is that... do we—do we have um, standards for that on that kind of property? **[15:54] Brian Douglas:** Um, yes and no. Because with new uh, technology nowadays, you can run a two-inch line that'll serve a grinder pump and mini grinder pumps coming off of several houses and that'll serve you know, a dozen houses. Yeah, with the technology we have today. Yeah. What the water is all about is uh, fire protection. Okay? That's all. And we can't run water to them either. That's a long ways. A long ways. Yeah. **[15:54] Isaac Naatz:** Okay. As they determine there's water available there? **[15:54] Brian Douglas:** You mean as far as... well, I guess is make it deep enough it'll be available. Yeah, that would be their—their issue. **[15:54] Isaac Naatz:** Right, yeah, it would be. **[15:54] Brian Douglas:** But I think—I think you're right. Maybe it gets tightened up a little bit. Yeah. Um, we can't just like do the variance or whatever, it's got to be an actual ordinance change. Um, when Shelley drafted this, we talked a little bit about the subdivision ordinance and—and how it's got to be done. She didn't like that idea, but we can... you know, we've got time because they're going to put them four lots into out-lots for their first edition. So we got time to bring this back next month. Yeah. So—so if the Council has more than one option... **[17:26] Brian Douglas:** That's what I'm thinking. For these specific lots and tighten up and, you know, two more than one option to tighten up the ordinance. Go ahead. **[18:12] Isaac Naatz:** I just... is there any way we—we can send this back and rethink a few of these things to make sure it's a little bit tighter? You know, we don't want to open up a big deal. So is it possible just to—to table this? Could we do it that way or do you want us to pass it subject to... **[18:12] Brian Douglas:** No, I think you should take it back to you guys, okay, to address your concerns. Okay, so let's just table this for now. Oh, can I get a motion? And I'll even uh, I'll—I'll ask Shelley if the public hearing is enough, um, or if we have to have another one. Okay, I don't think we do because we've had one, but if we significantly change the—the language, we may have to. Okay, yeah. So... **[18:58] Isaac Naatz:** I would make a motion that we table this until we get more information. **[18:58] Brian Douglas:** I'm going to second that. Um, any further discussion? All in favor? **[18:58] Council/Commission:** Aye. Aye. **[18:58] Brian Douglas:** Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, so then the next uh, public hearing will be amending city code 152.355 relating to sponsorship signage at parks and athletic complexes. Zach? **[19:43] Zach (City Staff):** Yes. So the city is initiating an ordinance text amendment to amend city code 152.355 to allow for sponsorship signage at city parks and city or school athletic complexes. Um, this uh, ordinance or this section of the city code rather was changed in 2019 to allow for sponsorship sponsorship signage at John Birch Park, um, but we are requesting you give approval to allow this type of signage at school athletic complexes as well. **[20:28] Brian Douglas:** So basically I'm just going to repeat what you said. We already allowed that at John Birch Park, we want to put it at school also, and that sponsor will help us pay for that. **[20:28] Zach (City Staff):** That is correct. Yeah, yeah. They're already doing it on one scoreboard down there, and they're putting up another one, and it came to our attention that um, maybe back in 2018 or 19 whatever this was that maybe they should have threw the school in at the same time. **[20:28] Brian Douglas:** Okay, so it's—it's pretty simple. Okay, so at this time I'm going to open up that public hearing to amend city code 152.355 related to a sponsorship signage at parks and athletic complexes. Anybody wish to address this amendment? Second call, anybody wishing to address this amendment? Third and final call, anyone wishing to address this amendment? Hearing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. Committee Commission? Got nothing for me? **[21:15] Isaac Naatz:** I'll make that a motion. **[21:15] Diane Johnson:** Second. **[21:15] Brian Douglas:** Make a motion... motioned by Naatz, second by Johnson to uh, amend city code 152.355 relating to sponsorship signage at parks and athletic complexes. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? **[21:15] Council/Commission:** Aye. Aye. **[21:15] Brian Douglas:** Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, so that brings us to discussion letter C, moratorium relating to residential treatment facilities. Zach? **[22:00] Zach (City Staff):** Yeah. So City staff are just curious about your thoughts regarding treatment facilities in residential areas. Um, perhaps there should be certain licensing or we should only allow these types of facilities via conditional use. So we were just wondering how we should approach or proceed rather with this—with this matter. **[22:47] Brian Douglas:** Where are we currently? Um, there's a moratorium in place? **[22:47] Zach (City Staff):** I mean, but what... we don't have any zoning requirements for these. **[22:47] Brian Douglas:** Yeah, yeah. Uh, Valley View, yeah, is what we're talking about type uh, complex. We—we discovered that um, the nursing home and them types of facilities allow for inpatient residential treatment centers. It's not a—a secret of what's been going down at Valley View as far as people running around and—and I don't know. Um, I don't know if residential areas are the best places for them types of things. But we're seeking input from Planning Commission to get started on it. We... I think it was in May that we adopted a moratorium. Um, then we got busy with all these developments and—and uh, waiting for Zach to get on board so we can get this thing uh, talked about and discussed and uh, maybe get it back to you in some sort of ordinance form. Um, but the—the main question is uh, how do you feel about residential treatment facilities in residential districts? Um, they are allowed in B1, I believe that's... or B2? **[24:19] Zach (City Staff):** I think it's B1 because they did uh, put that one in a couple years ago. **[24:19] Isaac Naatz:** So with the nursing home now being open, uh, they'll be bringing that for sale I believe, or hopefully they'll do something with it before it caves in because it's probably deteriorating as we speak. But we've got to get this talked about. Um, gotta get... **[24:19] Zach (City Staff):** So currently we don't actually have any ordinance that says uh, residential treatment facilities are restricted to B1 or B. They're actually allowed in a residential area, and that's why we put the moratorium on is because that they fall in the same category as a nursing home. **[25:04] Isaac Naatz:** Does the cities have any guidelines on this or has it not really been an issue that's been raised? **[25:04] Zach (City Staff):** That'd be a good question, but I think it's more of a local thing. **[25:04] Brian Douglas:** What—what do you guys feel is the proper places for these types of facilities? Uh, what... the last time we were debating this issue, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but uh, the general feeling of the public was those—those types of facilities are needed, they're just... nobody's really sure whether they belong in a residential area. And I—I tend to agree with that as far as the... oh my god, with the safe—the safety factor. I don't know if it's a safety factor, but the uh, you know, sometimes uh, there's a little security issue here and there, and we certainly don't want that in a residential area. And that was the debate on—on the last facility, and they assured us that they would do some things if we had any issues. And—and there we are having issues. And um, I think we need to review what we talked about with them and see if they're gonna... well, you know, they were security... I believe they had to come to us for conditional use, and that conditional uses are based on zoning and uh, they met all the criteria, right? You remember all that? And one of the—some of the things that we probably would have had them do was fence it, but they didn't have to, right? And uh, so I don't—I don't know. You know, like I said before, it is kind of a local thing. We need to talk about what we want before we... and locally I think, you know, it's something that's probably needed in a lot of communities. Yeah. Um, and it's certainly a better use of maybe some of our law enforcement time that they just go here instead of drive for however far they'd have to drive someone to. **[27:25] Diane Johnson:** So I think that our law enforcement appreciates that it exists, but they may not if there are other issues. And that was something that we talked about initially too. It was a big deal, and they assured us that they would make sure that they had secure facilities. And I... that's interesting. Um, we're kind of concerned about the old nursing home then, whereas what's going to happen with that because that's a target? I mean, that would obviously be a target for this kind of facility. If I was you know, in these things, these residential treatment facilities are for-profit. Let's put it—be realistic, you know. They're not uh, they're just for the—for the good of everyone everything, there's—there's profit involved in it and that's where they exist. And—and that's fine, but—but I can see that the old nursing home up here, which I understand is condemned at this point... is it for a nursing home? **[28:11] Ryan Jeppesen:** Yes, for a nursing home I believe. Unless the facility gets a lot of work to bring it back. **[28:11] Brian Douglas:** And that can be done. Don't anybody kid you that there's a couple of wings that are still in good shape. The one wing kind of was not so good. **[28:11] Diane Johnson:** Well, it may be getting worse daily. I see broken windows and obviously there's people getting in there um, as I drive by. And not to mention all the blue tarps and—and who knows how much... uh, the big—the big thing about that place is how much um, it's been damaged by lack of maintenance. I mean, is it full of mold? You know, what—what's underneath the surface here that we don't see? Yeah. And that's one of the things that would prevent anybody from, you know, making it into something else. I—I just wonder what—what's gonna... because if you put a treatment facility in there and not a nursing home in there, and I'm sure that's how it's being targeted... I think it's a location. It's a location thing. My biggest thing is location and the security. Yep. It's a residential treatment facility, and I agree that's—I think that's what we got to look at. **[29:45] Diane Johnson:** As far as a moratorium, I think we should continue the moratorium. **[29:45] Brian Douglas:** I don't think we're talking about that because we've got a year, yeah, till May. Yeah, we've got it. And what Zach is asking us um, is what we're going to ask him to do before we end up next April going, "Oh dear, we didn't do anything." Yeah. And what I'm hearing, and I think I agree with, is I think we definitely need to look at the zoning. Um, and there are different kinds of residential treatment facilities. If you get something like Hazeldon, you would welcome them into our community anywhere because they are highly reputable and do an incredible job. As you point out, with for-profits, things are not always, you know... it doesn't mean they're good, bad, or otherwise, but it's a different philosophy. So I think we definitely want to look at the zoning issue. I also think while you're at it, if there's some way if another residential treatment center wants to come in, whatever we decide is the proper zoning, to have a much better handle on what we enforcement areas that, you know, we can say, "You know, this is what you agree to. You're now in violation. This is what's going to happen." So that we have some teeth as opposed to pat him on the back and say "naughty naughty." Yeah. Does that make sense or is that something that can happen? **[31:18] Brian Douglas:** Okay, and that's what you want... asked us for, right? **[31:18] Zach (City Staff):** That's correct. **[31:18] Brian Douglas:** You got—you got enough guidelines to go by as far as start digging into it, man? See where we can... yeah. **[31:18] Zach (City Staff):** I think that should be enough, yeah. Right. **[32:04] Ryan Jeppesen:** Is there anything else we should mention, do you think? Or... so opinion in a residential area: yes, no? **[32:04] Brian Douglas:** I—I'm no. Well, if it's a nursing home again, that's not an issue, is it? Can we separate out nursing home and residential treatments? **[32:04] Zach (City Staff):** That's—that's what the moratorium is on: to discuss residential treatment facilities. **[32:04] Ryan Jeppesen:** And I—I would like to see those two separated out in terms of... right now they're all a lump sum, right? **[32:52] Brian Douglas:** That's what we're talking about. They're—definite better definition of residential treatment then, yeah. Because there's other things, you know, they could be you know, areas or people go after they have surgery just to get, yeah, the rehabs. The rehab center. But that's a different kind of rehab we're mostly concerned about. Yeah. I think Zach is getting the gist of what—what we're after. So we'll bring back a definition. **[32:52] Zach (City Staff):** Yeah, I think a better definition and have it a whole separate—separate thing. **[32:52] Brian Douglas:** Yeah, whatever ordinance or whatever we call that. Okay. Is that... people do—people do ask about and there's what's going on up there all the time. Everybody's asking what's going on up there. And I know it was hard on the residents when they got scattered all over the place. That was done by the... I know. Uh, I know they said that they would probably have a decision made by December. That was the one and only time I talked to the—the guy that's quasi-managing it. He's out of Crystal, Minnesota. They own the same—same one up there that's down here at Crystal up in Crystal, Minnesota. Crystal. Um, since that time, the phone went dead. And uh, okay. If it—if it's a default, is it on in default then at some point? They're up—taxes are paid up. The electricity's still on. If you... someone... the police have said that when they drive by at night, the lights turn on. Um, so they're trying their best to keep things afloat. I know I go by the back and it was obviously somebody broke window and went in, yeah, yeah. And we—we're gonna start losing materials out of there, whatever's in there. Yeah, that's unfortunate because I think the building structure is in pretty good shape. It's going to need some interior work, but uh, the roof is what's—the roof is really what's going to cost them. Yep. Yeah, it's always an interesting subject. The structure might look good, but is it a livable... right? Is it a salvageable building anymore? Well, water damage, right. And—and then you've got if you have to get rid of it, what's the cost of getting rid of it? Who does that? Well, unfortunately in seven years, guess who will own it? Seven years it has to sit. Yeah, it takes a long time. But they're up to—they've paid their taxes, so it's—it's not going into forfeiture somewhere. They're probably looking for... they said they were looking... they will have a decision on what they wanted to do. They actually talked about a—an assisted facility where the ratio for nurses is not as high. There's more money in it because they don't have to pay RNs or whatever the—the title is on the nurses, and they don't have to have the quality of care for an assisted facility. You know, there's the um, assisted in nursing home and then your basic... yeah, I don't know what you call the other ones where they're just living there, but there's three types of facilities. And it—the reason they cost so much is the more care that they have to have for as you go, so you have to have a nurse there. Yeah, and then—and it's my understanding is what this fella told me is that you don't have to have a nurse there, you just have to have staff at an assisted facility. Hmm. Don't know if that's correct. **[35:59] Ryan Jeppesen:** I don't either. **[35:59] Brian Douglas:** Okay, so they were looking at that or just getting out from underneath it and selling it. I don't think they have any intention of letting it go to the dumps. **[35:59] Ryan Jeppesen:** Let's hope not. **[35:59] Brian Douglas:** Are we going to have to re—at some point maybe require them to have some security on site? Um, are we going to charge them more for our security from the city police? **[35:59] Ryan Jeppesen:** That's—that's unfortunately we can't do that. **[36:45] Brian Douglas:** But we have uh—uh, the police have tried to get in contact with them uh, to clean up the nuisance that's hanging off the building. A nuisance, yeah. So yeah, we tried to—we tried to get hold of them in a—a friendly way, but they... like I said, they went silent on us. And—and now we're... I turned it over the Chief for a crisis. Well, unfortunately let's not hope for that, right? Well, no, but yeah, that seems to be one of the ways that things... yeah. The other way is to just hope for the best, and I don't... well, let's find out maybe by December what their plans are. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm just... I know that to have a nursing home in town is a good thing, and people... it was great, you know. I mean, when you could just drive that far and see a loved one that's in a nursing home. But obviously, it turned into something else over the years, and that's sad. It's really sad. Okay, anything else that's come before the...? Nope. Uh, I was just going to add one thing. Uh, Jon [Radermacher], has there been any interest in adding to our panel? **[37:31] Jon Radermacher:** Nothing. **[37:31] Brian Douglas:** We've been out on social media, on our website. Word of mouth is always great. Well, um, I'm gonna put that out there now that anybody willing to join us up here on the Planning Commission, uh, feel free to contact City Hall. We've got two openings. We've got two openings. We'd love to have you join us. It's a lot of fun. With that, I'll take a motion to adjourn. **[38:18] Diane Johnson:** I was going to say I think we need to say and they'll be able to sit down there so they don't have to sit with us over here. **[38:18] Brian Douglas:** That's right, yeah. Troublemakers on this, yeah. **[38:18] Isaac Naatz:** Move to adjourn. **[38:18] Diane Johnson:** Second. **[38:18] Brian Douglas:** Motioned by Naatz, second by Johnson to adjourn this meeting. All in favor? **[38:18] Council/Commission:** Aye. **[38:18] Brian Douglas:** Opposed? Motion carries.