This transcript features **Mayor Matt Montgomery** presiding over the meeting, with reports from City Staff including **Bill Angerman** (Engineer), **Jeff McCormick** (Police Chief), **Jed Petersen** (Public Works), and **Sara Peer** (City Clerk). Note: The transcript refers to the City Administrator as "Neil" (likely referring to a previous administrator or consultant), but per your list, this role is held by **Jon Radermacher**. The transcript also mentions Council Members "Guesmi," "Londell," and "Derek," who may be members not included in the initial list provided but are active in the dialogue. [0:28] **[Silence/Background Noise]** [0:58] **[Silence/Background Noise]** [1:28] **[Silence/Background Noise]** [1:42] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Not one of my better... doesn't say much anyway. Call to order the City of Cannon Falls City Council meeting for Tuesday, October 17th, 2023. If I could get a roll call please? [1:42] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Guesmi? Here. Grot? Here. Jeppesen? Here. Johnson? Here. Kronenberger? Here. Lundell? Here. Montgomery? Here. [1:42] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [2:28] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: If I could get an approval of our amended agenda that has been handed out. [2:28] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: So moved. [2:28] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion by Jeppesen. Do I have a second? [2:28] **Council Member Guesmi**: Second. [2:28] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. That leads us to public input. Public input is intended to afford the public an opportunity to address concerns to the city council. The public input will be no longer than 30 minutes in total length and each speaker will have no more than 3 minutes to speak. Speakers may address topics relevant to the governance of the city. Speakers must sign up in advance and must provide their name, address, and the topic they intend to address. Comments must be on topic, respectful, pertinent to City business and adhere to the applicable data privacy rules. Any speaker that violates these rules will be asked to sit down and if the speaker refuses to comply they may be removed from the meeting. Speakers shall not address topics that are the subject of a public hearing. All such comments shall be made at the public hearing. The city council will not generally act on issues raised by the public input but may choose to schedule consideration of the item on a future agenda. Mr. O'Gorman? [3:59] **Mr. O'Gorman**: Good evening. I don't know if that's working, is it? Done. Thank you. Um, quite some time ago I put in a data request about Project Tulip. To my knowledge, it hasn't been discussed at any public meeting and I don't know that you guys have gotten any information, but when I made that request this is what I got. Well, after reading it I could tell it was less than complete, so I challenged the data and then this is what I got. So I got all this data and I'm wondering what you folks have—and to my knowledge, it's very little or none, probably none. And it doesn't make sense to me. I don't know if you're aware that somebody made some kind of a decision to like double your industrial park? That's double the size of it. Double the water use in town. That means of all the water you use, that much is going to be used again on this particular project, which I assume would double your wastewater. Don't you think you folks should know something about what's going on around here? Now I brought it up and I've intentionally waited to see if somebody would come forth and maybe ask the administrator to share the information with you. I don't know why he hasn't and I don't for the life of me know why nobody's made that request. And if you would like, I will share this information with you at no charge. Thank you for your time. [5:31] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Moving on to the consent agenda. Consent agenda items may be adopted under one motion as presented or may be removed for discussion and resolution as Council business. Before we get into that, item E has already been pulled down; that is going to be item A in Council business. So we'll go through item A: just and correct claims for the accounting period that ended on October 12th, 2023. Item B: meeting minutes for October 3rd, 2023 city council meeting. Item C: Resolution 2707 accepting a monetary donation of $8,200 from the Cannon Falls Fire Department Relief Association to the Fire Department. Item D: Resolution 2708 designating polling places for the city of Cannon Falls. Skip down to item E... approve voter voting operations technology and election municipality agreement with Goodhue County. Item F: approve Timber Ridge early model home permit agreement. Item G: Resolution 2709 accepting a monetary donation of $615 from Melanie Carlson to the Parks Department. Item H: approve trade and purchase of John Deere 325G compact track loader. Item I: approve hire of unscheduled part-time employee J. Crouch to the Ambulance Department. Item J: approve disposal of items from the Ambulance Department. Item K: approve the LLS Union contract for the police officers. Item L: approve hire of full-time paramedic A. Hunt. Is there anything the council would like to pull down? [7:04] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Hearing none, I would take a motion to approve. [7:04] **Council Member Lundell**: So moved. [7:04] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Mr. Lundell. Second? [7:04] **Council Member Grot**: Second. [7:04] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Consent agenda passes. Bringing us to Council business. Item A tonight was item E that we skipped over: the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 398, an ordinance of the city of Cannon Falls, Minnesota, authorizing the sale of property. And you guys should have a print out if Jon [Neil] wants to walk us through it. [7:51] **Jon Radermacher**: Yeah, this is the purchase agreement for the old Sandstone Ridge, now Timber Ridge development. Back in September, we approved the purchase agreement. At that time, the first addition of the Timber Ridge project was 21 lots. They have now reduced that back on their final plat to 15. And there's a timeline that has to get done in the purchase agreement, and so we want that to match. In the purchase agreement it's got 21, we want it to match the first addition to 15. That's in sections 27 through 29. And then since the old Sandstone area has to be replatted, we want some assurances that Sandstone Road—if the development never comes to fruition or something is stalled and delayed—that we have an opportunity to get Cedar Hills out to 25. So if the construction of the street is not completed from Bluff Drive to Dora on the backside of his preliminary plat, that the owner will convey a public street right of way on the South 66 feet of outlot B. And then we have sewer and water that run down the old Sandstone Road and they don't have a utility easement drafted on the outlot yet, so we would like to have that assurance too, that a utility easement running down that street on outlot B is included. So if I could get a motion to amend that so it matches the first addition and that we have some assurances that if the development doesn't come to fruition, we have some way to get Cedar Hills back out to 25. [10:10] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Questions or discussion from the council? [10:10] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Is there a reason we are reducing it from 21 to 15? [10:10] **Jon Radermacher**: It matches the first edition. The first edition was 21 lots, but when they did the final plat it went back to 15. So the second edition hasn't even been started yet. [10:10] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: This still includes those little townhouses? [10:10] **Jon Radermacher**: Yep, that's there. There's seven there and then the cul-de-sac is eight. Those are the 15 lots. [10:57] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Any other questions or discussion from the council? If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the amended purchase agreement. And then we'll have Shelley put it into the purchase agreement. [10:57] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: So moved. [10:57] **Council Member Steve Nordin**: Second. [10:57] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Diane, second from Steve. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. Brings us to Item B, the Oakoe Inc. proposal. Tim, this is yours. [10:57] **Ambulance Director Tim**: Thank you, Mayor, Council. The Ambulance Service over the years has been pretty successful maintaining a profit margin so we can continue on operations, paying our staff, and building funds to purchase capital. As the inflation continues to increase and the cost of everything is going up, that margin is getting smaller and smaller. Before we hit a critical point—there's stuff outlined in the memo about work comp and different insurances that we can't control and the cost of reimbursements continue to drop a little bit—before we get to a point where we are struggling and trying to figure out what to do, we'd like to hire Oakoe Incorporated to come in, do an analysis of what we're doing, gather some data, and see if our billing is where it needs to be. We feel like it is, but it's good to have another set of eyes. Through that, we'll build what we see as the current needs and the future needs of the ambulance service. Then we'd look into opportunities that we could pursue and really just to start having conversations not only with the city of Cannon Falls, but the Cannon Falls Ambulance Service covers multiple townships—it also covers the city of Hampton and New Trier—and just trying to start working with those partners, educating them about the needs of what it costs for an ambulance service and maybe at some point down the road we look at partnering with them and looking for funding opportunities. [12:31] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Questions or discussion from the council for Tim? Roughly what do we think this is going to cost and then when would the door be open for contractual talks with the local townships? [12:31] **Ambulance Director Tim**: He has a pretty aggressive timeline; he thinks we could probably get this started after the first year, maybe start having some contract negotiations or just actually educating our townships what the cost is going to be. He thinks it's going to be about $8,500, depending on how many more meetings we'll want. He's very well-versed with working with ambulance services; he's been successful getting other townships to agree on different funding strategies. [14:11] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Do townships have organizations or groupings similar to what they do with the fire department when it comes to emergency medical service? [14:11] **Ambulance Director Tim**: It is scattered throughout the state. The closest one, though, that has a system like we think we might end up with would be Zumbrota. [14:11] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: How beneficial do you think something like this would be for our community? [14:11] **Ambulance Director Tim**: Tremendous. Also, I think it gives us opportunities to not be especially like Sue and I... we have very limited full-time staffing and part of that's because of the funds. We really rely heavily on the burdens of our volunteers to pick up that slack. There are days where Sue or myself or other full-time staff are putting in long hours just to make sure we have an ambulance in service. So that would help give us some leverage to be able to fund some more paid positions. [14:57] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Any other questions or discussion from the council? Your thoughts on the Oakoe Inc. proposal? [14:57] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: I think it makes sense, but is this in the current budget or where would this money come from? [14:57] **Ambulance Director Tim**: It's coming from the ambulance... from the EMS budget. [14:57] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: In the 2024 budget? [14:57] **Ambulance Director Tim**: Well, I suppose part of it will be '23 and part of it will be '24. [15:38] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: We met with these guys on Zoom, or this guy on Zoom—Matt and Derek and I on the Finance Committee—and it was very informative. [15:38] **Council Member Lisa Zimmerman**: I was going to say, I think what's so sad is that Medicare and Medicaid have not caught up with the actual cost of the ambulance, and we certainly appreciate having you all in our town. [15:38] **Ambulance Director Tim**: Yeah, and they are in a process of having all ambulance services report data. We did that, and that was many hours of reporting. The hope is within the next couple years they'll realize how much they're underfunding us and that they'll increase reimbursement. But we'll see what happens. [16:24] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Well, if no further questions or discussion, I would entertain a motion to approve the Oakoe Inc. proposal. [16:24] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: So moved. [16:24] **Council Member Lisa Zimmerman**: I'll second. [16:24] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Mr. Jeppesen, second from Lisa. All those in favor? [16:24] **Council Member Steve Nordin**: Did you have something else you'd like to say? Well, we really haven't nailed down a bid from him, right? [16:24] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: It's on the back, I think it's the last page. Hours of service and cost is included. [16:24] **Council Member Steve Nordin**: I completely missed that. [16:24] **Ambulance Director Tim**: It's on page three of three of his proposal. Sorry, I didn't go down far enough. [16:24] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Is there any other questions or discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That carries. Moving us to Item C: Resolution 2710 receiving preliminary report and calling for public hearing on 72nd Avenue Way improvements. Mr. Angerman. [17:11] **City Engineer Bill Angerman**: Thank you, Mayor. Mayor and Council, in your packet is a feasibility report for finishing the construction of 72nd Avenue Way. Also is the resolution which sets in process tonight—depending upon your approval—the public hearing and the process we must follow. What we want to take a little bit of time with is this report. It was reviewed by the Finance Committee. Now typically this would not go to the Finance Committee; this would go to the Public Works Committee. And that's probably the main part of our discussion tonight. What this report does is it lays out the normal things: existing conditions, proposed conditions, permits, construction. That's all fairly standard. The standard part is we have a gravel road which is not up to City standard. That City standard is we would pave it and install curb and gutter. Utilities are already installed—sewer and water—but we would add some storm sewer. That's all pretty routine. The non-routine part is that we have six lots on the east side, we have three on the west side, and we have large lots, which means we end up with large assessment amounts. Your policy is that 100% of improvements are assessed. That means if you have a gravel road... I think Jon and I call it "you pay for it the first time." So when you build a lot, you pay for the sewer, water, storm sewer, the road, the curb and gutter, and you pay for 100%. It's built into your lot cost. When we have projects that are partially built, 100% results in large dollar amounts. That's what we wanted to go back to the Finance Committee and talk through. Some of them are as high as nearly $60,000; the lower-end ones were around $20,000. Those are large amounts. Even if we do what we normally do—offer citizens to pay that back over 10 years, or you set that term for 15 years, you set the interest rate—there are some things. But we really focused on: do we want to look at our policy? Do we want to modify the policy? Our conclusion that night was really that tonight we're going to set this process in motion. If we do approve this resolution, we will come back November 21st and have a public hearing. At that point, the people that live on 72nd Avenue Way will be aware of the assessments. Then they get to give their input to the city council to proceed or not. That's what we historically call the "thumbs up or thumbs down." Do we want to move ahead with design and prepare ourselves to bid this project in the spring? If we set that process in motion, that requires a supermajority of the city council. Then we can revisit if we want to our assessment policy. We have until we bid the project in the spring—and ultimately until the final assessment hearing in April—to modify it or leave it be. What we felt was prudent was to set this ball in motion and receive the public input. [21:46] **Council Member Steve Nordin**: Our biggest issue, and Derek and I agree, is that it's very expensive. It's going to be very expensive. We just got to figure out a way to get this worked out so it's not painful, or not as painful as it appears to be. I think we've got a little more discussion to go through. We did discuss some options, just tossing them around, but never really came to any hard way of doing it. [21:46] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I think our discussion... we're extremely sympathetic to our citizens. I feel bad that the situation was not fixed when they were annexed into the city and that road has existed as a gravel road within our city limits. That problem should have been taken care of so that it doesn't fall years down the road and become more expensive. However, I feel like the rules have to be followed, but how do we try to be as creative to ease the burden? Whether it be longer terms on the loan, or lower interest rates. Because we've got to remember too, this is a two-way street. Yes, it's a 100% assessment on a new construction; hopefully property values will go up with the paved road and the drain curb and gutter. And also that it's leading to Hardwood Estates; we would hope that people's property values will increase. However, hearing that doesn't necessarily make it seem any more palatable to get a $20,000 to $60,000 bill. [23:21] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I understand that we want to follow rules, but when the city hasn't followed rules... we should never have allowed the six houses to be built without the road being paved. Those permits should not have been given. We don't allow developers to come in and do things without having the road in place. It was city property at that time, and to go way back, say the three original homes never asked to be part of the city, they just got to be. So I just want to say to make things right... especially as we can say they'll have increased property value, but if you lose your house to foreclosure because you can't pay the property tax, you're going to take a huge loss. I know we keep saying we're going to kick the bucket down the road on terms of how we're going to finance that, but there's a part of me that says if we do any more than they pay 20% like a normal type thing, I think we're being incredibly unfair to people who basically got taken for a ride because we didn't follow our own ordinances at the time we gave them the permit to build the house. [23:21] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: How long have those houses been there? [24:56] **City Engineer Bill Angerman**: The earliest I think, first one was '17. And everything else has been '19, '20, '21. I mean, it's recent. [24:56] **Council Member Steve Nordin**: The ordinance was there. I think the development was built in '16. So then they put up the house right away. The first one was kind of like a model house. But the rest of them... there was no excuse for us not saying, "Before we start building, you need to have that road done." And we didn't. And so I want to say, that's our part of the problem too, in all fairness. And I don't think the people who now own those especially the six homes should bear this kind of a burden. [25:41] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I agree with you. The counterpoint to that is, but also their lots and houses were cheaper to build because they weren't assessed a finished road. Those lots and houses were built at a lower cost than one that would be somewhere like any of the new developments; they pay for it in the cost of the lot. That's all baked into the cost, whereas with these it was not. [25:41] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: If I was coming in to look at buying property and a house, that would have affected my decision whether or not to buy. If you look at people and they say, "Wow, I can do this, I'm not going to have a lot of money extra here, but I can do this," and then two years later it's like, "Oh by the way you owe a whole lot more"—that's not planning. That's going to knock people for a loop. If you know upfront what the cost is, you can decide whether or not you can afford it. If you don't know, and then two or three years later all of a sudden you get hit with a biggie, you didn't have any way to foresee that. I don't remember anybody saying anything about "you're going to have to eventually pay for the road." [27:13] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: I did speak with one of them today and they said they were never told anything about potential assessments down the road. And they agreed that these numbers... they just said there's no way we could ever pay these amounts. I do agree it needs to be done, but what do we... how do we do that? You know, at the Finance Committee I maybe got a little too worked up about these costs because I just try to think, you know, if that was me and all of a sudden I get a letter from the city saying, "Hey you got to pay $20, $40, $60,000," I'd be like "what the hell?" [27:13] **Council Member Steve Nordin**: One thing we've got to watch also, and Matt you alluded to it, is that all the other lots in town... like when people start buying lots at Hardwood Estates, their purchase price is going to include the cost that rolls out in front of their streets. It's going to be in one number instead of paying for this part now and this part later, which maybe wasn't communicated well enough to the purchasers. Plus the people that have been there for quite a few number of years that have been living there that way forever. We got to try to sell it to every one of them. [28:43] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: There's a part of me that feels in all fairness—because we can't go back and undo things that happened 40 years ago or even 5 years ago—I would be more comfortable saying let's do it like we would for a mill and overlay and say 20% on the homeowners and 80% the city covers as kind of our admission that we weren't very clear when this all happened. [29:29] **City Engineer Bill Angerman**: Well, I think tonight you don't have to decide anything; you just have to set the public hearing. But I think it helps Jon and I hearing your input as we are thinking about options. Our job is to present pros and cons. The con to charging less than 100% is: pick a number, say 20%, and now we've made that property more valuable, and then someone sells it right away and makes a bigger profit because the city did the project. But then the flip side to that is well what happens if they can't afford all the things that you guys have talked about? Hence the reason why we went to the Finance Committee. We're going to come up with some choices. Most likely we're going to need to amend the policy. [31:04] **Council Member Steve Nordin**: Well, I think today we're not going to make a decision on the policy or how to pay for it, but I do think even though I think these numbers are way too high, we do need to move this process forward so we can discuss what we're going to do. Right? [31:04] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Yeah, and I think we had talked about that too; the cost of the project... if we kick the can down the road, it has the potential of increasing as well. What might already feel like some sticker shock would only increase. I think it is the better move for the project to get done rather than to change the rule from mistakes made in the past. But like they said, we are not going through all the details tonight. Tonight is the decision to push it forward. [32:37] **Jon Radermacher**: If I could just add one thing... one of the questions the Finance Committee asked is what are the statute rules as far as changing the amount? When you notice a hearing, you give out an amount, and you can change it—you can raise it, you can lower it. There is no limitation. Between now and April, you can lower that, and that is allowed by statute. You would just have to amend your policy. So at the hearing on the 21st, you are not committing to a dollar amount; what you're committing to is you're moving forward with the project. [33:22] **Council Member (Female)**: Can I just make sure that I understand this correctly? The three houses on the west were annexed into the city already built? And at that time, we didn't make them come up to code, the road I mean? [33:22] **Jon Radermacher**: We believe so, yeah. [34:08] **City Engineer Bill Angerman**: They did put sewer and water down that road, so the three homes on the west side, they did hook up. Everybody's hooked up to sewer and water. [34:08] **Council Member Steve Nordin**: They did, and then the developer put in the sewer and water for the east side. Fast forward, a developer bought and sold the additional homes, and these homes were given permits and it was never discussed that this road would need to be paved. I don't know what they talked about... I can't answer because I don't know what they talked about when the developer came to the council and said "I want to put up houses." It started prior to Bill and I getting onboard here. You would have thought that would have been one whole project: put the sewer and water in, streets and curb go on top, and you're all done. [35:40] **Council Member Steve Nordin**: It was probably never an intention to put the road in because it never got done. They must have agreed to that back in '15 or '16. I don't know why they annexed that in; it probably was for when the developer wanted to develop that 40 acres back then. [35:40] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: Some of the septics were failing so they requested it. [36:28] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: So we're saying that as of tonight we just start the process in terms of declaring the public hearing so that property owners can be officially notified... and we're not actually deciding on a number. We still as a city council have the right to say we can change that formula based on who pays how much. [36:28] **Jon Radermacher**: That is correct. [37:13] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Any other questions? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve Resolution 2710. [37:13] **Council Member Guesmi**: I'll make that a motion. [37:13] **Council Member Grot**: I'll second. [37:13] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. That moves us to reports. Let's start with the Chamber of Commerce, Maggie. [37:48] **Maggie (Chamber of Commerce)**: Good evening, Mayor and Council. I just wanted to start by thanking all of the businesses that participated in the Scarecrows in the Street this fall. We had a fantastic turnout; we had 21 different businesses participate. Cannon Auto Repair took home the prize. Thank you just a quick thank you to our Public Works department for all the hard work you guys do with the flowers every year. I also wanted to point out the new Park and trail signs downtown; they look fantastic. Just a couple upcoming events here this weekend: the Cannon Valley Senior Center is putting on a concert with the White Sidewalls. This is a fundraiser; tickets can be found online or at the Senior Center. It's at the high school auditorium. November 4th, there are three different craft fairs going on: the Grand O2, the Cannon Falls Library, and the Vasa Lutheran Center. Halloween is coming up; there are a ton of events. Create Sunshine is putting on a movie night this Friday. Next Friday is the Chamber Trick-or-Treat Trot from 3:00 to 5:00 PM downtown. Deck The Falls date is November 25th. The day will start with pancakes, then Santa visits, the parade, and the fireworks. Parade forms are not officially out yet but will be soon. One last thing: the Chamber is hosting a Sick and Safe Leave seminar regarding the new legislation here at City Chambers on November 1st. This is a free event. That is all. [40:52] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Thank you, Maggie. The EDA met on October 5th. Laura is not here tonight. I believe the EDA was mostly Hardwood Estates updates. Parkboard also met on October 5th. Jed, is there anything from parkboard you'd like to share? [40:52] **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: We just talked about the donation for another park bench up on Upper Hannah's Bend. [41:37] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Public Works Commission met the same day, October 5th. [41:37] **Council Member Steve Nordin**: That was on the consent agenda, trading in that machine, the John Deere tractor. [41:37] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right. Finance Committee? We met, mostly talking about Resolution 2710 for the paving on 72nd Avenue Way. Library Board, October 9th? I wasn't able to make that one. Planning Commission? Diane? [42:24] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Planning Commission... one of the things was we discussed the ongoing moratorium issues on the former nursing home. And then discussion about the nursing home that was actually quite lively. [42:24] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: We'll go around the horn with department heads. Jed, anything for Public Works? [42:24] **Public Works Director Jed Petersen**: Just a couple things. I've had a couple dirty water complaints. We are still flushing hydrants; we'll probably finish up next week. Also, we will be hauling biosolids at the end of the month, so we'll have tanker trucks going from the waste plant out to the field. On Cannon River Avenue, just beware that we're going to have some big trucks going through town. [43:12] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Thank you. Bill? [43:12] **City Engineer Bill Angerman**: I thought Jed may hit on the lift station and the pipe under the river. The project is nearing completion. It won't be operational until next year when we actually have some pipes connected to it, but everything proceeded... we had some hiccups there getting under the river, but all's well that ends well. [43:12] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Is the bridge going to come down? [43:12] **City Engineer Bill Angerman**: The old bridge is coming down, yep. That pier in the middle we're leaving for now because it's fairly expensive to remove and hopefully we can get some grant dollars in the future to take that out. [43:59] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Thank you. Tim, anything you'd like to share? [43:59] **Ambulance Director Tim**: Fall is our busy time; we start kicking off training. Our staff will be getting geared up to get all the renewals done. I just really have great compliments for my staff, especially with the big influx of new people coming aboard. I'm very thankful for your support in getting those people on-boarded. [44:47] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Thanks, Tim. Chief, anything you'd like to add? [44:47] **Police Chief Jeff McCormick**: A couple of things. First, Maggie talked about the Trick-or-Treat Trot on October 27th from 3:00 to 5:00. We ask that people be patient; kids enjoy that time and we want to make sure they can cross safely. Second thing: the nursing home moratorium. Obviously, since the nursing home closed in March, it's been a location we've been keeping an extra eye on. We've had some vandalism to the building and we have not had any response back from ownership. I've been having some conversations with the City Attorney and she is requesting that the Council make a motion to hold a hearing at our next council meeting to discuss that property, and to direct the City Attorney to send written notice of the hearing to the owner. It's not a public hearing, just a hearing for the Council to hear information so you could make a decision to declare that property a nuisance property so the city can move forward with abatement. [46:21] **Council Member (Female)**: Does that have to be a separate work session? [46:21] **Police Chief Jeff McCormick**: It would need to be an action item within the next meeting. Shelley would come for that meeting. It gets that ball rolling. So I'd be looking for a motion from Council to direct a hearing at the first meeting in November and to direct the City Attorney to notice the owners. [47:06] **Council Member Derek**: I'll make that motion. [47:06] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: Second. [47:06] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Derek, second from Diane. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That'll be included in the agenda for November 7th. Jeff, do you know if they're still running heat in there? [47:52] **Police Chief Jeff McCormick**: The last time that we were up there to do a check, it was incredibly hot, so I'm going to assume they do. That's the other reason why she's recommended that we continue to move forward with this. [48:38] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I did tell Public Works to go find the shut-off for the water, just in case something goes wrong. Are the owners from out of state? [48:38] **Police Chief Jeff McCormick**: It's hard to truly determine. It operates under an LLC that operates several operations out of the same address. Shelley was working on establishing who actually owns it. [48:38] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Thank you. Sarah? [48:38] **City Clerk Sara Peer**: All right. [48:38] **Jon Radermacher**: A couple items. The ordinance for individual well and septic moved to a hearing on the 7th of November. Second thing is... we've been testing for PFAS and we've come in a little high. It's going to get interesting to see how this turns out. Everybody understands what it's called, the "forever chemical." Select cities in the state were mandated to be testing and we ran two tests now and they came in high. We've got to run two more in the first and third quarters of '24. We're meeting with the PCA next week and we'll be updating you. [50:11] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Is that coming from all of our wells? [50:11] **Jon Radermacher**: Just to clarify, this is just in the Wastewater. We're assuming there's potentially an industry that's dumping something, that's why it's high. As far as we know, it is not in the drinking water. [50:11] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right. Council? Laura? [50:11] **Council Member Laura Kronenberger**: I'm good. [50:58] **Council Member Lisa Zimmerman**: Nothing. [50:58] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: Cool. Parking lot looks good. [50:58] **Council Member Derek**: I had the idea of us starting next year combining the Public Works and Parks committees since Parks is kind of already under Public Works and it's just one less meeting. My thought would be just Public Works just takes over the parks things. I've talked with Matt about it a little bit. [50:58] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: I think we could probably put that on a future agenda as an item. [51:46] **Council Member Diane Johnson**: I would imagine that's an ordinance because they're all under ordinances; we would have to somehow cancel out one or two and then create a new one. [51:46] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: All right. Football season tomorrow night, MEA weekend. Last home game here at John Burch Park before the playoffs. Go Bombers! Anything else? I would accept a motion to adjourn. [51:46] **Council Member Ryan Jeppesen**: So moved. [51:46] **Council Member Derek**: Second. [51:46] **Mayor Matt Montgomery**: Motion from Ryan, second from Derek. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. We're adjourned. Thank you everybody.