“There were a couple of outstanding issues that evolved from the planning commission public hearing that was a very meaningful exchange by all parties respectful of everyone's interests uh including mine which in initially began in July will go very quickly and uh in July uh as a former schoolboard member I had heard that there's a religious group uh considering the purchase of the building so I stopped there was no one at the building at the time so So, I reached out to the fire chief uh regarding occupancy because as a schoolboard member, I I learned that the lower level had exiting issues and it couldn't accommodate public occupancy. Uh and I was assuming that there might be an interest in using that space for public use, public occupancy, and that prompted me to seek that information. I don't know if that's been resolved. Uh, I know there's a they're seeking occupancy of 143 persons and that would necessitate the use of the lower level and so I'm sure that's a building official issue under the codes uh that needs some consideration. Also at the meeting there was discussion and an inquiry not by myself regarding uh public prayer in the outdoors and um that was addressed uh very appropriately. But is there a more definitive need for a defined process that would require and necessitate like you have in the agenda this evening for another local entity that's seeking an outdoor uh use of the public expression and maybe if someone could clarify that but neither of these items are completely u defined well enough in the findings of fact which I think is important.”

“My first concern is that this change in use will substantially increase traffic in the parking lot at times both before and after sunset. And this would result in vehicles with headlights lighting up windows [snorts] in the apartments. And because some of the gatherings are at uh different hours, uh I'm concerned about residents sleep being disturbed by the lights. Uh the application indicated the facility will host five daily prayers, some of which are outside of daytime hours. Uh the city's reviews seem to focus on the Friday gatherings. Um but also there are everyday gatherings and so my concern is mainly will our residents sleep be disturbed by the gatherings ... At the very [clears throat] minimum, any conditional use permit issued should expressly include the condition there be no broadcasts or other sound amplification outside of the building or at the nearby apartments.”

“I think that a lot of our neighbors, they work among us, they go to school with our kids. We have an opportunity to go to houses of worship that are close to us. I don't know why Lakeville, we should be open to allowing them that as well. And I was also brought to my attention that to circle back to what our two people ahead of me had said about the call to prayer. I guess there's already been an email sent that that won't be public outside of the building. So, that was someone's concern about the apartment complex. It's already been brought forward. I guess there are seven other mass mosques in the Twin Cities that do not do that and that is their intention. So, I just am pro for my neighbors to have a safe local place to worship just like so many of us have in the community.”

“The county puts out the notices for the foreclosure sales and this particular property fell under the um I'll get the right terminology so I don't um they have two different groups of properties that they are selling and I get the right one. Sorry. too many papers. So they listed the um there's properties that they sell depending on the time when it forfeited, they fall into two different categories. So, this one fell into the category where the um county lists an estimated market value, but in their notice, they say the assessment there could be assessments that were cancelled with this forfeite and that the property owners that are looking to buy a forfeited sale or forfeited property need to make sure they follow their due diligence and see about any canceled assessments. And so that this property is in that group.”

“We purchased this property parcel in good faith at the county um tax forfeure in February 2025. At the time of sale, there was no disclosure of any outstanding special assessments. The deed and official sale listing confirmed there was no delinquent taxes or assessments on the property. We believe that this assessment is legally and procedurally flawed for several reasons. Under Minnesota statute 429 um 061 requires that assessments be certified and included in the tax role. This charge um was not certified or included in any tax statement from 2021 to 2025 and therefore cannot be enforced. Um additionally, if the assessment role had been properly certified, it would have appeared on the tax role, property tax statements, um forefeiter certification, sale sheets and deed sheets. um there was no indication um of that assessment. Additionally, under statute 282.005, the minimum bid for tax forfeited property must include all delinquent taxes, special assessments, penalties, interest, and costs assigned to the parcel. The statute also states all parcel offered at a public auction are sold to the highest bidder. ... The amount being assessed is nearly the full value of the land um which is in violation of the portionality requirement under statute 429.051 which states that an assessment must be in proportion to the benefit received meaning the assessment cannot exceed the property's increase in value. We purchased the land for $31,75. Um, a $49,2549 assessment is nearly the entire value of our parcel and far exceeds any land value increase.”

“This is definitely an unfortunate circumstance. I I however feel that we have a fiduciary responsibility here um on behalf of the taxpayers to recoup the money that was spent. Um I I would think that there would be laws in place that would require a little more transparency in that process, but I feel like that's something that needs to be worked out in a district court. So support the resolution in front of us.”