Go ahead and call the meeting to order. >> Start with a roll call. McKe here. Lantern >> here. >> Friedrich >> here. >> Veringamp >> here. >> Nicholls >> here. Please to stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> I aliance 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. On to agenda approval. We have a couple tweaks and additions here. Um staff, it looks like we added 6M. Is that correct? Consent. >> Believe that was added. >> Yes, 6M was added on Friday. Correct, Mr. Mayor. >> Um and then I'd like to add uh 4A uh just a brief at presentation with just a moment of silence. So, I'll explain in a minute on recent events. Um, and then the staff have anything else to add or modify? >> Uh, just wanted to uh erroneously number 10. We do not have a closed session scheduled. >> Uh, the item 13A has been updated at the dis uh and when it comes up, I'll explain what the update changes were uh to the schedule. Um, I believe that's it. Mr. Okay, perfect. And then the only other things I have is um we had a request to move open forum just a little bit later. So I would uh suggest we move open forum and I'm tracking this so hopefully we don't get lost in it. Um open forum to right after consent agenda instead of right before. So just flipping those two. Um and then uh taking item 6H on consent and moving that for brief discussion on to uh moving it to 8A unfinished business. Um so the applicant can speak on it. Other than that, does anyone else have changes? >> Motion to approve the changes noted. >> Second. All those in favor say I. >> I. All right, perfect. And if I uh forget one of the changes we just made, feel free to jump in. Um on to presentations. And yeah, like I mentioned, I just thought it would be appropriate if we had a brief moment of silence um for the events that happened. Was it last week now? Feels like >> Saturday. >> Yeah. Um where uh Representative Um, >> Hortman, Melissa Hortman was uh killed along with her husband and uh Senator Hoffman and his wife were shot and fortunately are are seemingly recovering. Okay. And um just would like a moment of silence for that. Thank you. And um we certainly wish their families and loved ones and colleagues and friends well wishes and and a speedy recovery to the the Hoffman. It's uh pretty horrific what happened. Um then we are on to consent agenda which consists of items six G through uh and then six or 6 A through 6G and 6 I through 6 M. Does anyone want to pull anything? >> I would like to pull D and E, please. >> D and E. Jeremy, anything else? Can I can I comment without pulling it or do I have to pull it to comment? >> Uh how big of a comment? >> Uh very short. >> Go for it. >> All right. Uh with respect to the police department cadet program, I just want to thank the chief. I think that that is a very creative solution for um uh the uh current challenges in hiring practices. So I I just wanted to give a give a thank you to the chief. >> Well said. Okay. So we will pull uh D and E. So that gives us uh I will entertain a motion to approve consent agenda items A B C F G I J K LM. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> D. Jeremy Okay. Uh, I wanted to suggest a couple of minor tweaks to the policy. Uh, my understanding is that we can allow a exemption to the need to get multiple bids up to $50,000. And I would like to give staff that kind of discretion where we don't require them to go out for bid when we know we have an excellent value or when time is short, but we allow them to when they feel that it would add value. So, I just like to change that from 10K to 50K. and I wanted to confer with staff what the mechanisms would be on the affirmative steps that were outlined. Um there are a lot of stories about how government is really slow to contract because of all of the steps that we need to go through. um how can we do this in such a way that we can work with small vendors or selected vendors when it's appropriate but not drive a lot of additional cost and time into our projects. Uh I I know there is an exemption that's allowed for economically economic feasibility around those kinds of vendor selections. How would staff anticipate determining whether a particular project can be sublotted and split between smaller vendors and when it wouldn't? >> So to speak to first why this policy is before you uh it's because uh for the first time we've received significant federal funding and it was found that we didn't have a policy and that put us in a problem when it came to the audit because we're required to have a policy. Uh and so that's why the policy came before you. That's why it wasn't included. uh because we haven't had that as an issue in the past when I brought forth the financial management policies last year. That's why it wasn't included because it wasn't within the scope of our regular responsibilities, but it was identified in this audit as a problem. uh in terms of the thresholds. So, unfortunately, in my past life, I lived in what's called the Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 13, which covers um all of your simplified acquisition procedures, which this falls under. And so, we don't have a lot of wiggle room when it comes to appropriated funds. Uh so while there are provisions in which we can change under state statute there's also for example uh the uh simplified acquisition threshold for federal is 250,000 but in Minnesota's statute it's 175,000 and so we're trying to balance our state requirements and the federal requirements within this one. So the short answer is on the $50,000 as much as we don't want to required to under the federal acquisition regulation. Uh I appreciate you trying to simplify it for staff. Uh and I also want to acknowledge that you've given us latitude with our financial management procedures. In this one, we don't have a lot of latitude. Similarly, uh for the um the part that you talk about who our vendors are, uh the code of federal regulations uh part 200 subsection 321, those six bullets that are there are straight from site section B. So it's required that we have to go with those. So it's CFR200.321B that we we have to do it otherwise we get in trouble. Uh the positive news is um most of the people that we're working with already are doing more federal contracts than we do. >> Okay. >> And so they're already doing that >> sort of an add additional cost. >> So there's no additional cost for us. >> Okay. Uh, and then on to the bid requirements, the state does, this is just good information, the state does require us, for your awareness, for purchases under $5,000 is preferred that we have two telephonic references. So, it might be transparent to you operationally, but some of this already happens because we have to do it. It's just not in front of you all the time. And it becomes evident when we go into audit and we have to demonstrate that we've done our due diligence instead of three verbal three written quotes. Uh the bids is where it becomes most problematic and the the sealed bids doesn't hit Minnesota till 175,000. And just to make sure I didn't miss anything, uh I will confirm with our attorney, did I say all of that correctly? >> Well stated. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. I'll make a motion to approve as drafted. Do >> I have a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay. And then E. Jeremy as well. >> Uh, this one is the request to go out for bid for a recycling contract. Uh, this is kind of a nice to have. Not sure if it's feasible, but we've talked in the past about how in some cities it can be more efficient to do contracting for both universal trash and recycling at the same time. Is it possible to just get pricing with that as an option as part of the recycling proposal? And we can determine when we get those in if it would make sense for Corporin to do I know a lot of folks complain about the ratcheting escalation of garbage prices and having to call and complain to get their price back to what it was three months ago. Uh it might be a nice way to improve quality of life at minimal cost, but I'm not sure if it's too late for us to consider that at this point. So, I I like another positive reason for us to look at this is the wear and tear on our roads with multiple vehicles going down those roads. And so, uh a a single refuge hauler would make a lot of sense for a community of our size. But for this particular RFP, the timeline would be off. So, my request would be give staff some time to go and do some analysis, go out and see what the market could sustain, and then us to bring that back to you as a proposal to consider for a single hauler potential. Would it be likely to be cheaper if you got one vendor to do both recycling and garbage >> at this point with initial cursory look because when we we got the note staff did do some just we're not sure. >> Okay. >> Uh but it also has some potential other triggers. So if we go to a single hauler right now, we don't have to deal with uh it's called section or part 13, chapter 13 related to organics. But if you go to a single for the recycle, we're we're able to use our single site drop site because we're a city of under 10,000 and we do have uh refuge haulers right now that cannot meet that requirement. And so if we have a single refuge hauler that can meet the requirement and does recycling for us, that could trigger uh organics, but I don't know that for certain. Staff has to do some analysis and understand what the second and third order effects of that proposal would be. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. Just real quick on that, too. I've I've been part of that trying to get it into one taller four cities and usually the uh the citizens are stating things like what happened to free trade and those kind of things and competitive prices those kind of things. So we did that over in Maple Grove for about three years and then it was challenged. So if if it is something we do, I'd support going down to one haul or two to save on all of our all of our roads and stuff, but uh I don't know if we can can we do something like that. >> So the reason refuge haulers wouldn't like it is because it does lock them into a predictable rate for a window of time >> and then when that window of time ends, you have to renegotiate the contract and we go up for RFP again. And so in terms of getting a reasonable the best rate that we could for the residents, it's more probable that with a single hauler, we can find a best rate as opposed to it's changing based upon what the market's doing all the time. >> The challenge of it is the second and third order effects. Uh you know what happens when you have a single hauler and they're not meeting your standards. I encountered that in Shaki >> uh in which they had to get rid of the single hauler and then try and find another hauler and in that case prices went up significantly >> just I'd love to be able to do it but we need be >> smart about it >> careful >> so staff has some work to do for analysis in order to check feasibility >> uh because right now I know for certain one of the vendors couldn't uh meet the scale of responsibility um currently within the community >> or at least that's what they said. >> And I do kind of on the opposite side of that, I appreciate staff taking the time to go through some of our neighbors and see what systems they do the open or the we organized. Um realizing that Rogers, Dayton, Madina, Maro, Wisetta all do the city selected um RFP I'd assume. Uh recycling collection is I think good to know. I have had some people reach out about why do we only allow one hauler for the recycling and um Madina actually has a pretty good write out on their website of why that is and what how it saves money on maintenance and the roads and wear and tear and all that stuff. Um, but I think it makes sense and hopefully we'll get some better pricing here with a competitive RFP here. So, >> anything else? >> Anyone want to make a motion? >> I'll move to approve. >> All right, have a second. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. I >> we are done with consent on to open forum which we moved to after consent. So J like to walk us through for any items not on today's agenda? >> Yes. So uh if anybody would like to speak on something not on the agenda, uh you give me a public comment card. Uh fill it out, give it to me, and then you have a fivem minute time limit. Please address the council. uh you're able to share what you want to uh as long as it's respectful and um and for something not on the agenda. I have uh one card today, Mr. Mayor. >> Uh and that is Mr. Ken Streer who has moved to the podium, please state your name and your address. >> And just to add quick, typically we don't respond or have a back and forth, but staff will take notes if there's things you need you'd like us to follow up on. My name is Kener 6900 Circle from Park Minnesota 5428. I tell you I'm happy to be here with you tonight. I don't know if you know I've been stuck in an elevator for >> so I'm really happy to be here. >> We had you on video. I'll tell you uh thank God I'm a patient guy and I didn't know I had claustrophobia until the first 45 minutes and then all of a sudden I started realizing listen I just want to readress some of the things we talked about at the last meeting and I want you to kind of reconsider with all the respect I asked you to reconsider some of your positions. I want to start out by saying thank the staff report that they presented to you at the last meeting was was very well done and very thorough. Uh I think address many issues beyond what typically is addressed in a concept plan. I worked very hard to find a particular developer uh that we brought to this meeting because I wanted to have them provide a product that was not the same as a lot of other products that you have in your city and and they did that. They did that and um I don't want to lose them. I don't want to lose them. But if we wait, you know, my four clients waited four years wanted to go They worked on it for four years. I wasn't involved. Uh, and they have good people. I I I know some of the people that were involved in that project and I know they worked hard to try to make that happen and the market told us that wasn't a good use for that land. So, I suggested that we maybe try a different approach. And uh uh and in that approach uh I would like you to consider the regiduiding of the property but wait till the comp plan comes up because we don't want to wait another three or four years. You know, I mean, they they would like to sell their property. I think this is a a good location for the product that that we're recommending. Uh I thought your suggestion, Council Member Frederick, was was good. Let's let's put the light industrial where the light industrial people want to go and we can do that on the next comp plan. But this isn't where they want to go. And by the way, When we first took over this assignment, we called some people that we worked with for years and they thought I was smoking some of them my cigar when I suggested that they light industrial out there. And so I think it's important for us to recognize that um the residents have reached out to me right after I put my sign up and then subsequently they found out we were on an item here last week. Several somewhere between five and six people have called and the first thing I get is uh because I do so much commercial, they all thought I was going to do a retail project there. They didn't want that and they didn't want the light industrial and the comment was we don't want more on what we already have in town and I think the the presentation or the submission that was made gives us a variety to that and I think it's important that will support your downtown as well with with those uh types of residents. Uh the neighborhood input has been uh pretty direct and and uh uh very supportive, very supportive. I think there's two signs of that. Nobody showed up at our concept meeting except one lady and I know she supports me because she told me so uh uh you know I think that's a consideration that that you should have. Um the only Additional comment I'd like to make on this is that the the site, you know, when I first came to you and talked to you about this site, I pointed out there were a lot of uh issues with the site itself. There's some grade and topo issues. The access points are set. Uh you want a park trail. I'm not arguing about the park trail. I'm just saying that's another thing that had to be accommodated. We've got a creek. Uh we've got a gas line. Uh and we've got um a tough fight to try to meet the density within some of the code requirements that that your city has. You know, you you push it left and then you got a problem on the right. You push it right, you got a problem on the left. So, uh I you know, I I really would ask you to to Oh, and one other thing, believe I'm correct when I say this, man. Maybe you can correct me. Uh you know, I think your doesn't allow town houses on uh market. >> So if it is regided to low density residential, we would not allow for town homes. If it's medium residential, town homes would be >> I think and and I want to tell you a little bit about and again I'm not talking down to anybody. I'm telling you my experiences. Town houses are really hitting tough times with lenders, with buyers, with everybody. And that's from Shakip to Dayton. I'm working on projects like this in those communities and and some in between and and everybody is coming back to me to change their plan because >> one second. Do you have um >> that was time if you have a couple minutes we can see if council >> I'll move to give them a few more minutes. >> I'll second that. >> All those in favor say >> I like to finish. >> Thank you. Sounds good. >> Thanks and thanks for the courtesy of of putting me on the agenda. >> No problem. Uh so I thought the people did a good job uh of laying it out and uh I guess a final comment would be that we have an opportunity here to make a good neighborhood for you. This is going to be a good neighborhood for this city for a very long time. So I'd respectfully request that you give it all the consideration you possibly can. I'm happy to answer questions if you want. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Anybody else? I had no other uh cards. Okay. No comments. Um if I could follow up with one comment, Mr. Mayor, on that that I think would be helpful for council be aware. So, I I received guidance from council uh after that concept plan presentation uh to to explore the economic impact of the request and um and so I'm really happy to report that we will have a meeting on the 14th of July uh to start that process and we've been able to get Northland to include it within the scope of their normal long-term financial planning uh because some other things have come off the table this year. So, it will not cost us anymore. It will be on the timeline of our normal long-term financial plan and it will be briefed to council on October 23rd. >> Very good. Oh, okay. >> Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. >> Sounds good. Okay. On to consent. Uh planning business. Uh we have one item 7A which is the Agra business zoning ordinance amendment. Is it a blight or a >> mic drop? >> Mic drop. >> You picked up a cigar and dropped it. >> It works. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do have a quick presentation. If we can switch over the slide. >> Yes, sir. >> Try and keep it brief here. But yes, 7 tonight is the Agra business zoning ordinance amendment. Um, this is request from Margaret and John Fernandez who are requesting in this ordinance amendment to establish uh an aggra business as an allowed use within the rural residential district um so that they would be allowed to operate a wine tasting room on their property at 230 uh 23020 county 30. So, some quick background. Last September, the city council reviewed a concept plan for the wine tasting room. Um, and through this review, it was found that the use was not compatible with um a couple of the uses within the zoning ordinance. The closest uses identified were either the conditional home occupation license or the event center. Uh, and the issues with that is that that the conditional home occupation license wouldn't allow uh it would well, let me back up. The conditional home occupation license would allow customers to visit the property uh for the wine tasting room would not allow employees on the site whereas the event center could allow employees and vendors to work on site. However, um hosting events is only a portion of the applicants proposal uh and doesn't uh capture the entirety of their operations. So um because of that at that time council suggested that the applicants explore an aggra business ordinance uh that would apply more to their operation and their needs. Uh so specifically uh an aggra business or agro tourism is defined as a form of commercial enterprise that links agricultural production and/or processing processing with tourism to attract visitors onto a farm, ranch or other agricultural business for the purposes of entertaining or educating the visitors while generating income for the farm, ranch or business owner. Uh so the proposed ordinance before you tonight is based on a review of a number of established uh aggra business ordinances from cities that are comparable in size to the city of Corkran. Um as well as the existing zoning ordinance requirements to ensure consistency throughout the code. Uh through this review staff identified several performance standards that should uh be addressed within the agra business ordinance itself. So with uh some with some amendments to the ordinance uh the draft ordinance from planning commission uh some of these requirements are minimum parcel size of 4 acres. Uh the the business should either be located uh on a major roadway, so a county road or state highway, or um be within 200 or 2,500 ft from an intersection with a major roadway. Uh the traffic generated the business must not create a nuisance to nearby residents by way of traffic or noise. Um, all parking needs must be accommodated on site and comply with the parking standards uh outlined within the performance standards of the zoning ordinance. Um, and same with the maximum structure size that would have to comply with uh the footprint requirements that are outlined within the zoning ordinance as well. Uh so noise sound ampli a amplification systems may be used after 10 p.m. unless otherwise approved by the city council. Uh any stages or amps uh must be oriented away from any residents within 500 ft of the property line and oriented away from the nearest residential property. Uh and the music based events must be limited to uh the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 10 pm on weekends and holidays for a maximum of six hours per day. Uh and outdoor lighting cannot exceed one foot candle as measured from the property line. Um sanitary facilities such as bathrooms must be adequate for the number of attendees determined by the Minnesota State Building Code. uh and any outdoor activity must be set back 100 ft from the adjacent residential structures. Um so planning commission and staff recommend approval of the draft ordinance amending amending the zoning ordinance to allow the aggra business as an interim use within the rural residential district as well as uh the finance effect for the ordinance amendment. >> Okay, thank you. Any questions for Dwight? >> I had one. Um, do we intend to include apple orchards too >> with the definition that is being amended within this um with this within this application? Apple orchards and businesses of that nature would fall underneath that umbrella. >> Okay, very good. >> Little ones. >> We could use an apple orchard. >> Yeah, >> I wouldn't be opposed to them. >> They're fine. Any other questions? >> Just real quick, Mr. there Dwight just a like a seasonable seasonal parking while we have parking lot requirements and and those kind of things. I I listen to the planning commission meeting and such everything is under an interimmuse permit and such on these things. So would the parking for seasonal if and we do have an apple orchard if nobody knows that we do have one. Um, while there's issues there, that's a whole another thing. But the seasonal side of stuff, a corn maze, those kind of things in the interimm use permit, we could do that on a gravel parking lot or in the grass kind of parking for overflow parking. I'm trying to put it together quickly without having to refer all the way back to the ordinance >> and such. So currently the way that it's written um it it does refer back to the performance standards of parking lots which only allows the gravel lots within the commercial the rural commercial district. So if that's something that you want to see within uh the agra business zoning ordinance amendment um we can amend the draft ordinance to include gravel parking lots for these types of events. That's >> I would also add we have very There are very limited standards that gravel parking lots can be approved by the city engineers. I think we'd also want that to apply. So if it's something that is more than uh I believe nine months out of the year, um we would want to still see that paid. That's typically only something that goes for seasonal based. >> Okay. That's that's questions that I've gotten and such. And then another question about amplified sound and those kind of things. Can we put it in the ordinance that amplified sound and those kind of things come back to us? >> I think they got to apply for a sound waiver. >> They got to apply for a sound waiver, but it says on on holidays and those kind of things. They can go from for six hours and stuff. I'd rather that be treated the same as all of the other ones that we do. Uh Cork Lions Park. Um the the stansion applies for those those permits when they have I'd rather have a permit requested and undocument than just random showing up at any of these places. I want to have fun. Granted, we have fun and and we we do stuff, but I'd rather know about it than all of a sudden, hey, they're amplified sound at whatever. I think it might depend on your definition of music event. >> Just asking asking those questions out loud. So, and again, this doesn't really pertain to any event center or anything like that. This is just for agra business zoning ordinance amendment which all the way from how do I want to say it in this case a wine tasting with music to uh farmers market all of a sudden on the side of the road in the field kind of deal that covers a broad scope of agra business doesn't it? So for just for clarification for the aggra businesses that have oneoff amplification events of some sort, you would like to have a provision within the code that says that they are required to come back to council for those sound waiver permits. Is that >> that's what I'd like to see because right now the way it's kind of written is every holiday and every weekend they can have music events from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. every weekend and every holiday. I I I don't think that's right. I don't know what the rest of the >> Was that where did that come from? Was that requested specifically in that? No, that's that was a a standard from one of the other ordinances, the sample ordinances that I used for reference. So, I think we can amend that. I don't think anyone's married to that. >> I'm just I'm going back to the most recent religious deal of they can do whatever Saturday, Sunday at their at their leisure or at their request. I We're out in the country for a reason. I want to respect this stuff, but I' I'd rather it come back just as frequent as we have other organizations and stuff. Ask for those uh those flexes of ampl amplified sound and stuff. As far as that, no sound amplification systems may be used out stores after 10 p.m. unless otherwise that that's just like an open on fire and stuff, but music events every holiday, every weekend from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. I don't want to open that door. That's okay. If everybody else agrees removing that and changing it to a Would we even need if we just removed it? the default would be they have to come in for >> So what I'm hearing right now is we we replace everything underneath item six and the draft ordinance with um sound needs or amplification needs would need to be reviewed by the council through the sound waiver permit unless otherwise approved by the council if there's some minor like routine amplication things like every Sunday >> I'm thinking just 6C Unless Dean was thinking the other >> I that's all I was thinking the 6C it just >> and again I'm going back to the specific location and stuff. This isn't a neighborhood um that Rush Creek whatever it's called that >> reserve >> neighborhood. No it's a neighborhood Rush Creek. What is it? >> What's the road name? I forget >> I think >> Boulevard is that what it is that this the uh the wine tasting place is right in that neighborhood and it's a pretty quiet place and and while everybody respects what is in front of us just opening it up to every Saturday and Sunday and holidays they can amplified sound from 11:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. That's not that's not okay in my mind. >> Sure. >> Mr. Mayor. Yeah. >> Can I add a couple things? Sure. Just questions I have. So, if they're renting the property, would that be a temporary rental license then or does that not apply? >> So, the current rental licensing that the city has is related to the dwelling uh dwelling units and less so the businesses. >> So, if they're renting the dwelling, then a rental license would apply, >> right? But I was wondering if we have like a rental license in place for like venues in the city. If we should start to get more of them, would we need that? Could that then maybe hinge on the noise amplification? If you have a venue and you're going to rent it, that would be part of the process or not. >> I don't think so. Our rental licenses are >> currently what we're set up for rental licensing is long-term rentals. So, for renting out like a space and I and I would say that's more of an event center than aggra business. Aggra business is going to be the property owner who's >> Okay. And then I noticed under C there's a commercial kennel license or a commercial kennel and it talks about having secured fenced areas. Didn't we put I thought we were not allowing dog kennels anymore in Corkran. >> Am I wrong? >> So that that was talked about >> that was recently amended uh I believe back in April. Um that's just the the existing code. The red line is everything pertaining to the um to the business ordinance specifically, but the commercial kennels were recently amended back in April or May if I'm remembering correctly. >> Okay. >> So, no concern on that. >> I'm still a little concerned I guess >> on the dog >> on the on the commercial kennels. Yeah. >> So, that would be I think a discussion outside of the scope of the current amendment. The application in front of us tonight is specific to the >> Okay. Um, and then my last question was is how do we monitor traffic nuisance? Like what is our measurement for that? Like is it 15 cars, 20 cars, 25 cars? And how do we monitor that? Like why do we even have that in there? Because it seems like something that's going to be really difficult to >> Yeah. So we was this language from our we I think we're also looking at language that we have similar to our home occupation license and we do have like a traffic gauge. where that's coming from. Um, if we don't want to attempt to monitor it, I think it it would be, you know, if there was a complaint, staff would probably go out and have to collect data for a period of time, and that would be how you monitor it. If you don't want us to have that, we don't need that. But that was just a proposed performance standard. >> Any thoughts? I just I think it's like if we're not going to enforce it, if it's really something that's going to put more onus on staff, maybe it's better to not have it in there and then just if there's a complaint, then we deal with it on a one by one basis, assuming that there won't be. >> If we don't have a standard and code, then there's not a complaint. >> Yeah. So, so right now, I I don't think it actually puts the onus on staff. I think it puts the onus on the resident >> in order to complain that there is a nuisance. uh and they're determining what the standard of the nuisance is >> and then and then we respond and then if it requires a greater response then we bring it to council to discuss further uh the degree of the impact the nuisance >> but the the the impetus right now is is on the resident to identify that it is disrupting their life. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um, where's councel on deans suggestion that changing six C to the permit or that to seeking individually >> amplified sound? >> Sound permit. >> To me, it kind of hinges on what we mean by amplified sound because like >> some of the apple orchards that we go to in the fall, they'll have like ambient music out. >> I think that's reasonable, but I think, you know, erecting a stage and having a band music. This is music events. The announcement that the >> the wagon's leaving and such. I'm okay with all of those stuff. I'm talking just the music event. >> I agree. Because I think what you're talking about would fall more under a which is the >> just a general announcement >> which could be up until 10:00. >> Mhm. >> Yeah, that sounds right to me. >> I mean, that works for me right now. I have a family deal going, I just yell really loud and everybody hears me. But the neighbor I'm so far away from the other neighbors, but when it gets close like this, those announcements are needed to to run what they're doing. But as far as the music events and those kind of things, that's what I'm would rather see a permit. >> Dean, do you want to take a crack at a motion to amend 6C to be like go through the permit process as discussed? >> Yeah. six. The only change other than everything else that's here, the only change was 6C. Change it to all music events require >> council approval. >> Council approval. Noise, >> whatever that process, >> sound waiver permit application prior to the events and such. >> Okay. I have a motion to second. >> If if you need more specifics, so >> it's going to take me 20 minutes to write it. No, >> I think we're good. Motion second. >> I'm sorry. Can I ask one more question? >> It's 5 acre minimum is what the acre businesses and >> this is just for the change, not on the >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Um um any other discussion on the change? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Okay. Um, and then to answer council Friedrich's question, uh, it was initially set at five acres and then after the planning commission discussion that minimum lot size got bumped down to four acres. >> Okay. I'm just wondering like I have a 4 acre lot and that seems really small. If you're going to be holding events that would be a concern, I think I think that's not enough acreage. >> Feel like there was a lot of discussion on that. >> Okay. >> I think I I kind of had the same opinion that five acres the minimum that makes sense to fit everything on there, but they felt that they really wanted to provide maximum flexibility for property owners that might be more creative with their space. And so that's where they got the four acres, but >> are there a number of more lots in town that are four acres than >> I don't I we would have to pull significant data to be able to answer that. Um I would say in just knowing some of the lots that we've worked with, I would say five acres tends to be minimum to be able to build a parking lot that's actually going to service. >> I think it makes more sense. >> Yeah. And with five acres, like my neighbors, I mean, I know Corkran has bigger lots just in general, but like if I had an extra acre, which would be like the property behind me, the whole field >> to me, my neighbors would still be not very happy with me that I'm doing this on this property because the parking lot is going to be in someone's backyard adjacent either across my street or to them. So, I'm not sure how I feel about that small of a lot. >> Where do you see four acres? >> Could I make a recommendation? So, so I I just came and I saw some some thriving in Baron, Wisconsin. There's there's a lot of along the road and I I was checking them out because we're having this conversation. Agra businesses. One was local uh bread. So, they're making sourdough breads. Uh, so they have a lot about the same size as yours and they're operating out of their garage >> because you're not going to get a lot of traffic there. >> And what they had by the road was a sign that says we're going to be at this farmers market on this day and then we're going to be here. So the agra business is operating out of there, but then it's not actually generating the kind of traffic that we're thinking about for like the wine tasting where you're going to have a lot of people there. So, so it's creating flexibility uh to operate and then we have in the IUP process an opportunity to discuss is this going to be able to support the level of traffic that you're considering. >> So, so we do have checks and balances to ensure that we're not going to end up with something out of reasonable operational capability >> parking lot next to like >> your neighbor's front yard. >> Yeah, I think that's what we should discuss next. But um I think we're a little and I I was doing this too, mixing up a little bit of more of the event center type stuff rather than the aggra business >> in my head and like it makes sense maybe why we'd want five acre plus for event centers >> and where an aggra business could be something as small as that makes sense like like if we had a council member that had honey >> and they decided they wanted to sell honey out of their barn. >> Wouldn't that be nice? >> Yeah. If they only had a council member that >> You guys know how you can get honey from me. I I ain't putting up signs >> or sold or sold Dalia at the end of their driveway because they grow dolls in their backyard. >> There you go. >> Yeah. >> So, we all good with four for this. >> Yeah, I think there are some businesses where it'll be adequate, >> but not all businesses. >> Yep. Um, and then I think the only other remaining item is the kind of touched on earlier and Michelle just touched on was the gravel versus paved parking lots. Um, and I think Natalie threw it out as potentially maybe if it's a park of the year. What's the term? >> Yeah, I think we could. I don't know exactly where to add it. I'll defer to Dwight, but I think we could add in a standard that the city council can allow gravel parking lot through the IUP subject to um >> seasonal >> well subject to subdivision. Okay. 1060.060 subdivision 3B because there's stand there's uh nine standards that the city engineer would look at to determine if a gravel parking lot makes sense. So I think that that would be what makes the most sense to refer to >> and that would be for all. >> But yeah, so it would be subject to city council approval and city uh engineer approval. >> So it give us some authority to say where? >> Yep. Without requiring a variance. >> Could it also be a grass parking lot or does it have to be a gravel? >> I would say grass parking lots are going to get absolutely destroyed. It would be like if you're regularly relying on it, >> um you would want it to be some kind of m that's able to support the parking. >> Uh I think anything else we probably want to look at a variance and have it be a one-off basis if they have a proposal for some um I know there are examples of reinforcement for grass so that you can park on grass. I know it's very expensive so sometimes people end up just doing a gravel parking lot. So but I think if someone wanted to do that we could it potentially be a variance and if we start seeing a lot of requests then we can update the code according accordingly. So, so far I haven't seen too many of those come in. >> Well, because I was thinking if it was something that was just on the weekends, like on a Saturday, and you have people coming, it wouldn't make sense to do a full-blown parking lot if it's only one time per week, >> because I think it's more appeasing to have grass than it is gravel in your neighbor's yard. >> Yeah. So, our >> It depends what it is, too. >> It does completely. >> Yeah. And I would say our nuisance code doesn't allow for parking on the grass. I know it happens sometimes, but as far as I I think opening that up um might start to get a little complicated. I think it would make sense for a oneoff situation at this point. >> Um as I think most businesses that we're talking to so far, they have a need for a parking lot and grass wouldn't make sense. >> Or if it was Dean selling >> honey out of his garage or barn, it would be parking in the driveway or >> pulling right up to the street >> standing at 20 and Honey. Um, so I think maybe we keep >> Well, no, we make a change to that effect. >> Yeah, you can make a motion. >> I'll make that motion to Natalie's. >> I will second Natalie's motion. >> Any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Yes. >> Okay. Then the item items itself. Uh I think we can do this all together. I think so. I will entertain a motion to adopt ordinance 2025 uh 552 summary ordinance 2025 5553 and approve resolution 202569. >> So moved. >> Have a second. >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. All right, >> thank you. On to eight, which we added back in. We have 8A, which was originally 6 H for council. If you want to pull that up on your um iPads um and then I don't know, do you have anything to to add? Present >> 6H. You want to just >> Yep. >> Mr. Mayor, I don't have anything to present. Typically, we don't have um Yep. >> items or slideshows for the consent agenda, but um just re recap. We um went over this uh item back in April >> and at that meeting, council directed us to staff to work with the applicant to um come to some u agreement or middle ground for the uh the needs for both sides. Um so sad that meeting um and a draft of of what was discussed in that meeting is um presented to you guys uh to the council tonight. Um I will note that a revised version of resolution uh 25-38 was placed on the dasis um with an added change to number eight supposed to be redlined unfortunately turned out to be blue lined >> that the roadway easements uh be reviewed and approved by the city attorney um since staff is expecting some minor changes um from both sides uh tonight. So that won't hold up the the the easement agreement won't hold up the tonight. We can continue working on it on the back end. >> Gotcha. Sounds good. Everyone see that on there? >> Perfect. speak. >> So repeat what you just said that the easement agreement can still be talked about if we say yes to what's in front of us >> with that provision. Yeah. >> Typically the council does not see easements. Those are something that are worked through on the back end. We have a typical standard template that we proceed with and things just shared it because there were two paragraphs that count that staff added and working with the applicant. >> Okay. >> Thank you. You give us your name and address for the record and go right ahead. >> My name is Melissa Sber. My address is 27115 Paragon Drive in Rogers. However, I'm a land owner. There's no address because it's an outlaw. So, um, as you know, I was here in April, like Dwight said, and we did have a meeting on June 4th. Um, we really talked about the whole thing. Um, really tried to make an agreement. My concern this evening is that the agreement is still heavily disputed. There's a lot of language that we're not okay with. and you were presented or in the internet world, the neighbors who are watching my application were presented with an agenda packet that said that we had reached an agreement that matched what was attached and that is not true. And then when that was um Dwight emailed me today that says um that staff revise the resolution to include a provision that clarifies the roadway easement agreement is subject to review and approval from the city attorney prior to the final plat being released or recording. This is a standard practice for agreements of this nature and allows legal review to proceed without delaying city council action. My concern this evening is that if you pass the resolution, there is no longer any to the fire or as you can see the provision says that only the city attorney has to approve it. No mutual agreement. So I am concerned that right now >> it would still have to be signed by both parties. >> That would exist, >> but any contract would have to be signed both parties. >> And I I just heard that we there can still be some discussion and negotiations related to that stuff. That's what I just heard, Melissa. >> Right. >> That it's not done with. It's just >> I also don't like my revisions. So, if you approve and their feet aren't held to the fire and then I lose any I could potentially lose any negotiating and this is a quick I will be very brief but regional. >> Yep. We've got that in our >> Yes. I'm just This is the line where the ement would go. So during the meeting we discussed I said we can't make an orphan lot and they said there was discussion about rightway versus ement so we agreed to an ement but we still our driveway is right here so we need a cross access right now they have exclusive right to the ement which means apparently we have to levitate across we can't do any improvements to our own driveway during the intro we just cross right to >> John. Can you speak to that? I don't know that that's accurate understanding of that. >> So, mayor, members of council, the um I was given the understood business terms from staff and put them into an ement agreement which was supplied to the applicant. Um the goal on this was to reach the equivalent of effectively dedicated right of way just in a different form that have some of these other conditions uh when the applicants spoke last uh before you uh was mentioned of having an ongoing agricultural use. So that wanted they wanted to have that memorial or last. So we did that. Additionally, I'm told that there were some discussions about um allowing the applicants some notice before the road would be constructed. And so a uh a period of a year advanced notice was agreed to as a part of that. Those are both entered into the into the easement agreement which again is there to uh take the take the place of uh of the dedicated right of way. Um now that doesn't preclude uh it it does need to be an exclusive use because a roadway use is an exclusive use for the city. That doesn't mean that there's no access to it, but uh the city's right-of-way regulations would dictate where those access points would be using good engineering practices if a road is constructed. >> And prior to that, it wouldn't need a specific approval to be able to cross the ement. >> No. Correct. >> Yep. >> It wouldn't be an inconsistent use with what's dedicated at that point. If there's a road there, obviously they have to contend with that, >> right? >> We would take exception to that. Uh because if it is an exclusive >> I'm sorry, sir. Could you please state your name and your address? >> Yeah, my my name is Steven Lang. I'm council for the applicant here and uh my address is 100 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota. >> But we take exception to that because if it is an exclusive easement, the city has the absolutely right, the absolute right to exclude somebody from that easement. And the provision also prohibits construction of any improvements in the easement to the city of Corpor. The driveway is in the easement. There may need to be continuous improvements to that driveway to make sure that it's properly maintained. So there is not an exception that would um there's not an exception that allows us to cross that easement at any point in time. Um it may practically be the case, but there is no legal right for uh the applicants in this case to have access to that most southerntherly lot. And so what we're trying to do is that issue as well. What we have seen, we've done a data practices request from the city and we've seen a similar situation where the city had requested an easement and the easement was going to go over where the developer had planned some storm water ponds. Um, again, in that situation, it was going to prohibit the use of storm water ponds in that area. Ultimately, for that development, the city made a determination they did not need the easement at that time. They would address it at the time of future development. That seems to make more sense here as well, where we've got a driveway that is coming through here. We've got an extra parcel that's being cut off by this road that is essentially incapable of being used for any type of development. The concern that the applicant has is the ability to be able to more properly lay this out with future development. And this easement uh is going to prohibit any type of future development. It destroys value by leaving this little parcel here. If they if the street is ultimately constructed, now you've got to run your mowing equipment across the street to handle that parking and and not the parking but that outlot parcel off piece as well. So, there's a lot of problems with the location of where the easement is at. That's why we've submitted some suggested revisions uh to try to address all of those concerns of the applicant. >> Mr. Mayor, just >> if I may, >> I'm I'm reading this as just a general >> if development ever happens. >> They're reading it as that they're going to develop that property tomorrow and such. Everything we're writing it I the way I write the way I read it is for future and it's going to be a while before anything happens that way. Yes or no? What am >> What am I missing? And then the other thing is we've been talking with about this for nearly an year now as far as requests and stuff. Why haven't y'all agreed? Why are we wasting more time when we've got a deadline to finish this? What's going on? >> Well, if I may, in the beginning, February of 20, February of 24, we did meet with the planning committee. We came up with a plan. I have a email before call auto engineering for auto associates. We had an email from Natalie that says next steps will be dependent upon the number of lots in the flat should two lots be proposed with each lot having separate driver approved by county. Then steps three and four above can be skipped and three is submit a concept for staff staff level review for an engineering memo that analyzes a public street connection. So when we designed it and paid for it with Auto and Associates, we did not contemplate an easement. >> But I thought that you wanted to buy this 40 acres to put one house on it. Now we're talking development. What >> the the reason that we're we're talking development is because the city's requested the easement >> for future ghost plat >> for to speak if something were to happen >> to service >> so >> so that we don't abandon a lot >> maybe Kevin might be able to speak to it a bit better than us but the reality is is the specifically the properties to the east there's several development rights we're aware that Henipin County will limit access just based on our experience the access points and so part of this planning process is making sure that we are setting ourselves up for a future road connection because it could be that this never comes in front of us again for subdivision or at least not at the time when we have the next subdivision. >> If he were to if he were to sell and subdivide, the county isn't going to give him an access point on his property. We got to go across somebody else's property. >> It's possible that a roadway connection. Yes, we have to plan for internal road connections and that has been a push from Henipin County for a long time >> and it's been a practice in the city as we've done all of our other developments. >> Y so this is to reserve that. Um, now if they were to come back in with a new subdivision, we could like the this is just like the the flag that we're planning right now. Um, it doesn't necessarily preclude future negotiations of where the final road alignment lines up, but this just gives us an earmark. This is where we would work with neighboring properties that come into subdivision to have that alignment made. Uh, but that it doesn't necessarily preclude future discussion, especially if there is another subdivision application on these specific properties. Uh but this does give us a ability to plan for an internal road connection in this area because there this entire block south of county road 30 there is no internal road connection right now and we're trying to plan for that. Anything to add to that? >> No, we'll just add with the road easement versus the rightway. We're letting them pick the location. So we're not dictating where that is. We're just saying we need one across the >> And that's something you can still do if we were to say yes. you could still keep working with. >> Yeah, we're just we put that in their court to say we need X amount wherever you want it to cross. In some ways, I think that gives them more control over what happens around them because they get to say either your landing points if I ever need to come across your property. If another property comes in first and they set those landing points, any redevelopment or development of this property would have to connect to that. So, in some cases, they get a choice to plant the flag, so to speak. We don't know when it will happen. We anticipate it happening for a while based on what they've shared in their narrative. It might be 75 plus years. >> So, but we do have to but it could be tomorrow if they sell. So, we have to prepare for the unknown. That's the change. But the concern is that this is there is no plan again according to our data practice data practices request there is no plan by the city for any type of internal road network. Not a single nothing is out there and in existence with respect to locating the road. It's a very very small area of being able to locate the road. So what this is doing is creating a problem again the future development which may be 75 years down the road is creating problems today for my client in the sense of it's creating a exclusive easement across our property that >> but it still hasn't been agreed to. So there's still some of that there. I'm if I may, I'm I'm going to go off and you tell me if I'm wrong, Mr. Mayor. Let me know. We just had a development happen on the south side of 10, west of Bectal Road, five parcels with an existing property being the sixth on that property. And Dwight, you're nodding your head. Yes. Why didn't the county make us go over to the deadend property to the west of that property? when that was when that was already a city road. How did they grant access to that property when we had a city road just on the back side of those 60 acres on the west side? >> We're talking about upgrade acres talking about. Okay. So, they allowed the existing roadway, the existing driveway to remain for the existing parcel. Y >> but they do have they did have a clause in their memo that if there is a local roadway connection in the future either if the private drive to the west turns into a public street uh >> that's a private drive >> that's a private drive and so that's my mistake. >> Yeah. So if but if that were to become a public street the county does expect them to connect to that local roadway. So they allowed an existing condition to remain but they do have expectation that if conditions changed that that would also change and they would at that time work with the property because they they have the permitting authority for that. >> But then the the 40 acres to the west of this property that goes all the way down to 10 pretty much the same as this property already has a field driveway in it. So why are we talking Well, on 10 you've got a creek. >> Do what? >> On 10 you've got across the creek. >> Wetlands >> and wetland area. So all adjacent to 10 is all wetland and creek. >> But again the 30 side of it too is the same. I see it as the same as what? >> So >> there's there's already the field road into the 40 acres to the west of them. Why >> field roads don't necessarily remain at because field roads have an aggregate >> a field driveway because that's what that property had was a field. >> They had they had a driveway to the residence. >> No, there was a driveway right where the road ended up. >> That's where their No, the house had a drive an existing driveway and then the road was an addition to the east. The existing driveway for the house for upwards is what was permitted to remain. I would This actually is probably most similar to Bectal Farms plat at that point. We took the easement for a road easement for Garden Lane. >> The rightway. >> We took Yeah, we took the rightway for Garden Lane and they we didn't we told them they did not need to construct the road, but we went ahead and took the rightway for that while we wait for another property to redevelop to have that connection of Garden Lane. >> You're helping me get that you're helping me get to my point is so I'm going to I'm going to play the easement for the power. you've got a power line running through this property. You didn't have a choice on that easement and such. You staff has it written up that it can still be talked about where that easement goes for that future road in 40 to 70 years, whatever it is. So why can't we just say we approve this but yet it still keeps going? Why is there hesitation saying if we approve it then we can't hold anybody's feet to the fire and negotiations can't continue on the yield? Why why comments like that? >> So we may not be able to approve all of the red line changes that were submitted because it would effectively make it not function as a roadway easement. But if there are changes that would allow for so if it's an encroachment agreement through there that protects the driveway, we can take a look at that. It's not that we can't negotiate. is that there's some terms in our standard our standard roadway easement that we apply to every property owner that has provided us with a roadway easement that we're not going to be able to negotiate on because there's a purpose as to why the language is in there. >> So, how can we reword or whatever to pass this on and let this negotiation continue >> that's there the way that it's been modified Dwight read it earlier. >> Okay. I would ask that you know how when you guys do the consent agenda A through G things get passed very quickly that this get tabled until the next meeting and then hopefully we have a sign agreement between then the timeline it's a window issue at this point >> you said you will not pay another dime which if we don't hit that timeline you've got to put in another application if that's correct we'd have to approve or deny >> you have to approve or deny and I would say again the most legally defensible decision tonight is the resolution prepared by staff. So I would not recommend denying the application. >> And again, going back to we've been talking about this since February 2024. >> So >> again, we we would add that we don't think the city of Corin's ordinance allows for this easement because the easement itself is not um reasonable or necessary for the development. It also doesn't meet constitution. muster in the sense that there's no essential nexus or rough proportionality um to the proposed development. We believe it's related solely to uh future development and it can be held off until future development takes place. But we want that on the record that we don't believe that uh the city has the legal authority to request an easement when there is no plans for any type of an internal mode road network. There's nothing to suggest that this road is reasonably necessary at any time for maybe even 75 years. So it's our position that this easement is not necessary for this development. >> John, do you have anything you want to add? Mr. Mayor, members of council, it it's staff's position that it is necessary as a part of the planning for the future network. These discussions have been had. We're at an impass on this issue, it appears. Um, so what we're trying to do is is determine whether or not there are reasonable conditions that can be reached or agreed upon in this ement. Um, I don't think staff is going to bring anything back or recommend anything to you that is less than what they will require to operate a roadway. having driveway use of the entirety of the area on the property is in conflict of the roadway use. Now, that doesn't mean that there won't be access for the property, of course, that can be maintained. Um, but, you know, and I I I've seen the draft that was sent back. Um, you know, my my uh review of that suggests that it's intended to to to give less than than the roadway interest. and and and maybe that's just reflective of the fundamental disagreement between staff and the applicant on this, but they've made this point. Staff has reviewed it. Engineering's reviewed it and they've made the determination that staff believes it is necessary. Applicant does not. So, um the recommendation before you is to include that as a requirement. We will keep working with them if there are terms that can be reached. >> But, um on the issue of whether or not the road is required, I think we I don't know but we have to get past that in order to to get to the more what I would call secondary terms related to thank you. So then again one last question on back to the power line easement. The power line is what is the easement in that power line? >> Is it 120 ft? It's 60 ft both sides of center. >> Pull up the survey real quick. in that the land owner has no control over no control over that power line easement. Right. >> It's a private easement. I don't know that I reviewed it specific to this. >> The power line is a private easement, >> but it's nothing to do with the city. >> The the difference between the power line easement is that that was put in place presumably with the consent of a previous land owner. Well, knowing knowing the power line, nobody had any consent to do whatever. They just put it there. So, that's a whole another conversation down the road. So, so if I may, I' I'd like to recommend approval of the resolution >> 2025 >> the 20 2025-38 with the caveat of continued discussion on the road easement location. What else can I say >> in council? Yeah, currently it's drafted >> which is included in that that added. >> It's already there >> the eight. Um >> I'll I'll make that recommendation >> motion or recommendation. >> Sure. Motion >> motion. Do we have a second? >> So we can be we can move on again. I'm I'm disappointed it is taken this long for whatever communication, whatever distraction and stuff. We've been talking about this and I continue to hear the one thing. All I want to do is build my house, live there, and let um my neighbor continue to farm the property like he's done for a couple of different generations. So, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Thank you, guys. >> Thank you. Okay, on to new business. Um, we have a request for proposals for space needs analysis for city facilities. J. >> Uh, yes, Mr. Mayor, uh, and council members. Uh, this has been a long time coming a discussion um, overdue. So if you go around our facilities, uh all of our facilities right now, we are beyond maximum capacity. Uh we don't have places to store things. We don't have spaces for people to work. Uh and it's evident in every single space that you enter where we're currently trying to provide quality services. Uh recognizing that we also have to plan for the future. So in the present uh we are in need and that proposes that in the future we're going to have an even greater need. So this request uh for proposal for space needs is seeking a partner to help us uh think through that process. uh in preparing for this RFP um I was able to get RFPs from uh six other cities and I had discussion with other city administrators about their processes and how they did this and the reason the this RFP is constructed the way that it is is to both provide latitude. So one of the things I will acknowledge is the schedule is aggressive. The reason for the aggressive schedule is a couple things. one uh that will help us identify who really wants to partner with us to solve this pressing problem. Part of the reason it's aggressive is because it is a pressing problem and we need to find a resolution in a timely fashion. But we also need to be prudent in terms of our analysis and that means we need to find a partner that is going to provide us quality analysis. Uh when I was at the state uh conference for um police, I talked with three different vendors that do this regularly and I spoke with them. All three of them had done facilities that included uh a civic campus that had public safety component and uh other administrative service needs. Uh and so I know for certain that there's three vendors that are that are looking forward to this hitting. Uh but I suspect that there's going to be even more vendors. Um, now also admittedly it doesn't go into specificity other than that the requested vendor is going to partner with staff and sit down with each of our departments to talk and also sit down with council to talk about our current needs and our projected future needs. One of the projected future needs that I need clarity from council this evening is about what council desires for fire service. Uh so um looking at the past discussions and as we're having the fire service conversation, this is I think different than the fire service conversation. What we identified in our last work session is we have a gap in the city and the proposal has been to have a facility fill that gap. The the question is who will that partner be that that comes alongside us to help us solve that problem. My proposal is that we don't need to solve who the partner is today. We need to solve what we're going to need to put in that space. >> The various outcomes could >> Yeah. So, so we have time to figure out who it will be and what it will be, but uh the question that I need clarity on is does it need to be? >> Do we need a fire station as part of our civic campus? That's going to be an important variable. So, that's one thing that I'd ask from council tonight is clarification on that question. The other one uh is at this time uh we limited their scope to current city properties. So you'll see in the proposal there's three properties that have facilities and then I only of all the properties that the city owns I only included two because in talking with other uh cities uh our current needs as they stand will need uh a minimum of 5 to 10 acres depending on how it's constructed whether we go up or whether we go out and so I didn't include uh for analysis from the vendors in the in the uh proposal anything that was less than 10 acres so that we could both park it and put a building on it. And so that leaves us with two parcels right now. Uh the northern part of the Rockford property adjacent to 10 and then the property that's north of the city campus along 116. That's why it's only those two parcels. uh I currently don't have included in the proposal uh going out and looking at other parcels within the city because with the present market it felt cost prohibitive after past conversations but also it doesn't limit it from the scope of the conversation. So if they were to find that as we're discussing that that's something that they could propose us considering and we would bring that to council for proposal. I'd say keep it as is and if something like that comes up, bring it back. But I think we have a good a good potential site or two um that's included in this that we start with if a golden opportunity comes up. >> So so some of the specificity um if I say so some of the specificity of our requirements are going to come out in the conversations with departments uh rather than us trying to to scope it. I thought that folks who have partnered with other cities uh could help us flush out what our requirements are better than us presuming that we know exactly what we need. And so that's part of the reason why it's framed the way that it is. And I would also acknowledge the fact that that could seem like oh that's really open. One of the things that I think is helpful about this process I admittedly grabbed a lot of Chanhassins. So this is Chanhasson's proposal with modifications because I liked their outcome. Uh and their outcome what they had was they did an interview process to figure out who the best partner was going to be with them. Uh and so another thing for us to consider is if we find in this process that we don't flush out a partner that we feel comfortable and confident with, we can go out for the process again. And if we recognized some gaps because we're being so aggressive, we actually would lose a lot of time. So if within the next four weeks when their proposals are supposed to come to council, we didn't get what we wanted, we could tweak up our proposal in order to ensure that we filled those gaps. Um, and so that's that was the logic behind why it is the way that it is. I do need clarification on fire services and subject to your questions. Uh my request is that this evening that you either propose it as written or you give us uh necessary adjustments. Last thing that I'd say is the the uh um criteria for evaluation. Um, recognizing how we've traditionally operated, I went heavy on the cost, but I also don't want that to say that that's going to be the primary driver. Uh, that's part of the interview process and the evaluation process. Uh, it is a criteria. Uh, but that would probably be the most likely area for tweak if we wanted to. >> I like where it's at personally. Um >> because this financials is important, but it doesn't lock us into just a little bit and then we're stuck with whoever. >> Jeremy, did you have a question on >> Yeah, I was wanted to clarify when you said you limited the scope to two properties. We're still looking at all of the existing city properties like public works, this facility as potential homes for portions of city services. Correct. >> That's correct. are the three places that we currently have. So there's Cane Road, there's along 19, and then there's this campus. So those are the first three within the proposal that will be evaluated. And then two properties that currently don't have any constructed buildings on them. >> And while staff does have ideas, uh we're also wanting to allow these vendors to come up with their ideas before we try and guide their ideas. So, I didn't include what we've been talking about or thinking about in the proposal so that we don't put our thumb on the scale and potentially miss out on an opportunity that we've never thought of or considered. >> That's the right way to do it. >> Just ask a quick question. Um, what what did we include in the budget? Like what amount monetary amount approximately a really rough estimate >> within the bond? It was $300,000 for this process. uh that is probably five to eight times more than what our peer cities have needed. So I don't expect it to be anything like that. I uh hope and anticipate that it will be $50,000 or less for this first phase. Uh but it will open the door to if we find the right person I or the right vendor. I hope that this will be the continuation through the next phases of the the detailed development of those sites. I I would also say um part of the reason I did ask for some concept plans, just like we've had concept plans come before council that don't look anything like what was developed, it becomes a helpful starting point that demonstrates that they're thinking about the particular peculiarities of our needs and the topography or the restraints or constraints of what we have. Uh and and so allowing them to come forward with something also gives them feedback from council and from staff that won't work or that's not what we were thinking of or that's perfect. Let's continue to move in that direction. And there's some efficiencies that come can come from that initial proposal that allows them to pivot and and move in a direction with clarity rather than us going with a more ambiguous. Okay, we need a this 100 square foot space. Um, so form and function moving concurrently rather than separately. That that's part of the desire and in constructing this proposal that way. >> Any questions? >> I was going to suggest on the evaluation proposal criteria, keep the fee at 40, but take project understanding and work plan from 30 to 15 and put that extra 15% on past record of experience and performance of more projects including references. So that we're create another category that captures how good they've been at doing these processes in the past to counteract the heavy weight on the fee also acknowledging that feed is important. What are your thoughts on that? Uh again, I I threw out a proposal and I'm flexible um on it. So could you give me those numbers again? You're saying past >> one becomes 35. >> Okay. >> Three becomes 15. >> Um and the intent there was just to try to incentivize more on the quality of path performance, quality of output. the the only push back that or reframe that I would provide on that is in my one year and seven months hard to believe uh that I've been here uh I have found that Corkran uh takes pride in operating differently and so uh finding someone that fits or even as we do interviews I I say to people when they come into our atrium if you see what's happening in our atrium and you think it's unprofessional, you're probably not going to like working here. And so past performance, I've only worked in two other cities, but they're nothing like Corkran. And so, uh, the waiting it to how they fit with us, uh, made a lot of sense to me, maybe balancing it less, but I wouldn't want to give up that much and take it down to 15% on what I call fit. Uh I I think fit uh for this body and for this body is really important. Um and so I I would >> go put three. >> So so I'd say number three is understanding and work plan. >> Yeah. >> Would would be under the category of what I would call fit. >> Yeah. >> That that you get us >> and I also think the scheduling aspect is important too that they can deliver on a timely basis. >> Uh the reason the staff assign to the project is is important is I've experienced the switcheroo. >> Yeah. >> Where the person who briefs you isn't the person that then shows up at the next day. >> Any so so do uh in in order to increase past record uh could could that go to a >> 25 a 25 and 25? Would that be >> right? work for rest of council. Yep. Yep. Dean, >> I'm trying to understand where you're at. >> So, instead of waiting at >> 20, 10, 30, 40, it's >> it's evaluation of proposals uh paragraph H in the in the RFP and uh so the proposal is the four evaluation criteria. >> No, I'm there. There might >> So, you good with that 5% tweet? I like the city administrator's direction. I'm okay if he's okay. >> And you're okay with that? >> So 25, 10, 25, and 40 would be the tweak to the RFP. >> Yep. You good with that with your consensus? >> Yes. How you >> uh last item that Jay brought up earlier, the fire uh facility inclusion. I think it makes all the sense in the world to include that in this study. Um anyone feel differently? Well, I have just quick question. >> I guess I'd like to understand we our last last work session, we were going to have another work session to discuss fire services >> and maybe involve our fire chiefs in that work session so we could get more information directly from them too on how they feel about moving forward with Corkran and what that looks like because I feel like this is a little bit putting the horse before the cart before we actually know what that looks like before we've had a discussion about it. So the only uh reframe that I would propose on that is it's not a matter of if but who. >> Uh so so we currently do have a gap and we have to figure out how to fill the gap. I I don't think that's in question. The question is how >> and and then to your point, we do have to continue those conversations. >> Yeah. >> And and so I I think again on parallel roads, we need to do something. we're moving forward to do something and then the details of how we do it get flushed out in those continued conversations both in work session and in conversations between our public safety director and those partners. So would it be a situation where they're looking at all of our properties and saying, "Okay, this is an option to have a fire service attached to this municipal government center, but maybe we have a discussion with our fire chiefs and one stands out and we have just our municipal center in one location and maybe it's police and fire or I don't know just some different because of where the fire station's needed. Maybe it's not in a specific spot that is what we think is the best spot for it to be located. Is that what you're saying? So they would give us an overall picture of what that might look like >> potentially. I think the proposal at this point for economy of scale would be a civic campus that includes all of those. But I also the reason it's not included in that is because that might not be the smartest proposal. We have the professionals flush that out. Um that would if I may that would be the nice to have the one campus everything there just talking kind of the Corkin way the cheaper those kind of things I've always dreamt this place to be the police and fire with an addition onto the side keep public works out where public works buy property out there to grow that more and such as needed and then a city hall someplace that's that's That's the nice to have and the least expensive in my mind and in the proposal to have somebody look at this that way. What is the best way to do it? I'm all on board. I just I'd rather everything be if if we do anything and every and if anything comes out of this I don't know how we can do it without increasing the property taxes which has been something that we've done really well at the last number of years >> build it >> how we could build it that >> how are we going to build it without increasing >> so so to speak to that uh since before I came here in 2027 there's been a placeholder in the long-term financial plan as you go back and look >> for a $50 million bond in order to build the civic campus. That's been discussed about for for many years. >> Uh and uh when we talk about trying to to do things wisely uh as as good stewards of not just the public trust but also the public funds. Uh, one one of the things that isn't lost on us is one of our partners is proactively looking to build a new space. >> Uh, this seems like for us to determine >> this would >> this Well, we haven't had those conversations yet. could coexist with someone else picking up part of that tab of a campus >> if if they want to partner or but but we have three partners and so we we owe it to all three of our partners to have conversations with them about how they >> how they're thinking about their role in the future of fire service. But we also have a responsibility to our residents >> to identify and deal with the reality of this service gap. So, uh, the our public safety director and I drove through the city and we looked at response times and we have an idea of where where the spaces to your point. Uh, it needs to be within this window in order to have a five mile or what was it the time frame? >> Yes. So we we drove around in the vehicle to go okay and >> the two properties that we have could meet that need. Yeah. >> Right now in terms of response times. >> Uh we didn't want to get any deeper than that because to your point our partners we have to have conversations with them. >> This this gives us enough information to know the clarity is cool >> do we have a space or do we not have a space so we can let this vendor know. I think my my point would be if we remove the fire aspect from it, that eliminates a lot of op options and possibilities down the road. If we include it, it leaves all sorts of options open down the road. So that would be my argument. >> I I believe it should be included. It's just it would be nice if we could just >> one of those three could step up and just do whatever instead of >> all the other conversations that are going on. I haven't >> I think that's what we start on. >> That'll be what we >> It'll be a helpful catalystic clarity for them, too. I >> love it. >> In terms of court priorities, >> I think we're all all on board then with that. Do you need a motion? Are you good with consensus? >> Uh actually, I >> do need a motion. >> I'll make a motion. >> This is going to go to a contract. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Either one of us. You choose. >> Mark Dean. >> Mark. >> All right. Uh >> sure. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All righty. That takes care of that one. And then I think we're going to take a five minute break here. So we'll uh recess meeting and come back at 8:39. Recess [Music] meeting. Yeah. >> Call the meeting back to order and we will continue on with a quick uh 9B which is city park renaming. Um JCB, did you have something? >> No, I'm just happy to answer any questions here if you have any but isn't really >> I would just say uh we kind of a couple weeks ago we discussed a week and a half ago discussed it feel like had some consensus on Heritage Park as the name. um commission had I don't really know about >> the commission was not in favor of the name the recommendation commission was to bring it back on July 17th have some time within that interim period to have council commission and staff send in some names for recommendation have them review it they would provide you with the recommendation and then go from there >> so I think >> uh I'd like to make a motion to accept resolution 2025-64 Renaming City Park to Heritage Park. >> Okay, we have >> I'll second >> motion and a second. Uh, any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> Abstain. >> 401. We have a name. Thank you. Aren't you glad I made you wait five minutes? [Music] >> No, but seriously, thank you. Um and with uh after that staff reports. >> Uh so I have one thing uh for the council. Uh today the Henipin County District Court released an order granting the city's motion for summary judgement on housing first remaining claims for declaratory and injective relief. Court also denied housing first motions for summary judgement. Oh, >> so that's done. >> It's got to be done. >> So, housing first will have 60 days to file an appeal. >> Okay. >> Once the district enters judgment, >> if housing first were to pursue another appeal, we believe the district court's decision is worthy of being upheld on appeal and we think it highly likely that we'll be able to persuade this court of appeals to affirm the decision. Sounds good. >> Not completely done, but as close to done as we've been in the last >> Okay. >> four years. >> Makes sense. >> That's great. >> Thank you. >> Any other hard work? >> Second. Any other staff reports? >> That is all. >> Okay. Uh council reports. I'll just uh highlight that we have the upcoming conference uh the Minnesota cities up in Duth. I think three of us are going and I did put the agenda uh to add for those who are going. Um, so look forward to seeing those of you that are going there. Should be a fun week or few days. Um, and other than that, um, one question, Mr. Mayor, um, I asked this at the last council meeting, address 21203, County Road 10, that utility pole is still not repaired. It's been three weeks now. I assume it's cable communications and stuff. It's not city stuff. Is there anything we can do? Cuz the the power line or whatever is hanging above the driveway is about 9 and 1/2 ft now from the driveway. >> Um I believe it is a communication poll as ahead of the county permit. So, I don't know what authority I would have. Um, we did email our contact person, but communications are notorious. >> Yeah. >> Could you copy me and I can copy Kevin Anderson and see if that gets all moving? >> Worth the shot. >> Yeah, we've had power line poles and they've been repaired in less than six hours, but uh >> communication on the commission. So, >> yeah, I know. I just network. I don't know. Just trying to >> It's sad they they won't even respond to our staff. So, thank you. But the property owner is patient, but it's causing issues as far as deliveries and those kind of things. Amazon, even the tall vans can't get there, so they aren't delivering stuff. And >> that's frustrating. Yeah. We'll see what we can do. Thank you. Thanks for bringing it up. >> Anyone else? >> All right. With that, I will entertain the uh council agent schedules in there. Obviously, today was a weird day because of Monday. Should be relatively more normal for a while. >> So, I will obviously super busy. >> Highlight a couple things. If I find my schedule, I just threw it in my pile. Sorry. >> Uh so, a couple things that I've added. Uh we uh added clarity to July 10th. Important thing on July 10th is I've added the 2026 budget goals and priorities. Uh so that discussion will be at the next council meeting so that we can move forward in the budget process. >> I won't be able to make that one. >> Uh so >> I'll try to provide my input ahead of time. >> That would be want some comments. >> Very helpful. >> Do county. >> Um >> and and for the process uh the the plan for staff is to mirror what we did last year. And so we are bringing forward uh the preliminary budget discussion discussion in a work session on August 14th. That's the preliminary budget. Uh and then the preliminary budget adoption as necessary will be September 25th. Just just a reminder, this is to set the max levy. >> Yep. And then we have added work sessions for October 23rd uh to discuss two departments uh to go through the details of their budgets and November 13th, administration of public safety in order to go through the details. And >> are those both on council day? >> Uh yes, they're both on council days. >> Perfect. >> Sounds good. >> And then uh truth and taxation and the final budget levy uh for December 11th. Only one meeting scheduled right now for the month of December. >> I like that. That's what we got. reset during the holidays and come back to it in January. Perfect. All right. With that, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So move. >> Second. All those in favor say I. I. >> I.