All right, I will call to order the Tuesday, September 9th meeting of the Dayton City Council. Stand for the pledge. I pledge algiance 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. >> All right. I will need a motion, second from the agenda. I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. >> Any any changes? >> One item. Mayor, members of council, I'm wondering if you guys want to have an item at the end of the meeting or if we just bring up during my staff update about discussion on the fire subcommittee that I've sent a couple emails out on. I either have an item at the end, which is totally fine, L1, or bring up a staff update, but wanted to give the option. >> Um, I guess we can put it at the end. Okay. Okay. L1. >> I'm good with it. >> Any other changes. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed say no. >> Motion carries five to zero. On to consent. Motion in the second. >> Make a motion. >> Need a second. >> Second. Okay. Uh discussion. >> Who you giving that to? Ser >> staff. >> You got something to do? >> No. Seriously? >> Well, we're not on payment. >> We're not on payment. >> We pulled that out for that reason. >> All right. Does anybody have any? >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed say no. Carries five to zero. On to open forum. Is anybody here for open forum? Limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. State your name and address. No council action will be taken. Items will be referred back to staff. >> Is Marcia feeling okay? >> Yeah, she's fine. >> She hasn't been here for a couple times. >> She's watching. >> Smile and wave. >> Keith Grover 113th in Fernbrook Lane. Um, what I wanted to to kind of come back to tonight is the uh um I know we've addressed some of the sign ordinance and you guys made some changes to that and what I've been noticing and what I've been talking to Hayden about and and Zach is the proliference of builders specifically in the city. Not the companies that are here permanently, but the builders that are in the city and then out after they get their homes built. They put up signs that are in clear violation of our city ordinance sizewise and in some instances both sizewise and heightwise. And I think for city staff, and they could speak for themselves, but this is my observation is like they're playing whack-a-ole with these folks. I mean, one sign gets taken down and then the next guy that starts to build a house or a, you know, a development up a sign goes and then a sign comes down and sometimes it's gone up and down twice in the same place at the request of the city to take it down. I guess I'm I'm kind of concerned that um that they don't take us seriously when we talk about that. And I don't I know city staff has got a lot more important things to do than run around the city and make sure the developers are not putting too big a signs up, but for those of us that live in the city, those things are butt ugly. And we have an ordinance for a certain reason. And the and the big people that have businesses here, they have to adhere to those ordinances. So, I don't understand why it's so difficult to force these developers that can't do anything in the city without our approval uh to follow the city ordinance. I don't know if we need to to correct something in the ordinance to give staff more ammunition or a bigger hammer to fix this situation. But I I really think that something needs to be addressed or at least started down that that path. If you have people that are putting them up, why are they putting them up? Are they putting them up because they really don't know what our signed ordinance is? That I kind of doubt. I think they do. But we give them the benefit of the doubt. We tell them to take it down or change the sign and then it goes down one place and comes back up someplace else. I think maybe we need to have number one a shorter time frame for them to react when we tell them that the sign is too big. I think somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we give them a month or something to react to that. Well, I that's too long. It took them two hours to build the sign and another 20 minutes to dig the post holes and put the sign up. I think a month is way too long. I'd give them a week. I think that's reasonable. didn't take them that long to put the sign up. The penalty that we have uh for repeat violations, I think, is not adequate because clearly because they don't care either that or they just have way more money to throw at us than, you know, than we think they do. The other thing is is taking the argument away from them that they're not aware of what the ordinance is or it's not Maple Grove lets us do this or Rogers lets us do this but Dayton doesn't is that when they whenever we give them permission, you know, to develop a property that we have a form that they fill out that says this is our sign ordinance. This is what you're allowed to put up. You can put this sign up. You can put it, you know, wherever you want on your property, but it can't be bigger than the 8x32 or vertical or horizontal or whatever they want. Um, I I know the staff has talked about that because I've heard you guys talk about it and you've certainly heard me bring it up before, but I'm just curious as to where we're at with that thing. And if if no one is working on it, I really would ask you guys to direct the staff to actually do that so that it gets done. That's all I have. Thanks. >> All right. Thanks. >> Anybody else? Open forum. [Music] >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is Ryan. I work for public works. This is my fourth year there. I'm here to present you guys with a petition. The city of Dayton ask me workers make up 30% of your staff. The members of the ask me group believe the city of Dayton council should honor the tentative agreement for the 2026 contract. I have it signed by all of our members and I'd like to present it to you. >> Okay. Appreciate your guys' time. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else for open forum? >> Anybody online? Um if you wanted to speak in the open forum, if you can use the raise your hand function, please. Not. All right. We will be done with open forum then. Uh staff consult council updates. Sec. >> Good evening, mayor, members of council. quite a few updates tonight. Um first one is that I need a little direction from the council. I know we've had a conversation with council in the past about the valuation process related to um arguing your valuation at the beginning of the year. We currently do a local board of appeals which has a separate meeting which is typically in April. We did that again. The council hears the arguments from residents and um in town about their valuations. If they're accepted, the next step is for them to go to Henipin County and review and approve that. Um there's a different valuation process we could do which is mentioned in open book. There is a thing in front of you that shows which cities are open book and which cities are local board of appeals. Um at city staff level we're trying to get figured out for next year what that's going to look like for us so we can give direction to the Henipin County aspect of things and they're asking us which one we want to do in 2026. So my question to city council is what would you like to do next year? Do you want to continue the same process we've always done which is local board of appeals? there was conversation related to that because it ends up going to Henipin County anyways and then we have no jurisdiction over it once it gets to Henipin County um or if we want to open book so >> so I'm here for >> do we know why these other cities do local board if they don't have the power to change things >> I don't know specifically the one I am aware of that's in our area is Maple Grove and the reason why they do theirs is open book is they have a separate special group of people realtors whatever else that they have is a separate actual board that utilizes the local board of appeals. It's not the EDA, it's not the city council, it's actually a separate local board of appeals group that they have. >> I think they also have their own assessors. >> Yes, >> I believe they don't outsource at Henipin County. >> They must not as well. >> So, if they have their own assessors, does Henipin County have the power to overrule those? >> It does. Well, then what's >> Okay. So if we chose to make a change, is that a permanent change? Is that something you can revisit every year? >> We can revisit every year that I'm aware of, but there had to be >> quite confusing to residents, but it can be revisited for sure. >> Yeah. If we reflect on it. Yeah. >> Um, so if you change the way we're doing it, it does give residents more time because then they don't have to meet our local board deadline and they get, I think, like three additional weeks before the county board. So, we did run into a resident who um was unaware of the time because when you have the local board, it's a specific time that's printed on the tax statement um which is different than an open book time where you have the three additional weeks or four, whatever it ends up being. I'm happy to wait for more information if you need more information or time and I'm fine with that. But I was just trying to get things rolling and moving um from us from county. So >> to me it's a waste of our time because if they're just going to turn around and overrule us anyways. I don't get it. The whole thing I don't get. So it almost seems like open book is one that makes sense but I don't >> my think would be open book because I think a from when we remain a local board as you said it it makes the time frame shorter but I also think it gives residents a false sense of like that that we can help them when the reality is the county doesn't give a crap what we say like what we decide doesn't affect it. the actual argument the resident comes up with is what's going to sway the county, not what the five of us say. So, I think it gives the resident a sense that somehow us agreeing with them matters when it has become clear that the fact that we agreed with the resident holds literally no water with the county. Um, the person they have to convince the county of their value, not us. Um, and so I think it also is gives a better sense to the residents who they're actually needing to convince. They don't need to convince us. They need to convince the county. Um, and so that's where their efforts should lie is in convincing the county that their assessment is wrong. So I think I think going open book is also just gives the residents a more realistic sense of what the process really is in my in my opinion. So >> I agree with you. I think it there's no sense in having people come in and fight for that and think that um like all that effort we're going to actually be able to make a change. Um and really they should be focusing that effort where they can actually get the change that they're looking for unfortunately. So >> I agree with that. I I think that I was under the impression in years past that we were actually making the decision and we're really only making a recommendation. And so I don't I don't see the value of it for the residents and you know the timing of it also >> works in their favor too if we're if we're not part of that process. Okay. >> You good with that? >> Yeah, I'm good with that. >> Thank you very much. >> A resolution on a future agenda. >> Yeah, we'll do a resolution for that to memorialize that aspect. Um next one I have is a reminder that city hall is closed this Friday for all our all employee event that was approved at a few meetings ago. Um, we're looking at trying to um do the year- end recap and we'd like to see if we could um close city buildings at noon on Wednesday, December 10th. Um, that's our year- end recap meeting that we've had historically. Does any have any issues with that at council level? You'll be notified just like it would be this Friday, but >> I do not any >> concerns? No. >> Okay. Um, I think I said this out in a um calendar invite, but Quick Trips94 will open on October 2nd uh at 5:00 am. The 994 chamber is holding a ribbon cutting scheduled on October 8th. You are all invited to that. That is at 11 at 11:00 a.m. And I did send a calendar invite. If you could please respond to that, that would be greatly appreciated. Last one I have is just a reminder for the open house at States Manufacturing. That's next Thursday, September 18th. And I did send an invite out for you all as that way. Um, I know they are looking at doing some sort of food or derves at that thing. Again, hosted by N84 Chamber. So, if you could respond, that would be greatly appreciated. Not from me, but from the chamber. So, >> again, if you don't respond, >> do not respond to you though. That >> Nope. I sent the invite out from 95. They should get the response back. I just asked you. Okay. Um, the same thing was with ribbon cutting at the quick trip as well. It's done by I94 chamber. >> Got it. Got it. Got it. >> All I have. Thank you very much. No update tonight. Morning. >> Uh just a couple of things. Um irrigation uh is pretty much complete. We do have the power turned on to the River Hills U thing now. That just needs to be tested out and the well um hooked up to that. So that's good to go. Uh public works has started to uh overseed. Uh we've got uh Hayden Hills overseed currently. Um the irrigation system is uh over there working uh three times a day uh to establish the seed. Um park improvements is moving along. Um we've had a couple of uh soil correction issues, but I think I've spoken to you about that before and we're working on the trails over there and uh the landscaping and grading is still going on over there. Uh water treatment plant uh much the same story as before. They're still working on the brick work on the outside. Um, two of the walls are complete. The third one is about 80% there and they'll start on the the fourth wall um this week. Uh, the internal pipe work is still going on. There's a lot of pipe work going in there. So, um, that's still pro um proceeding um on on schedule at the moment. So, we're definitely on schedule for a January 26 startup. If we can improve on that, we definitely will. Chief, >> good evening, members, mayor, and members of council. Uh, just to recap, over the last three weeks, you've seen uh three different press releases uh from the fire department. Um, we've had three different structure fires. Um, approximately about a half million dollars worth of loss. um between the home in Oldtown um the shed over here off 117th and then roughly about two two and a half mobile homes uh yesterday. Um during the events uh we had good response from firefighters on their calls that were on the weekends. Unfortunately, yesterday we had one firefighter show up for the mobile home fire. uh two did respond later on in the afternoon and so it precipitated a response from 14 different agencies to assist in extinguishing that fire. Um so just wanted to provide that update for you. >> Can I ask a question, Chief? When you say 14 agencies, how many of those are other fire departments? >> All 14. >> You called 14 departments out. >> That's correct. Um, can I I have one other question, too. There was a firefighter that was injured during the fire. Do Do you know what agency? Could you tell me offline? Maybe just where they were from. Were they from Dayton or they another department? >> They're not from Dayton. >> And they everything was a Okay. >> Yep. They were treated and released. Um, they were, as I put in my press release, they were electrocuted. The power lines in between the mobile homes. Um, we had some difficulties with Excel. We always make that call early for utilities to come and um be turned off. Um they didn't send somebody in the initial call and then as the fire progressed, we believe that the lines um kind of dropped and no one noticed and it charged a uh chain link fence in between the the units. >> Okay. >> Um so he was familiar with it because of his trade. Um but we still sent him just to get double checked. So, some lessons learned there. >> Yeah, there's not much we can do with it, but yeah, try to get power shut off as early as possible, but when Excel didn't respond and they said that was on them, so >> thank you. >> Yep, >> Chief. No, >> nothing. Nothing. Jason, >> nothing. >> Nothing for me. >> Scott, >> uh, the only thing I've got is the, uh, little picture in front of you that Zach provided. We spoke earlier about this today, this morning. Um, I really thought we were going to get at this for the uh the trail talking, but I didn't know you guys were going to use the whole 55 minutes for the trail. Um, I would like to get a conversation going about getting some sort of a shelter over the uh band shell at Stevens Park because it's going to take 4 months just to get the band shell ordered before we get it. And ideally, it' be nice to have it built next April, May so that we are ready for outdoor events. That doesn't mean that just because you got the band shelled, we won't get rained out because if it rains, nobody's coming in. But I >> think wasn't the concern that whatever MSA kind of constructed may result in the >> they're they're pretty much done with their uh their picture >> and it's not going to affect where the bell is. >> Yeah, >> I think we can talk about whether we're moving forward with something or not. So that's all >> for me it was more design and style. I wanted to make sure everything coordinated and I wanted to see where the MSA design >> That's right. >> Like I don't want >> I don't want it to look like we just picked up whatever was on clearance and threw it up um willy-nilly. I would like it to look like a cohesive design. Um, and those that includes like the design elements, materials, um, like and to me, I want a cohesive design because this is like a premier destination park. So, that's why I was wanting to wait until we had that final plan. So, are they even doing that, Marty? Because I didn't see anything in that the questions that they were asking that the I didn't see anything about any sort of design. Yeah, they're they're going part of their scope of work is to u bring back the designs and materials. Um they will be showing a bunch of different um examples of what they're there um proposing. Um currently they uh are reworking their their concept that they presented to the parks commission uh because there was a number of different um things mentioned at that meeting. So they've up updated that plan and that's why it wasn't on tonight's agenda because it wasn't ready to go. It will be in front of the next parks commission and then after that it will come to you guys um first meeting in uh October I believe. Um and then from there we will progress with the designs and get some more detail on those. Um and then we'll get the cost estimate estimation going on from there as well. So, what are you looking for? >> Just No, just that in the near future to have a conversation about what we're doing >> before all of a sudden it becomes June or July and >> you're going to try and build something and you're on next year. >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> That's all I got. >> I don't have anything. >> I have nothing. Dave, >> um, two quick things for me. one, I attended a uh presentation this morning at the activity center uh put on by the attorney general's office and this was kind of uh tailored toward uh seniors and that's pretty much who was there uh for uh you know online and telephone threats and all of the scams that are going on and it was a pretty good turnout I thought u you know probably 20 people there but uh pretty engaged group and And so I thought it was a good presentation. I just wanted to measure mention that. Um the other thing also from today at the EDA meeting um there was some discussion about u the changes in laws around uh remote um calling into meetings remotely that there was a new law that came into effect sometime this summer. And what kind of came out of that conversation is we're missing one um piece of capacity to be able to do that because as I understand it uh you have to be able to see the person um who is who is remote to when they vote on things. So it can't be just a roll call and and verbal. And so if I understood that correctly, we're missing a piece in our technology somehow to allow um somebody to remote in and for them to be seen. And so it's something we should look into. >> Yeah. Council fashion, we do have Zoom and we're able to get that. So we can have that ability to have a picture up. I'm not sure what happened at the EDA this morning, but we do have that ability via Zoom to have them shared on the screen list on the side. >> So if somebody's got their camera on, we can see them. >> Yes. >> Okay. that was that's different than how it was portrayed this morning. So, I just want to make sure that we're clear on what the new rules are and that we're able to accommodate that when it does come up. >> Yes, appreciate that information and update, but yeah, we are able to accommodate them via Zoom so we can see them um and we can either have them up on the screen when they're they have to be considered I think it's a co-host or something so they can actually be seen on the screen and such, but we can make that work with our current features of Zoom. >> I feel like we actually did this with you when you were in Hawaii. I thought so. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I thought so >> we did that. >> That one wasn't able to unfortunately be able to was it that one didn't work because of the fact that we had >> notification >> notification or whatever wasn't right or whatever. So, but yeah, we had you on Zoom and you were able to be seen. So, >> okay, >> that worked >> but appreciate the update and ver verification. So, thank you. >> My turn. you. Yes, >> that's ahead. >> At the risk of ruffling feathers tends to be my thing lately, um I had four firefighters reach out to me asking about being back paid at the $30 an hour after the meeting that we had because what was said is that the direction was to move all firefighters and so they're wondering if um they will be back paid to January at that increase. something maybe we can talk about later on, but I just wanted it to be on the radar that I had four separately reach out to me and ask. And I didn't have an answer obviously or a intelligent thought on what to say back. So I said I would bring it up and so here I am. And I asked Marty already. So then that's it for me. Okay. Uh we will move on to new business. Item D, Metro West update. >> Mayor members cult. We have Mike Rosenau who's the building official for Metro West here to provide a little update for us on a few things that have happened over the past couple of months and um provide some clarity. So >> hello Mayor, councel. Um, so yeah, uh, first of all, I would like to say Zach, thank you for bringing to my attention the concerns and the conversations that have happened. Um, I'll start off with the I think the biggest one, um, that I'll just flat out say should not have happened and quite frankly, I don't think can happen is the uh, the MTL building. Um, that was a a mistake on our part that just shouldn't happen. And in the end, it falls on me, right, to make sure that my staff is aware of things of that nature that so they don't happen again in the future. Um, at this point, I feel confident that's been corrected. Uh, we do have a current code compliant building there now. Um, with the understanding that if anything was to change on their daily operations or in the conditional use permit, a new permit would be required and then that building use would need to be changed. Um, and code requirements have to be met at that time. Um there's also been um I believe two other comments about um one about an inspection that he did not believe uh I'm assuming it was a resident did not believe we were there and did a sufficient job. I can't speak for it. I was not on site. I don't know what the concern was other than the timing of the inspection how long we were there. Um the second one I believe there was an issue with some missing I'm going to guess some bracing on a post a post frame structure. um that was not called out again um in planer view or at a final inspection. Um again shouldn't happen um and and steps I have taken to try and correct those measures within our staff are a couple things. One is I have personally gone out um followed up behind our inspector just to kind of see okay is there anything that I need to educate him on or our staff on that is is currently being missed. Um, thankfully I can say I did not have any any concerns other than some paperwork. Just, you know, clarifying paperwork, you know, dotting our eyes, crossing our tees, making it clear so if somebody falls behind you, they're aware of what you looked at, what was approved, what needs to be corrected. Um, I also went through I did a review of I'm going to say I'll just say a dozen of pre previously appro approved plans. Overall, again, I was satisfied with what I seen. Again, some information was there. could be a little clearer as to how it's being constructed, but the information was at least on the plan. So, we discussed that with our staff as well. Um, and then the last thing I did is I I mixed in a couple different inspectors just to get different sets of eyes out in the jurisdiction seeing the jobs, see if they're seeing something that, you know, our the current inspector that's mostly serving this area may not be seeing. Um overall the only thing that came back there is there was a question brought up and we reached out to the mechanical company about separation of fresh air intakes from exhausts. Um the mechanical company did provide us with the manufacturer specs showing that their installs were being completed per manufacturer installs and everything looked good. Um and then our last decision we made as a as a whole is instead of just having one person servicing day, we're going to mix in two. So there'll always be kind of a little bit of oversight of each other. You know, hey, I was out here, you signed off on this. You know, it just there's a lot to look at. We do a lot of inspections. It just I think it's always good to have a little bit of checks and balances with in accountability to each other in our in our office. So >> So, so let's say you got a deck. You're saying you may send one guy out there to look at the holes and then the next guy's going to be different so that when he does a frame or whatever steps he he's also checking what was previously done. >> Yeah. So, for example, say I go do uh I go do a plumbing rough in um I sign off on plumbing and I'll just say for example, Jack follows up on me and he does the framing. Well, it's another set of eyes and and what I want out of this is if I miss something, say I miss a nail plate or insulation on a hot water line. What I want is I want to know that our staff, it's not about insulting anybody, but it's also about educating and make sure we're doing our job to best our ability. So, bring it to my attention. Hey, I followed up on you on this inspection and I noticed this or this. Just keep an eye out for it in the future type thing. And then also document, right? If I'm doing the framing, I want to say, "Hey, I know plumbing was signed off on, but you need to put a nail plate here. Insulate that." Whatever the corrections need to be done so that they're they're getting done. >> If a resident does have a concern about how an inspection went, whether things were missed or, you know, if they thought it was too fast or whatever, what would be the best way to communicate those concerns to you? >> I would want them to call me directly. Call our office, ask for me directly. I I always want to know about these concerns. The sooner I know, the sooner I can take the corrective actions needed. Um there may be times where I'll go out and take a look at it myself, meet with the homeowner. Um if I can answer it over the phone or through email, I will. But if it needs to be something I need to go out and see in person to just make sure we're clear of what they're explaining to me so I can give them the correct answer, we're going to do that. >> So I have a question. Um, back to kind of the fire stuff. Um, who does those plan reviews? Is it in your office? Do you have a licensed fire protection engineer? Do you have I mean, yeah, I guess I'm kind of lost in some of this because we've heard inspector one, inspector 2, fire marshal, and then I know there are licensed engineers out there that do this design end, but what happens on your end or who does that work? Um now Roger just recent retired so I believe we are currently down we have five um certified fire suppression uh plan reviewers and inspectors in our office and we've got our accreditation you can say through education through the state fire marshall's office. So, for like myself to get certified, I did a 4-day in-person course and then you do a an exam through the fire marshall's office. And if you pass that exam, you get approval for plan review and inspections for fire suppression. And that's 32 hours. And then we have and then we use that as part of our continuing education through fire protection or building code just through our whole certification as a whether you're a building official limited or a building official we have to you know achieve our required continuing education. Um so there is a little difference from our certifications compared to like a fire inspector one or a fire inspector 2. We don't do we don't take those certifications. Ours are a different thing just for the actual fire suppression system and then the installation and coverage and how that works. >> Okay. And so that's a different uh track. It's still through the state fire marshall's division that they get that certification I believe so but it's specific to plan review. >> Yep. Yeah. So there's, you know, we have certification for the fire suppression systems, fire alarm systems, and that all ties together through the building code as as being a certified building official or a department. Um, but then there's also my understanding is there's fire inspector one, fire inspector 2. I believe we could uh try to obtain those, but those are something more you see through um typically that what I see it through is like a fire department if they're doing their own their fire inspections for whatever reason, rentals, commercial buildings. Um I believe even for if there's fire damage. I'm not sure how that all works. I don't have a whole lot of education on the fire inspector one, fire inspector 2 certifications. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm not trying to decide who who should be doing what. I'm just trying to understand. >> Yep. Yeah. And it's it's complicated. Like I said, I I I I know there's multiple phases to it. Ours is strictly just to fire suppression um service and protection. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Anybody else have any questions? So, one of the things, so mine was at the built uh the pole barn that was missing the structural piece. And the reason it was caught is because the guy I buy hay from is a structural engineer and he happened to my barn and be like, "You're missing some things." Um, so, and I'm very lucky and grateful that my hay guy happens to be a structural engineer. Um, so but it led to the question of, you know, was this a one-off or is this a like how like how was this just a random one-off situation or is this widespread? And so one of the things I've had people ask about is is it possible to do some sort of very quick survey? And as someone who has done surveys myself of my students, I know response rates are usually low to terrible, but um this one thing that was brought up is like once someone gets an inspection, just send them a real quick like, you know, and what exactly the survey would say would is still very TBD, but something like, you know, are you happy with the inspection or even just were you home when the inspection occurred? Would you if if the city did go that route and I'm not saying we are because I haven't like would that would that be valuable if we could collect that and then possibly pass those results on to you based on like hey you know a lot of people are thrilled this was just a one-off or actually we're having quite a few residents express concerns about how quick it was and maybe there's an education piece there as well for residents like this is what to expect when you have cuz a lot of people haven't had an inspection so they have no idea what that process process should look like. So, would that be valuable or >> It definitely couldn't hurt. Okay. Uh I would, you know, I would only tend to be cautious of it a little bit is is I always like to say building inspectors aren't always looked at as the welcome to party, right? Or kind of as, hey, you know, yeah, when I need you, I want you to help me, >> but if I don't need you, it's kind of like leave me alone. >> Yeah. You're a pain in my butt. >> Yeah. You know, um >> but it definitely any any feedback can't hurt, right? I mean it's it's and I think at any situation you you want feedback but you have to just take it with with a grain of understanding hey you know >> if we get a 100 people 33 are probably going to give you an honest answer 33 are going to kind of be in the middle and 33 are just going to say no matter what we did they're not going to like it. >> Yeah. you know, so you know, but any feedback is can be good feedback and anything that um that we can do to help I guess to the community, you know, other than you know, we're we're open to it, right? You know, the limitations are though is we are limited to the minimum standards and that's and I think sometimes that's the lost in translation part. >> Yeah. >> Is I think some people think we have more authority than we do. And so when I when I've met with people at all of our jurisdictions is it's very hard to explain to them that I understand your concerns, but if I can't support the violation with a code section, I really can't write up a code violation. You know, I mean, >> and you may not and residents may not want that. They don't want you guys kind of making stuff up. >> Yeah. You know, um and that that's where it comes kind of back to some people. They want us to kind of, hey, I don't like this. I need your help. >> Yeah. And it's and that's when you kind of get a little more of a I we'll say a friendly discussion about I understand your concerns. I can agree it may not be the most pleasing cosmetically but it does meet the minimum and that's unfortunately that's all I can enforce. >> Yeah. Okay. So I think a part of it is also just an educational component on it >> and and that can be done. I would encourage anybody to um even if you disagree I've said it to multiple people is it's okay to disagree with me if you as long as we can have a professional conversation about it. Yeah, >> you know, and it's okay for I I have to go to the code book all the time. I tell my staff, if you don't know, be honest. Hey, hey, let me let me double check with you and call you back because I'd rather have them take an extra half a day and get them the right information than tell them or ask them to do something that may cost them more money that they didn't have to do to begin with. >> Yeah. >> Anything else? >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Have a good evening. Okay, on to item E, DNR landing. >> Good evening, Mayor Council. Um, I'm going to be fielding this one. Um, Eleanor from MSA couldn't make it tonight at the last minute, so I'm going to uh try and do the best I can with this. Um the DNR uh this part of the project uh came about um because of some very early meetings with uh a group of uh uh local um our neighboring cities and uh agencies that work and have interests in the river. Um the DNR was part of that group um and were uh were interested in in participating. Um they were having problems with uh getting motorized boats in down at their existing launch in the old village because it silts up so bad down there. Um there's like a beach down there most of the time. Um so they contacted us and said we're interested in doing this. Um however, we haven't got the resources to do the design and build on this. So um if we funded it, would the would the city you manage the law uh the design and build of this? We're currently at the design stage of this. We've worked with the DNR with their design standards and their people um to come up with the uh a concept. We did I think we came up with four initial concepts. Um we've narrowed it down to the one which uh suits all of the uh DNR needs. Um they're going to have a a boat launch off of the uh the Crow River now. Um and we're going to use uh the existing launch and extend that out um and use that as a canoe kayak um launch there. It's uh going to be a more of a a beach landing type uh scenario. So we're going to be able to access there uh um pretty easily with a yeah non-motorized boat. Um they wanted to increase some of the parking uh in the the uh the landing there. Um so we've redesigned how the the uh trailer parking can go in and the the traffic flow has been adjusted as well. Um there's some canoe kayak l uh launches um parking down by the canoe kayak area. There's a couple of storm water um features on this as well. um to manage some of the storm water from the additional uh uh black top that's going in. Um that's pretty much everything there. This is um this is a 100% funded by DNR. Um so this I just wanted to bring this to your attention so you had an understanding of what was going on down there. >> Can we make comments? >> You can make comments. I know this isn't our, you know, we're I think you described it as kind of a courtesy Yeah. >> review and and that's good. I just wondered um it's not dimensioned on here, but the >> the the length >> I don't quite how to point at this, but as you make the loop around you're pulling your boat trailer in, >> right? You make that loop around, >> what is that distance, you know, to get yourself straightened out before you start backing up? It's not called out on the plan. And then I just want I'm curious that or want to make sure that that's long enough to actually get your boat straight so you can back into the landing. >> And this is um designed like I said with DNR standards and so that is one that's a major consideration for them when they do it. I don't know technically what that number is but I can definitely find that out >> I'm guessing. >> Yeah. Yeah. The other piece I'm I'm not quite sure how that what the intent is is is right next to that is a essentially a car and trailer parking spot handy marked handicapped >> and is is that really >> I don't know it seems to me like that space is needed for getting your boat okay >> kind of straightened around and not a great place for >> right >> and that maybe a handicap spot you know needs to be accessible to landing I understand that but is that really the best location for Okay. >> Almost seems like that whole area could be consumed by the by somebody trying to back in and maybe move the handicap one over or maybe to the other side or >> I move the handicap where the no parking area is there. Just flip them too. They give you more room. >> I can definitely ask these question. put the comments back to Dan >> because you know people are gonna I mean a lot of people can back up their boats and get it situated but some people really have to struggle >> spend your day watching YouTube of people not doing that well >> but yeah it looks good it's hard to believe you can get all this in there >> okay that's all I have any comments >> okay >> thanks Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. On to item F, utility boxes. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, the EDA has expressed some concerns about utility boxes that are either damaged or abandoned. Um we've had some kind of conversation of what recourse does the city have against uh utility providers. Uh the public utilities commission does have regulations on this. Um how we're in discussions with the the puck or public utilities uh commission is that we have to show that what are the the locations of damaged utility boxes? What um efforts have we done to with the utility companies to have them fix it. The issue that we have is not all the boxes are identifiable. >> Uh meaning that they don't necessarily have a sticker on it that shows who owns the boxes. So um in going back and forth, we've asked Stantech to put together a proposal for inventorying um what's in the rightway. And I should back up a little bit. Uh we did have a brief discussion with the council at a previous meeting. I apologize I don't remember what date that was. Uh but the direction from the council was is that we should know what's in the rightway. So it's the the issue isn't related to utility boxes alone. It's it's what else is in the rightway that might not might need to be uh repaired. Um and I'm going to look at Jason to kind of explain what it all is within the proposal or what what all that covers. Uh the proposal is to drive the streets and electronically capture all of the images and then literally someone would go through the video and mark in where the actual locations are. So it' be building the database of the electrical pedestals. We also had provisions in there. I think it was for street lights, utility poles, and I want to say there was one other item. Um I don't remember if it was boulevard trees or other. Um I think there was four included in there that would be that effort. >> Utility poles. uh electrical and cables and telephone cables. >> Okay. So, I guess it's a three. >> Oh, it I'm sorry. Street lights, street signs >> or street signs. That's the one that was missing. >> So, it' be to inventory those, but that would be just to build the database. That would not identify condition necessarily or ownership. >> So, we still have the ownership issue. You'd still have to manually go I presume manually go out to the site unless we can say with confidence based on the picture and the known service area of the provider what those would be but it doesn't end with the inventory. >> So do other cities do this inventory? I am not familiar with anybody doing this >> and my understanding is that the utilities are legally obligated us to provide us with maps of where their utilities are. My past life I've seen them from Excel and from Centerpoint and they tend to be quite accurate. So I'm you know I don't know why we well I know they have to give that to us and and I feel like that's before we go to this step of assessing condition. >> Yeah. Well, which is really the second step, but the the piece about inventorying them, they're legally obligated to provide us with a map of their utilities in our city. And I think we need to be a little bit uh stronger about demanding that from them and then see where we have to go through from there, where the gaps are, and maybe some portion of this study is still necessary, but I don't feel like we should be starting from square one on this. >> Okay. I'm not familiar with that. Uh yes they are. So and we do that frequently on design projects or project areas. We call in design locates is what we call and they send the electronic files of their inventory of their and and they are generally pretty accurate these days. Doesn't tell you the condition of course but it tells you the location and the type. >> So if we see for example something that's falling apart, we could get we could do a locate there or we would send them information saying >> give us your utilities in this I >> I'm assuming the locate is the same as the 911 or the 811. >> Yes. Yeah. Run through the same program. That That's exactly right. Yes. You can submit it that way and you you can literally just draw in the area you want. >> Um it's pretty automated now. Just draw in a box of the area you want covered and they'll send everything that pertains. >> So, has that been the hangup is figuring out who owns these boxes? >> Yes. >> So, that's one of them. So, we we don't know how many boxes are are that need in repair. Well, I would think if somebody has a box they see needs repaired, they could report it. But I mean, I don't know that I don't know. Does it make sense to have somebody from the city go around and check all this stuff? I seems like >> it does instead of spending $31,000 to have Stantech do it. >> Well, >> I mean, if one of Marty's part-time guys drove around for two or three days, >> what are you going to spend? Uh, two or three days worth of wages? But I'm assuming Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> Now, to me, you go back to that box that was up there. >> Does that box have any working mechanical >> properties in it? >> My only the property owner would know. >> Well, I would personally, I would send a notice to the property owner and say, uh, you've got until October 15th or whatever the date is to fix it, or I'm going to take the skid steer and I'll I'll fix it. >> Okay. Well, you can't do that. But I would think that if you had a utility box that looked like that and like if I had that in my yard or on my street, I would be calling my provider and say, "Hey, I've got an issue here." So, is the hangup that that has happened and we're not getting any momentum or is the hangup that that phone call never happened? I >> I think the hangup is the phone call never happened and there's others that are bothered by these boxes >> on other properties. But it doesn't seem like rocket science to figure out who owns this. >> It it shouldn't be that hard. Like your utility should have all of that information. Like we shouldn't have to go around and look at their they would know where their street lights are. They know where their lines are. They know where their boxes are. Like your utility should know all of those things. And if the problem is we don't know who it is, again, look at the service to service territory. Give them a phone call and they'll tell you if it's not theirs. And most of the time if you're button up to another, sorry, I work at a utility. Maybe I should have said that first. You know which ones are yours and whose they are if it's not yours and they should be able to point you in the right direction. So I guess like here's my thing. If it's is bothering you, it's on your neighbor's property, you more than likely, unless you live right where you live where excels stops. You should know who the utility is or at least get a a start to who to call. >> Is the problem here? We can't get them to fix these things. I don't know what the root problem >> I think the root problem is what I'm if I'm understanding you correctly this is what I'm hearing you say and tell me if I'm wrong please >> is that we don't know whose utility box that is and so we can't even start is that is that is is that the problem statement >> um I I'm going to say that's step two step one is we don't have the time or capacity to go out and do an inventory of this >> you shouldn't have to is what I'm telling you >> right >> you should be able the utility should be able to give that to you >> so the complaint is the city should go to look at every utility box in the city and figure out okay the abandoned ones or the ones are damaged. Go figure out who's needs to fix this. >> Well, that Okay, >> we don't have time to do that. >> No, no, I don't don't think you do, but I don't think you should. Not that I don't think that it should be fixed, but that's on your utility to maintain their equipment. We don't own that box. They own that box. Same thing with their um like the transmission lines. Like we would never go out and be like, "Oh yeah, that needs to be fixed." Like you would call them and say, "Hey, we got a line down." They would come out and they would fix it. Like that's >> that call isn't happening. >> So, but that's what I'm saying is is we got to take some responsibility that if you have an issue and you see this and it's bothering you that much where we're we were even asking to spend $31,000 to make an inventory of them, you could pick up the phone. I could pick up the phone tomorrow and be like, "Where where is this one?" I'll I'll make a phone call. Like it's not my service territory, but I could tell you whose it is. >> Like I'm not I'm not trying this This is coming off really aggressive. I don't mean to come at you, John. I'm really sorry. >> Back up a little bit here. What's the problem? >> These are eyes. >> They're eyes and someone wants them taken care of. >> So the eyes then we should be able to do the locates, find out who owns it, and does the city have power to tell them to >> fix it? fix it >> within our rightway that the so kind of what I'm going back to. This is one out of say 2,000 utility boxes indeed. >> Yeah. >> We don't know how many of them are damaged. >> Well, okay. >> We know there's at least one of them, >> right? >> Well, there's more than one. >> Okay. >> There's many more than one. >> So, let's say there's 20. I I Why would we spend I not sure what exactly we're trying to fix here. >> Mayor, I think I'm I'll stop you there. This is not something that staff's wanting to do. I want to make sure that that's clear. >> Like like we're not wanting to do this aspect. We're not wanting to spend 31 grand. We're getting asked to do work that we don't have time to do and we're trying to figure out what's a solution we can figure out and help with. >> It would be the same thing as we have residents are our biggest helpers for code enforcement. It should be the same thing. We're looking for residents to help us >> maintain those things. Yeah. >> So, if we see this, does the city have an obligation to at least >> say, let's say it's it's whatever Joe Blow's phone company, which looks like phone lines. >> Do we have the power to call them and say, "Your box is falling apart. Come fix it." >> If we have a complaint about a specific box in the cases, it's all of them that are >> that are being complained about. >> No, not all of them. >> Yeah. But we don't know how many of those are or where they are. >> Well, then let them be complain. Yeah. if no one's saying anything about them. I mean, not that I think that we should leave them crappy, but if we're complaint based on everything else, if somebody comes forward and says on the corner of this street and that street there's a box that's, you know, looks like this, then that would warrant us being okay, like who do we need to call, >> right? >> Not let's go around and look and see if maybe there's a problem on every single corner, you know, like it just seems silly to me. I I'm not understanding. >> I I don't I'm not sure what we're doing here. I think the city has you can get an inventory. Somebody just drive around and look. >> Are you volunteering, Scott? >> But why do we need an inventory? >> Know how many boxes look like that? >> Okay, so that's that's different if you're talking about you you want to hunt down boxes that are falling apart. Maybe. Yeah, I I get that. Um I just the whole inventory thing seems kind of odd. >> No. And I again I feel like we can get most of that information right from the utilities. I I don't agree that the city should drive around and and find all of these. I think it should be complaint based. I think we we could advertise you know through the um >> communicator >> communicator or you know other ways to encourage people if they have damaged utility boxes to call. Right. And then why does the city have a role in it? Well, it's our right away that this is in number one. And I think that when they're, you know, if the answer from the utility is that, well, it's a it's an abandoned box. We're not doing anything with those. I I think we do have to bring some weight to this thing. And I think we have some weight. I would call that unresponsive on their part for not removing abandoned equipment from our rightway. And it looks like there's an escalation path if they ignore the city. So, I feel like we've got a role in here beyond what the the homeowner can do on their own, and it is in our right away. If I'm not mistaken, the city's EDA or the EDA the EDA's attorney gave staff a path to to handle this. >> Um, we don't have that path. We Yes. So, ju just uh >> we don't want to do the EDA's attorney had mentioned that that um of using I I think it was escros um to fund replacing the boxes. We don't have that. >> We don't have on these things. >> No. >> No. >> Well, >> okay. >> You I could be mistaken on that, but the general idea is we we do not hold funds from the utility companies for >> that was that was the path. I mean, I don't know what the path was. >> I mean, to me, it's just a simple simple thing to take care of. I mean, once you're call the call the utility company and have them fix it. If they don't >> Okay, >> sure. Fix it. >> So, the direction I'm hearing from the council is complaint basis. >> It sounds like the EDH chair wants to speak to this. So, >> go ahead. >> So, Tim, you can go ahead and talk. >> He's unmute himself. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Uh, council. Hello. EDA Chair Hutner here. I think this system goes a little deeper than what we're we're discussing tonight. This is this is not about an individual or a company or a person being able to connect. This is about a company that doesn't have the wherewithal or the me demeanor to continue service in these boxes. Uh as a city we should be very vigilant on on city services. We we charge for these as a as a as a public tax or a increment of a tax that we are collecting. And if you are in fact a business or a company that needs still landline twisted pair, you're not going to get service. So at that point with the discussion I had with a neighbor of mine and it was at the air conditioning shops that there it was their Super Bowl. It was 95 99 degrees outside. They can't even get the public utilities to come out and and service what they have on on Twisted Pair. It's deeper than that. And I think that you know 31,000 run around take pictures, you know, I don't know. And I know I know admin did not want to engage this, but we're the ones paying the taxes as as a business and it's either going to be twisted pair, it's going to be they won't even service coax anymore. Now they want to sell us fiber at the tune of $780 a month. So there it's so I want you to just really to understand that this is a thing and not that I just want to jump up and down and say, "Hey, no worries. this particular box you have up on the screen that is three houses down and that is over by Lucero's property and that's 200 twisted pair that we're supposed to be working our phone lines off of and you can see the coax coming out of that I believe as a city as an EDA and as a infrastructure we have a clear path that we should say enough of this you you fix this or we get this kid gets steer and start making holes and then somebody will come out and fix it. I just want to make sure that was pretty clear. In any service department, whether you're an individual, whether you're a business, try and get some help. I have had point blank discussions with the with the technicians that come out and they say, "We will not fix them." Okay. You want to take a stance? Here we are. Now, what do we do? That's what I needed to tell you. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. I apologize. The speakers aren't working above, so that's why you can't hear. I apologize. You can't. >> It seems like what he's saying is they can if they that a homeowner or a business knows who the utility is and they want something like this fixed, they're going to the utility when in fact they should be going to the city because we have the the authority. >> Well, if it's in our right away, I >> may Yeah. Mayor, members of the council. So the idea would be that they would go to the utility first. If they don't make any progress there, then they should reach out to the city and say, "I've contacted the utility. They've done nothing about it. It is in the right of way. Can you help me?" >> Sure. >> The answer would be yes, we can. >> Yes. >> I think that seems like a reasonable ask at this point. And we do them on a one-off basis. So that if it bugs the homeowner that much, we're happy to help. >> I think it's just more or less at a staff level, we don't have the ability to drive around, babysit. We we can't we have enough babies sitting and we doing all the things. So >> it it does seem odd that your utility wouldn't be concerned about this but and maybe they don't even know about it. I don't know but >> I don't know the answer. >> Yeah. I think his point was they're stopping this type of service and they're offering a more expensive service like fiber and stuff. So they're discontinuing to even maintain these. >> Well, but as long as they're in our rightway, seems like we have the authority to say >> you have to maintain it. fix your crap >> or remove it >> or remove it. >> And to help them escalate it up that process like David said. >> Yeah. If we don't get somewhere, we're going to go to the public utilities commission and say, "Help us out here." >> Yeah. >> Do something, >> right? >> So, are we are we good with what that was? >> So, the my interpretation of the direction is that it's complaint based. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Everything else is. >> Okay. But I think we do acquire those route maps. >> Trust me, it's not going away. >> No, it's fine. >> So, yeah. So, mayor, members of C, what we could do is see if we can get those maps or whatever from there and see if we can somehow incorporate into some sort of GIS file or something that we can have um on either stent or public works maintain or whatever so we know where they're at. So, I think that's something we can do. >> But even knowing where they're at, I mean, let's say we know where this one's at. >> Well, it's not necessarily that maybe it's who owns it. Who who owns it? Who owns it is the question because that's who we got to call. So >> who you call? And as long as we're using this example, it has pretty clearly phones done. >> And the box has a number on it. So it's on somebody's inventory. >> And that would be helpful, I think, with the communication with the utility to say your box >> located at and it's this number if that's still your inventory system. >> Okay. >> Help them track it down. Yes. Yes. One comment. >> Come on up. Keith Grover 113 in Furbrook. Again, um I I I want to echo what Tim said. I understand where he's coming from. Him and I have had that discussion before and it's been going on for a year and a half or two years. >> And the issue you see with the the phone company and that's a phone company box. There's no doubt about that. And that's you know who else besides Century Link has phone in our city. So let's just that's what it is. That box is probably 50 years old. And they probably are trying to phase out some of the old copper wire. But there's a huge portion of the city of Dayton, especially the rural part that doesn't have the fiber optic like all the new developments do. That's through a box just like that is where I get my phone and my internet. And I've had the box in directly in front of my house. uh get left open and you look and there nobody ran into it. No cars went off the road. I certainly didn't hit it with my, you know, with my uh lawnmower, which the guy that came to fix it accused me of doing. But it does take them a long time to respond to that. And usually have to take several calls to them saying, "Hey, I mean, do I have to wait until I don't have any phone service or internet before you come out and close the box?" I I have a a pretty accurate theory on why a lot of those boxes are sitting open like that. They don't fall open by themselves. The the covers go on and the top sits on them and it locks them all together. It takes a lot to bang them apart with a hammer to get them to open up like that. I've watched them do it. the folks that are out working on the location, uh, locating underground utilities for all of these new developments. They're the ones that open those things up. They go in and they hook their equipment up to them so they can follow the they send a signal through the line and they can follow where it goes. They do that with the phone lines. They do that with the electrical boxes and they leave and they're open. They don't close them back up. I've watched uh there was one on Elm Creek Road in Fernbrook on the southeast corner of that intersection. It's a huge box underground box. That thing that >> I walked right by it and almost fell in it. >> I'm surprised somebody hasn't broken a leg in it because that one they leave open, the one that's the one that's in front of Dean's Country Manor. It's the same type of a box. It's a big fiberglass or concrete box that they put in the ground. They pull the top off, they do their thing, then they leave and they don't put the cover back on. So, I mean, that's an issue, I guess, between the locating >> contractors and the phone company. >> But, I don't think we get anything resolved unless somebody is willing to rattle the cage of these phone companies and get them to come out and fix this stuff. There's a there's an overhead phone line that's south of Elm Creek Road that's been well you can stand on the ground and touch it and it's been that way for 5 years. After it was hanging down a car went off the road and took what was left of the pole out that used to hold it up. They came out and they took the pole away. They they didn't put a new pole in and fix the line. So they they don't they don't want to spend any money on this. And like I say, unless somebody rattles their cage, they're they're not going to do anything about it. And what I would ask from you guys is that I don't want to see these guys have to run around the city and look for these boxes. I think that's crazy. Like David said, you they can tell us where they are. >> Yeah. >> So that at least you'll know where they are. Somebody calls in, you can look and see, oh yeah, that's Century Link or that's, you know, Kexus or whoever it is. But maybe we could through um through our website or through our newsletter put together an article to the to the folks that live in the city and saying we're looking at trying to get these companies to upgrade these and to fix the issues. if there's any in your area, you know, please let us know so at least, you know, they can maybe give them the phone number for for Kexus or the electric company or whatever or Century Link or whatever, >> you know, might be there and they can make that call and if they have issue with it to please get back to us. Yes. >> Like Zach said, and then they can follow up on it. But if you don't have that mechanism in the works, it's not going to change. >> Well, yeah, we haven't done anything about it. I mean, they are a year and a half. We haven't we haven't made that call. So, I mean, it's understandable that nothing's happening. >> Well, you said that we did talk to the public utilities commission and their their first comment was you have to So, it it sounds like that's part like we need to educate everyone on the process. Step one is the homeowner has to call the utility. If you didn't get a response, then let the city know and then we can do our part. But that first call has to happen before we can rattle the cage. >> Right. The first call has to happen and the individual has to know who to make that first call to because not everybody can look at that box and say, "Oh, I know that's a phone box and we have can access, right?" Yeah. >> So, >> or Sentry Link, excuse me. >> Yeah. So, if you don't know who it is, you can contact the city and we can help you figure out who that is >> if they have the information from the >> Yeah. >> You know that we need to request. Yeah. >> Does that seem that a reasonable >> thing complaint basis and Yeah. >> Yeah. >> More about an education on how that complaint basis works so people know what the process is. >> It's a lot of detectives in the city. We need to use them, >> but they need to know where to where to direct their, you know, their information. >> Yes. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, I think we beat that one pretty good. >> Item G. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Uh, tonight you're as to hold a public hearing uh regarding resolution 60-2025. Uh, the city staff is recommending denial of a requested uh right-of-way vacation on Bait Street uh between Dayton River Road and Shady View Lane North. So here is the uh extent of the rightway that is proposed to be vacated uh by an adjacent property owner. Um the applicants provided the legal description for the entirety of the right of way um that is uh shown on the picture. Um the reason for the vacation is that uh the applicant feels is necessary in order to meet setbacks on a corner lot in connection with an existing home to be relocated on this property. Um the applicant's intention is as well is to construct a new threecar garage attached to um the home and the right ofway vacation would allow for the proposed plan to fit on the site. So just a little bit of the process as uh this is a little bit of a unique situation as one um some of you may be familiar with uh requests for vacation of easements related to maybe replatting or something of the like. Um, this is a requested vacation of a street right ofway that does not have a street located on it. Um, so the uh the picture that uh I put together kind of shows a rough um understanding of how the uh right ofway would be divvied up if it were to be vacated. Um this right ofway just for context was uh dedicated under the town site of Dayton Plat that was established in 1866. Um so that a little bit of context I wanted to provide to you that it has not been utilized by utilities or um for public street um in over 150 years. So staff does acknowledge that uh historically the area has not been utilized. Um but in regard to uh vacating um a public street, state statute does have to find that there is a public interest in the matter. uh and staff through review of a couple of um items. One being any sort of realignment of the connection of uh County Road 13, which is Brackton Lane North and County Road 12 being Dayton River Road, um could be utilized as a larger connection point for Shady View Lane North access, uh rather than this offset access down here that has been identified as um somewhat of a of an issue. Um, again, this is not uh for more context. This is a hypothetical situation. There hasn't been any plans by Henipin County proposed. Um, any type of study that would be done for that realignment, whether it be a roundabout or something that could um achieve a four-legged roundabout there, uh, that uh would be done through a corridor study prior to any improvements to Dayton River Road. Um, additionally there I believe that there is going to be a discussion tonight about uh potential um advances on a water tower project in the village. Uh this area is potentially um an opportunity for utilities from the well site to the south to wherever that location is for the water tower uh could potentially be. This could be utilized as a utility corridor to make that connection. Again, this is not uh final. Obviously, it depends on what site is ultimately located for the water tower. Um, but without knowing those two variables, um, it is a staff's belief that the intent is to maintain this as right of way. Um, even if it is not being utilized currently, if you get rid of it at this point, then you lose any opportunity to utilize it in the future. Um, so staff's recommendation again is denial. However, uh given the historical circumstances, we understand that uh there has been a resolution that um has also been drafted for approval for your consideration, too. Um again, city council's role is to hold a public hearing on this matter. Notice was published in the mail or in the newspaper, excuse me, twice as required by uh state statute and mailed notice was uh sent out to surrounding property owners. Again, we did have um we did reach out to the utility providers within the area regarding this as is required uh and have not heard any um information about utilities being located within that area. The really the only request that we got from the utility providers is that the vacation is uh limited to Bait Street and not um doesn't hinder the existing rightway on Dayton River Road or Shady View Lane North. Uh >> question for staff. >> Yes. So are the setbacks different in the historic village than in our current subdivisions? >> They are uh a little bit different. Um so the this area of the village is zoned RO, which is a residential um old village, I believe is what it's called, or historic village. Um and the setback is dependent on what side of the house is on for the dwelling setback and it is different for the side that the garage is on. So on the the living side of the property for a sideyard setback is 10 ft uh whereas if you are on a sideyard that isn't adjacent to a street it would be 5T. >> Okay. Now, in discussions with this, the from my understanding, and I can pull this up, too, to show on the survey of the proposed location of the house, uh the width of the proposed house and garage, cuz right now the house does not have a garage on it, is uh 82 ft. Um, so it's a 100 foot lot with an 82 foot wide um, structure which would allow for that 15 foot separation if you read the code as it is stated where on a corner lot adjacent to a street. In this case, this corner lot is adjacent to a right ofway. However, there is no street located within that right ofway. Um now just a hypothetical situation at any point where a street is eventually installed while the house is located say um you say you minimize that setback that is adjacent to the north property you'd have I believe uh I believe it's 8t maybe if you're using if my math is correct is 8t from that south property line. um that structure would eventually become a legally non-conforming structure and would be able to maintain that location on the property. Um however, that would entail having a um structure that is 8 ft from the street right ofway on a corner lot. Uh which would be inconsistent with what you see if the street was already there and they had proposed a house. Um so let me see if I can pull this up here just briefly. Well, I'm just asking because I was just looking at some of the subdivisions just down just down the road on Dayton River Road and I was just obviously very quickly clicking through just the lot sizes and there's quite a few corner lots that are smaller in acreage, which is why I was wondering if there was like how they managed to pull this off. Um because those are some pretty big homes with some pretty big garages. Um but it sounds like the setbacks are different which is >> they are different. If a street was located on that, the setback for the corner sideyard would be 20 feet instead of five or 10 depending on what's how the house is oriented. >> Okay. >> Um but this is the uh >> applicant has provided a survey showing the proposed location. Um there's about a 31T 9 in separation from this um what would be the new property line if it was uh vacated. Um, and I believe that this side was roughly 16 1/2 to 17 ft was the proposed location. Um, given that this 30, the north 30 half of the uh, right ofway would go back to this property owner. Now again, I do want to emphasize that uh one of the main um considerations for the city council here tonight is what is in the best interest of the public when it uh comes to vacating right ofway. Um staff has laid out a couple of uh hypothetical situations that uh allow for opportunity to utilize this. Again, I want to emphasize that there's been no official uh determinations made in terms of future utilization of the right of way. Um but uh we just wanted to point that out because if you essentially get rid of this right away, there is u no little to no opportunity to get it back. >> Um with that being said, with the historical context, um there are other alternatives potentially for a utility corridor within other right ofways. So um just wanted to provide full context for the city council to make a decision here. And there was nothing during when they when they when they did run utilities. There was nothing run through here. Correct. >> Say that again. >> There was nothing run through here when they did do utilities. So they already have >> Yeah. Okay. >> Mr. Mayor, there is no current utilities. >> Correct. That's right. That's correct. >> Any other questions for staff? Uh it's public hearing so I will open up the public hearing and anybody wants to come forward name and >> Yep. >> address and >> can you please go back to the picture? >> Yeah. >> This one? >> Yep. >> My name is Jill Plant. My address is 18270 Dayton River Road. My property is the Orange property. I have lived there 54 out of 60 years. It was my parents' property. I bought it from them in ' 91. Personally, myself, I'd like I would love to have that road vacated. It serves no purpose. Um, in my opinion, living there all my life and with the traffic that goes through every day, there's no a roundabout and getting up to Shady View on Bates makes absolutely no sense. If you're going to run utilities from the current well to a to a water tower, you go up Shady View or you go up on the other end of Shady View where you can't see it, but it's more to the east um where there's a lift station for the sewer. Everything from my everything from me up from a Calpine's well drilling for the utilities runs down past Shady View to the lift station up and then naturally flows to ATGO through downtown where it's lifted again at the DNR. Um, so in my opinion, I would love to have the road vacated. Uh me and Eric have talked about it for a long time. It's just I mean it never you know there was no no reason for it but I can't see what the purpose of not vacating it would serve if you want to serve the residents. Um, having that street there is it's just something that was on a plot back in the whenever the city was plotted out. Uh, Bates Avenue continues into where the County Road 12 sign is and all the way into Slab Town or I don't know if you guys know it as Slab Town, but into Slab Town, Bates. That's a straight shot if you're um but in that area. Right. Right. Um if you ran baits to the west, that's all natural gas um hydrant. Yep. >> Hydrant locations. All the city utilities run through there. The city sewer runs uh you can't see my driveway, but instead of being in the road, the city sewer runs basically where the orange line is. Um, and so they didn't put it in the road at the time. They put it in my driveway. And there's also underground utilities from Elky Municipal there. There is a street light uh which would be located at the blue corner of the blue and county road 12 right there. That's a street light because then I know 60 feet is where uh where the road is, but and I think there's another another street light up on Shady View. So, I don't know. Does anyone have any questions for me? >> Thanks. Thank you. >> Anybody else? Keith Grover, 113th Fernbrook. In in looking at this this property and knowing the area, and the gentleman described it very well where the current utilities are, I can't see any reason why we wouldn't vacate that property. I honestly can't. And I I know that there are other pieces of property like that in the city that were laid out back when people drove horses and wagons and buggies. And for us to keep hanging on to those because they fell into the grid the section or section line layout back in the 1800s I think is absolutely insane. Um, I think that property is of no use to the city and I think it would be of great use to the people that live there and I'm sure they would greatly appreciate >> knowing that that they're probably taking care of it now and probably have for years >> that it's actually their property and I think that would be the right thing to do. That's that's all I have to say. Thanks. >> Thank you. Anybody else? Is there anybody online? >> Uh, so this is a public hearing. if you wanted to speak on this topic, if you could use the raise your hand function. >> Okay, I'll close the public hearing discussion. >> Is it possible to vacate the road easement but keep the easement for um utilities and water if that is or is it an all or nothing? >> It would be an all or nothing situation. I guess the only situation that that may work is having a private conversation with the property owners that would allow for an easement to be established on the property, but that would be up to the private property owners. >> I I I agree with Keith. I don't like the city holding on to easements that it doesn't have good plans for. Um we have easements all over the place. Have we got a road easement going through my backyard? never going to be really nice. Yeah. >> But um yeah, I don't like these either. >> And I I get that you want to plan ahead, but I I just believe me, I can't see how we'd ever need that. And the current land owners can use it. Well, we've only had 150 years to think this one through, but I do, you know, we know that sometime in the next six yearsish that they're going to do a redesign on this road and particularly that Brockton intersection. So, I guess my question is is this doesn't line up very well with that intersection at all. So, is it really even feasible that that land would be needed for something else other than uh new revised Shady View that would connect into the new roundabout roundabout >> and then you got a property that's basically encircled by roads. Um, yeah. I I don't know why you'd put a road, even if you did do a roundabout and moved it um to the south. I I still would suspect it would be a threelegged roundabout. I don't know why you'd go up to Shadyville. To your point as well, council member fashion, I will say that we do not have uh we do not know if it is even feasible for a roundabout to be located in this one without additional right of way and two whether there'd be even four legs on that roundabout. Um so I just wanted to clarify that we do not have a we do not know that if it's feasible or not that would come with a corridor study that would happen prior to the roadway improvement. >> Address. >> Again, Joe Plant 18270 Dayton River Road. Um, if we're talking about Shady View and Dayton River Road, and Paul can maybe attest to this, I've never known of an interse of of accident there. You grew up on that corner, Dennis. I don't know that it's a issue. There are issues in streets in Dayton where it's hard to get out. >> Yeah. >> That's not one of them. you have an people should be going 30 miles an hour once they get to that point and people turning left go towards my or turning right to go towards my house or left to go to Champlain. Um like I said, I've lived there all my life basically and I don't know of an accident that's happened there. There's been a few in front of my house but not at that intersection. So that's all I had to say. Thank you. All right. Thanks. So, where we at? >> Don't see any reason why not to vacant really. I mean, I don't believe there's going to be a re great big redevelopment of Oldtown. I mean, I could be wrong 100 years from now, but maybe maybe 100 years from now or Minneapolis. I don't know. But >> okay. So we will need either a motion to resolution to deny or was there you said there was a resolution. >> Yeah. It would be a motion to adopt resolution 6D-2025 and then it's approving or denying um whichever. >> So you just choose if you wanted. >> So it's going to be the same number but we need just that distinction. You're adopting the resolution approving. >> All right. Or deny. >> So, if we're done speaking, I would like a motion in a second. >> Stephanie, did you have any >> I don't I don't see a clear use for keeping it. So, >> to me, it's the possible you like the only one that's a maybe is the water, >> but then you have the option to come down. >> Yeah. And that's I said that's even that's a maybe but like there's no road that's going there. >> No, there's no road that's going. >> If I could just note part of the reason to not use Shady View is because there's existing utilities there. This is a separate line that would be dr could be drilled in to limit disruption. If we go down Shady View, we're probably ripping the whole road up including disruption to services. >> Shady View, right? I mean, you still >> potentially, but it depends on where the tower goes. So, we really don't know at this time. We just know if it is vacated that's not an option. I guess that's the only thing for certain. So, >> can we shrink it? >> That I'm not familiar with. I um I didn't look into that essentially because the request was to vacate the entirety of the right way. >> I would think if we shrunk it then it's not usable as a road. So then even more why have it? Well, for the utilities, that would be my only thought. Like if if it could be shrunken so that we still have it for possible utilities, but then the homeowners can still do what they you know, like is that a I'm just wondering if that's a compromised position so that it's still preserved for possible utilities, but still allows the the land owners to do what they want to do. >> I'm just trying to find win-wins. That's all. If if I could interject just on the safe side because the public hearing was specifically written for the entirety and the legal description was tied to it. Okay. >> That would probably have to come back. So that would really prolong the uh >> Okay, I'll I take that I take it right back off the table then. So >> So correct me if I'm wrong. If if we don't vacate it and the garage and house goes in, I think you said the road is 8 ft from the garage. The right way the right of way would be 8 ft from the garage. U if you're >> correct me if I'm wrong. I'm thinking curb to curb is 32 feet uh in a >> okay >> generally about 15 ft right away to curb. >> Okay. >> For a road that's never going to get built and we know that it is simply we're holding this for possible water usage. So, we could also just let the house go in as is without like as you said we could just let the house get built because it won't be violating anything right now. >> The way that the zoning ordinance is written, I would agree with that. Yes. Okay. Um, >> so the house as desired with the garage as desired could just get built right now anyway >> and then like so you could still do what they wanted to do without vacating it and then we'd still have it if we need the water and then there's no road that's ever going to get built there anyway. So >> that would be my understanding, but uh a verbal understanding that a roadway would never get built there is is hard is hard to keep up with on that. valid >> and that the it's that's essentially the reason for writing both resolutions. >> Correct. >> Sorry. Yeah. >> I agree with Hayden. Yeah. >> So, if we keep it at I'm I think I missed this entirely. So, I apologize. But, so Sarah, what you're saying is is that if we said, "Nope, we're just going to leave it like it is because a road is probably not going to be feasible there anyway." Everything that the owner wants to build on there could be built. >> Yes. >> So, what we're asking for is to remove the potential that a road could ever go there. >> Yes. >> Even though I don't know. I mean, >> well, that's why like to me the road easement is not what I care about. Correct. >> And so that's >> because that's the thing that might happen. The road will not happen. The water might happen >> which you you have the flexibility now if you needed it for the water. You may not. We don't know that. But you have the flexibility to use it for the water instead of we vacate it and then if it would have been better you can't do it >> from the house and you are corrupt >> from the resident stand that's a lot of land to lock up for something that is extremely unlikely to happen. I just don't see us using that. >> Okay >> for the water or for >> any of it. Yeah. I guess I don't know enough about >> the water >> the water down there to know >> but the probability that we would need it. >> But if there's three people who are saying vacate it then it doesn't matter. Vacate it. >> Sure. >> All right. >> Yeah, I'll make a I'll make a motion to approve the vacation. >> Okay, Scott need a second. I'll do the second. Any more discussion? >> I'm sorry. His motion was to vacate it. >> To approve. Yes. >> Okay. This is a very confusing one. >> Yep. >> Appreciate that. >> Okay. No more discussion. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed say no. >> No. >> Okay. >> So, >> I didn't realize Dave was with Steph and I. >> That that leaves us with >> my >> It's not approved. So I don't understand this whole denial that motion died. >> The motion the motion failed. So now we are back to the original um >> request and it would be a motion for denial if that is the >> a motion for denial. I mean you either approve something or not. >> I think it's where I was confused of the deni but no I voted correctly just put that out there. But I was like is his motion too? >> So there's a request to vacate and we just failed to vacate. So >> doesn't it fall? Does that mean >> the motion mayor? The motion that was that that the council voted on failed. >> So that means that nothing happened at this point. You either need to have a motion to reconsider the motion that was just made. Yep. >> And failed. Or you would have to make a new motion to take a different action. And in this case, it would be you could vote on the resolution to deny the version that was written to deny the vacation. Otherwise, >> a failed motion to approve isn't a denial. It's a failed motion. >> Yes. >> So, the motion was to vacate. >> So, we're not vacating. >> So, we don't need anything. >> If I could clarify, go ahead. There is an active land use application that is connected with this action. We adopt a resolution denying that we went through the process. We held a public hearing and after consideration the city council recommended or decided to deny. So that's the whole reason for the motion to approve or deny is that regardless we have to adopt a resolution taking action official action on that application. Okay. Um, so as as uh council had mentioned that uh >> your decisions are now to reconsider the previous motion or to make a motion to deny. Um, >> okay. >> Dennis, can I speak again? >> Yes. Come on up. And the applicant is also here as well. >> Yeah. >> So, can the map back up, please? If and if we built the water tower, you don't know where it would go, but it would more than likely go on the high ground. >> Would we use the current well or would we drill another well? >> Current well. >> Current well. >> Current well. You know where the current well is on this map? >> I don't know. >> Yeah. Okay. So, you're telling me that you're going to somehow go through I'm going to just stand up and point here. This is a road. This is still a road possibly the way it's drawn out. >> The well is here. You're going to go here and here to get up here. When the well is down here and you have farmland that you could just go up Shane View. Why you're talking about putting water here makes absolutely no sense because water already goes up there. >> Yep. >> Water already goes up Shady View. The people on Shady View have city water. So if you're ladies, if you're talking about wanted to leave that thing open so you could put uh >> it is already for water. So >> big water. >> It makes no sense. You're talking about $30,000 that you don't want to spend on this, but you you're spending a hell of a lot more money going that route than you would the other route. >> Jason, do you have something to say? >> Sure. >> No, it's fine. >> That's not true. It would actually be a lot cheaper to not go down the roadway. There is water there. It's a 6 in line that's insufficient for the connection between the two facilities. So, an additional or an upsized line has to be done. Okay. If it's an upsiz, it's a total reconstruct of the roadway. Much much more expensive. >> Have you driven on Shad? >> Yes, I have. >> It's horrible. It needs to be reconstructed anyways. >> I I would argue with that as well, but that's >> No, of course you you don't live there. >> Okay. >> Well, anyway, so that's my opinion. I would really like to see it vacated. >> Um Okay. >> But it is what it is. you guys. >> All right. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> All right. Where we at? >> Can I What are your insights? >> Yeah. >> Well, I wanted to at least try to articulate the my hesitation in approving this vacation at this time. And I don't know enough about the water piece, you know, to to know that what the desired route is. We're going to talk later about potentially where the water tower could be. And so those are sort of unknown pieces to me. The the um what the county is going to do with the road. We've got little to no insight on on that because they haven't done it yet either. And it just for me this is not a no ever. It's a, you know, we're we're on the cusp of a couple of significant decisions being made around where the water tower will go and where ultimately what what they might do with the road, which may be nothing. And if that turns out to be the case, then, you know, then we have no no even potential use for this land, then I would get rid of it in a heartbeat. But >> I I just feel like there's enough that's not known and enough and that the timing of this isn't 10 years, it's 5 years or less that we will know is there a need for it or not. And that's that's my hesitation in voting yes. >> That's kind of where I'm at. And also because they can still build the home as desired, like they can move forward as planned. And then if in 5 years it turns out we don't need it, you can come back and ask for the vacation then and we can be like, "Yes, absolutely. We know where the water tower went. We know where the road went. We know we're never going to need this. Have at it." And meanwhile, the house can still move forward. And like, you know, that's why I asked like the house can still move forward as they would like it to move forward without this vacation. So then go ahead and do that and then give us a year or however long it you know five years and we can come back and and happily vacate it then without having any of these question marks. So >> mayor, mayor, if I could, I just want to follow up on something that council member van just said, >> a promise or even a prospect of a f of you know coming back in 5 years and asking us and we'll happily vacate it then. >> That's not something that this council can can do. You can't bind the action of a future council. Okay. Um, so and you also don't want to create the false expectation that it would happen in in a in at all, much less in a specific time frame. So I just want to clarify for the record that that's probably not a good idea. >> Thank you, Amy. And that's why you're here. >> You want to speak at all, Eric, or you everything you think is covered. Go ahead. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council and city staff, this has been a very fast process trying to pull a massive amount of contractors and information together in an expeditious manner. What I would point out to you is on the so was accurately stated that the current width as proposed this is a sixbedroom fourbath house likely probably support a fourcar garage given current market demands and lifestyle habits etc. So three star threec car garage has it at 82 ft which I think was mentioned. So 10 ft on the one side would be the extreme pushing the edge. It has a porch pushing it all the way to the extreme would leave then doing the math 8 ft as proposed. I think the there is a retaining wall if you I don't know if any of you have been out there but the the grade is quite steep. So there's going to be needing to be a retaining wall on the north side and the retain the the document that you have the surveyor doesn't have the porch touching the 10-ft setback. He's got it in a few more feet to allow for some of these dynamic pieces that are unknown. That's going to push the current 8 ft on the south side adjacent to this road rightway even less. And so I think as drawn it's roughly four feet from the property line which would take that 82 feet minus let's say 14 feet and then now we're at whatever that math is roughly 4T or so from the rightway. So just throwing that out there for your consideration uh as well. So there's that retaining wall. Several retaining walls are going to be needed just due to the grade that's happening there. six feet of fill have to be brought in just to get it up to the the the basement to get it up to to meet the height of the road. So, >> thank you. >> Any questions I can answer if there are any, but >> okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Members of the Council. >> Thank you. >> All right. So we can do a motion to either reconsider or motion to deny. And I think the reconsider needs to come from one of the nos. >> Yeah, obvious. Um question about timing. Yeah, because that has to happen so fast. There's no way the well study is going to be done in any I mean that's going to be a >> the yeah the historic village utility plan will not be done part of need for information. So >> Mr. Mayor May mayor and members of the council I came back up because of the piece on timing. So >> for timing the reason also we've been trying to move so fast is because much of the timetable for both the city and other entities has been the three rivers park district and their time table. >> Yes. And so I just learned today that the house mover I I spoke to, he said that uh allow for about a month for the the footings and the foundation to cure before you put the full weight of the house on there. >> Yeah. >> And so I can't pour footings >> until I get a permit. >> I can't get a permit until a lot of this these unknowns happen. Yeah. And so that's just another variable there on how we need to move very fast here to allow for a month of curing before that pushes us dangerously close to the October 23rd deadline. And so uh throwing that out there as well. So there wouldn't be an opportunity for a variance or something like that even if we are within that that buffer. So >> yeah, >> thank you again. >> Okay, mayor members go five feet is the setback on that southside. Just so you are on the garage side. It's five feet is a setback. And do we need to do a variance to allow that five foot setback? >> No. 5 foot is within the RO district that would be allowed >> because it's not a road. We don't enforce the corner lot. Correct. >> This is where words matter when it comes to the distinction between right of way and street. Um so I would say that the five feet would be uh considered as the setback on that side with the garage. Now at the same time um as the applicant had stated that uh there may be some necessary retaining walls for the proposed structure to be built at um adequately on the site that may push that setback in from that 5T at which point a variance would have to be requested um at that time. So that would be the kind of the variable that uh would dictate the the setback on that south property line. Okay. Pick >> somebody somebody move >> somebody got >> either reconsider or motion to deny. >> I have not changed my mind. Sorry, >> I got you lost me a little bit in the in the need for the variance part. So, what tips it into needing a variance because that would be a timing thing that's legitimate, >> right? The the need for the variance would be inadequate space on the proposed location to meet all the setbacks while at the same time having a retaining wall installed on that north side of the property line as the applicant had stated pushing that setback need to the south for the house. So, the variance, the need for a variance is likely. Then, >> from the information that I've gathered from uh the applicant here just now, um that sounds like it would be accurate as it would have to shift the the house further south to um I guess uh >> accommodate. Thank you. Accommodate the retaining wall. >> And yeah, the amount of thing we're talking about is a foot. So, if we get out of the house up a foot, then you don't have to have a variance. If you move it down to where it's proposed at 14 ft from the property line, now you have to have variance because we're one foot off of the setback. >> And in terms of timing, that is a 60-day process. >> Yep. >> So, a game of inches comes down to a foot. So, >> and so again, for for where I'm at, the road's a non-issue. It's the water. And there's no way we can come back and ask for an easement after the fact. >> We can. >> The city can. >> Okay. >> We can. And it doesn't mean it's going to be guaranteed. No, >> but I would. >> But yeah, we can >> again, it's not a guarantee and I'm not asking the property owners in this moment to say that. But I feel like if we just did Well, I know you can't make any promises or I can't guarantee that, but >> and I do want to clarify that we wouldn't be able to make this uh vacation contingent upon receiving an easement. So, just >> thank you for Yeah, thank you for that. Um I didn't think we could, so I wasn't going to say that, but um >> Okay. Well, this is this is complicated. I I think because, you know, in many ways we're we're encouraging this project. The whole >> rescuing the house from the Three Rivers uh property, you know, was something we initiated and have been encouraging in a number of ways. um you know to put un put obstacles on this that um you know it's kind of counter to to what we set out to do in terms of the overall concept. I think um it's kind of on the fence around this anyway but um so I will make a motion to reconsider the If those are the right words to reconsider the motion to deny. >> Motion to approve. Right. >> Motion. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion to approve the >> approve the vacation. >> That's what we're reconsidering. The motion to approve. >> All right. Well, I will second that. >> Mr. Mayor, it needs to be seconded by somebody who was >> side. I Okay, but and we can talk about it later. >> I'll second. >> Okay. >> So, you second it. >> Yeah. So Dave made the motion to reconsider and I seconded to reconsider the motion to approve vacation. >> The vacation. >> Okay. So we have had a motion and a second. Is there any more discussion? >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed say no. >> No. >> Okay. That passes four to one. >> All right. Just to clarify, uh, Council uh, Schmidt, I just wanted to note that motion to reconsider is the adoption of the resolution to approve. There's no needed for Okay, thank you. >> Um, all right. So, we are on to item H. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, um staff was contacted by a farmer who kind of brought to our attention that um changes in how regulations applied for franchise fees had had changed in that uh the farmers would have to pay a franchise fee for 12 months out of the year versus the months where uh gas drain grain bin dryers are being used. um we had kind of thought we had everything figured out and then talking with another farmer found out that there's also the same issue with the uh Kexus or electrical uh franchise fees. So what we're asking the council to do is to table this so that we can kind of work on this a little bit and then bring it back at the next meeting. >> All right. Need a motion to table. >> Motion to table. >> Do we have to open the public hearing? >> Yes, we do. I apologize. So this is advertised as All right. I'll open the public hearing for this item. >> Did we close the last one? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yep. And I just want to clarify that uh it' be not to close the public hearing at this point for tableabling. >> Right. >> Anybody here to speak to this? Anybody online? >> If you wanted to speak on this matter, if you can use the raise your hand function. >> Not seeing it. >> Okay. All right. So now I need a motion to table. >> I'll make a motion to table. >> Need a second. >> I'll second. And to clarify, will this come back at the next meeting? Do you think >> that is the intent? >> We should get on it because grain drying is >> so yeah, mayor members of council, the reason why it's coming in front of you today is the grain drying ends in November. So we have a we have a couple of months to figure this out. Oh, when it ends, >> but when the you know when the you can't turn off gas utility from Center Plan anymore for the gas grain dryers, natural gas grain dryers, you can't shut them off anymore. That's the problem we have. >> And that ends in November. So, we do have a little bit of time and a little wiggle, but we are we are aware of it and understand that it's under the gun. >> Yeah. All right. >> Okay. Um I have a motion to second. All those in favor to table this item say I. >> I. I. >> I. Those oppos say no. >> I'm going to stayain just because I won't be here in the next meeting to vote on it anyway. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> 40. It passes. >> You know that would be the fastest meeting we ever have, right? >> Probably. All right, on to item I. >> Doubt it, but >> payment of claims. >> We'll get a lot of expenditures done for sure. >> All right. Any any uh >> go after it, Dave? >> I need a second to get to the right page. So, somebody else has got something. >> I don't think I had anything. page 40, I think, or that's the middle of it. >> So, I have one on on page 36 for a um banko systems with $6,500 for security system essential coverage. Is that Well, I guess my question is what is that? Mr. Mayors, members of the council, I believe that is the installation of um two card readers, one on the fire distation back door and the vault here at city hall. >> Okay. So, it's addition to our existing security system. >> It's our it's our fob system for use under the door. >> Sure. >> I wonder too on page 39 um Marty, this one will be you. There's a charge from Kexus for $2,300 for area 21. I assume this has something to do with the irrigation system. Is that like a connection fee or a meter or >> it's a water meter? >> Okay. So, that's kind of a onetime charge from them for that creating that new >> um service. >> Thank you. That's all I have. >> Anybody else? >> No. >> All right. A motion and a second. I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Any more discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. >> I. All those oppose say no. Carries 5 to zero. Um and I would like to take the little recess before item J here. Five minutes. >> Yes. Good. Okay. All right. I think. We're back. Item J. All right. Okay. >> Good evening, Mayor of Council. This tonight, uh, there's two resolutions in front of you, 58 2025 and 59 2025, approving the preliminary levy and, um, general fund budget along with the preliminary EDA levy. I'm going to discuss what the levy looks like. I'll try to move this little thing so people can see what this looks like. Um, preliminary levy at this point is at 8.97%. That is down significantly from what it was at the beginning. I don't remember what the first number was, 16 or 17%, something like that. Um, we're down to 8.97%. Um, that includes a $25,000 EDA general fund budget. Um, that 8.97% is keeping the tax rate the exact same. um any changes in the general fund. The only additional item that happened or we're looking to have added this year is the police officer full-time police officer added at the January 1st timeline. Um other than that, the additional items related to capital equipment are additional oh gosh, I can't remember the number now. 76,000 I think was the number that was added to this year's budget for the um fire truck or the ladder truck um for to be able to continue to um store away money for that. There was $100,000 added last year in the budget. So that's already in there as well. An additional 176,000 would give us to 276,000 for this year to be able to put away towards the ladder truck for a total of $376,000 at this moment in the levy. the capacity tax rate or tax capacity went up 8.22%. This has changed slightly over the time frame of us discussing numbers just because valuations continue to change and that means that the valuations and um tax capacity end up changing. Um it's this has been pretty steady. I mean they've maybe adjusted 01% over the last um couple of months here but it's been pretty consistent. Tax rates um would be planned at 35.396%. Right now it's currently at 35.394%. That is if fiscal disparities stay at the same ratio that they are today. The numbers might change, but as long as the ratio stays the same, we'll have the same tax rate. If we do next year, we won't know fiscal disparities until October 1st, which is always very helpful. I did contact the county and they said they're still working on numbers. So, normally we get them on September 1st, but it sounds like this year they're behind. I don't know what to do about that. So, we have the same ratio we did last year and hope it's right or close enough. Um, this is the graph I've shared in the past. The top graph is the tax capa tax capacity in the black line compared to tax levy and the blue and red and green lines. The further the distance between those two, the lower the tax rate. So the more difference the um percentage that the tax rate is. At one point you can see it's very close. Back in 2020, we had about a 60% tax rate at that point. Now we're at about 35, which is just mentioned. The bottom graph compares tax capacity versus tax levy change. This is not a 1:1 ratio ever, but it's close. Um, which is why you're seeing those lines almost exactly the same in 2026 estimated, which is why the tax rate is staying the same. Um, again, small small increase over levy over tax capacity. It's not because there's a tax rate change, but it's just how the numbers work out um in the formula. I did want to provide a little bit of background information from where we were at and where we're at today. I think it's very important and a very um influential graph of where we've come in the last 5 years. When I started in 2021, our tax rate was at 52.9%. Um one of the highest in the Henipin County area. As we sit today for the final of 2025 and proposed 2026, we're at 35.394% which is one of the lowest in Henipin County. I know if you can go to maybe out outskirts like u maybe Independence and um Minatrista and some of those southwestern Henipin County you might be able to get a little lower interest or tax rate but not in this area. If you look at this area around us you got Rogers Champlain AIO Corkran Brooklyn Park um Brooklyn Center. We don't ever compare to Maple Grove. Maple Grove is on there honestly with 29.26 which isn't that much lower than us but their tax capacity is just so much larger. they have money to I don't even know that everyone wishes they had but we are the lowest in the area. So just wanted to show that out there. This shows the tax capacity for or tax impact on homes based on the current levy increase that is being requested. If you have the same value home from one year to the next, you'll pay the same exact amount of property taxes for the city of Dayton portion. I cannot say the same for Henipin County. I cannot say the same for the school district. And I want to make sure that that's clear because your total bill may still go up but would have nothing to do with the city of Dayton if your value stayed the same. >> Well, and if your value goes up, your taxes are going up. >> Yep. If your value goes up, there's nothing we can do about that for the valuation part of things. We could take into consideration if we did an average and said, "Hey, we need to reduce the tax rate by that amount of money to get the valuation to be the exact same." If we But that's an average. There's going to be somebody who's less and there's somebody who's going to be more, but it's an average. So, what I use is the exact same for your exact same amount. I don't think the valuations changed all that much this year. I think it was like 1% I think was the average 1.25. It wasn't like it was a couple of years ago where we saw 15% increases in people's homes. >> Must have been close to the capacity bump not due to new construction. 2% >> probably which is about 1.2 I think difference between the new new numbers or new amounts and what the actual tax capacity is. >> I thought it was almost 2% spread but it was in it was not that much. No. Um, again, just some information so everyone knows the information. A 1% reduction in the levy um would give $19 per year back to the homeowner. Um, at a $534,000 average home, 1% reduction in levy is 88 grand. And the 1% reduction in levy dollars equals.3% in the tax rate. Sorry. So, what I'm here to do is approve or ask for an approval of resolution 58, 2022 and 59, 2025 um for the both the EDA levy and the preliminary levy. This also sets the mo the public hearing date for the final tax levy to be December 9th, which we have to set every year. This is due by the end of September. So, if we don't want to do anything today, that's totally fine. It will just get pushed to the next meeting. It has to be approved by end of September. And this is the ceiling. So, this is what will go out of people's property tax statements that they will see probably in end of October, beginning of November, somewhere in there from the county. Um, but we can always go down from here. We just can't go up. So, this sets the ceiling and I will stand for any questions that the mayor or the council may have. >> Thank you very much. >> So, the $25,000 for the EDA does not actually affect the >> It does. Okay. >> I I incorporate the entire tax rate. So, at one point we did not do that. that we incorporated just the city tax rate and the EDA tax rate is two different numbers, >> but it's all one tax when you pay your bill. >> So, the number that I give you for the EDA for the tax rate in total, which was this one number here, 35.396, includes the EDA and the city tax levy. >> Okay. >> Does not does not separate them out >> because it is one number when you >> go Yeah. If you go to the state auditor's website, our numbers never matched. And I it finally dawned on me that we weren't including the >> EDA. Yep. >> So I have some questions on not what's on the presentation but what was in the slideshow or not slideshow the >> the PDF file online. Sure. >> Um and some of this is just more for my own clarification about what all these different things mean. Um uh on page 68 there's a I know that's why uh software searchcharge fee that we have budgeted for $25,000 but right now this year it is at 59,600. >> Yep. Um, are we like why I don't want to budget for a lower amount if it's like why is it way higher right now? Because you didn't budget that much for this year. >> You're right. So, >> so I I would say we have a conservative number. If you looked at previous years before that, we were not at $25,000. We were way lower than that. Yeah. >> Um, that has to do with new lots that are platted. >> So, we've had a lot of new lots platted. This year, we've had Braburn Trails East. We've had DCM Farms. We've had Oh, boy. If there was another Riverwalk, couple additions in Riverwalk. >> Okay. I don't expect there to be that many final plats, okay, >> in 2026 comparatively. Um, DCM Farms might have phase two and Riverwalk might have their last edition. >> Both of those are going to not equal 25 grand. It's a per lot fee. I don't remember what it is off the top of my head. It's on the fee schedule, but okay, >> that's why I've did 25,000 is cuz I didn't feel like um taking an average is always pretty good of a general number, >> but if we go with okay, we had this much this year and then we budget for next year and we don't get that number. Yeah. Now I don't have that amount of money in the budget to be able now I got to cut 40 grand out of expenses which I've already said oh yeah we're going to spend it on XYZ item now I don't have that. >> Okay. I just >> I would rather be low than high on revenues. Yes. >> But I understand your question. >> Yeah. And that's where cuz I wasn't cuz I kind of assumed this was a revenue but it wasn't. >> It was it is a revenue. Yeah. So 59,000 is the revenue this year. >> Okay. >> And 20,000 25,000 is the budgeted number for 2026. >> Got it. Got it. Got it. Got it. Okay. Um, so, okay, that was my one question on that, which like I said was more for my clarity. And then on page 69, when we get into the wages and salaries for the council, >> Mhm. >> the wage and the salary for the council is going down. >> Mhm. >> And then the wage and the council for the committees and commissioners is going up. And I was just I didn't know any of that had changed at all. I thought >> they did not change. Um, so I remember why the council one went down. Not sure why the council went down. The council pay hasn't changed, so it shouldn't down at all. I don't know. >> Don't we lump into their subscriptions? >> Maybe. Yeah, I I would say that maybe the total city council one went down because we had we might not have been part of a subscription membership anymore or we might not have uh part of it is communications for your devices. So, we had $6,000 this year allocated for reimbursements for your or $3,000, sorry, allocated for your device reimbursement. 600 bucks for the year. Um, and then that doesn't happen until the next election. So then we don't have it for next year. So that's part of it. >> The committee one went up because I believe last year when we did the budget, and I could be way wrong. I believe we said we wanted to pay them $50 a meeting. >> Um, I realized this about two weeks ago when I was putting this all together and I said we didn't pay them $50 a meeting for the first half of the meetings this year. So we owe them that money. Okay. Um, not saying that that's impossible to do because we can do that and back pay them for the next half, but I needed to add that into this year's budget and I forgot about that. So, we had to move some money around that I had to adjust a little bit. That's why it went up is cuz it's $50 a meeting now, not 25. >> Got it. So, like I said, I just was like, I don't think we're going to >> It was very informal discussion last year and I couldn't remember if we actually adopted it or not. And I know there was discussion on it, but I know I know there was discussion on it, but I couldn't remember if we actually agreement. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Like I said, I couldn't remember if it was like Yeah, it's explicit that that's what it is, but I know it's 50 bucks a meeting. So, >> okay. Um, and then these are just again more for my my understanding when I'm looking at a lot of the different departments, they have subcategories for professional services and contract services. Um, and that was under I think um I think pretty much everyone. Let's see here. It was under um inspection services and then planning and economic development and central ser everyone has a subcategory for professional services and contract services and I just wanted to know what those categories included like what does that mean and why are they different? >> We I would say that they've been blurred lines at times what those mean and what those numbers are. Typically from my understanding is if it's a contract service it's something we sign a contract for that we're going to do this work. >> Okay. Um um we signed a culture assessment. We did a contract service. That would be a contract service to me. If it's a professional service, it's like engineering time. Okay? >> Or it's we're paying ABDO to do >> XYZ item or I'm paying Baker Tilly to >> do our um revamp of our building service audit every year that we do. So those would be professional services in my opinion, not something I'm signing contract for. Okay. >> To actually have a desired results come out of it. But Got it. They are very blurred lines and I know in a couple of the departments we actually combined them this year to say we don't want this item because it's just too confusing. Like it's just it's either a service or it's not. So >> yeah. Okay. It was confusing. >> At one point we did it very strictly on those two things and I don't know how they differentiated the two. So that's just been >> why they're separate. >> Why they're separate I'm not sure. >> Okay. Those are my questions. Um and you answered the the EDA whether that was included. That was my big one. So okay those are my little things. I have a question on page 60 and it's about revenues and maybe this is just because in 2025 the number was so high fines and corporates >> we're at 125 and we're dropping that down to 50 >> but I see in 24 and 20 24 it was only 18 and 14. >> Yep. >> So we just originally had that number too high. So, if you remember back to conversations we had, we said we're going to have a traffic car added and we're going to have a lot more fines and fores to go with that traffic car, which essentially is how Champlain affords their traffic cars. They're going to say we're going to generate fines and fores. However, we've realized with this new Henipin County prosecutor or Henipin County attorney or whatever. I think Paul could probably speak to it more. We get a lot of fines and fees dropped. So, we might say, "Yep, you're speeding." Or, "Yep, you did this." Or, "Yep, you did that." But they end up with no fines and a slap on the rest. So then we will prosecute them and then they'll get nothing. So then it's okay. We we last I know this year for example we've written more tickets this year than we've had it every other year possibly because we've done more traffic but we have less fines and forfeertures to show for it because they don't actually get prosecuted. They just get a slap on the wrist and go home. Thank you for your time. >> So I know the chief could probably speak on it more than I can but that's been the general idea. So that's why we dropped it down so much is because we're not actually seeing the revenue that we were thought we were going to see with the traffic amount that we did. >> Am I speaking out of turn there or is that right? >> No, you're pretty accurate. Mr. Members, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, for every citation we write, depending on the citation, generally we get $50 a ticket. Um, a lot of unfortunately a lot of those tickets get reduced or um dismissed due to financial concerns. >> Does it cost the city money to go through that process? O >> only if they take it to court, then it costs a retainer fee for prosecuting attorney. >> I just want to make sure we're not actually losing money if these are getting fought all the time. Okay. >> Depends on your definition. Losing money. Well, I mean, we're not getting as much as we anticipated, but we're also not like coming out like upside down on this, so to speak. So, okay. >> We pay for a prosecuting attorney no matter what, every month. It's just on a retainer. >> Okay. >> It's just a set amount every year. Okay. >> And we haven't gone over that amount in a number of years, but >> Okay. >> So, we feel like adding the the traffic car, I mean, at least on our end, we're um >> Sorry. >> It's okay. I'm easily distracted on our end. We're we're writing the number of tickets that we anticipated. It's just that they're not flowing through to any revenue, which is is sort of secondary. I know we talked about, you know, that this position would be self-supporting to a certain extent, and we can't tell the county what to do once that it's in their hands. So, I get that. But I I guess I wanted to emphasize that we we did this in response to residents concerns about speed. We hear about it a lot and this was something practical we can do. So I'm glad to hear that we are out there enforcing >> to the extent that we can and what happens after that is kind of out of our hands. >> And Mr. Mayor, members of the council, with this with the addition and 26 of the final officer, um what that will allow us to do is have two car minimums on at all time. Currently, we're one car minimums. Um so if we only have one car on, they're not out doing as much traffic as if we have two car on. And our plan is is if we have three cars on um with a twocar minimum that that we would um have one design designated officer during that patrol shift doing traffic um and the other two would be called cars. So that's my plan moving forward as we go into 26. >> And do we feel like it has had an impact on things like speeding and running stop signs already? Um, we tickets only give so much to um people that want to follow the lot. Um, if they don't care about it, they don't care about paying the ticket either. So, >> that's just how much it costs to go that speed. >> Sorry. >> Uh, speeding usually citations right around 150 bucks. >> Okay. >> Did that answer your question? >> It did. Yeah. I mean, yeah. and council fashion's question and your statement is accurate. I mean the idea is that we're trying to be more advantageous towards traffic and it has been helping I think a little bit but who knows at that >> so we're right we're making it I mean I understand young people are going to do what they're going to do but our effort is is what we wanted it to be. It's just not generating revenue the way that we expected and you know that's not why we're in that business. Yeah, correct. >> impact safety, right? >> That would have been a side benefit. >> And Mr. Mayor, members of the council, when we do get a traffic complaint on a certain road, um we our whole crew um the three officers cuz that currently from 3:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. Um we have on occasion three officers on. So, we'll pull our two detectives in along with the three officers and they will go saturate an area um and hammer traffic in that area to keep the complaints down. >> And Mr. Mayor, if I could just clarify one of the things that that Mr. Dow said, it's for speeding tickets and other moving violations and misdemeanor offenses. That's prosecuted by your your city prosecutor, not by the Henipin County Attorney's Office. Yeah, attorney attorney's office does felonies. >> Sorry, I meant to meant like the I think the fees like the judges are not riding in >> the judges would would make the decision about that. Yes, correct. I just wanted to make that clear for >> I apologize about my >> jurisdiction. It's why Amy's here. >> That's correct. Corrects me. >> I had a question around the the increase in central services number and I know you explained that Yep. you're consolidating some utility bills into one place, which totally makes sense to me rather than allocating out to the departments. I guess I just want some assurance that if that number was reduced in a well that that number was reduced in the corresponding departments that made up this $118,000 increase. >> It was Yeah. So it was one for one. We did not increase any electric utility, gas, utilities um from one year to the next. Um so those were sub subsequently reduced out of the other department's budgets and then moved into the oneline item for central services >> because when we look at I mean by line item you know we're going to see a department >> uh in the current year having having this level of approval for dollars and for next year it should be then automatically decreased by the proportional amount however you are charging ing out the electricity bill or the gas. >> Yep. So, you would not see those. So, if you looked in the line item budgets and the um in the budget report, you would not see it in police, you would not see it in fire, you would not see it in public works where previously they were a large number for electric utilities or gas utilities. They are now zeroed out in those line items in those departments and now they're added specifically to central services. I believe that I believe that's what your question is that we're not saying, oh yeah, we're going to keep the money in public works but then still add it to central services. >> Correct. Yeah, we are adding those and consolidating them into one line item. And then those line items subsequently in other departments were then reduced down to zero dollars so that we don't have them anymore. >> Okay. >> And that was a request from our department heads because they said, why am I controlling my electric utilities when I have no control over who turns the lights on and when the gas turns on and the heat turns on and yet I'm getting punished for it in my budget. So, >> which was a valid point to me. That's why it's a central service item. splitting the cost out in the codes. It's just extra work for employees to >> track. I get it. I just wanted like I said wanted to make sure that there was an offset seldom reduction. >> Correct. >> Um what are we still comfortable that Henipin County is not going to come back for assessing fees? I know that they went to zero last year and they assured us that they haven't rethought that. >> At least for 26 they have. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> I can't confirm that for longer than 26, but I can confirm that for 26 that they are not going to charge us. >> Mhm. Okay. >> It just went from one bill to the next. I mean, it went from your city taxes to the county taxes. >> Yep. Unfortunately, >> I don't have any other specific things. I just, you know, we've talked generically about kind of a ceiling of 6 to 8% and so naturally we it's like buying gasoline. It's 8.97. >> Yeah. Again, that wasn't the goal of city staff. I'm h I'm happy to reduce it if that's what the council wants to do. I just need direction of which where do you want to cut the dollars from? At this point, the only answer is either cutting it out of the fed the fire truck, which is totally fine, or cutting the the officer. That's the only two spots I have to cut at this moment. So, and I'm fine with doing that if that's what the council wants to do. I'm not saying that that's not I got down to the tax rate being exactly 0% increase. That's what my goal has always been. So, >> and I think as long as we keep in mind that, you know, even assuming this gets passed, we we can come down. Zach has said that we we know that we can come down. So, we can >> and I'm I'm I'm of that same opinion that that was supposed to be the range and we're up to nine, but I get it. Um, and I think there's still room. >> To me, I want to come back to the ladder truck. That that's where my thing is. But I think right now in this moment, like you said, we can approve this and then we can have that conversation with the ladder truck and then possibly come down. So >> there has not been a a year since I've been here that we have not come down since the preliminary last levy. >> Okay, >> I can might be the first year that was in 21 for 22, but that would be it. Other than that, it come down every single year that I've been in this role. >> So that's fine. We can do that. We said we cut it now or cut it later, but it's up to you guys. I'm okay with with moving ahead with this uh levy amount. I know we we know we have a lot of work left to do on the on the particulars uh in it and and that can still happen. >> So, but I'm okay with this being our >> starting point. >> Starting point our maximum. >> This is your ceiling. Y >> I'm okay with this is our ceiling. Any other comments to staff or not? I will entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary budget at 8.97%. >> Second. >> Okay. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed say no. Sorry. Carries five to zero. Item K. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um, this project has already been alluded to tonight. Um, this is we're looking at a water tower to be added to the Northwest Dayton. Just for reference, um, this area that doesn't show up in the far northwest corner on the the slide on the left and then a zoomed in area. It's also the area known as the historic village. I just wanted to point that out because it is limited. The benefit of the tower is limited to this specific area. It does not stretch anywhere beyond this area. So just some background, this this area of the city is currently served by a city water system. There's about 250 services to it. There's handful of businesses, but most of them are residential homes, single family. There's two wells that operate. They run at I'll just say roughly 400 gallons per minute each on that. And the storage, as we've discussed in the past, is limited. There's a 2,000galon pneumatic tank to pressurize the system. Within that, there's only about 1,000 gallons of water. The rest the rest is air just to keep the system pressurized. So, the primary concerns with the system in the village is insufficient either supply or storage. Um either water on hand or a combination of the water on hand and what can be pumped from the wells. Um it's in insufficient for flows. Um, and just to note about where we're sitting, um, generally you're looking at about 1500 gallons per minute for a 2-hour duration is what we shoot for for kind of the minimum or the the lower end of the fire suppression. Um, and if you do the math, two wells at 400 gallons per minute is not not there. So um the other one and this one is has become a little bit less of an issue but the uh lack of storage doesn't allow for the system to maintain um fully usable or or sufficient for service during repairs or other operations. Um there has been some upgrades made to the wellhouse that has improved this. So that is a um lesser of a concern now. We installed some equipment uh probably four or five years ago that has helped with that. But nonetheless, it would be um additional protection if you will to have some volume of water on hand in the system at any given time. So this information itself we are proposing an elevated storage so water tower. Um the option would be ground storage with pumps which is um typically more expensive if not to build certainly to maintain and operate and then upgrade in the future or replace in the future. um elevated is gravity's cheap and it's uh very reliable. So uh we are proposing that. So the next steps would be to the complete the preliminary engineering on it. Um as we've discussed it would be to identify the best location for the tower uh the right size and features by features I mean um basically like mixers or other components that might be beneficial for operation. uh the tower type. There are a number of types. Probably only a couple of those listed would be appropriate for one of the size we're expecting. But then identify land rights required for the tower and the improvements and or other improvements. Um those improvements being as has been mentioned even tonight, we do need to upsize a connection between the tower and the wells. Whether that's done within the existing system or an additional line that's added to the system, it could be either way. We'll get into the details of that. Both what the improvements are and what path it will take or what alignment um should be utilized to make that connection. >> That's not the new pump, right? That's just what's currently going to storage. >> When you say the line is inadequate, >> the So the the system is essentially a network of pipes. >> Um the main line, if you will, um under County Road 12, um or River Road is an 8 in line. The rest of them are all 6 in. Um to get a high volume of water to the tower, if we want to be able to fill this thing faster, we need we need a faster route. So we need to increase a line or lines, you know, basically connecting those two so we can get the water from the wells to the system or to the tower faster. >> So does that make sense? It >> Yep, it does. I'm just wondering where you're ballparking the tower to say that >> for location. Yeah, >> I actually have a slide that will show just that. Um, we do have a few spots identified that that we are looking at. Um, and I I'll touch on that because I I would appreciate some feedback if there is any at this time. Um, so just schedule-wise, we'd be doing the preliminary work now. Um, we basically want to define the scope of the project more than anything. This is actually in the CIP for 2026. We just want to kind of get going on it. Um, the design on these can take a while, the full design, and then the permitting can be a pretty lengthy process. So, we'd like to start it now so we could kick things off right away in 2026. Ideally, we start construction later in 2026. Depending on how permitting and other things go, that could get pushed to 2027, but we would like to move forward um at this time to to try to accelerate that the best we can. So, as as mentioned, these are I don't know if they show up well here. I'll use my cursor if that's helpful. Um, so the areas we're looking, um, I guess one of the basics of water tower, the the higher the ground, the shorter the tower because we're shooting for a certain elevation. So we do try to target the higher spots, if you will, because it makes construction easier and then u or cheaper. Uh, then the other component of it is it has to be accessible to the system as well. So um, it needs to be somewhat in proximity or a reasonable path to make the connection to the existing system. So this here and maybe I should have turned an aerial on here um if you can picture it. The church cemetery. This is right off the northwest corner of where the cemetery area is. So it is church property. We have not had any discussions with them now to be honest. It's simply on there because it's the highest point there. Um that would be the cheapest tower. However, u there would be land rates for to be acquired and then there would be a little bit of pipe um additional pipe needed to make that connection. U moving to the south there for reference, the one right off of 12 here, if you remember, it's probably been eight or 10 years now, but there's a small gravel parking lot that the city uh paved or or installed gravel for at the time it was for a farmers market to be used. Um I'll just say kind of out right center field or off a right field. Um that would be another location that's about 20 feet 20 to 30 feet lower than the other spot. So, it' be a little bit higher tower, but the space looks appropriate for it, and the proximity of the system is good. Um, the other one here, this is a little bit higher. It's an elevation between it. This is, I'll say, right behind home plate or third baseline. Um, off the corner there. Uh, might be pretty tight in there. So, we need to do some measurements and we have to look at it. Um, we're thinking that's great. That's under city control now. Might be fitting in a park. There are some homes in close proximity, so we'll need to consider that. Um, but that is a spot that we think would be a good fit for it if everything does pan out as far as the setup. >> Do we have This is kind of a question out to the, you know, maybe off the wall. That was a dedicated park. Is that correct? >> A dedicated park. >> Oh, yeah. So, how do we put is there any limits to what city equipment can go on a park since >> that is a good question and I don't know the answer to that. Um, if there is a limitation to it, I have to look legal. >> We have an attorney around here. >> I know you can use um >> it just strikes me as odd that that you can do anything on a park other than park stuff. um a dedicated >> that might that might bring us down to three locations of the land. >> Well, there are things I don't think you can >> just let me >> and it's it's it may be a bad spot anyways, but whatever. >> If it's parkland dedication, I don't think you can do anything with it. >> When would that have been dedicated? >> Oh, it have been dedicated years ago. >> I it wouldn't surprise me if it's not though. That's why I was asking because that's been a park since >> before I was edit work on to see if it was done. But >> yeah, >> so we'll we'll consider that one. >> If that one gets ruled out, but >> it might be it should be looked into. >> Y >> before you do any of the other >> Right. Right. Right. Don't spend too much time till we know the easy stuff. Um and then we just one to the south. Sorry, let me inter let me interrupt and say that the statute says that um >> Well, hang on a second. That's about for streets. >> Sorry, Jason. Keep going. >> Oh, sorry. >> I'll interrupt you again. >> Um then just the fourth location, it it's only because it's raw land as of now and they're actually looking at improvements down there. the ground is lower and um to be honest though it seems ideal to put it right next to a well. It's actually doesn't it doesn't function all that great. It's better to have it spread apart between the the pumps in the well and the tower itself. But we we could figure it out. So we did have that on there as kind of the >> Can you explain I obviously I'm sure there's engineering but like >> engineering for dummies. Why is it worse to be by the well? >> There's there's there's a lot of hydraulics going on in the network of a system. So there's a model in it. So the spacing of all of the components. >> Um so if you have >> like a certain amount of inertia almost like you have to have >> the water will go there but won't get to other extremities of the system because there's not as much resistance through the pipe. So it'll flow in there too easy. So you want some resistance so it gets to everywhere in the system. So it's >> so if you have a big giant hole that's right next to it, everything wants to go into the big giant hole that's right next to it and not spread out more. Whereas the big giant hole is farther away. It's going to fill in other things on the way to the big giant hole. >> Yes. Kind of. >> You need more pressure to get 5,000 ft than you do 20 ft. So, all the water's going 20 ft. Nothing's going 5,000. >> Okay. So, then we'd have to add other things to get it to go to. >> We could probably figure it out. It's just the systems generally operate better if we can get some spacing in there. So, >> I would not have thought that. That makes sense. >> I'll interrupt quick. Um so if if land is dedicated for on a plat for parks then it can't be changed. It has to be used for park purposes. But if cash was given and the land was acquired. >> Yes. That way it's not dedicated. >> Um then it's then you can it can be used for parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open space based on an approved park system plan. So not water towers. >> Not water towers. >> Not water towers. Other infrastructure. >> All our parks. How do we know if they're they've been dedicated or not? >> Title work. >> Hopefully. >> Would title work show that though? >> Hopefully. I guess that um maybe I don't hate >> and subdivision the you know >> an approved subdivision when you approve a subdivision by resolution. >> Yeah, those make sense. But back >> it was that would have been done in like 18 something >> letters. Yeah, >> that would have been done back in like 18 something I bet. Or >> Mr. mayor, members of the council, the property that the park, McNeel Park, sits on, was platted with the town site of Dayton in 1866. So, um, not that there weren't maybe park dedication statutes back then, but, uh, >> well, we usually, I mean, these parks oftentimes if they have a name on them, it's because that family donated that park. But, so you think this has been around since 1800s? Well, it wasn't dedicated with any plat following because typically the the dedicated area for a park is within a project boundary that is a plat. >> Um, being that this isn't a part of a new plat or a newer plat than the original town site, I would say that is unlikely, however, not impossible that it was dedicated for development purposes. But, okay, I would say that it was it's probably unlikely. Huh. >> Wonder why it's got the name on it. Whatever. Go ahead. >> Um, and I just put a few examples of the tower. If there's any strong opinions now, I certainly certainly don't have to discuss. >> The baseball makes most sense if you're going to put >> If it's by the park, right? That's in in I forgot where I found that. It's somewhere in North Carolina. >> Are these all like a quarter million or what? What are these? >> Um, I wish they were Oh, for size. >> Yeah. say I wish there was um so this is Dayton um in the corner. So that is 250,000. I did not check this >> or sorry 500,000 a year. Thank you. Um yes it's half a million on that one. It costs more than that too. >> I was going to say for 2.2 >> I didn't look at be I didn't look at centervilles or >> what you what you're thinking >> what >> probably 2 250 because it's a common size. I think kind of the minimum for fire flows our initial calculations probably like 180,000 to 200,000 would probably be sufficient but the common tank sizes generally run at 250. It goes from like 100 to 250. >> So part of your work will be to determine the trade-offs as far as having to replplum some of this stuff. >> Yes. >> Versus where the the height and >> Yep. Yep. Yeah. >> Yep. We'll do some cost analysis because Yeah. the farther away you get, the more pipe we're doing. Um, the lower the ground, the higher the tower, um, which is bigger footings. So, um, yeah. And then, yeah, just to note, you you can do some I'll say more custom things, >> right? >> Um, yeah, the the ball the >> um, Hayden made a good point that does look like a teed golf ball except part of the stitching. >> Um, but might be fitting if it's at McNeel Park. Um, otherwise, this is in Lindstöm. There's the tea kettle. You could do things like that. Of course, they do come with a larger price tag. So, those can be considered later, but just to throw those out as options if there's interest or strong preference. So, tonight, what we're looking for is to just initiate the preliminary engineering um per the proposal provided in the packet. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> All those opposed say no. >> Carries 5 to zero. And we are on to item L. And L. I think there's been probably at least subtle or related discussions of this in the past. Um it's related to a corridor study on Fernbrook Lane. Um location shown on the left essentially from the Maple Grove border on Fernbrook up to 117th Avenue. uh specifically looking at the intersections or at least focused more so on the intersections at this time. Those being uh Rush Creek Parkway, 113th Avenue, 114th Avenue, which would be realigned or the theory or the thought is to realign those into a single four-legged intersection rather than two three-legged intersections. And then additionally at 117th Avenue as is shown on the screen. And then I just for reference labeled the the streets and the developments that are in that proximity. So background on this, I'm sure council is well aware, there's been a lot of development over recent years in this area, increasing traffic levels. Um, as I mentioned, the realignment has been discussed at 113th and 114th. We have received ongoing complaints and they seem to be increasing in number as the construction and the development continues regarding 113th Avenue both its condition and its safety of of uh higher volumes using that access. Uh there was upgrades completed at Rush Creek Parkway in 2021 that involve some turn lanes and then a pedestrian refuge uh utilized for uh uh pedestrians to uh access Elm Creek Park Reserve uh to help with that situation. So there was there was upgrades at that time. Um I think probably everybody would agree that further improvements are probably warranted there. um if not now, then soon, but probably already. Uh the county did recently install a four-way stop there. Um going into that, it's been known that that's not a permanent solution. That was just something to get by until a more significant or a more permanent solution can be implemented on it. And then as we can all imagine the development will continue which will just continue to increase the traffic levels through there both locally with the development that occurs in Dayton but also regionally for any of the traffic going north and south from there. And then again as we've discussed in the past the county does not have any projects within this corridor identified for at least the next 10 years. And therefore, uh, the city, at least city staff would like to initiate a potential project just to get something moving on this, um, get a study completed, some preliminary layouts identified for improvements at these intersections such we can start talking about funding for the project or partnership with the county, whatever that might be to to try to bring this project forward instead of just continuing to sit and wait. So the next step in our mind again is to complete the study and collect traffic data again to justify the improvements which is a requirement of the county but we would want that anyway. Um estimating the traffic levels based on you know known development and regional growth that's expected during that time. Look at improvements options and then estimate costs with that so we can define a decent scope for for the project or the improvements of those three intersections. The study would be completed over this winter and then it would be discussed I presume with the county um throughout the winter and in the spring to look for partnerships as we explore other funding options as well. Uh funding for this just to note and this was discussed recently at least at one of the developments on the screen. DCM Farms and Brayburn Trails each East each contributed $125,000 that could be used that would be used for these projects if you will specifically identifying that they provide the funds early so they could be used for this exact effort. So it would be for the report, the study, the preliminary engineering, the land acquisitions or that that might be associated with it. Anything unused would just roll forward into the construction of the actual improvements. So it is fully funded through developer contributions. Uh construction of the improvements potentially 2027 might be later than that. Um probably is going to be dependent on a couple of things at least one of the improvements. U the 113 114th will probably be driven by the status of the DCM farms development. The rest of it will probably be driven by funding availability. Ideally, all of that happens together and it happens soon, but we'll we'll see as this unfolds. >> So, this is really in hopes of applying pressure to the county. >> It's it's it's to show the county we want a project to to try to get them to step up. Um, the other thought is the more we know going in for funding opportunities, if there's any grants available or other programs, um, the farther along we are and the more we know, the more informed we are, the better our chances at that. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of good funding sources for projects like this because they're off trunk highways and they're not heavy freight corridors or other. Uh however um part of our thought as well is if we had a well- definfined project uh maybe just state bonding solicitation is the way to go um or at least something that we could explore. But without a plan in place or any any real project identified, >> we're not going to get anywhere in that route. So we're hopeful that this would >> at least provide us some information to to go after one of those. Don't we have >> pretty good data on on some of this in the existing conditions and existing traffic levels? Isn't there a lot of pretty current information out there around that? >> Some um yes, there is. We actually went out because we did that intersection study inventory. Um we only did the detailed level counts um at our top 10 intersections, if you will, which did include the Rush Creek Parkway. However, the other thing I'll note is they were taken in February, which is usually not what you want to do. We did that just to get information quickly, but the county um for a full warrant analysis will have to do a longer term count, which is just a two-day instead of one, but at some time during heavier use or a more routine rather than a winter month. So, >> information that SRF had done previously, is that too dated now to >> Yeah, it would have to be much more recent than that. It it's even to be honest even the stuff from fee last February is probably not going to be considered current for it. Um it it's not a big effort. If it helps we got a quote for the counts as $3,000. Okay. >> Um the other thing I'll mention and I a little nervous to say this because it's not complete yet. The county did offer to do the counting for us. So we're trying to coordinate that. But >> there's three grand. >> There's 3,000. There you go. >> We take it >> take that off to 6 million. So when they realized there was a problem and put in the four-ways that they they did not schedule a project or even a that did they didn't schedule any follow on or they didn't even hint that there might so they they can't be happy that there would be a four-year there for 10 years there there's got to be >> they they brought that project to us with the the the stop signs and they took the lead on it. We just gave them a timeline that we thought worked. >> Strikes me as odd that they >> didn't plan on >> Yeah. I I mean there we discussed very explicitly with them that this this is not a permanent solution. This is something to help with the situation we have, but more improvements are needed and they agreed, but no project's been identified. So, >> do you happen to know if that four-way and Champlain that that they put in they have a project scheduled for that at all? They they had a roundabout and I forget the the French Lake Road uh connection. Um I don't remember the details of why it didn't move forward. They went I think all the way to >> Yeah. They started with a roundabout and then that went in the ditch and literally and then >> and actually Yeah. No, you say that. So the stop signs didn't even come about until after the roundabout. >> Exactly. You're right. But but now that they got stop signs, I'm just wondering if they if they're looking at a project there because maybe that'll tell us what >> I don't I don't it may or I don't think they are when I come back, but I haven't heard anything about >> I've heard nothing but positives of oh this works so well we're going to keep it for a long time, >> you know. Yeah, I think that's a little different example, but I don't I don't know that it gets the traffic that this thing gets. Yeah, I that was the first call I made after talking with the county as chaplain to see if they had any issues and they said surprisingly no. >> Yeah, >> they said it's been working really well for them. So, >> yeah, I think it's because there's not a lot of traffic. Whenever I come up to this this four-way now, I there it's always backed up on >> Yeah, especially peak hours. I know. >> And and the one in Champl is not. I just assume that it's a count thing, but whatever. Okay. So Jason, you said 3,000 bucks for the this whole study. >> No, >> no. Um, no. For the traffic counts. Oh. >> My question would be is is if everything that's been done like a year ago is already outdated. >> Just the counts. >> Okay. >> Just the counts, not the the other Well, there hasn't been a whole lot of others. I mean, we do have a conceptual layout at at Rush Creek Parkway and then we put some sketches in for the other two for discussion. >> May the council, part of the study as well is to identify some of the land acquisitions that need to be done if we're going to do these improvements and we can utilize those dollars towards land acquisition dollars to be able to again get this project more ready to go so that we're having less hiccups in the future when we're looking to do these improvements and being able to push the county a little bit to say we've already acquired this stuff. Let's go. So >> the one on 114 though is that did DCM commit? They just committed dollars, right? They didn't. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> So okay. I'm just wondering what happens if we can't get the rightway on 114th. And >> there will be right away needed on the east side. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, it would have to come significantly south to not need that. So and a challenge. So yeah, that that will be an important piece. Okay. Any more questions? Okay, I'll need a motion and a second. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Any more discussion? >> Is there any dollars associated with the study? You don't have a number in mind >> for the project cost? >> No, for just to do the work you're going to do here. Um, it's in the proposal. Be honest. I don't remember what the number is. >> I just >> It is up in >> 53,000. >> Yeah, something like that. >> Yeah, we have $250,000 of funding currently going. >> Oh, yeah. I mean, yeah. Just can't wait to burn a hole in our pocket. >> Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed say no. >> Carries. >> Carries five to zero. On to item L1. >> Yep. Sorry. May council, we're going to have the talked about the fire subcommittee design. I've sent a couple emails out based on this and I've gotten um feedback which is greatly appreciated, but I just need to know who would like to be on that committee from the council's perspective. So, that's what I'm here to stand for. >> So, I said I'd be willing to do it, but Thursday doesn't work super great for me. >> Thursday is not going to work for most of us. So, that's why it it likely will be Thursday. Unfortunately, I'm going to So, I will be full disclosure. I try to make sure if I'm doing anything with the fire department, I try to do it on Thursdays for them because it's again one more night that they're going to be away from their family and I prefer not to do that to them. I'd rather have them do it on a night they're already going to be or planning on being away from their family. So, every time I've ever met with the fire department, I've always on a Thursday. So, that's what I would suggest to the council as well. >> Next Thursday, I could do it's just this Thursday. >> So, yep, >> is rough for me. Um, so I'm assuming, >> so what I'm looking for today is, yeah, just the designs and then I can figure out a schedule that will work best for those two individuals. >> Well, I guess I just in the email I've expressed interest in being part of this that this Thursday was not going to work for me either. Um, but I also, you know, under understand the the desire to keep it to be a limited group. So, if we've got three people, I'm willing to step back is I guess where I'm at, but >> what is So, is does the next Thursday work? Is it >> I I do not I can I can make sure it's scheduled for the fire department. I'm assuming it'll work because they already have a training night that night. So, I would assume that it would work for them. >> We're not interfering with hands-on training. >> Uh we would do it we would do it before that, >> which is next to it. Yeah, we would do it prior to >> lost track of how many Thursdays in we are. >> That would be the third Thursday. It was It would have been best if it was this Thursday because it would have been station maintenance night. So that's um typically a night that starts. I think it's at 7. Don't quote me on that, but I think it's at 7 o'clock it starts. >> Mayor, me members of council, um we always allow for 30 minutes um before training. So we start at 18:30. So I don't know if 30 minutes is enough, but we have gone past that as well. So we can make adjustments for next Thursday the 18th to accommodate that. >> Would that work for you then? >> It would. >> Any if it's next Thursday I can make it work, but I leave on Friday. So um >> my plan is not to spend four or five hours. It's half hour to an hour. >> Yeah. I don't know how long this conversation is going to go. I'm I'm unsure. I mean, originally I I'm kind of I brought this idea up to to have this conversation. So, >> I I just want to get it worked out and figured out. So, that's why I brought it up. Um >> Well, I this Thursday if if it needs to be this Thursday, which sounds >> No, it can't be this Thursday. I don't think. >> Okay. I'm >> I'm going to be out of town this Thursday. So, >> I'm out of it. >> What? Thursday? >> Okay. >> I've only got I got lost. I I I'm just here to help out and help this thing get get consolidated. So that's that's what I'm here for. And >> So you're saying you're not here this Thursday, but next Thursday you are. >> Yep. For just for Thursday. >> Next Thursday. >> Yeah. >> So does that work for you? >> Next Thursday. Yes. >> Okay. Sounds like >> So you guys are talking about the 18th. Yes. Correct. >> Yep. >> And we have two. Correct. So if there's three, >> then we have an open meeting. Yep. >> Okay. And and we can do that if the council would like to do that. We can do that. It just creates a different dynamic and then we have to have a recording and notify it and which like I said we can do and I think I noted that in my first email. It just >> Yeah. But I mean just giving my opinion I think that meeting them where they are will be better and you'll have a better turnout. I mean because historically looking at who has come to even the meetings you get the same >> max of three. So if you meet them where they are um by going to their training and in their space, I think you may have a better outcome. >> Yeah. >> Um >> which is what I was suggesting. >> Yeah. I think I'm just that's why I'm saying maybe an open meeting is not the best way to approach that. >> I don't think any of us want that. >> Okay. No, no, I agreed. I was just I guess putting in my input of Okay. >> I think that was a better approach than >> Okay. So everybody's okay with Scott and Dave? >> I'm okay with Scott and Dave. >> Okay. >> Are you Stephie? Did you are did you want in on it? Is that what >> I mean? I think all of us expressed an interest to in a willingness. >> I'll certainly back out and I don't have to be there. >> I I'm not like a a dictator in this situation. I mean, I would be willing to go if that is what the council wants. >> I'm happy with Scott and Dave. If Scott >> it doesn't matter to me. >> What do you think? >> Doesn't matter. gotten Dave next Thursday. >> Okay. >> If for any reason they back out or can't go, you get the stomach flu. >> Yes. Let us know. >> Better not. >> But >> not the stomach flu. Sorry. >> Or something like that. But >> so it's sounds like the council's going to go with Scott and Dave. I can coordinate with those two then and make sure just touch base, make sure we're all on the same page of what we got to communicate with and what we're ask for. Beautiful. Okay. That's all I'm looking for. Thank you very much. >> And if something happens, call one of us. >> I will. We'll figure out. >> I will send out another email and you guys can hash it out. Thank you very much. >> Okay, that puts us to item M. >> Can we have two three minutes? >> Yeah, let's take a minute. >> I'm so sorry. It's been a >> Oh, Mr. Mayor, I think you need to adjourn your regular meeting. >> Do you want to take a motion and a second and then go to a recess? I think that's what you're asking for. >> We need to recess first, right? >> You can if you'd like to. when they go into the close session, >> but take a recess before they go into the closed session so that we can stop the >> That's a legal one. >> Okay. I just usually you would you would adjourn your your regular meeting before you go into the closed meeting. >> Yeah. >> Yes. But she's asking for a recess, >> right? >> Before you start the next one, then there's no need for a recess. >> Oh, it all gets in the >> motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> Don't say that. >> Okay. And then you'll reopen a new meeting for item M. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, we're going to adjourn this meeting. >> Correct. >> And we got a motion. We got a second. >> And all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Okay. So, we are journ for now. Then we will we need a motion. >> Read this. Right. >> No, we're going to Oh, now we're Oh, I You're going to wait for the meeting for a moment. There you go. >> Yep. Gibson. 10:48. >> This shouldn't be that long. >> Closed meeting. Do we have to have >> Does he have to be here? Have to invite >> recorded. >> Yeah, we should have the chief come in, I think. Get started. Is he ready? I would imagine. >> Yeah, they're all I'll read this and then we'll be uh closed meeting for the purpose of giving preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to the city council's authority pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D05 subdivision 2B. Subject employee fire chief Gary Hendrickson. >> So you'll convene the close session. >> Okay. convene in open session. I'll just um um I'm assuming that the council will want me to prepare a summary of what happened during the >> the disclosed meeting and I'll have that ready for um your next open meeting. And if you if that's okay and you want to adjourn this meeting then you can adjourn for the evening or the morning as >> objections. Oh, we still got there. All right, we're journ