I'm going to call the meeting to order. Welcome to the January 6, 2026 city council meeting. I hereby call the meeting to order. Members of the public may attend the city council meeting in person or may watch or listen remotely by viewing on channel 8 wctv and at the city's website at weisetta.orgwv. Public comment during the public forum and or public hearing portions of the meeting may be provided in person at the meeting in advance or by logging on to the team's call and raising your hand during the public hearing section. When your name is called in the meeting, you will be seen and heard in our council chambers and the cable channel. You'll be asked to unmute, turn your camera on, and you may begin your comments. All public comments should include your first name and who you're representing uh as an individual or group. Second item on the agenda is the pledge of allegiance. It would ask everyone to stand if they are able and follow along. I >> pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America >> and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you for that. Next on our agenda is roll call. Let the uh record reflect that all council members are present this evening. I need to read a statement about uh our workshop uh that was held just prior to this meeting. We held a uh closed meeting uh from 5 to 6:30. A closed meeting of the Weisetta City Council was held pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D05, subdivision 3B, the attorney client privilege exception to the open meeting law to discuss the following litigation. Lake West Development 200 LLC, Lake Street East, Kurt Fratham. Uh, next, Dre Trustee LLC. Next, DLC 2020 revocable trusts, plaintiff versus citya, Kyle Huntton Partners, Artisian Homes, Lori Hedrickk, Karen Webster, and Craig Swanson. Last, um, not last, the next one is Alden Adams, 225 Manitoba Avenue LLC, Olivia Adams, Wisetta Cottage LLC, Robert Fiser, trustee of Robert Fischer C Trust. Uh, [snorts] next and last is Jeffrey Lee Homers, uh, 306 Berry Avenue LLC, Scott Trips, 1020 Lake Street, uh, LLC, Anna Osen Kenova, and Yugeni Organovich. That's the last one. Thank you. This meeting was uh, closed to permit the council to meet with its attorneys to review and candidly and openly discuss absolutely confidential and privilege matters related to the above referenced litigation plural. Okay, that's a mouthful. Next, uh, I'd like to, uh, look at approving the agenda. May I have, uh, a motion to approve the agenda as is, or does anyone like to make any adjustments? >> I'll make that motion, Mr. Mayor. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? >> All in favor say I. I. >> Those opposed. That passes 5 to zero. Next, uh, the reason many of you are here in the safest place in all of Wisetta when I look at all these uniforms out there is the public forum. And just a reminder to those sitting in the audience tonight or on teams, if you're interested in speaking, please state your name, uh, who you're representing and limit your comments to three minutes. If the item is on the agenda, um, you fill out a form on the table to hand it to staff. You fill out a different form if you are wanting to speak on something that's not on the agenda. Um, so if anyone is willing to do that, they need to hand their uh cards in now if you're willing. Um, I do have one public forum card. Do we have anyone on teams at this time? >> Mr. Mayor, we do not. >> Okay. Before we move on to the big show, I'm going to invite Mr. Kevin Peterson uh to the for the public forum, sir. Thank you. Welcome. >> Uh, Mayor Mullen, uh, council members, thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Kevin Peterson. Um, I'm not a resident of Weisetta, but I live in the Ferndale North neighborhood, which is just adjacent to Weisetta. Um, with my family of, uh, Jennifer Peterson and my three daughters. Um, a little bit about me just real quick. So, I'm a business owner. I own four businesses across Minnesota and Wisconsin, as well as the Math Learning Center, Mathnesium up in Plymouth. Um, employer about 90 people across Wisconsin in Minnesota. Um, so why am I here? So over the next 90 days, I'm visiting all the cities within Henipin County. And the reason why I'm visiting all the city councils within Henipin County is because I'd like to request that all of you create a coordinated effort to achieve the following during the truth and taxation period for Henipin County in 2026, which begins in March. I'm asking for that to achieve two things. review and reform property tax assessment policies and practices and conduct an audit of the county spending with a focus on the health and human services spending which is 50% of the total county spending. Again, I'll make this short and sweet, but I do want to leave you with one data point. Back in 2025, December 9th of 2025, I submitted a data request to Henipin County. That data request requested the last eight years of nonprofit spending within the county. Unfortunately, they didn't submit back to me all eight years. They just gave me 2025. Within that 2025 period, Henipin County spent over 150 million to over 600 nonprofits almost exclusively in Minneapolis. I want to put that in perspective for you. Minneapolis, the land of Minneapolis, not including the rivers is 55 square miles. If you take that 600 divided by 55, you essentially get Henipin County paid 8 to nine nonprofits paid 8 to nine nonprofits per square mile. To put that in perspective, Minneapolis public schools only has four to five schools per square mile. So, we are paying more nonprofits within the city of Minneapolis than we have public schools on a per square mile basis. Additionally, the county paid $90 million to a category called Medicaid expansion. I'm not entirely sure what that was used for. I'm I've requested to ask follow-on questions for that information in addition to the additional seven years that I've requested for nonprofit spending. And I'll leave you with this this last piece. As a citizen of Henipin County, I believe that it's an absolute moral hazard for the property owners within Henipin County that don't live in Minneapolis to continue to spend or send property tax dollars to Henipin County when it's so when its sole purpose is to accommodate for the mismanagement of Minneapolis. And I will leave you with that and I will continue to engage with you as well as the other cities as I go along my journey here for the next 90 days. Thank you for your time. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Um, next we are going to be swearing in uh of police officers. I'm going to turn it over uh to city staff and uh thank you for all being here tonight. It's a special night for police and families and the officers being sworn in. So, city manager or Chief Baker, >> um I'm going to turn it over to Chief Baker to introduce each officer and then I'll conduct the swearing in. >> Thank you, interimm city manager Jagger. Uh, mayor, city council members, thank you very much for having us here. It's an honor and a privilege to be in front of you tonight. I'd just like to make the announcement to the officers that are in the back that work for the city of Weisetta. You're required to stay to get a picture. The council has assured me that there will be a recess. It won't take very long. So, with that, we'll get started. Mr. Omar Wallace, if you could come up here, please. Officer Wallace was born in Robbinsdale, Minnesota, and raised in Minneapolis. Officer Wallace developed a strong appreciation for community and public service. He began his law enforcement career with Henipin County Sheriff's Office, serving as a detention deputy. In that role, he gained valuable experience working with individuals during challenging situations and developed a strong communication and interpersonal skills. What stood out most about Omar during his interview was it was clearly obvious that he has a strong ability to find a topic of conversation and can build a rapport and bond with anybody in a short period of time. Officer Wallace graduated from Henipin uh North Henipin Community College earning his degree in May of 2024. He chose to pursue a career in law enforcement to be a positive presence in the community and to make a meaningful difference in people's lives. Officer Wallace has a pilots uh what was it? Student pilot license. So, he's looking to start a pilot program in the city of Wisetta. Uh where is the interim city manager is going to swear you in. Then we'll have your grandmother come and pin you. >> Okay. All right. I'm going to try and move the mic close so that way everybody can hear you. Omar, it is my privilege. Please raise your right hand. Um, say I state your name. I, Omar Wallace, >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> to support the Constitution of the United States >> to support the Constitution of the United States >> the Constitution of the State of Minnesota >> the Constitution of the Minnesota >> and to discharge faithfully >> and to discharge faithfully >> the duties of the office of police officer >> the duties of the office of police officer >> of the city of Weisetta >> of the city of Weisetta >> in Minnesota >> in Minnesota >> to the best of my judgment and ability >> to the best of my judgment and abilities. So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Congratulations. >> Oh, [applause] and then you can say a few words if you like. [snorts] [sighs] >> [applause] [applause] >> Hello everyone. I want to thank Chief Baker, Deputy Chief Sher, City Manager Aurora, City Council, Mayor Mullins, and the city of Weisetta for giving me the opportunity, and for believing in my ability to serve as a dedicated officer for the city of Wisetta. Most importantly, I want to express my gratitude to my mother and father for their unwavering support, encouragement, and patience, and love throughout this journey. >> [snorts] >> I would also like to thank my FTO's, Officer Hapia for my introduction into the department, Officer Datsman for showing me what it means to dig deep and push beyond my own expectations, and officer Karsten's for his patience, guidance, and steady leadership that helped build my confidence as a new officer in this department. I also want to thank my mentor McNeely for her instruction, guidance, and support throughout the process. To my friends who have stood by me every step of the way, thank you for your un unwavering love and support you have shown me throughout this journey. It is an honor to stand here today and I look forward to serving this community with dedication, honor, and integrity. [applause] Okay, next up we have the swearing in of Sergeant Kyle Kersner, whose daughter, by the way, informed him that your guys' movie is boring. So, >> this was me. >> Not wrong. [laughter] Sergeant Kyle Kersner was raised in Rogers, Minnesota, but had but has many ties to the Weisetta and Lakes area as his grandparents living in Long Lake and his aunt and uncle owning a marina in Smith's Bay. Sergeant Kersner's law enforcement experience started as Sherburn County Reserve Deputy where he participated in a youth snowmmoiling and ATV instruction. This inspired a YouTube channel for his truck pulling competition which you can still view today. Sergeant Kersner worked for Maple Grove Police Department for four years as a community service officer and in 2012 was awarded the Tri County Crime Analyst of the Year award for assisting in a a criminal investigation division. Kyle became a Weisetta Police Department. Kyle came to Weisetta Police Department after working for Oro Police Department for 12 years serving as a cso, patrol officer, field training officer, and general investigator. And I think his wife Mary and his two children are going to come and in a badge on him or one. See, your movie was boring. [laughter] >> Great. Do you mind if we do your swearing? >> Absolutely. Let's do it. >> All right. Um, raise your right hand. Say, I state your name. >> I, Kyle Kersner, >> do solemnly swear >> Do solemnly swear >> to support the Constitution of the United States >> to support the Constitution of the United States. >> the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. the Constitution of the State of Minnesota >> and to discharge faithfully >> and to discharge faithfully >> the duties of the office of police sergeant >> the duties of the office of police sergeant >> of the city of Weisetta Minnesota >> the city of Weisetta Minnesota >> to the best of my judgment and ability to >> the best of my judgment and ability. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Congratulations [applause] right here. right here. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> He's your other. >> Okay. My other >> Thank you. >> Good job. >> Thank you. [applause] Thank you for bearing with me and the the kiddos there. Uh [snorts] Mr. Me or Mr. Mayor, members of the Wisetta City Council, thank you for having us here tonight. Um a first swearing in uh ceremony. Such a memorable event and achievement in officer's life. I'm so very happy to see Officer Wallace and all of his friends and family. Uh present here to support him as well as myself and Deputy Chief Shainer and our in our swearings. Uh my experience in this profession thus far is that law enforcement is a whole family profession. to serve in the role of police officer, your family has to be on board, too. I wouldn't be here to be sworn in as a sergeant uh in this great department if not for the continued support of my family, my friends, my peers, and most of all, my wife, Mary. I'm deeply grateful for the opportunity to serve in the role of sergeant here in Weisetta. Chief Baker and Deputy Chief uh Shanner were fantastic ambassadors during my transition here. Uh leaving a place where I had grown comfortable roots was not easy, but growth occurs outside the comfort zone. Uh my goals as a sergeant are simple. Uh to lead and decision make with integrity, to support my team, uh and to grow the institutional knowledge and abilities of the Wisetta Police Department. Pardon me, [laughter] >> just got an upgrade. >> From day one, the staff here have been welcoming, helpful, and kind, making this transition very seamless. Uh I'm eager to see what lies ahead as we navigate, adapt, and strive for excellence in public safety here in Weisetta. Thank you uh council for your continued support. Uh my colleagues for their hard work and professionalism. Uh my family for standing by me every step of the way. I'm excited for the future um and committed to doing everything I can for the city of Weisetta and the communities we serve to make sure that they're safe and strong. Thank you very much. [applause] Next up is Deputy Chief Shainer. Deputy Chief Brad Shainer has proudly served law enforcement for 20 or 25 years, dedicating his career to protecting the community and supporting those who serve alongside him. During his time, he's taken on a wide range of roles, including patrol officer, K-9 officer, investigator, SWAT operator, team leader, patrol sergeant, and most recently appointed the SWAT commander. His experience at every level has sharp has shaped him into a thoughtful and trusted leader. Away from work, Deputy Chief Shainer enjoys deer hunting, but he hasn't shot a deer in several years, so [laughter] I'm a little suspicious. Um, Brad is married to his wife Melissa of 20 years. Together they have two teenage daughters, Emerson and Riley, who keep their life busy and rewarding. >> Okay, Brad, please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I state your name. I, Brad Shayer, >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> to support the Constitution of the United States >> to support the Constitution of the United States >> the Constitution of the State of Minnesota >> the Constitution of the State of Minnesota >> and to discharge faithfully >> and to discharge faithfully >> the duties of the office of deputy police chief >> the duties of the office of deputy police chief >> of the city of Weisetta Minnesota >> of the city of Wisetta Minnesota >> to the best of my judgment and ability >> to the best of my judgment and ability. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Congratulations [applause] >> [applause] [applause] [applause] [snorts] >> Um, thank you all for being here. This is awesome and I appreciate it. I'm truly honored and grateful for this opportunity. First, I want to thank Chief Baker. Your commitment and dedication to this department is unmatched. Your leadership means a great deal to me, and I've learned a lot from you. I appreciate the trust you've placed in me. Thank you, Mayor Mullen, Wesa City Council, um, City Manager Jerger, for your support and confidence. I'm committed to serving this department and our community with integrity and accountability. to the Wisetta Police Department team. I'm proud to work alongside people that show up every day with professionalism, dedication, and passion. It's a challenging job. I'm committed to supporting you in any way I can and continuing to move this department forward together. I want to thank my family. You stood by me through all the sacrifices that come with this job. you support. Your support over the years has made this possible and I'm grateful. As deputy chief, my focus will be on strengthening our department, supporting our team, continuing to serve our great community with integrity and pride. I'm honored by the opportunity, and excited for what's ahead. Thank you very much. [applause] Okay. Well, with that, if the council wanted to say any >> Yeah. No, I think we just have a couple brief comments and then we'll break for recess, which I believe Jamie, we're going to do pictures first and everyone's required. The chief mandated it and and then uh you guys will convene uh for cake in another room, correct? >> Yes. We're actually because the group is so large, the MUN has offered to host. >> Oh, perfect. Even better. You're going to go down to the White Bar and Grill. Okay. So, I'll just start the comments in just saying so grateful to all of our first responders, police and fire. Although tonight is about police and uh you know we're so grateful to your commitment to our community on behalf of council on behalf of our community. Thank you for stepping up to serve. I look into this audience and this what represents community to me. a full house to honor uh police uh and makes me really proud to be uh part of this community and I can see that you have family members and community that stand behind you and uh that means a lot and so I'm I'm grateful for everyone being here. I would offer it up to any of my colleagues to offer any comments before we break for recess. >> Well, I'll weigh in. First, I'd like to welcome the the two newer members of the police department, uh Officer Wallace and Sergeant Kersner. Uh, Sergeant Kersner, I think it was your daughter that said that our TV show was boring. Well, you certainly upgraded that when your daughter came to join you at the at the podium. That will be in the highlights. I I guarantee that. Um, but to all of you, I think you know that Weisetta is a very welcoming, nurturing place for the law enforcement. We are we are friends of yours. We uh and we enjoy your participation and we value what you do for the for the uh community. So, thank you. >> Anyone else like to offer any comments? >> Okay, so I will um Okay, so we'll break for a recess for pictures. We'll stand in recess. Thank you. >> Can't say it any better than that. >> No, Alex, that was perfect. All right. So, we're going to come back into session now. Um, thank you for that uh lovely ceremony for our police. If you're looking for anyone that was here, they're down at the mun. Uh, do we have anyone on teams? I think did anyone pop in? >> Mr. Mayor, we do not. >> So, now we move on to new agenda items. Uh, item six. Does anyone have uh comments on a new agenda item that they'd like to add to future meeting? Okay, hearing none. Consent agenda is next. Um, the consent agenda tonight included approval of city council regular meeting minutes of December 16th, 2025, approval of the check register, approval of municipal licenses, approval of the 26 through35 capital improvement plan, approval of a 2026 lease agreement with the greater Wisetta Area Chamber of Commerce, which is now the West. Was it a West? Approval of the letter agreement with Merily Borg Babcock for the maple tree tapping program. Approval of the um April 7th, 2026 uh I guess it's a correction. 5:30 p.m. is the time and date for the 20 No, it's just a noticing it. Approval of the April 7th, 2026, 5:30 p.m. is the time and date for the 2026 local board of appeals and equalization meeting. Approval of professional services agreement between the city of Weisetta and Abdu Financial Solutions for Financial Con consulting services for 2026. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as uh presented or are there any items that need to be amended or changed? >> So, so move, Mr. Mayor. >> I'd like to uh pull item E or at least I I have a couple of questions about it and um so I don't know if we need to pull it or just ask questions and >> uh >> comments. >> Well, I think we'll we'll pull it just so we make it clean. Um are there any other items that need to be revised or pulled? So now I'd accept a motion of accepting the consent agenda with the exception of of of bringing forward item E. >> Could I get that motion? >> So moved, Mr. Mayor. >> Could I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed. That passes. So I think right now let's just address item E. So um Mr. Cook, why don't you go ahead and take the floor? >> Yeah, thanks. Um the reason I pulled it is just some concern over the um significant increase in the lease um rate that we're charging to the chamber over the past couple of years. Um and I just have some concerns about that and I know like one of the qu or one of the reasons was to cover our costs. So can you give me an idea of what our cost I think we pay we're paying the all the utilities um there is some there are some real estate taxes that we owe uh on that. So, could you just give me an idea of what that amount is? >> Sure. Um, mayor and council members, um, to give you an idea, when we started working on this, um, lease ramp up a couple of years ago, we looked at, um, what our actual costs were, um, to navigate operating this building. Um, and so the portions we've, you know, there's obviously two people, two different groups that utilize the depot. So, we've tried to aortion the costs ac across the two lease holders. Um, so we have utilities, trash, snow removal, repairs and maintenance, building insurance, and the bigger one is property tax, about six grand worth of property tax. Um, because it's not the type of nonprofit that would be excluded um as a use per Henipin County from paying property taxes. So, we pay about it's it's about $11,000 a year in costs associated with the building. The proposed lease um in front of you today is about 17 is $17,500. >> Okay. Thanks. Um yeah, I guess in general like I'm okay covering our costs. Um, and I I I understand, you know, as a city, we're trying to look for ways to generate revenue and um uh and that we can use market comps, but I don't think the chamber, in my in my opinion, the chamber is a unique tenant and not just a market tenant and a valuable member of the community. And I I think they're they're justified in getting something better than just market rates. So, I'd just caution that we maybe don't continue raising the rents significantly in the future. That would just be my my comment there. Any other questions of staff on this item or comments? I I I share a similar concern. I don't have the background of how it's been stepped up the last few years. I know there's been some drivers like the property tax and some changes, but I think we do need to keep a mindful watchful eye on this as they are a bit of a unique situation. So, um, with that, if there's no further comments, I would accept approval of item E, which is the approval of the 26 lease agreement with the Greater Weisetta Area Chamber of Commerce. I got it right this time. Sorry, Becky. Westa West Chamber, Metro Chamber. There you go. We die hard on the old the old world, right? So, can I accept or could I would accept a motion to approve that, please? >> So, moved. >> Do I have a second? Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. >> That passes 5 to zero. Okay. Um, so next on our agenda is the public hearing. I don't believe we have anything on the public hearing tonight, so we can move on to new business. Uh, on our new business tonight is recognizing resigning board and commission members. Um, I don't know that I see anyone here, but um, every uh, you know, about this time every year, we we produce a new slate of of boards and commission members. And it's been our tradition to recognize those that are stepping down uh, before we uh, affirm affirm them. And I think uh, Aurora and I will tag team this and go through them member by member. The first up is Bianca Jensen from the Park and Trails board. She has served on this board since 2023. Um, she was uh a contributing member to the Clack Park Improvement Project. Bianca also has volunteered at Spring Splash and other park and trails board representative opportunities. She has been an integral part of other uh initiatives from the Park and Trails group such as the Maple Tree Tapping, Sunday music in the park, and community ed classes. Um, next we have uh Do you have any comments on that one? >> No. Next is Sarah Randolph. Um I think she's a founding board member to the park and trails board going all the way back to 2013. So that's uh 12 years of service. Um she uh worked on many projects including the creation of the parks and trails master plan, installation of new uh playground equipment at Wisetta Beach, the Clap Park improvement project, and she's been a uh important voice uh for the last 12 years on park and trails. Next we have David Kirkland from the energy and environment committee. Uh David has been a strong voice to advocate for the dark sky initiative. He helped implement this event which was uh successful and and launched earlier this year. Well I guess last year. In addition, David has helped with the creation of the city operations resilient plan. Next we have Casey Shermack uh who's been on the energy and environment committee now since 2019. He was a founding member of this group. Uh Casey has uh helped steered the direction uh that jumpstarted and shaped the environmental and energy committee and was integral in the creation and implementation of the energy action plan municipal solar installation and creation of city operations resilience plan and a number of sustainability events. That's Casey. Next is Kenttow. Um Kentau served on the charter commission from 2010 to 2025. Uh so it's been a 15 years of service. But if you know Kent, Kent has been a fixture uh in and around boards and commissions probably for the last 30 years, including a tour of duty on planning commission and is one of the the the steady volunteers that we've had over the years at I believe 91 years young. So um so Kent has been integral in in the work of the charter commission. Um his dedication to this is is noted by his 15 years of service and making sure that as as one of the wise sort of uh fathers of the city for his years of service make sure that our charter functions as it should and and evolved it as as it needed. Next we have Mr. Dan Cook uh who got kicked upstairs I guess u you know uh last year but uh Dan has served on the HR or the housing and redevelopment authority since 2022. Um he uh has contributed his experience and civic commitment both for city housing and redevelopment goals based on his profession and based on his tenure of two tours of duty on this council. Um he has supported the H's mission to foster housing opportunities to encourage thoughtful redevelopment and address affordable housing needs in alignment with the city's comprehensive plan and governing statutes. Um Dan has helped guide discussions and decisions related to housing policy, redevelopment initiatives, and community development efforts that aim to enhance the quality and diversity of our housing options in Moetta. So Dan, you're here. Thank you very much. Uh we've got two more. Kelly Graten uh who served on the Heritage Preservation Board for 2425. Um and uh you know, Kelly, um also has been a longtime election judge as well and has served in that capacity as well. Um during her tenure on the board uh she worked on over 40 Centennial House awards, two mayor awards, uh celebrating the the uh retention preservation of Weisetta's historic charact character. Um the HBB also hosted Centennial Home events. Uh was uh a participant in in a booth at James J. Hill days um highlighting the importance of Wisetta's history and uh has contributed to a vibrant working plan for the HPB in 2026 and beyond. And last but not least, another uh person dear to the heart of Wisetta, another person 90 91 years young, Judy Starky uh from the Heritage Preservation Board. She has done two tours on the board from 2001 to 2014. She took a little 5-year break and then came back for 2019 to 2025. So, in my head, I can't even do that math. 13 almost 20 years of service. And Judy has been a a consistent contributor uh not only to uh the HPB, but to the historical society and and bringing front and center all of the historic representation and heritage of our community. Um she consistently has advocated for the identification, protection, and celebration of our historic resources, playing a key role in many uh preservations efforts, including the section foreman's house. I personally had the chance to work with her on getting that on the national registry along with Susantino and others. The post office is another one that she worked on uh getting it off the hit list of the federal government to close it which is still remains open in large part due to the efforts of Judy and others to keep it open and keep it preserved as a historic site. And she's uh participated in almost every HPB event uh that that that has existed over that period of time. I actually in my first board and commission got the chance [clears throat] to serve with Judy way back when in 2009 nine. So, um, hats off to all these folks. Um, and we've got a whole new slate coming, but we acknowledge all of our retiring members. We we appreciate your contributions and commitment. Um, and we wish you well and hopefully we can recruit you back for service at a later date. Maybe even Kent and Judy. You never know. I mean, you never know. They've done a lot for the city. So, >> anything else that I missed, Aurora? >> No, nothing that you missed. I just want to echo your comments on, you know, there's a lot of people who had a long tenure with the city as a volunteer and some people who only served for a couple of years, but I just want to recognize that whether it was a short or long stent, these people volunteered their time and talents to the betterment of their community. And so we want to say thank you. Um, and we do, even though we didn't get to say thank you in person to anyone here tonight, um, we do have awards that we would be distributing to all of them to recognize them for their service. >> Wonderful. I had a chance to have Christmas tea with Judy in December and she gave me her download in person on uh what she feels should be our direction forward. So I took that with a smile on my face as only Judy could deliver it. So thank you for that. Um can we move on now? >> Okay. Okay. So, next on our new business is consider approval of the first reading of ordinance 855 authorizing the issuance of general obligation equipment certificates for the fire department ladder truck and adoption of resolution 032026 authorizing the issuance and sale of go or general obligation equipment certificates series 2026A. Miss city manager. >> Uh thank you mayor and council. It was a very short title for this item. Um, but all of that to say that the goal of of this action tonight is to issue debt to purchase a ladder truck. Um, our current ladder truck we purchased in 19 is from 1996. Um, they have an estimated useful life of 25 years. So, we're well beyond that. Um, we approved the purchase order for our new ladder truck back in 2022 and they had an extremely long backlog and buildout cycle. Um, so back when we approved the purchase order, the intent was to issue debt to pay for this ladder truck. Um, to preserve liquidity, to mitigate the bal the fund balance in the capital equipment fund and spread the costs out over a longer term because unique to other pieces of equipment, a ladder truck is very expensive. The it will cost about $1.4 million. So, um, the estimated equipment certificate that we're planning to issue is about $1.55 million to cover issuance and interest costs. Um, the one thing I would also note is to issue debt, this does require a 4-fifths vote of the council to move forward. So, I do just want to call that out. While we are planning to pay for the cost of this um truck over 10 years, I want to break down what that looks like in terms of your property tax levy. So, if we assumed that the levy that we approved for 2026 remains flat into the future, what would issuing this debt do to our levy? Um, because we're going to capitalize interest and only pay interest in 27 and principal and interest going forward, we're looking at about a 1% levy increase for for debt for the ladder truck in 27 and a 1.5% levy increase again in 28. And from there, it would remain constant through the life of the debt. So, um, it kind of steps us into paying that debt service over a couple of years. Um, but total no net impact is about a 2.5% increase to the levy over time to issue this debt. Um, some next steps in the process. Again, this is just the first reading of the ordinance and authorizing resolution. Um, this would come back to the council at the next meeting um for the second reading of the ordinance. there would be a rating call um to reaffirm hopefully our AAA bond rating. I feel pretty confident about that. Um then on February 10th um if if that moves forward um the city council would then consider actually awarding the sale of the bonds. Um and then on March 3rd is about when we estimate that would we would receive proceeds on those bonds. I'm happy to break down any any part of that, answer any questions that the council has. Otherwise, we'd be looking for these two um actions to authorize uh approve that first reading of the ordinance and adopt resolution 3-2026. >> Questions of staff? >> Just a curiosity question is when can we expect our if this bond is approved of course um when can we expect to see it in town? Um, so the new ladder truck, we don't have an exact exact delivery date yet, but they're telling us late March, early April >> for delivery. >> Assume that we'll have some sort of ceremony or celebration when it arrives. >> Yep. Absolutely. We're going to plan some sort of celebration of it. >> There's some sort of tradition too when you maybe you know, Mr. Pleish, of when you commission a new truck, is part of the ceremony of you take water and ceremonially pass it from the old truck to the new truck. Something like that. I was told by the I'm not familiar with all the the proper procedures with fire and how you commission a new truck, but it sounds fun. >> The only thing I know about is that the mayor gets a power wash. [laughter] >> Wow, that's necessary regardless, right? So, there you go. Um, no, thank you for that. Any other questions of staff on this on this uh item before us? Okay, Mr. City Attorney, do we want to take this in two parts with two separate motions? >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. So, the first thing that uh I need is uh a motion for the approval of the first reading of ordinance 855 authorizing the issue of general obligation equipment certificates for fire department ladder truck. That's the first motion that I would need. Can I get that motion, please? >> So move, Mr. Mayor. >> Could I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. >> Those opposed? That passes 5 to zero. Next, I would welcome a uh resolution authorizing the uh issuance and sale of general obligation equipment certificates uh series 26A. Did I get that right? Yep. 032026. So, adoption of resolution 03 2022 authorizing uh series 26A equipment certificates. Could I get that motion, please? >> I would make that motion, Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. Could I get a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. >> Those opposed that passes 5 to zero. Next uh on our new business agenda is consider adoption of resolution 02206 approving a variance for lot width and cup for a two family home at home at 220 Central Avenue South. Uh Miss Joerger, I think it's to you and then you'll probably pass it over to >> Yes, Mr. Mayor, you're correct. I'm going to turn this over to community development director Sharp for a presentation. >> Thank you, Mr. Sharp. >> Thank you, interim manager eager. Mayor, as stated, this is a variance application at 220 Central Avenue South for a lot width, variance, and conditional use permit for a two family home. The applicant is Custom One Homes, and the current property owner is Custom One Homes. The property is located on the east side of town, south of Weisetta Boulevard. Zooming in on the property, it is uh on the east side of Central Avenue at the intersection of Circle Drive East and uh Central Avenue South. The site is guided central core residential 3 to six units per acre, which then sets up the zoning district of R3A single and two family residential zoning district. Within the R3A zoning district, two family homes are considered a conditional use. We'll go through this a little bit later, but conditional uses are a generally permitted use. However, they are conditioned based upon uh certain factors that we uh will be with contained within the presentation to mitigate any negative responses that or uh mitigate any negative impacts those conditional uses may have on neighboring properties. The applicant is requesting a 10.1 ft variance to the minimum lot width required where 100 feet is required and the minimum lot width of the subject property is 89.9 ft wide. The conditional use permit is for a two family dwelling uh that it as stated that is a uh conditional use within the R3A zone. For reference, the S R3A zone uh requirements for a single family lot area would be 9,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 60 ft, and lot depth of 100 ft. For two family, 18,000 ft. The subject property is uh 26,000 plus square feet. Uh minimum lot air uh lot area per unit. It more than exceeds the 9,000 square feet. minimum lot width that's the 89.9 of the uh variance of the subject variance and then lot depth exceeds the 100 uh feet requirement by around 160 square or 160 ft. This is the aerial of the property uh just to show the existing conditions the existing site has a single family home uh that has been on the property for a number of years. Uh, one further note on that. The single family home, if this application were to be approved, is proposed to be demolished. The proposed plan uh is before you now. The proposed plan shows two uh dwellings in a design factor that essentially appears as a single dwelling from the street uh but cleverly uh kind of tucks in one of the homes on the south side of the property. Uh this is further emphasized by the perspective home plans that show where you would see from Central Avenue if you're looking east. So this design uh puts the garage towards the back of the property and then the secondary garage facing northwards towards the condominium properties to the north. Uh one other note that I would note to this is that it's condos to the north and a two family dwelling to the south. There are interior home plans uh for the council's review. These are largely illustrative and provided by the applicant to show what would fit and to go through the general square footage of the uh proposed homes. Speaking with the applicant, uh total square footage including garage is around uh 8,8100 ft of both homes combined. uh for actual livable square feet that it is south of the or lower than that 8,000 square feet. It's around the 7,000 square foot uh 800 900 square foot range uh for the two units. So individually each unit comes in at just below 4,000 square ft. Terms of front elevation, this front elevation actually faces to the west. So at C Central Avenue, the rear elevation would then face east towards the marshland uh behind the property. The top image that you are seeing uh would face northwards towards the condominiums and the south image or the bottom image would face southward towards the two family home that is to the subject or that is to the property of the south. The applicant did provide two renderings. Uh these are illustrative in nature and um show the possibilities of different materials and do are consistent with the design of the home but the materials and structure of the home could vary based upon what individual owners wanted to purchase. As is standard with all applications, uh the planning department reaches out to other departments within the city to determine if they have any additional comments. Engineering had some relatively general comments. However, uh the biggest ones being that the proposed water line must be upgraded in order to serve the home. That would be required regardless of whether this was uh a two family or single family if they were to be demolishing the existing home. So that is just a replacement of the existing line due to its age and then unders sizing. uh and then standard conditions of grading plan and storm water management. Native the neighborhood notification process uh that the project went through was uh standard for any uh variance or conditional use permit. Um the neighborhood was notified within 500 ft. Uh [snorts] the neighborhood meeting is not required uh for our policy for single family developments like it would be for a commercial or larger development. Uh at the time of the staff report, staff did receive one public comment and then there is an additional public comment on the dis uh for council to be able to review as part of the public record. Additionally, um there are some additional comments that the public may be able to offer uh based upon comments that staff has received as well. When reviewing a variance, our code is fairly explicit in terms of uh what criteria the council and planning commission use uh for that determination. So the first is the harmony with comprehensive plan and uh that's and the intent of the zoning ordinance and then uh the secondary piece which is also pulled from state statute are practical difficulties. And one of the key pieces that I want to highlight here is that all the following uh items must be true. The application must be reasonable or proposed use must be reasonable. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality and economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. Conditional use permits have similar criteria and this is where I was referring to earlier in the presentation. Uh that conditional uses are uh a generally permitted use within the zone but have uh particular criteria that are a little less stringent than a variance when bringing forward the review for them. So it's similar with the consistent to a comprehensive plan. Is the use compatible with the area? Uh does the proposed use meet the code requirements in this instance? If the variance is granted, which is why I've put it as your first action, uh that would make it consistent with code requirements, would the proposed use affect property values? And uh does the proposed use affect uh traffic patterns? And if so, could those be mitigated? And then what impacts would the proposed use have on public services, water, and schools? Uh our planning commission held a public hearing on December 1st. One member of the public did speak uh at that uh meeting and you have their comment before you on the dis. Uh their primary concern was regarding the traffic along Central Avenue. Uh I won't speak for them. I'll let their comments speak for themselves. The planning commission ended up unanimously directing staff to prepare a report and recommendation of approval with the appropriate findings. On December 15th, 2025, the planning commission adopted their report of and recommendation with the following findings of fact. Uh the findings of fact for the condition of use permit was that the proposed use would not have adver adverse effects and was consistent with the comprehensive plan. The findings for the variance, these are summarized. I would encourage you if you have questions on the individual findings to look at these in greater detail in the actual report. I've tried to uh include them here for brevity. Uh there are practical difficulties complying with the uh lot standard. The variance is unlikely to affect surrounding properties due to the proposed building pad. The variance is due to circumstances unique to the property. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Practical difficulties are not solely economic in character. The use is permitted within the zoning district and the proposed use of a two family dwelling is a reasonable use within the zone. With that, uh, the motion recommended by the planning commission would be to adopt resolution 02206 approving a variance for lot with and a conditional use permit for a two family home at 220 Avenue South. And if uh, council has any questions, I'm certainly available. The applicant is also present this evening to be able to present uh, and answer any questions the council may have. >> Why don't we take it this way? do first two questions of staff and then we will give the applicant an opportunity to offer any additional comments that were not covered in the planner report. Is that okay with you? Okay, great. So, let's start with questions of council to staff on this. Mr. Pleish. Yeah. The my first question. I wonder if you could pull up the slide that has an aerial view of the existing home on the property. We have that one. So, if I'm looking at the what I think is the north edge, is that a garage or some kind of a shed at the at the top there? >> Uh, mayor, council member Pish, that is uh the detached garage of the existing. >> Okay. And looking at this, it looks like it's right up against the lot line. Is that correct? Or close to it. >> Mayor, council council member Pleish, it is very close. Please use caution when using these property lines as they're slightly off. They're from a service that allows for very recent photos, but the property lines are not as exact as >> Do you happen to know how what the offset is here? >> We don't have an exact survey. I believe it's within 5T. >> Okay. It's close. Okay. It's within It's le much less than the setback requirement. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um what is the um the side bar the sideyard setback in the plan? >> 10 ft. 10 feet from the north side and the south side. Both 10 feet. >> So 10.4 feet on the north and 10.5 ft on the south. >> Okay. So pretty much right at the the the minimum. And um here's a question. If we're asking for a variance tonight based on a two house or two residence plan. If this plan was one resident, the same footprint, the same square footage, but it just happened to be one home, would we even be considering this tonight? >> Uh, mayor, council member Fleish. No, the conditional use permit and variance are related to the two family home use. >> Thank you. >> Other questions of staff? >> Miss McDonald. >> Um, just uh on that same slide. Oh, sorry. the last slide that you were on. Um curious about the property to the south. Um that's also a multif family unit. I pres think I have correct. Um you in your presentation you said you need 100 ft deep and 100 ft wide for two family. And so I'm looking and thinking well this one next door is definitely not so deep. Now, does that predate those restrictions? Did that require a variance? Is it legal non-conforming? >> Uh, mayor, council member McDonald, the property of the south is 100 ft wide and does exceed, I don't have memorized their depth, uh, but it does exceed 100 feet in depth. The subject property is 300 and some feet deep. So, it's significantly deeper. >> Okay. Okay. I guess I I had that mixed up at the last second. So, as I am seeing it though, that's not 10 ft from the sideyard. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> It Let me clarify. The subject home on the property to the south is potentially closer than the 10 foot to the shared property line between 220 Avenue or 220 Central Avenue South. >> I just have a couple more questions if I may. Okay. Um, does do you know of any of these upback style town houses, um, twin homes or whatever we would call them here in the city? >> Uh, mayor, council member McDonald, I'm not aware of this design within the city >> anywhere. I mean, have you seen this before? >> I have seen this design before. Uh, similar design. I've never seen something quite uh quite as far back as this previously. >> Yeah, it's I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it personally. And um I'm curious if what they what the applicant could have done within our accessory dwelling unit code or yeah, ADU code. uh because then in theory you could have two separate homes and I'm wondering if you could just refresh my memory on how that >> Certainly uh Mayor Council member McDonald the accessory and dwelling unit by its nature would the accessory unit would need to be accessory to the primary unit. So it would not be permitted to be the same size. In fact, it's restricted on its total size based on a percentage of the footprint of the principal dwelling. Yeah, >> it can only be 60% of the footprint of this principal dwelling. So, it does limit the size of that second dwelling. >> Okay. Okay. That's still a generous size if you had a big home, one could say. Okay. And then I just had one other quick question. Sorry, folks. Um, >> no, that's it. All done. Thanks. >> Other questions of staff, Mr. Cook? >> Yeah. What would the minimum lot width be if this were a single family home? >> Thankfully, uh, Mayor, Council Member Cook, I have that right here. It would be 60 ft. So, the lot requirement for a single family home, uh, the minimum lot width would be 60 feet if the lot were being created today. >> Okay. Other questions of staff? I just have one. And I'm just trying to get this in my head and it didn't dawn on me until that you presented it. Can you toggle back and forth between the pad rendering and the actual conceptual rendering of the two homes? So that's sort of the pad. >> Is truly that garage in the back of that first building literally it looks like it's connected in the >> in the is it's probably not physically connected. There's probably a space between them or is it really wall to wall? Uh, mayor, I'll I'll allow the the applicant to elaborate, but my understanding from speaking with the applicant is that this is a shared wall between the two units. Uh, which makes it a two family dwelling by our definition and code as well. >> Got it. Okay. So, I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Um, any other questions of staff? >> Okay. Oh, sorry. Yes. >> Well, I that perplexed me as well. So in just thinking out loud here, you couldn't put the could they have put those two separate per I mean they're having to ask for an exception anyway. So but what would they needed to make those >> mayor uh council member McDonald the code on that I would say uh is something that I would look for clarification on at a later date. It was something that I did a fair amount of trying to look back on. It's clear that our intent from our code dating back to even the 1970s was as they were attached. Whether the code could be interpreted in such a way that they didn't need to be attached wasn't an item that came up during the discussion of this application as I was reviewing this proposal. >> So, it's an item of question for me. >> Was just making sure I am interpreting the visual renderings because when you look at the conceptual drawings, that's hidden. When you look at this sketch plan, it clearly is connected. So for me it was just a clarification. That's it. >> I understand what you're asking though. >> Yeah, me too. I just wanted to clarify what you asked and then >> y >> if this is a necessity or not. >> I think that's a perfect lead in if there's no other questions to allow the applicant to make a presentation or comments if there if they would wish to. You certainly don't have to. If you if you would like to comment, please come to the dis and [clears throat] podium and introduce yourself and who you represent. Hold on. We just got to get your mic on. One second. >> Yeah, it's not you. Just there's probably press the button if the green light goes on. >> Think we're good. >> Perfect. Thank you, Mr. >> Mayor. Rest of the city council. Thank you for uh taking a time to review and look at our applicant and our application, our variance. Um as always, we're trying to make sure the heritage and the the aesthetics of the city of Yisetta are met with everything that we do here. So, um, that's first and foremost. We want to make sure we're meeting all codes, municipalities, setbacks, all the requirements of what you're asking for. So, um, unique property definitely, uh, dips on the the north side of it versus the south side of it. So, driveway, existing driveway is pretty much the way it looks on the screen. Um, so we're working with that. Uh when we did look at this piece of property, at one point we're trying to go to three units. Um I think working through with with Alex and his team, um we came up with the best recommendation would be go to two dwellings. Um you know, we did attach it. We're open to not attaching it. That'd be fine by us. Um but we did want to make sure that, you know, we're meeting all all requirements. And as you can see, this lot is extremely deep for uh the area over in the the corridor of Central Avenue. So, uh width is what it is. We're definitely meeting all setbacks. So, whether this was a single family or two dwellings, um you know, the way the the code's written, uh we could even enlarge the home and still meet all the setbacks. So, uh, I don't know what the exact number would be, Alex, on how big you could go, but it's it's pretty aggressive. Um, >> you've got about, uh, 3 and a.5% to the maximum pvious surface coverage, and you've got about 6 and a half% to your maximum building coverage. >> Yeah. So, there is some still some more room to play with there if you you wanted to maximize it, but we don't feel we need to. So, um, you know, the the view from Central Avenue, we wanted to make sure that that keeps a real solid aesthetic of preserving a single family look of a home. Um, we have met with the owner to the north of the property and uh, we've listened to Mr. Greg's concerns as far as what he he views or looks at. Um, there is some buckthorn on both sides of the property. We're going to remove that. We're going to clean that up. We're going to bring in some screening and tree lines on both sides of the property. Um there's also retaining wall that we're trying to figure out whose piece of property that's on. Um but we had a very cordial and very amicable conversation with Greg. So that was that was great. Uh and we want to make sure that we work with him to the best of our abilities and the best of his abilities. So, um, you know, this, uh, dwelling, you know, meets the approvals construct inside the R3. Um, the subject property far exceeds the first two requirements of the area of 26,000 square feet. Um, and lot depth over 290. Um, it measures 89 in the width, which falls just 10 ft short of of the width of the lot. Um but given the lot in the area and the death feel this demonstrates that the site is is well suited for two family dwelling. So um is there any other questions that that you guys have? >> Questions of the applicant, Mr. Sorenson. >> Yeah. Um so with one driveway to to both units, would it be your intent to build them both at the same time? [clears throat] >> Uh yeah, >> you'd almost you almost need to, would you? >> Yeah. Yep. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We build them both the the entire uh dwelling at the same time. >> Yeah. And when you um were you aware when you got involved in this property that you need a might need a variance in a cup? >> Yeah. Uh interesting conversation. Um we're under understand that we could go to three units. Uh so we had some conversation back and forth. Um, so we knew there was a range um, exactly where that fit that was under discovery and discussion. >> Okay. Thank you. Other questions of the applicant at this time? >> Yeah. As I look at this, one of the things I wrestle with is just like the long 131 foot roughly wall along the south edge of that for the neighboring property. Um, and as I look at this the uh like the layout as it is now with the driveway on the north side where there's actually more room on that side of the property between that and the neighboring structures. Uh, is there a way that you could flip it and make the driveway on the south side of the property so that there's more of a buffer between the two properties? Yeah, the the N uh the property on the north side, you know, is is a multi-unit dwelling. Um we've positioned this property to be centered on the lot so that it plays off of both sides. The other consideration is the topography of the lot of how water runs off and we want to make sure that that's mitigated so there's no issues to the north or to the south. So the way that it's drawn uh meets that the best the best way possible. The other thing that we considered was patios off the west side and the east side. So there's no patio going off the south side of that property as well. Um and if you look back to the the aerials, uh we're definitely pulling the property more to the center, you know, overall if you look at the garage and the house compared to where the existing house is on the south. So we're we're actually moving that away from it. Plus, we're going to be screening that. So if you look at uh today's condition, there's really no buffer to the south there outside of >> Buckthornne. >> So is there room to screen that with proper >> Yeah, >> I I would think like evergreens would probably be something. >> Yeah. Well, it would be something more arborites or you know something like that. Uh versus evergreens just evergreens will get real wide and big, >> right? >> So yeah, you know, we definitely want to protect that. Um, but we we feel that uh this going in will actually beautify the property to the south. >> What do you do for the uh drainage? I know that was as you mentioned like one of the concerns for the property owner to the north was the uh the runoff. So if that's a driveway like what kind of mitigation techniques do you use to capture that runoff and direct it somewhere else? Yeah, we'll use catch basins, we'll use French drains, we'll use drain tiles. Uh we'll make sure that based on the survey and the topography that the water uh drains with engineering properly. >> Okay. And sorry, one more question. Maybe this is for the the city, but how do you when you sell this as two separate units, does that create a lot split with two separate legal descriptions? >> There are a number of ways that the private applicant could set that up. Uh, it could be sold as a single unit and then as a rental. It could be sold as a CIC plat. It could be sold as a separate form of sale where they have common property that wouldn't be a CIC plat. So, there's actually a number of private mechanisms to be able to pull that, but it wouldn't require a lot split. >> Okay. And doesn't really have an impact on anything beyond the the purchasers of the property and how they want to own the you know what. Yeah. So, okay. Got it. There are a number of other two family dwellings within the neighborhood. >> Yep. >> That sell over time as well. And the nature of their sales is privately >> Yep. >> arranged. >> I was just making sure we weren't creating two separate lots here. >> Okay. >> Um, Council Member Cook, the the proposed driveway is actually more centered in the lot as well. So, today that driveway does sit on that north lot line. >> Okay. >> Yep. So you can see, you know, overlaps on that lot line for the aerial vid v photo photo as well. So I feel like we're we're going to make that pretty nice. Um and plus we we'll do some really nice landscaping with it as well. >> Other questions of the applicant? >> Yeah. One one quick followup. Um, just as I'm looking at you're drawing some is do either of these homes have a porch or a deck or >> they they'd be on grade level. So they they'd have patios >> and is that >> and they do have porches >> and they do have the these little these small little ones on the on the driveway of the porches. >> And [clears throat] I me or I heard director Sharp um mention your hard cover percentage is is quite close 3%. The current hard or the proposed hard cover would be at 32.3% I believe and 35% is what's permitted. 30% building coverage and they're only sitting at around building coverage of around 26%age. >> Okay. I think you're someone might want to put in a a proper deck or a a patio at some point. So I'm glad to know there's a little wiggle room for that potential. One other note, uh, council member, uh, mayor, council member McDonald, decks would not count towards impervious surface. So, if they did do a deck, that could be considered as long as the underllayment was not concrete, that could be considered a pvious surface versus a patio. So, they would potentially have options if they did an accrade deck. >> Yeah, I I will just make one quick comment that the kind of the bonus of this odd configuration is um a hidden garage. I think that's kind of a plus in the garage out front. So, >> other questions, Mr. Pleish. >> Yeah, that triggered a question or two. Uh, had you ever considered actually making this two separate structures and maybe taking the the back structure and put it even further back on the property so that there's actually room between the two buildings? Uh we we looked at that and we did discuss that with um with staff uh prior to Alex um and we were recommended that we had to keep it together. >> And the reason for that do you know >> um because of the way the the code was reading >> and uh Mr. Sharp. I thought earlier you said that there are things they could do without needing a lot split or anything uh dramatic like that to be able to put it into two structures. The way our code reads with two family dwellings is it certainly implies that they would be attached to one another. However, then they are called two family detached dwellings in their name. And so as I read the code, there could be a clarification of it at a later time. It's very clear within the comprehensive plan that they uh could be either way and so that's where I gain my uh full guidance from and that we do appear to have some that are detached and attached existing within the community. I do agree that the way the existing code reads uh as the definition of a two family detached that they would be an attached unit to one another. I'm not trying to muck things up at all, but forgetting the nuances of all this, if you could have easily made it two separate structures separated by an adequate amount of space, would that have been preferred? And the reason I asked that is if I was a buyer of one of these units, I think I'd rather have it split so I'm not sharing at least part of a wall with my neighbor. >> Sure. Um I think that's probably always preferred. Yeah, >> but there are some efficiencies in the cost structure by keeping it together. >> Okay. >> And I think, you know, my my belief is that uh the way that we've designed this, it appeases all of it. So, with the way we split the garages and it also gives that common area of the dwelling and the dwelling and having some divide. So, I feel like we've done an adequate job with that. And I think it's not a bad way to go either. >> Okay. But you know, >> yeah, either way, >> I had a simil question. I don't want to relitigate it because I think Mr. Plugish did a very good job of of sort of playing this out. But is [clears throat] it fair to say that like it would have been more complicated, no judgment in the statement, to like split the lots and now you have two things and you have to deal with a shared driveway. And when you looked at our code and and how you could get to at least two, multi-unit just seemed like a cleaner path to accomplish that goal. Is that a fair characterization? No judgment in the statement. I'm just trying to understand how we arrived where we got. >> Yeah. This was the the right path is what was communicated. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> And and we want to abide by that. >> No, no, that's fine. That's why I said there's no judgment in the statement. It's a seek to understand question. So, >> Yep. >> Got it. Other questions of the applicant at this point? >> Okay. We'll bring it back uh to council for deliberations. >> Um did you have >> uh Mayor, I just wanted to point out I think there might be a member of the public who provide a comment. >> Did you fill out a card or is it No, that's Kevin Peterson. >> I'm sorry. >> Oh, well, just that's fine. >> I was going to say [clears throat] I I I believe he wanted to speak on that. >> That would be fine. So, before you speak, I just want to note a couple other things. Yes, you'll be invited to the podium. Come on up. Um I just wanted to note that we did in our packet receive communication from a Jeff Nelson, which was referenced earlier. Also, Miss Jagger, I know you received a phone call. Is this the phone call? Okay, great. I just wanted to um just because it was called out in this gentleman's letter um in addition to traffic on Central Avenue uh made reference to challenging the practical difficulties uh standard uh around economic uh solely economic in nature. So I just wanted to call that out and and to amplify uh sort of this person's perspective, we have received other feedback and it independent of this application about parking issues on central um you know uh [clears throat] from several uh shall we say not related to this application but just in general. So I'm just trying to validate to Mr. Nelson that, you know, independent of this development, there have been complaints about parking and congested cars parked on Central Avenue from the neighborhood in general recently even. So, just wanted to put that into the record. With that, sir, you're welcome and thank you for being here. >> Council and staff, thank you for the time this evening. Um, I'm Josh Kerb. I live in 206 Central Avenue South. Okay. >> So, that would be Yeah, right there. Um, first off, uh, previously we had, uh, Greg Hogland. He is they're all separately owned units, so it's not a, uh, rental complex. Um but Greg was here and uh represented our our comments and views of it's a very sensitive boundary and um all I am here to do today is really uh we want to be good neighbors and quite frankly we uh we welcome this project. Um, but I want there to be uh I guess to reaffirm uh item three on the resolution that we have further discussion between the owners of uh Marshview Town Homes and the applicant. Um, and the main reason being uh quite frankly the the boundary and and what that looks like there it it's it doesn't really show how sensitive of an area that is. Um it's a very steep bank and we've we've had issues in the past and and I can only imagine um once shovels hit hit the ground we're going to have some water issues and um you know again we we welcome the project. We we wanted to you know beautify the site. It's been it's it's been an eyesore for for some time. Um, but at the same point, we don't want to be harmed on day two of a project. Um, and and I think that the applicant and and we can work together with that, but I just want to reaffirm that this item three in our mind needs to be a a a firm contingency and and I think there's a lot more conversation to be held around that. Um, I know you've met with Greg once. Um, but I there's there's a lot more to discuss and and plan because the the elevation really if I was to stand off the the back of my deck and and look uh to the south, it doesn't take very long and I'm only 510, but the bank is is right here. >> Yeah. >> So, um that was really my main comment today. Thank you for the time, but um I didn't want to leave that and have that be struck from >> No, thank you. I just want to make sure for the reference you made that I'm tracking, it's on page 123 of the pack section for recommendation item C. The applicant must meet with representatives of the owners of the adjacent properties to discuss and coordinate construction plans on the property fencing, screening, retaining walls, and storm water runoff. Are we referring to that or to another uh section? Uh, I'm sorry. I'm looking. >> Yeah, I just want to make sure that, you know, your record reflects exactly in the agreement and that we're getting the language that's acceptable. >> Sure. And and pardon me, I might be looking at it at at the wrong document. My main point is that we are that firm meeting and collaboration that hasn't happened yet. There's been an introduction, but there's a lot more to do. >> Got it. So, you just wanted to clarify that that is a condition of approval and that it's called out and that's good point. >> Okay. Just wanted to make sure that we're tracking Mr. Attorney. >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. Um, that is uh I think what you read from was the planning commission report and recommendation and that is in the draft resolution as an express condition. >> Sorry for confusing that. I just wanted to get the language called out so that we connected the reference and so >> Okay, that's all I was trying to accomplish. So, thank you. >> Great. Thank you all. >> Thank you. >> Uh, mayor, can I have a ask a clarifying question? >> I I was very I read that um amendment or uh condition as well. But I felt like when the applicant was up at the podium, he made it sound like that meeting already happened. So I hope there isn't a miscommunication already. Maybe maybe I misunderstood. >> I can I can maybe speak to that. Um, I think there may have been an introductory con, you know, conversation, but I I I don't think it's a a a firm plan or understanding of how it's going to start on day one. >> Um, and I think, you know, that would be really helpful for us. Um, just because it is it's a pretty sensitive area and it it has been for quite some time. >> Okay. I just >> mayor, council member, if I may add a friendly clarification to it. This would be an item that staff would check into at the time of building permit when plans are in uh a more finished stage. Uh at this point, full elev uh elevation plans, drainage plans have not been created. Those are required to be reviewed as part of your building permit. So there will be erosion control plans, sediment control plans, full um storm water management plans that are generated as they move further with this process. You wouldn't generally create those at this time. This isn't a commercial development where you see those larger plans come forward until >> No. that that's a related uh relevant point from the city's perspective. But what I hear this gentleman saying is that he's trying to make sure that that this condition of approval forces specific and direct feedback and interaction between the group of individually owned multi-unit dwelling to the north that there's a meeting and I guess I'm looking to you the applicant. Do you see it the same way and are you willing to commit to that if that's a condition that we put on this if it's approved? >> Yes. met his concerns twice once, >> but you're you're you're willing to meet again and get specific on what specifically is outlined in as a condition so you don't see it as you've met and trying to get it really clear. Perfect. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Appreciate that. >> But thank you, sir. to further that um community community development director sharp um because like one of the things like I see this uh number three in the resolution and it it's a little bit wishy-washy about well you can meet and try to come up with a solution but it doesn't necessarily mean that anything is going to happen with that meeting um but Mr. Sharp to your comments. The city has the ability to control that based on approvals of the drainage plans and all that through that like through the permitting process. Is that correct? Or do we do we feel like we have enough control of that to come up with a like for us to influence or not influence but just make sure that it's an acceptable plan? I think I can take the beginning of this and then I would like uh city attorney Shuzzle to weigh in on the condition, the specificity in terms of city conditions when reviewing a building permit, our storm water management. Yes, I'm confident we have the tools in place to be able to do that to address your specific concern and kind of the concern between two neighboring properties where the city's authority is going to be is to regulate this lot and what it is doing as part of its development. that that conversation and what is done during this project may exceed what would be required of this lot during the building permit process and that is the basis for the conversation rather than uh because code already dictates their storm water requirements and treatment for the subject property. >> So so here's what I'm going to suggest with this item. Uh I think we're calling out a concern of language and intent which is perfectly valid. Let's bring the conversation back to the to the application and see if we are heading towards approval and then let's revisit the language in uh the resolution which is three on page 127 of the packet to be more precise which is on the screen and if it does hold for approval don't know yet. Let's revisit the language in that and if we need to tune it up to be more precise to reflect the conversation that was just had let's do that at that time. Make sense? Okay. So, uh, bring it back to council now for discussion. Thank you, sir. Um, who would like to weigh in first? >> I'll go ahead and start. >> Thank you, sir. >> It's fine. Uh, fundamentally, I don't have a problem with this. Um, the thing that really got me is when I got the epiphany that if this same building structure was one just one building, one residence, exact same footprint, exact same square footage, exact same driveway, we wouldn't even be talking about this. So, fundamentally, I don't have a problem with this. And, you know, looking here at item number three, I think it's been put on record and there's also agreement between the two parties here that this will take place. There's I don't think there's any difference. I just want to make sure that it's done. And I'm I'm looking at the the resolution in paragraph number three. I personally don't have a problem with the language. I think it's pretty clear that they just have to meet and come up with a plan. Um so I'm fine with this just the way it is and I'll be voting in favor of it. >> Thank you, Mr. Pish. Who would like to go next? Mr. Sorenson. >> Um yeah, I think uh you know there's a lot to be thinking about here. I mean to me this isn't a slam dunk. It's it's it's it's it relies on I think our interpretation of how you apply um how you how you apply interpret adverse effects and practical difficulties. I think there's strong arguments on kind of both sides of this issue here. Um but you know as usual we go back to look at the criteria especially for the cup um basically um uh asking us to consider possible adverse conditions there's seven of them I think most of them um are very minimal effect I mean the one number four the effect on the area which it's proposed I think you could there's some uh issues on both sides of that but generally Um the CUP criteria I think makes make makes sense. I think it's a little more complicated on the variance issues. Um I think it are it is in line with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Where it gets a little thorny though I think is um trying to apply some of the practical difficulties and I guess my understanding is it needs to uh it would need to comply with all these to get the variance but um is it reasonable? I think it's I think it's likely reasonable. Um is it uh you know there circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner? I think you could say, well, it was always 89 point something feet. It's not 100 ft. And so it clearly doesn't meet that criteria. Um, on the other hand, you could say, well, maybe maybe a unique circumstance is that this lot is significantly deep and the total area of the lot is much more than what you need for um a a two um housing unit. So I think depends on how you on how you look at that one. You could you could uh you could argue that uh both ways a bit you know does it alter the essential character of the locality? I think um if you really look at the exact location here the north side there's some there's there's a condo unit and on the south side there's a a duplex. Everything south of that is single family homes. you know, a while ago the city approved through variances or whatever um on the same block these long narrow lots. In retrospect, I think that really did alter the character of the neighborhood and I think it wasn't a good decision on the city's half. Um so I think those are some of the issues. Um to to Councilman Plechish's point, I think if we go down the road of uh approving this, uh it would be important that we have compliance somehow with the site plan that's been developed because give this um applicant credit. I think he's very creative on how we position these homes on the lot so as much as you can looks like one house. I think that's a very important issue and um so I think maybe a condition we should think about if we want to approve this or it gets approved is that we um we put some um conditions to make sure that this is a site plan that actually gets developed and if it doesn't it comes back for more scrutiny. I think we could even put a condition on that you build them both at the same time, but um I think you probably have to anyway, but just to be assured, I think we could maybe would would want to do that. So, you know, those are some of my thoughts about it. Um kind of curious to other people's perspective. >> Thank you, Mr. Sorenson. [clears throat] >> Yes, >> Miss McDonald. >> Okay. Well, thank you. Thanks the applicant, staff, and neighbors for making comments. Um, Council Member Swornson, I'm right there with you. I like the I've been the practical difficulty is the is the one that has gotten me um to kind of swing back and forth as I consider this um request. where I where I think I where I think I'm landing is that because I agree you bought the property at 100 feet wide. So, and you knew the code beforehand. So, how how do we getting to that being a practical difficulty? But where where I landed, which is I think similarly to where you landed, which was this the co the zoning is allowing for it, but the width of the property is the difficulty. because of our our code. Um, I also hadn't thought of it, but I really do like your condition of that site plan because the the fact that it does look like a single family home from the street is um I think really important just for how big and long this I'm a little worried for the neighbors, but you telling me that you guys support this project makes me feel a little bit better about it cuz I don't know that I'd want to live next to a building that's 30 ft long with no breaks. Um, but I do think we need more um diversity and housing and um creative building. Um, so I I am going to vote in favor of this um variance request and um [clears throat] yeah, it wasn't an easy one. I thought kind of it would be a slam dunk, but it was a little harder than I than I expected. So, um I I'll vote to in favor of it, but I do want to tie the applicant to this at least concept if that's at all possible. And um yeah, so I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss McDonald. Mr. Cook, >> uh yeah, like I I echo a lot of what's been said here. I I've honestly struggled or gone back and forth on this um quite a bit just because I can I can argue both sides of this. Um uh as I look at the criteria and if you I guess the cup I have no issues with. Um the um I think it's reasonable. I think uh number three, the variance. I don't know that this variance will alter the essential character of the locality just because by the simple fact that you could put a single family home with the exact same footprint and on this without a variance and it's going to have the same impact on the character of the neighborhood. So, that one's fine with me. I I just um I go back and forth on the the plight of the land owner due to circumstances uh not created by the land owner and it's you know asking for two units instead of one that would be compliant but um do I like the project? Yeah, I I do in the fact that the neighbors um have have come out and supported that um with their concerns. I do want to make sure that we address their concerns properly. Um, so yeah, I'm I'm generally supportive of this project. Um, but have gone have have gone back and forth on it. Um, so I'll leave it at that for now. >> Mr. Mayor, >> thank you. No, uh, all well, uh, versed commentary. I I don't have a lot to add. I guess um other than I wanted to uh query our city attorney on a couple things uh related to the finding of facts that are referenced in our approval, but I want to you know it makes reference to the planning commission. I want to make sure that some of this language I'm understanding and that we're comfortable that our finding of facts support the variance if it is approved. So, if you look at page 121 where it starts to drill into variance of minimum lot width from the planning commission report and I'm I'm focused on item E. The city council shall not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zoning district where the affected person land is located except the city council may per permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. I was the language is confusing to me. Um maybe it it holds in legal ease but it it doesn't it's if I just look at it as a sentence it's very confusing to me. What is the intent of that sentence? >> U Mr. Mayor. So so there's really kind of two things going on here. The first part is just the codes um articulation of a classic rule is that variances can't be for uses. So someone couldn't come in and say, "I want a variance to put a rendering plant in a residential neighborhood or an institutional use." So just as the council can't permit a variance any use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance. So in this case, >> the applicant is asking for use that is it's a conditional use. So it's allowed. >> Okay. So it's out, >> right? And then that other provisio, the except that follows is just that you can temporarily permit uh use of a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling, but it's limited in duration. So that's the meaning of those of that provision. >> What do you mean by limited in duration? >> Well, just the word temporary use. >> What would be an application? >> Yeah. What what >> um >> I don't know. You know, it's never come up. >> Um I mean, we would have to just apply here. We I think if yeah, if it did apply, council would and council was asked to approve it. I would make sure that it wasn't indefinite. That would say, oh, you know, until January 1st, 2027 or something. >> That's fine. You clarified why the sentence is here. Okay. Simply stating that you can't arbitrarily bring in something else that isn't otherwise. >> Yeah. Use variances or no. >> Got it. That's all that is. Okay. And we're comfortable as our city attorney in the findings of fact under section three that justify the standards that uh my colleagues here very uh astutely went through. It's not just for economic benefit D. So you're >> that's right, Mr. Mayor. And I and I think everything I heard from council members was either expressly stated in the planning commission's report and recommendation or follows logically from it. Okay. Um and I think it's really about the potential uh additional conditions that that were mentioned. >> Okay. So then I think the only other item that I heard that was introduced here uh amongst our colleagues is is the suggestion from Mr. Sorenson that we consider you're just asking for a conversation on it. Uh a condition of of the site plan uh being part of uh part of this. And then the second thing that I heard from you uh is is do we want to talk about forcing concurrent construction of of the two structures? So does anyone have any reaction to those? I I view those as suggestions that you wanted reaction to. >> Yeah, I think that's appropriate. >> Does anyone want to offer any reaction to those suggestions? >> I'm I'm okay with those. I don't know what that language would be, but I I like the the principle or thought of that. Okay. >> Now, what I what I'm not sure is well, I'll leave it at that. And yeah, I think I think like I've gone back and forth on Council Member Pleish's thought of splitting this so that because one of my concerns was you've got 131 ft wall here, >> but um going I'm not so sure that you could split them enough that it would make that much of a significant difference. And it's only pushing back the second house further. um which maybe makes it worse. So I I I'm not smart enough to know which is better or worse to be honest with you. So I I like to look at this one as is. So >> any other comments? Go ahead. Mr. City attorney, you had one. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor. I I don't want to interrupt the conversation, but I think I I I might just say briefly any substantial change to the plans would require probably a new application. So some of the speculation and questions of the council has totally legit, but it's not the application that's before you. So that's one way to think about it. In terms of uh council member Sorenson's uh floated idea about an additional condition, um you know, the language I'll just throw it out because it might help you as you discuss and think about it that you could look at is that just adding a condition maybe number five that the project be built in substantial conformance with the site plan which is on page 138. and we and it would be included uh it would be attached to the resolution as an exhibit. So just to again state that the project be built in substantial conformance with a site plan included in the application and attached to this resolution. Okay. Anyone else want to offer any comments on these suggestions? What I did hear the applicant and I'm I'm asking you if I interpret this correctly practically economically you want to build them at the same time. there's an advantage to that in terms of construction costs and potential marketing the site. Is that a fair characterization of the remark you made? >> Okay, maybe just address it with the asterisk. [laughter] >> All right. Uh why I say yes with an asterisk is that we could be in a a situation where foundation and and shell goes up, right? But we don't finish off the interior of say a second, right? >> Just because >> you're selling on spec. >> Mayor Mayor would like to buy it and finish it the way he'd like to. >> So, but as far as the the structure and the dwelling in the envelope, yes, those will be built at the same time. >> Okay. Does that representation uh alleviate the concern that you or making that a condition or or would you prefer that we add a sixth point that clarifies that as a condition of approval? Well, I I guess how much can we hold someone to their word in this environment that's going to happen? >> Yeah. Know, I get >> I think it kind of almost has to happen. I guess I'm not overly hung up on it, but um I don't know how you don't build them at the same time. I mean, >> we'd love to. you're going to you're going to block block someone's driveway if you if you do, but I I don't I'm not um I'm not overly concerned about having a condition negotiated with that. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you for that clarification. Any further commentary from council? >> I'll just weigh into I I don't really think we need that kind of elaboration on this. Um, I'm like I said earlier, I'm okay with this, but I'll just point out one thing that I hadn't pointed out before and then I'll reiterate something I I'm a point I made before is that the existing structures uh are actually nonconforming. So, this plan improves on that in terms of setback. Uh, I don't think that was commented on by anyone or maybe even in the application. I didn't see it. So, uh, that is an improvement. And does it uh change the essential character of the neighborhood? Well, it kind of does, but for the better. I mean, that's you're taking a property and improving it. So, yeah, it improves it. So, I have no problem with that. And then lastly, I just want to reiterate again that if this was actually just one building with one family, we wouldn't even be talking about it. And yet, visually, it's going to be exactly the same thing. So, you know, I I just don't see that it's such a big deal. I really don't. And, you know, I said the neighbors all like it. So, I don't have a problem with this. >> Perfect. Thank you for that additional commentary. So, I think we're at the point now just hearing I think a consensus to to accept a motion to move forward. I would accept a motion for resolution uh 022026 approving the variance and conditional use permit for the two family dwelling at 220 Central Avenue. Um and I guess uh Mr. Shelzel, I would appreciate if you would read into the record again the additional condition five and and just see if someone wants to make that motion with it included or they can choose to make the motion without it included. >> Sure. Um so the the motion would be as the mayor has stated it with um the additional condition that the project be built in substantial conformance with the site plan included with the application and attached to this resolution. >> Okay. with that additional language of a uh condition uh five I guess it would be um does anyone would like to make that motion >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, I'll make that motion. >> Okay. Could I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Those opposed that passes five to zero. Uh, thank you and good luck, sir, in your project. Okay. Um, next on our agenda is consider adoption of resolution 012026 designating appointments and assignments for 2026. Miss Jagger. >> Uh, thank you, mayor and council members. So, uh, this is a procedural item that we look at at the beginning of every year, making some appointments and assignments and, um, designations. In the packet, there's a resolution that outlines some of those official appointments. It talks about depositories, staff that are assigned to certain things, but it also um assigns certain council members to specific assignments for things like um the panway um partnership to be a liazison to the conservancy, things like that. Um, so we have drafted a resolution that has basically kept those appointments the same as they were in 2025. Um, but those are obviously up for discussion if there are any changes that would like to be made. I believe there's interest in changing um the council appointed repres representatives on the panway partnership meeting, but that's obviously up for discussion. So um I don't believe we have a screenshot of that. So I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. mayor to facilitate that discussion on if there's any tweaks from the resolution that was in the packet for any of those assignments. >> Sure. So, um I guess I I know that there was a little bit of a informal poll before about the matter that you just outlined, but let me just read out the [clears throat] uh the resolution items and I'll I'll make that switch that that was talked about before the meeting and see if that holds and the will of the council accepts that. But uh the the adoption would uh designate mayor prom first position Alex Pleish, second position Molly McDonald. We would uh bring forward an LMC director affirming Matthew Thompson uh through the term expiring 131207. We would have uh the city manager fulfill the role of suburban rate authority representative. Sounds very exciting. We would uh affirm our city attorney to be uh Beston Flanigan and David Schelzel. Our prosecuting attorney, Mr. Jeff Lambert, our health officer being Henipin County. Our official newspaper being the summon sailor. Our assistant weed inspector. One one job I've always wanted. Um which would be the public works uh designated park and department employee. >> Well, now Mr. Mayor, this is your opportunity. >> Well, [laughter] I I think it's so compelling, >> Mr. Mayor. You know, I [clears throat] have to tell you, you are um you are the weed inspector. You're not the assistant. >> So So these are people already have that job. >> Yep. These are people that work for you. [laughter] >> Good enough. Some people would call me a weed, but that's okay. City forester, Mr. Bennett Miriam. >> Exactly. [laughter] >> Um responsible authority for purpose of the data practices act, our city clerk, Kathy Lervig. Our assessor for residents in commercial industrial utility and apartments. uh Henipin County Assessor's Office, the fired relief board of trustees, uh the mayor, Andrew Mullen, city manager, and Kevin Clappic, fire chief, city representative on uh the Panway Partnership team. I think what what I heard is that it would be mayor Andrew Mullen and also Dan Cook if that holds. That's a change from what's in the packet. Um and then the Panaway lead uh staff person would be the city manager. The Wisetta Conservancy Leazone would be Mr. Sorenson. Um the council representative which I think we've already did at the art the art committee but we're just affirming again that the council representatives on the art committee are Mr. Pleish and Miss McDonald. Our official depositories would remain with Old National Bank. Our registered municipal ador adviser is eers and a designated auditor is LB Carlson formerly known as MMKR. So that is the slate. The one noted change would be swapping out Dan Cook under the city representative uh for Miss McDonald. So I would uh any comments or on that? Okay. Hearing none, I would accept a motion then accepting resolution 012026 um as reflected in the packet with the change of swapping out uh Dan Cook uh for Molly McDonald and the city representative to the Panaway partnership uh meeting. Could I get that motion, please? >> So moved. >> Okay. Could I get a second? >> Second. Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I. >> Those opposed. That passes. Uh five to zero. Um now we are moving on to our city manager and discussion items. I just have uh two quick things, Aurora, before I turn it over to you for your report. Um I just wanted to update the public on our city manager search. Uh we have had uh excellent interim uh city manager leadership. Um but we are going to uh a process of reviewing internal and external candidates. January and February are where the rubber hits the road with this. In January at our next meeting, we expect to start to hear about the slate, meaning what our recruiter and outside advisor uh recommends as their first cut. And then at the council level, we'll have a discussion about the concept of having a community panel alongside of council in an advisory capacity as we move through the interview process. Then as we click forward to uh February, there'll be two rounds of interviews facilitated by the council uh in the aim of trying to get to a finalist by the end of February. So just in general terms, that is where we're at in the process. just want to keep the public informed of the timeline and the schedule and the big picture of what we're what we're aiming to accomplish there. So, the net news of that is we we hope to reach a conclusion of a recommended candidate uh by the end of February if everything holds. It may or may not, but that is our intent. Um the next is uh state of the city. on uh February 26th, I will be um offering uh the state of the city address here at city hall starting at 6:30 for coffee and cookies. Last year we started at 4:30 and I've added the incentive of cookies. So I might get two more people to show up this year. We'll see with a short program at 7:00 and a question and answer. Um with that, I had nothing else and I will turn it over to Miss Jagger for her report. >> Okay, Mr. Mayor. Well, one of the items was the state of the city, so you've covered that. Okay. The only other item I have um for report tonight is just an update on our Clap Ridge Park opening celebration. Um I got update um earlier this evening that we are officially going to reschedu that. It was originally planned for this Saturday, January 10th, but due to weather conditions and wanting to have skating be a part of the Clapbridge Park opening, um they have pushed that um opening celebration to February 7th at the same time from 1 to 3 p.m. So, we'll update that on our website, on our Facebook page, and whatnot, but we are going to postpone that just due to weather. >> Okay. Anything else, Miss Jagger? >> That's all I've got for you today. I just want to give a shout out to our uh park staff for their dedication to to one getting the rink open and you know doing that with there was still a few punch items left but for the kids before break and and and getting as much skating in as possible and I know they worked very tirelessly to achieve that. Um I don't know if you guys have been down there but it it is a beautiful new renovated building. Um lots more space and and I see lots of happy faces out there. uh one of my favorite things like many driving down Boulevard and seeing a good pickup game and and people out on the rink and so thank you to our staff for for pushing to get it opened and I know it's been challenging since it's been open with the weather but that that's not new information that's our new a new normal I guess but I just wanted to recognize our staff there so thank you >> with that I would accept a motion to adjurnn tonight's meeting >> so moved >> thank you could I have a second >> second >> any further discussion All in favor say I. I. >> The meeting is closed. Thank you very much.