Calling the meeting to order. Welcome to the May 2020 20 May 20th, 2025 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 the meeting on channel 8 WCTV and 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 into the team's call and raising your hand during the public hearing. When your name is called in that meeting, you will be seen and heard in our council chambers and on the cable channel. You'll be asked to unmute and then you may begin your comments. All public comments must include your full name and address. Next item on our agenda is the pledge of allegiance. If we would all uh stand if you're able and follow along. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is roll call. And uh let the record reflect that all council members are present this evening. I will make a note that earlier this evening, the council participated in a workshop and discussed the following. Discussion of our long-term staffing plan, review and discussion of a draft city operations resilience plan, and a discussion of a request to amend chapter 936 tree preservation code relating to use for institutional landholders. With that, um, the next item on the agenda is to approve the agenda. I would need a motion to approve the agenda as presented or would anyone like to make any changes. Hearing no changes, I would accept a motion to approve the agenda as written. So move, Mr. Mayor. Do I have a second? Second. Further discussion. All in favor say I. I. I. That passes. The next item is our public forum. And we actually have several speakers tonight. Um, just to remind you that uh members of the public in attendance tonight, if you're interested in speaking, there's uh forms at the back table there. You can fill that out and indicate if you're representing a group and limit your comments to 3 minutes. Um, if it's on the agenda, um, then if you're on teams, you can raise your hand. So, we're going to have several presentations in this forum. Um, the first item is a presentation of the exceptional service award. And is that to the Wise West Chamber or to staff or who's going to lead us? Mr. D. Maybe it was an omen that this mic wasn't uh or a sign. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh actually, Chamber President uh Becky Pearson and Sarah Kelber um chamber member is going to introduce this award. Welcome. Good evening, Mayor. Ladies and gentlemen, you hold on one second. I think that mic's on. No, we're good. I'm excited enough about I could shout it from Sarah. I don't think it's I don't think it's on. I don't think it's on. Should be able. Maybe that will open. Start over because people on our vast viewing audience a vast viewing audience. Absolutely. Not a problem. Thank you, mayor, council members, ladies and gentlemen. Sarah Kelber, business and estate adviserss, 282 East Wisetta Boulevard. Thank you so much for allowing us time during the public forum. Believe it or not, the the council has been doing this for oh about 15 years um as business and estate advisors has partnered with the Weisettto West Metro Chamber to recognize exceptional service delivered by its members to the local consumers. Now, as we reviewed this most recent nomination, there were a number of us on the nominating committee that said, "Surely they've won before." uh and surprisingly they had not. But I will tell you it is my great honor to recognize Terry and Annaise and Gianis as this exceptional service award winner for May 2025. I'll tell you, it is the crown jewel of Lake Street. And anything there, whether you're a happy hour in the bar, out for a special occasion, needing something uh at One Door West for an event center, or even just an average everyday dinner. Well, there's no average everyday dinner at Gianis. It always feels very special. So, we'd like to recognize you and thank you for providing exceptional service to the to the patrons of the restaurant. Please come up if you'd like to say a few words. Terry and [Applause] Anelise. Thank you. Here, honey. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, esteemed council members, and city staff. On behalf of my staff and our dedicated employees, I want to extend our heartfelt gratitude for recognizing us with this exceptional service award. This honor reflects hard work, commitment of our entire team. It reinforces our passion for serving our community and thank you for your support and encouragement. We look forward to continuing our partnership and striving for excellence in all we do from here forward. Soon we will be celebrating our 30th anniversary in business and wea and I couldn't be more proud. I believe Gianis is a very important part of the fabric of this community. I live here, own a business here, participate in our community, and couldn't be happier to do that. Um, we're genuinely honored. As I've often said, um, I use my words as political capital, so I try to keep everything, um, I I use them judiciously and fiscally. So, thank you very much for your time and I can't tell you how honored we are to receive this award. And this is my daughter Anelise. Analise. Thank you very much. Before we just pause for pictures, um, anyone up here want to offer any comments? I will. Go ahead. Um, Mr. I think I think exceptional service is is wonderful, but I might like to add uh that you not only have exceptional service, you have exceptional ambiance, you have an exceptional patio, you have an ex exceptional food and you are an exceptional businesswoman. So very proud to know you and it's uh I'm very glad that you got this award. Thank you. Thanks, Chad. Mr. Pleish, I'll Chad, we've known each other for years. I will add exceptional wine list too to that list over there, which I've participated in at times. Now, the first thing that came to my mind is that you were the crown jewel. I was hesitant to think to say that until Miss Kelber said it for fear of maybe insulting some of the other great restaurants we have in town, but truly, you are the crown jewel of Lake Street and Weisetta. that that if you're doing anything for any purpose, any grand purpose, Gianis is the place to go. So, very happy to see her tonight. Anyone else? Yeah, I to just want to thank Terry and her team who is also exceptional, her staff and um family. So, um we really appreciate you and love being neighbors with you. So, thanks for all the um service you give this community and then this wonderful business you have. Yeah. Well, thank you, Terry. I mean, you uh clearly have a unique and special place and um what um struck me when I got to spend some time here is just knowing how involved you've been in the community uh and how passionate you are about it and um it just goes to show kind of who you are as a person and uh we're very glad that um you're here and a part of us and I would say you have a great place also. So, thank you. Thank you so much. I think it was well said. I affectionately call you the grand dam of Weisetta and you are and uh everything you touch turns to gold, Miss Hmel Fox, and thank you for operating such a great business and living in our community as well. Thank you. I'm very honored. Thank you all and city staff. You're great. My esteemed council members, Mr. Shelzel, part of this. Thank you so much, you guys. We'll just pause for a second to allow take some pictures and then we'll move we'll move on to the next agenda item. Sure. Sure. Sure. I was going to wear a suit. Thank you. Okay, the tours are are on. Can we go home? No. Okay. Sorry. Uh Johnny's Johnny's. Yeah, that'd be a good place to watch the game. Um the next item on our public forum is an update on the Lake Minnatonka Conservation District. And for that, we've invited Matt Thompson, who's our Weisetta representative. Uh Mr. City Manager, anything you'd like to uh offer to tee this up? Uh Mr. Mayor, no. Okay. So, at least once a year, we ask our LMCD rep just to brief the council on the activities at LMCD. Mr. Thompson. Council, thank you for having me tonight and allowing me to be your representative for the city of Weisetta. Um, in brief, um, just as a reminder, the LMCD exists as a coordinating body for 14 different cities, two counties, and many state and local governing agencies to protect, preserve, and enhance Lake Minnetonka. Um, in practice, fundamentally, that means we're attempting to maintain equality across the lake, particularly in enforcement, safety, structures, and activities for all users. Um, in particular, updates for the city of Weisetta. Um, some recent items. Um, Weisetta Yach Club has not submitted its MDL application. Um, for the changes recently presented to the council, um, we're still awaiting that. Um, what's MDL, Matt? uh the multiple dock license um changes that they had uh come for comment on. Um Locust Hills HOA in Grace Bay um recently approved or received a variance approval on May 14th for its dock extension um getting things out to navigable water for those residents and Weisetta City Docks. Unfortunately, the application was denied on May 14th. Uh, in general, the LMCD board was reluctant to issue a new multiple dock license until the current approved structures are complete and compliant. Um, and of note to this council, the LMCD staff did not issue a recommendation, which is atypical for proposals. Um, and that generally means that this is something of a new president or use on the lake. Um, so it's generally having more consideration or conversation from the board members. Um, also of note, the ton the Tonka boat rentals could successfully operate this summer in those transient slips. Um, it would just have to be without reclassification and no storage overnight of that equipment, but it is still a possibility for this summer in the current condition. Outside of those dock and um code issues there, um public safety and water patrol funding, um typically the LMC has requested full-time coverage by a deputy that's occurred since 2020, Memorial Day through Labor Day, at a cost of $90,000, which was covered through donations to Save the Lake Fund. Um that's been renegotiated with Henipin County and they've accepted full financial responsibility for that um beginning the 2026 budget year. Um, also on the radar for council is an increase in the levy request by the LMCD. Um, annual increases were suspended for the 2023 through 2025 calendar year um for spending down of the reserves to the auditor recommended 35% fund balance for the LMC. Um, this means a $12,000 levy increase for the coming budget cycle, which is significant, but reduced um, thankfully due to that water patrol funding coverage. Um, cities are requested to comment or respond to the LMC letter and information packet along with its budget forecast by June 4th. And we'd appreciate your comments on that. Um, outside of that, upcoming and future issues I see on the horizon. Um, we've already seen some feedback coming in about the carp fishing uh lighting issues over the night. Um, coming up on video with the new test program. Continuing to monitor that and looking forward to directing that to make sure everybody's uh best uh best taken care of. Um, we also see likely new conversations around wakeboats. Um, current regulations are tough to enforce and we're also seeing new science studies about lake bottoms. Uh, lastly, we have new potential aquatic invasive species funding changes happening at a state and county level. Um, aquatic invasive species are those species that don't belong in our lake that make very big changes to our lake. And unfortunately, we're looking at some changes around how those projects are funded. Currently, the LMCD doesn't designate any of its budget to those projects, although it does help direct those, and it is a major portion of what we consider the protection of our lake. So, something we've made sure we're involved with the process on going forward. Um, with that, I'd take any questions from the the council that I could hope to answer or um track down new information for. Uh, thank you for that update, Mr. Thompson. Questions of councel, Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thson. Yeah, and this I don't this may be a question for staff um but on the dock issue like what's what are the next steps and the process and and the timing associated with that? Council member Sorenson, Mr. Mayor, uh from our perspective uh we need to meet with uh LMCD staff. I think there's a disconnect in you know our understanding over the current doc status and their understanding. So, we've scheduled that I think for next week actually cuz we don't believe that we're out of compliance, but we'll we'll connect and make sure that we're all on the same page and do whatever we need to do to be in compliance. Um, other questions of of Mr. Thompson? I have one. Um, Matt, uh, it's just more uh, understanding. So, the issue with um, funding water patrol, was that a coverage issue, a budget issue, or both? and and then is the net outcome the same level of service or reduced service? Um, great question, Andy. Um, so during the 2020 summer of busyness and COVID, we added increased coverage during that time. Um, without a true budget solution. At that time, the designated arm that Save the Lake Foundation of the LMC fundraised to cover that increased coverage. And over the last couple years, ELMCD has tried to determine if that's something that our cities and our residents would enjoy retaining. Um, and in this case, it was a struggle between how to not increase the levy and make sure that that coverage retains. So, um, fortunately, Henipin County will be taking that on. So, at this time, I would say not part of the budget, but to make sure it would did not get put into the budget approach to Hen County. And so, no change in service. Same level of service. same level of service there be a deputy on duty at all times 24 hours um through that Memorial Day through Labor Day period. Great. That's was that was the outcome I had hoped. So, thank you for that. Any other questions of Mr. Thompson? Thank you for your service. Um Matt, you know, I know it's uh in addition to your day job, you know, like all of us, you're you're adding more time and thank you for your service and thank you for representing us at the LMCD. I'm sure you're doing a great job just by your your handle on all the issues. So, thank you. appreciate you and appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um Mr. City Manager, is there anyone on teams that would like to speak? Uh Mr. Mayor, there is not. Okay. So, we'll move on to number six, new agenda items. Um does anyone have any new agenda items that they would like to bring up for future council meetings? Okay. Hearing none, um I'd move on to the consent agenda. So, I'll read the items on the agenda. uh for consent. Approval of city council workshop and regular meeting minutes of May 6th. Approval of the check register. Approval of municipal licenses. Receipt of the police activity report. Receipt of the building activity report. Approval of the amended liquor premise. No license premise for double Black Diamond Inc. doing business at Red Cow at 881 Lake Street East. Approval of a professional services agreement with VSI, Professional Sound Services, and letters of agreement with artists for Sunday Music in the Park series. Approval of the contract with Creekide Lawn and Landscape for Heritage Heritage Park Planting. Approval of the second reading and adoption of ordinance 849 amending the official zoning map of the city of Weisetta at 200 Lake Street East. Approval of the professional services agreement with home run leadership for strategic facilitation planning services for city leadership. Approval of the professional services agreement with Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group for Weisetta Bar and Grillil interior remodel project. Oo, a lot of things. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Oh, go ahead. Sorry, Mr. Mayor to interrupt. Um just for clarification purposes, it wasn't very clear in the motion for the Mohagen Hansen uh professional services agreement, but just to add the the approval would be based on staff recommendations to omit the patio planning for now. Okay. So, let me see let me see if I can restate that. So what you're saying is that the way I read it needs further clarification that the patio remodel is not in scope for what is presented. Exactly. Okay. So with that additional piece of information, are any items required to be pulled or are we comfortable as is? Okay. So I would accept a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. So moved. Uh do I have a second? Second. Uh any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. I. So that passes. Uh we now move on along to the public hearing. There's no public hearing items today. So we move on to Is that correct, Mr. Dah? That is correct. Yep. Okay. Now we move on to new business. Uh and we are going to hear a presentation about uh the city's 2024 audit financial reports. I'm guessing this is over to Miss Joerger and also our outside adviserss. Yep. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council members. Um, so as you may know, every year we're required to have an audit of our financials. The city has retained LB Carlson, which is formerly um, MMKR, the auditing firm that we've been working with for a number of years to conduct that audit. Um, so I have Bill Lauer here who will give um, a presentation which is a highle overview of our 2024 financials report on any findings. Um, but before I turn it over to Bill, I did just want to acknowledge and recognize the hard work of our um, accountant Erin St. Seir. She helped out a lot this audit with despite being new um, to help me out so we could get the auditors what they need and a lot of her dayto-day work on making sure the bills get paid, processing payroll really builds into the work that goes into this audit. So, I just wanted to recognize her efforts and then turn it over to Bill for the presentation. Thank you. Good evening, mayor, council members. Um, what I'm going to do this evening is try to uh get through three things with you quickly here. First of all, um, just to make sure that you understand the responsibility of the city regarding the financial statements and how that differs from our role as auditor. Secondly, I'm going to go through the opinions and the report letters that we issued as a result of our audit. Mr. could you just pull up the microphone just so the people in there you go there you go better? Yes. Okay. Um and then thirdly, I will uh just briefly touch on a few of the financial highlights for the 2024 fiscal year under audit. Um, first of all, as far as our role is concerned, I need to make sure that you understand as a body charged with oversight of the city's financial reporting process that all of the data, the disclosures that go into the financial statements and the statements themselves is the responsibility of the city. What we do is come out and perform our audit process to provide the opinion that goes in that document uh as planning as to whether it fairly presents the city's financial position and the results for the year under audit. Um because the city's audit is performed in accordance with government auditing standards. We also issue a report letter with regard to your internal control and compliance over financial reporting. And finally, the city is subject to an audit of your compliance with Minnesota laws and regulations. Uh the state auditor's office puts out a an annual audit guide that we add audit to and all basically all local governments are subject to that same thing. Uh as far as the results of the audit process, uh once again we issued uh what we refer to as an unqualified or I'm sorry unmodified or clean opinion on your financial statements. There is a reporting change this year that we called out in that opinion. Um there's another new everyone's favorite another new governmental accounting standard that had to be implemented this year. Um this one had to do with compensated absences. Essentially the big change here uh is with regard to the uh acral of unused employee sick leave. Um basically what this uh new statement did is kind of square that up with how most places were acrewing vacation and PTO sick leave under the old guidance was not being acred the same way. And this kind of made it all um kind of on an even playing field. As a result of this change, um you'll see a restatement of your B beginning net position of about $654,000. This is kind of the liability estimate as of the beginning of this fiscal year. So the the um total amount of that estimated change goes into the beginning uh net position and then the uh current year should just be the change from during the actual year of uh 2024. Um as far as internal control and compliance um it was very clean audit. We had nothing to report other than um the statement that we've made for a number of years we've been riding the city and that is you do have uh limited segregation of duties in some areas. Um it was a little bit um there were some of the some of the processes that you have in place and were segregated a little more um because of a retirement that you had during the year and that accountant position being open for part of the year. um some of the mitigating controls were um kind of centralized in one person for part of the year, but you've now filled that position and and should be kind of back to the way you've been running. And as far as Minnesota legal compliance, we had nothing in our testing to report as far as findings there. In fact, one of the things we also do is report on any findings from the prior year. In 2023, we noted um you had a a claim that was paid in a longer time frame than the 35 days from the receipt of goods or services or the invoice for goods or services that the statute allows. Uh we tested that again this year and we found no similar finding for 2024. So before I move along to some of the financial information, that's kind of everything I had to cover as far as reports, findings, and that uh And along those lines, are there any questions uh before I move on? Questions quickly. Go ahead, Mr. Carco. So, my understanding is with the new um the new code, the new GAP code 101, I think it was for compensated ab absences, we have a reduced liability of 654,000. No, no. Your liability is higher. your net position, your equity was lowered because of that change. Gotcha. Essentially, essentially, you'reing you're curing a bigger number for your unused sick leave. Yeah, it doesn't seem like it usually works that way. So, good. That's what I assumed it was. Okay. Other questions at this stage of the presentation? Okay, please proceed. All right. Um the first thing I'll do then um is take a look at your governmental fund changes and fund balances. So the city maintains two fund types. Governmental funds are your general special revenue debt service capital project funds. These are on a modified acrruel basis. So they report only current assets, current liabilities, um your property tax levy, finances, these governmental activities. Um this shows the total fund balance change in those funds during the 2024 fiscal year. Uh at the end of 2024, you had fund balances of about 14.5 million. Uh that was a decrease of about 729,000 uh from the year before. Um the top part of this presentation shows kind of the different components of fund balance that are reported. Non-spendable fund balances of about $22,000 is basically prepaid expenditures. Um restricted fund balances are fund balances that are subject to restrictions from outside of the city. So kind of beyond your control. Um that was about 1.65 million at the end of the year and that was a decrease of about 1.1 million from the year before. And the big change there is you had funds in your lakefront improvement fund that were restricted for that project. And as you were wrapping most of that up in 2024, you spent those fund balances down. Um then the rest of the fund balances are things that you control at the city level. Uh committed fund balances are things that uh you've committed at the highest level. So basically by board resolution or policy. Most of that $291,000 relates to funds that are sitting in your special revenue funds from specific revenue sources. Uh assigned fund balances is a little bit lesser level of uh internal commitment. Basically, you've earmarked about $7.9 million uh for various purposes. Um most of those assignments are for capital purposes, street improvements, capital equipment, parks and trails. um you spent uh those fund balances down by about 182,000 compared to the prior year end. Again, most of the decrease was in your lakefront improvement fund and the street improvement fund. Um that was offset somewhat by an increase in your assignments for parks and trails. That parks and trails increase was partially caused or mainly caused by a transfer from your general fund of some excess fund balance. So that kind of offsets the spend down in some of those other funds. And then that unassigned fund balance which is available for any purpose of about $4.6 million. Uh that went up by about $472,000. And that's mainly the fund balance in your general fund that's not restricted for anything else. I have a question on this topic. I think it's an appropriate time to ask and it might be for Miss Jagger, but um there there's a note on page 171 of our packet six page six of your narrative that talks about um a year-end 61.1% of general fund uh reserves or or balance. Is that a point in time because uh do we not have a policy that guides fund balance for each fund and and what is that target number and are we hovering above it or is this just sort of anomaly because it was at a point in time at year end? Yes, the the the financial statements are as of December 31st and that I believe the percentage you're talking about includes all fund balances of the general fund including the non-spendable. Okay. So remind me um just for my own education the the we have an investment policy and a guidance on fund balance. Can you just remind me what the target is for our funds for reserves? Sure. So the fund balance target for our general fund is pretty simple. It's a 40% target and we assess that after the audit is complete. Okay. So once we do this work like typically um as has been our practice um our fund balance is above that target and then in June or July the council takes action to basically reallocate that and put it back at that 40%. And then just again for education what are the target uh reserves for the other funds? Sure. So they're not a strict percentage base. Um they're um based on having for our liquor fund, our marina fund and uh those two are the most similar. We um say that it needs to be at least one month of the next year's operational budget um and add on any debt payments for the next year and the average annual capital over the next 10 years. You did a marvelous job anticipating why I asked the question which is when do you rebalance? So thank you. Mhm. All right. Then I'm going to move along and I'm going to drill down within those governmental funds. As you just discussed, your general fund, the city's primary operating fund. Uh this graph shows uh kind of a snapshot of your financial position over the last five year ends in terms of your uh fund balances and total cash balance at the end of the year. So, at the end of 2024, you had about $5.1 million in cash in the general fund and about $4.9 million in total fund balances. Um, the fund balance increase was about $515,000 and you'd actually budgeted break even. So, your ending fund balance as of December 31st, 2024 was about 515,000 higher than projected in your final budget. Um most of that variance came on the revenue side. You took in revenues of about $ 8.8 million in the general fund in 2024. Um that was 618,000 or roughly 7.5% uh higher than your budget. Most of that was in two areas as shown here. licens licenses and permits were about 167,000 of our budget mainly in building permits because the development uh in the city was higher than anticipated. And then within those other revenues, there's kind of two things in there. Um other revenues were about 383,000 over budget in total. The biggest part of that is your investment earnings, uh which were about $227,000 over budget. Couple things there. one, you budget conservatively uh because that's really been volatile the last few years. And second, that does include u marking your investment portfolio to fair value. So not all of that is realized gain. Some of that is still sitting in your investment portfolio. Um the other thing that uh drove those other revenues up, your uh contributions and donations were about $150,000 higher than projected in your budget as well. On the expenditure side, you spent just over $8 million in the general fund in 2024. Uh you were about $255,000 under budget. Uh roughly 3%. Um if you can see the lines on there clear enough, you were um essentially under budget in every area except for the kind of all other miscellaneous expenditures. Um some of the uh larger variances are understanding uh in general government you are under budget and assessing and government building maintenance. In public works you were under budget in engineering and personnel costs in the street department and uh culture and recreation uh was also under budget in salaries and benefits. um due to the positive variances both having revenues higher than budget and expenditures lower than budget um you transferred out about $466,000 more than you had projected and I believe this is the rebalancing that you're referring to. So that's probably from the access at the end of 2023 that you budgeted to transfer um or you by policy you transferred out uh more to your mainly uh park and trail improvement fund. And that was that that uh increase we talked about when we were looking at fund balances. And the other type of fund that the city maintains are enterprise funds. These are your funds that are accounted for on full acrruel basis. Essentially, they're run more like a business where your um revenues that you're generating by operating these are intended to cover the full cost including um the capitalization of those operations. So you've got four utility type funds, water, sewer, storm water, solid waste, and then you've also got the licensing DMV fund, the on andoff sale liquor fund, and your marina fund, which you started in 2023. Um, essentially all of your uh funds had good years this year. Um, your total enterprise fund net position went up uh by about $759,000 from operations. that $595,000 you see there um was net of that a reduction of about $164,000 to beginning net position because of that change in accounting principle for compensated absences because these funds are full acrruel that gets recorded in these funds where it doesn't in your governmental funds that make sense I have one question I don't know if it's better for you or for a city manager but I'm kind of curious how can we have a negative balance for licensing the same question. Um I'm if you give me one minute hopefully I can answer that for you. Okay. Um so basically all of your funds had positive operating income um before contributions and transfers out. The reason that you're seeing um reductions in your net position for licensing and liquor is because of the transfers out that you transfer to other city funds to your governmental funds. So you transferred uh almost a million dollars out of your enterprise funds over to governmental funds. About a third of that was to the general fund for operating support. Uh and then the rest was basically primarily capital to your parks and trails fund uh other capital public safety. So the operations were positive but your net position went down because yeah transfers out. And and if I could add on to that, specifically in licensing, since net position is a statement of assets over liabilities, specifically in our licensing fund, we have almost no assets. So the only thing we do report in terms of liabilities, we carry a lot in terms of like um uh related to staff and compensated absences and things like that. So again, operationally, we're not running in in a poor direction, but when you compare the liability that we have to record on the books basically related to our staffing and it's not offset like many of these other enterprises do have significant assets. So that's a big difference there. Okay, that answers it. Thank you. Mhm. Then just one other thing for context, what he's referring to is in his essence the excess fund transfer uh allocation that occurs at some point later in the year and then that gets caught up and that's reflecting the previous year's net um excess fund transfer, right? Yeah, we're always kind of a year behind. Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood. Thank you. Good question. And just briefly, I'll drill down to one of the one of the funds here, which is kind of unique, and that's your liquor fund. You have uh both the bar and grill and liquor store uh operation, which is fairly unique amongst our clients anywhere, where we have both on and off sale. Um gross sales in that fund were about $7.1 million for the year. Pretty stable. It was down about a half a percent from the year before. Um about 53% of your revenue uh gross revenue comes from the bar and grill side. That was about $3.8 million. And that's where the decrease was. That was down about 39,000 compared to the year before. Uh the liquor store side of that, which makes up about 47% of revenue, was about 3.3 million, and that was um pretty close to last year, about $2,000 higher uh than 2023 gross revenues. Uh you did have um total gross profits of about 3.6 million after cost of goods sold, operating income of about 295,000 after your costs. Uh and as I mentioned here, you transferred out $545,000 um for both general fund support and uh parks and trails mainly. So that's why you're seeing that decrease uh in your total net position in this fund. This is sort of a wonky fund accounting question since it doesn't really follow gap accounting from a traditional P&L perspective. If you were try to normalize that to be a true net income, would you not include the transfer out as part of profit? Um, it is part of your change in net position. Just it's a little bit I know fund accounting is different, but the reason I'm asking the question is you want to try to uh sort of normalize what the the net income might look like. I understand it's fund accounting and it's not equivalent but it's a representative measure of is it generating cash flow is it producing profit is it producing so I guess my question is you don't have to answer this from an uh an audit perspective but is that 295 included or excluded with the transfer so the 295 operating income is prior to transfers and the reason that it's set up that way I guess in my opinion is to make it more comparable to a for-profit liquor store. Um because at at a typical liquor operation, you're not going to be transferring your excess profit. You're going to put it back in the business, right? Y So that that that is fairly comparable. You just have more kind of below the line stuff happening. That makes that answers my question. Thank you. Sure. All right. Then the last uh table I have to to share with you. This is actually a very condensed version of the first financial statement you'll find in your in your overall financial statement and this is the entitywide statement and net position. So this takes all of the fund information that we just went through puts them both on a full acrruel basis. So, um, your business type activities, you'll see there, that's basically dollar for dollar. The same thing we just talked about in your enterprise funds because those are full acrruel. Where you see the changes in that top third, your governmental activities in those funds, you're not reporting your long-term assets. You're not reporting your long-term liabilities for bonds you have outstanding or those long-term long-term uh employee um compensated absences, pension liabilities. Um, so this puts it all together kind of in a single presentation. So the total net position for the primary government, the city is about $78.9 million at the end of the year was an increase of about 2 million. Um, we talked about basically the same information for the business type activities already. I'll just point out kind of the change uh that you're seeing in the governmental activities was mainly in your net investment in capital assets and that was because you were financing a lot of capital improvements particularly to your lakefront improvement project with funds that you had without issuing more debt. you did is do a refunding to replace the temporary bonds that you issued with uh long-term tax increment financing bonds during the year, but that really wasn't one that you did to um usually refundings are done to get a lower interest rate. This was something you had planned because you issued temporary bonds in the first place. Uh and then just briefly, the third last third of this presentation uh shows your HR because of the way that is legally formed. it is uh referred to as a discreetly presented component unit. So it still gets rolled up into your report because of the the way it's controlled. It is not rolled into the primary government. The city is reported separately. So you'll see fund statements in the back of your report related to that. And this is reported in a separate column on your entity wide statements. Um you have about $2.2 million in total net position in your HR funds. Most of that is your investment in capital assets of about 2.1 million. Um that uh net position did improve by about 153,000 and that's mainly you're taking in tax increments paying for improvements. Uh there was been some pretty significant transfers out of those HR funds to help finance that lakefront improvement project. Um so that's what was going on with kind of that last third of the presentation there. So that's all I had intended to cover from a number standpoint unless there were questions or or if you have anything else that you wanted to call out that I did not questions of Mr. Lowour at this point. Okay, hearing none. So now you get to give us the the uh you know what's the rendering of your opinion, right? You have you have an opinion that has one one open item which is segregation of duties, correct? Yes. I think from a compliance standpoint, it was a clean audit. there were no compliance findings either in financial reporting or legal compliance, just a segregation of duties. And essentially that's just letting you know um that because of the size of your business office staff, you're kind of placing more trust in fewer individuals than you might if you were a larger. I do have a question related to that from Miss Jagger. Um you know, we had a retirement. Um you you rehired a position, but my understanding is you rehired it under a different job definition. Is that a fair characterization? Yes, that's a fair character. Do we have any hope that that additional definition of that role might remove I mean, you can't answer this until you look at it, but is is there any chance in the 17 years I've been doing this, we've had an audited opinion of segregation of duties all 17 years that I've been studying this? Yeah. Is it possible or is it potentially something we could address or Yeah, Bill, is it possible? Um, well, just jokingly, I can say we we did talk about it. um during the audit and in May was when we hired our accountant. So that was the first time the city had two dedicated finance folks, but we only had that from May through the end of September when the retirement happened. So there was a significant portion of the year where we did not have two financ. So we'll see if there's enough kind of dual roles in 2025, but we're hoping. We're we're striving for that. I love your enthusiasm. I I should point out also there's different levels of this finding and it's probably been 10 years or or so ago it was reduced from material weakness which was the highest level to a significant deficiency. I know it's counting speak but it is it is a lower level of finding. So it has been reduced once and say if you get to the point where you it's not like the United States losing AAA bond rating is it? No, just kidding. So, all right. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Lowour? I have no questions, but I would like to make a comment for the benefit of our viewing audience here and on TV is uh this report is about as good as it could possibly be and that is a reflection of you all here in the staff. Uh it it essentially that the one tiny thing is something you couldn't possibly have addressed and it's been known for many years. So, as far as I'm concerned, this was a perfect audit. So, congratulations. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Absolutely. And may I say something, too, mayor. Um, when Kathy retired last year, I was a little nervous for you guys. And bravo to Aaron, and and you, Aurora, too, for making sure she's up to speed and really well done. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lowour. And you too, Bill. Thank you. Thank you, Aurora, and other staff members that contributed to this. So, um, with that, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is consider adoption resolution 142025 approving a conditional use permit amendment and design deviation for 1221 Wisetta Boulevard East, otherwise known and operating as the retreat. So, I would turn that over to Mr. Mayor, one small thing. Yeah. Um, we have to move. Would you mind take a motion to accept those financials? I thought we do need to do that. Okay. So, backing up, we're going to go back to the previous acceptance of the city audited financial reports. Didn't know I needed a motion, but I would accept a motion to accept the audit report. Make that motion, Mr. Mayor. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. Okay, that's accepted. Now, we're on to item B, which is resolution 1425. I won't repeat it because it was already in the record and I will turn it over to staff to start this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and consultant. Planner Zabber is going to walk us through this presentation. Okay. Thank you, city manager, mayor, and councel. Uh we are here to consider a conditional use permit amendment and a design deviation for the retreat which is located at 1221 Weisetta Boulevard East. Uh so here is uh both the zoning and land use. Zoning is on our left. Uh land use is on our right. It is a property that is zoned institutional. U it is a property that is guided institutional public. Uh a recovery center like the retreat is a permitted use within or conditional use sorry within those zoning districts. So um existing conditions for people uh that are not as aware of this uh property. What are the surrounding properties? Um this property is actually surrounded by the big woods and as a part of that uh there is an easement from the Minnesota land trust and I will discuss that a little bit further in the application. Uh to directly to the west is the Colonial Square. Kind of to the northwest is uh Wisetta Woods Apartments. Uh to the north and east is Highway 12. And then uh commercial uh to the south. Uh here's a picture from Weisetta Boulevard. Uh there is the sign there at Yisetta Boulevard indicating um the property. uh you see the entrance driveway and only because this is kind of a leaf off position. You could see in the very background the beginning of the buildings. So it's a very uh secluded uh property or building within this property. Um so the development application is for a P or C cup amendment to upgrade the west wing um facing the north of the property. So when you look at the rendering on the bottom, it's that middle um kind of tutor looking projection. Um and then secondly, it's a design deviation to support mechanical equipment located uh on the proposed roof. And we'll get into more detail as I go through the presentation, but just to uh go through the previous approvals, how the retreat got to be, where it's located. Uh the original approval was in 2003 that allowed 70 units in the main building and another 10 units in the sober living residence to the east. And when we get to the site plan, I'll point out those two different structures. In 2006, there was a an amend amendment to demolish the sober living v residence and reconstruct that. And then um it increased well it actually decreased the occupancy in the main building to 62 but increased uh the uh living to 18. And then back in 2018, they came in for an amendment to demolish the women's recovery wing and reconstruct in the same location. Um that is on the opposite side on the south side of the building um in line with the men's wing. Uh but as a part of that, it increased the total residents from 80 residents to 91. Um, so those are the three the original cup and then the two amendments to get to where uh we are today with this new request. So this property is about 7.44 acres in size. Uh it consists of the 37,000 foot main building which is highlighted in yellow there and then the separate silver living residence which is in green on the east side of the facility. Um you see that uh there is a well it doesn't come uh maybe jump out at you but that silver living uh residence has an access essentially behind where the car wash and the holiday gas station is. So, they have their own entrance compared to this main building that the COP amendment is highlighted in red is asking for that has its access off of Weisetta Boulevard and then the parking lot to the west of that main building. So, here's kind of a blowup of the the site plan. So, again, access off of Whiteside Boulevard, parking to the southwest. Um the main building is in gray and then the areas in white is what uh the proposed addition will be. And in my next slide I'll highlight that addition. So the area that's kind of in that tan color that is the wing that will be removed and then um the new wing that will be added on essentially in the same location. Well it is in the same location essentially with the same footprint. shown in blue is the area to the south of that wing is currently only two stories. Uh the wing itself is three stories. So they're proposing to fill in that area with a third story to the south of the men's wing. The uh green and brown are outside features. The green is a deck that comes off the main level of the uh west wing. And the brown is a patio that actually comes off the lower level of the wing. So essentially in this area, the grade uh drops as you head north. So it's a essentially a walk out addition. So regarding setbacks for institutional zoning, uh essentially in every direction, front, side, rear, it's a 50- foot setback requirement. Um the closest happens to be from the the south side of the where the women's wing is is that's 53.8. Uh the east side um we put an NA because there is the separate sober living building that is located there. Uh to the west Colonial Square essentially it's 109 ft and then uh this wing with its addition the setback would be 90.8 ft from the property line. So, they are compliant with all the uh property line setbacks. Uh here's a rendering just of the proposed uh new wing. Um looking at the top photo, um the part to the farthest left, that is that third story addition. So, there's already two stories. They're putting a third story on top. And then you'll see the the threetory addition with essentially that ground level becoming open at the north end. And then the bottom uh image is looking at that north end. So you can see the windows and the door at that lower level and then the three stories. Um in the institutional zoning district you are allowed three stories and 40 ft which which is less. uh they're proposing a three-story building that is 36 feet 7 in in height. So their height complies with the institutional zoning ordinance. So kind of the question of why are we here today? Uh in the original cup, there is a condition that states that material changes to the exterior of the principal buildings on this property, including building additions, shall require a conditional use permit amendment. So because of that original conditional use permit having this condition, they need to come before you for an amendment to the conditional use permit. So uh what they're proposing is to upgrade that west wing which requires the amendment, but they are not requesting a change from that 2018 approval of 91 residents. So, same amount of residents before and after. Uh, as I stated before, there is a conservation easement from the Minnesota Land Trust over both the cityowned Big Woods property and this retreat property. Uh, the applicant had sent the proposed plans to Minnesota land trust and uh, included in your packet is the Minnesota Land Trust conditional letter of approval for the proposed amend addition. Uh regarding parking, there are no proposed changes to the parking uh on site. Again, they are not proposing any changes to the number of residents. Um they are providing 52 spaces of parking. So staff is not recommending any changes due to no increase in the amount of residents as a part of uh this cup amendment. Okay. uh talking about tree preservation. Um there was an event that happened uh or a request from our city forester maybe is more proper uh to speak. But at the planning commission the the packet or the plans that were proposed at that time did not show any significant or heritage tree removal. They were still going to plant uh five additional trees but there was no uh additional tree removal. The city forester felt that the way construction activities would happen, he questioned if the two trees that are between the construction access, which is that tan area to the east and the wing itself, um you know, would those two trees survive through construction? and uh Davy Tree performed that uh study and determined that uh it is unlikely that those two trees would survive during construction. So they were removed. The one to the southwest which is closest to the proposed building is a dying tree. You know the assessment showed that. So that is exempt from the city's tree preservation ordinance. But the tree with the red circle there is a healthy uh 29 and a half inch heritage sugar maple tree. So um the report does show that uh they need replacement for that 29.5 in heritage sugar maple tree. their landscape plan which is shown here. They are proposing seven 3inch red maples, uh three 3-inch Savannah or Sienna GR Glenn maples, five 3-inch common hackberry, and three 3-in uh white oak. So, that totals up to uh they're providing 60 in because of the 29.5 inch tree removed. They're required to replace 59, they're providing 60. So they meet uh the the tree preservation. I just wanted to emphasize that because that is a change from what we presented at the planning commission. So the the second request is the design deviation. Um so they are taking some of their ground mounted equipment and putting it on the roof. This is technically on the roof of the wing addition. the white area to the south or to the bottom of that red circle, that's that new third story uh for the main building. And then the rest of the the wing to the north. So you see that um the gable roof of that main addition will provide screening from uh uh that mechanical equipment. Now, the other thing I'd point out is um if this property would have been within the Weisetta Boulevard design district, they could have mechanical equipment on the roof. This particular property, because of the big woods and its location, is actually within the Bluff Design District. So if you look at the properties to the west or the properties to the south, you know, Colonial Square or the commercial along Weisetta, they would be allowed to have rooftop mechanical equipment. But again, because this is designated differently as Bluff, they needed the design deviation, but they're showing they're providing the screening. Um, so even if you were on the property, it would be difficult to imagine that you could see the mechanical equipment, but definitely because of the distance from Weisetta Boulevard and the trees, nobody from outside this property is going to see any of this mechan mechanical equipment. It's just a process that we need to go through this design deviation request. So finally uh the city engineer has reviewed this development has no comments at this time but uh the city engineer will be dei reviewing the building permit submittal and may provide additional comments at that time. As I stated earlier with the uh revised tree report the city forester is in agreement with that 60-in replacement and uh we have not received any public comments regarding this application. So, the planning commission did recommend approval of the CUP amendment and the rooftop mechanical equipment design deviation. And today, we are uh requesting that the city council consider the adoption of resolution 14, 2025 for the approval of the CUP amendment and rooftop mechanical equipment design deviation at 1221 at aa Ballard East. And with that, I would stand for any questions you have. Yeah. So, questions of staff and then we'll give the applicant a chance to comment after that if they wish to. Any questions of staff at this time? Hearing none, the applicant can make comments, not make comments. It's up to you. Certainly, the floor is yours. Well, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, uh, my name is John Curtis. I'm the president CEO of the retreat. Um, I live in St. Paul, so sorry about that. Um, you know, this uh really what I want to say is just a a statement of gratitude. Uh, this has been uh the 22 years we've been on this property. Uh, has been, you know, probably one of the most special public private partnerships I've ever experienced. that worked for Hazelden for 20 years and 27 years at the retreat and uh it is an amazing story. Um that uh accomplished a lot. Um we saved the Wise Big Woods. Um we addressed the density issues around this, you know, the the other proposals that would have produced a lot more density population. Um, and we've, you know, helped 33,000 men, women, families access a life of recovery from around the world. Um, so it's uh, you know, the people who come to the retreat come from all around the world to get sober. Um, and it is a life-saving mission. and uh that the property uh when people drive up to it um they are blown away by the just the the the serenity the the beauty of the property. Our job is to, you know, to when the nuns built the property in 1950, they weren't thinking about, you know, proper access and egresses and elevators and all of that and and all the accutrants that you need in in new more modern buildings. Um, so we're really taking a a 1950s building and and just bringing it up to, you know, a different standard and and uh making it a much nicer facility. And, you know, we've been each project we've had, we've been dedicated to, you know, keeping it architecturally sound to to make it look like it's always been there. um to keep that old English look to the property. Um and so uh and Eric Riners, our architect, has been working with the retreat really from day one with us on all our projects and Englesma Construction. Um so they know us, they know what we like. I'm a little hard to work with at times because I'm I'm a very, you know, finicky about color, shape, and size. Uh but uh we're we're a great team. We worked it well together. Um and you know, we're here because of the city of Weisetta. Uh you we moved here from the old Pillsbury Gale family property, the Epeland Farm property to here on Highway 7 um where we were for six and a half years. So yeah, it's um thank you. Thank you for considering it and and um you know we're happy to be good stewards of the property. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Any questions of the applicant from council? Hearing none, there may one that come up, but we'll bring it back for deliberation and then um we'll we'll render our our decision. So, bring it back to the council for discussion. Um who would like to weigh in first about this application? Thank you, M. Sure. Happy to go first, Mr. Mayor. Um, I see no issues with this application what whatsoever. Um, I support the COP amendment and the design deviation. I think it was really well thought out and um, done at the planning commission level incredibly well. So I feel very confident in in that support and um I'd also like to extend our gratitude or mine to you um to the retreat because it feels it is a really special partnership and it's felt that way from this side as well. So thank you. Thank you Miss McDonald. Um who would like Mr. Pleish? Yep. Uh I will say I have no problem with this either. I want to shout out to the planning commission. They always do their homework and they asked all the right questions and they I think they came to the right conclusion here. So I don't need to reiterate that. But I would like to point out that there are many things about Weisetta that make it a very very special place for this tiny community. The retreat is right up there at the top. There's no other community I can think of that has a facility like that that has a worldwide reach. So thank you for being part of our community. Thank you Mr. P. Mr. Park Hill. Um, thank you. Also, thank you planning commission and I have no issues with this application. Mr. Sornson, I'm like wives in favor of this resolution. Um, and uh agree with everything that has been said. I have nothing further to add other than just one comment. Um, I think it was the Arnos that was that the name of the the family that originally built the house. It's truly amazing to me that it can go from an individual family home to a nunnery, a cynical property into a retreat, yet to your point, the architectural intent of that structure is still there. Um, and so that's a huge compliment. I mean, a lot of times we hear that, well, we have to change this or do that, but you chose not to do that. And I just want to commend you for that. Um because the look and feel is exactly the way I remember with the first time I walked into there and around 2000. Now a lot has changed. Thousands of people have been through those doors, but the building looks and feels the same. So compliments to you for maintaining that integrity. And with that, I would um bring it back to the council for any further questions of staff or the applicant. Otherwise, uh I'd move forward to accept a motion on this. Are there any other questions, comments of staff or the applicant? Okay. So, I would need a motion to adopt resolution 142025 approving a COP amendment and rooftop mechanical equipment design deviation. And Mr. Zver, do we need to also reference the tree change that you talked about or is that just sort of part of the staff report? Yeah, I guess uh we the city attorney and myself and Alex talked about it. There is a condition within the resolution that um they need to be in compliance with with all codes and the plans that attached. So, uh, we're just noting and did that as a separate attachment that that revised, uh, landscape preservation plan is a part of the overall. Okay. So, no specific reference to it. Okay. So, with that, I would accept a motion from somebody um, to that effect. I'm happy to do it. Um, I'd like to make a motion to adopt the resolution 142025 approving a cup amendment and rooftop mechanical equipment design deviation at 1221 Weisetta Boulevard East. Thank you, Mr. Parker. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Uh, Molly. Uh, any further discussion? Hearing none, um, I would, uh, I guess move to approval. All in favor say I. I. I. Hi. That passes unanimously. Congratulations and good luck on your project. Okay. Um, next up on our agenda is item C, I believe, which is consider adoption of emergency ordinance 850 amending chapter 301 pertaining to traffic regulations requiring helmets or persons under the age of 18 on ebikes, scooters, and bicycles. Sort of a hot topic in our little community. So, over to you, uh, interim Chief Baker. Uh, mayor and council members, thank you very much. Um, Jeff, one of you going to one of you going to run it for me? We're going to bring in the clicker. Okay, if it fails, Chief will just drive. But try it. So, I'm here to present uh to you today considering the adoption of the emergency ordinance um under uh 850 amending chapter 301 traffic regulations requiring helmets for persons under the age of 18 on ebikes, scooters, and bicycles. It worked. Miracle. Um the background on this is obviously the PD has received several complaints about juveniles on motorized bikes, electric assisted bicycles, um riding bicycles and motor scooters. Over the past five years, this has increased significantly. Um as their use has become more and more popular among the youth and um they now can travel up to speeds over 30 miles an hour, excuse me. uh safety concerns are of the most utmost most importance for both not only the rider but also oncoming um pedestrians that are sharing the same space as them. goals of this ordinance is to provide um multimodel transportation, bike, scooters um that are um growing rapidly in Weisetta as it's a re regional significance has grown uh given the uh regional trail the Dakota regional trail that meets up with the city. This um enables the PD to provide educational opportunities um and to be able to enforce and interact with persons under the age of 18. And this is consistent with other uh Lake Minnetonka area cities that have implemented um an ordinance similar to what we are asking for tonight and have had positive results and outcomes with it. Additional uh proactive steps that we have taken, we've um increased uh more staffing um between officers, CSOS, reserves, and overtime uh TZD saturation. Um I started that early this year uh due to the weather and now here we are back the other way. So very unpredictable unfortunately with the weather in the state of Minnesota. Um we have increased penalties and we are still working on the gate on the mill street ramp. Here we go. Go back. This is my This is my technology. Good. So, I'm here uh to request and um staff recommends that you approve the preamble to adopt the emergency ordinance 850 uh amending the uh chapter 301 pertaining to traffic regulations and requiring persons under the age of 18 to wear a helmet. Questions of staff at this time from council? Go ahead, Mr. Black. Um whoever is controlling, could you go back to slide number one? I will try. Uh let's see if this technically that is slide number one. There you go. I think that's the slide I was looking for right there. Okay. So if you read this here, it says that um we want to amend chapter 301 traffic regulations requiring helmets for persons under the age of 18 on ebikes, scooters, and bicycles. I'm focusing in on bicycles because I believe that the actual motion uh that we're proposing excludes bicycles and I'm just curious was that intentional uh by accident or what? Are we are we looking to require helmets for people under 18 to also include bicycles or not? Yes. So, we went back and forth uh regarding this with the both the city manager or excuse me, not the city manager, the uh city attorney, David Schelzel, and also um Jeff Lampert. And we landed on um this language as far as all-encompassing. The bicycles are catchy because um they already have rules and regulations following that and that's really not the end result of but I just want to be clear about it because the introduction says one thing but the language of the ordinance actually is a little bit different. Right. And so this this the bicycles probably should not be on here. Okay, that was where I was confused. For what it's worth, I'll make an editorial comment here. I am very much in favor of uh using helmets for all these things at all ages. uh including adults. I know people have freedom of choice, but I will tell you that I'm guessing 10 or 12 years ago. I personally had a near fatal bicycle accident and will say that if I was not wearing a helmet on that occasion, I would likely be dead or at least brain injured. Uh it really saved my life. So for those of you out there that like the freedom, please wear a helmet. Thank you. Sure. Other questions of staff at this time? Um I I just have a quick question. What does TZD say? Thank you. Yes. So TZD stands for towards zero deaths. It's a um initiative through the state of Minnesota. Um obviously trying to get as the death um involving car accidents and other accidents reduced to the lowest possibility. So that's what it stands for. Thanks. Any other questions? Mr. Mayor? Yes. Just real quick just to clarify. So, what what is in the ordinance? The chief said it correctly. This is really just requiring helmets for um uh motorized bike and non-motorized bikes uh because they're all bicycles, but non-motorized bikes would not be required for people that are under 18 to wear helmets. So, I just want to be clear about that. And then it is an emergency ordinance. It's a little bit different uh that requires the reading of a pream or approval of the preamble. We figured that uh it didn't make sense to wait another um few weeks to get this enacted as the busy s season starts as soon as the the sun comes out on Thursday. Please, manager Doll, um you clarified about bicycles. So, non-motorized bicycles are not included in this, but what about scooters? Because those are motorized and non-motorized as well. Good point. That is a good point. I believe it's motorized scooters, but city attorney can confirm that. Um, mayor and council member, that's correct. Yeah, if you want to look at the exact language of the ordinance on page 338 of the packet, it's pretty brief. Um, but the requirement falls on those under the age of 18 who are riding an electric assisted bike or any bike, motorized bicycle or motorized foot scooter. And those are the the vehicles for lack of a better word that are going very fast because of the the motors. Got it. Thank you. So I have to ask this question. So So does state statute guide anything about bicycles non-motorized? U Mr. Mayor? No, you know, we did look at state statute and what it covers. Um it there is some redundancy for um the motorized. Yeah, that's not my question. I'm sorry. Um where where I'm going with it is I was wondering kind of following Mr. Pleish's line of questioning. Is there Put this aside for a second. This is fenced in to address a specific issue in our community. Is there any state guidance on helmet regulation period for juveniles? It's as far as I know, state law does not require helmets for for underage rides. All right, that's what I was looking for. Is that your understanding, Chief? Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Okay, so if there no other further questions, I Oh, please, Mr. Plug. It's not really a question, but I thought of this after I spoken with the city manager earlier this afternoon. This ordinance is designed to address an issue, which is speeding these ebikes and so on in the Lakew Walk area, but have we thought of putting a a speed limit sign on there for bikes and stuff? So, we have considered that. One of the issues with putting a speed limit sign regarding bicycles is they don't have a speedometer. Bicycles don't have a speedometer. Ebikes do. Some of them do, some of them don't. So, that becomes an issue on how how do you enforce how fast they're going when they don't know how fast they're going? Well, this might be a topic for for future issue, but I get that point. I I I'm a biker and I don't have speedometers really on there. I just kind of bike. But uh just posting a speed limit will generally make people aware of the fact that there is a speed limit. Whether they can measure it or not is another thing. And I think these kids that are pezing down the sidewalk at 30 mph, they know they're going faster than say 15 or whatever the the speed limit would be. I'm not suggesting we add that here, but maybe down the road we think about it a little bit. or even some slow signs. Pedestrians slow slow down. I have a related question. I don't intend humor from this, but is there a way to enact exhibition ebike riding? Uh, and I'm not joking because part of the issue that we have here is speed. It's not wearing safety. Um, and then it is literally stunts. Like, you know, riding on one wheel. uh not you know I mean I'm I don't intend humor bite I'm literally asking a question to to this the city attorney to to uh the chief I mean is is there something along those lines because the to Mr. Pleish's point, the issue is speed, lack of attention, right? So, if you're popping a wheelie, you're not going to see uh a stroller in front of you. And they do it all the time. They love it. What do they do? They press the throttle, they sit back, and they see how long they can ride on the back wheel. Um, so, so it's not intended to be humor. Um, is it is there something we could do there? And a lot of times those kids are wearing helmets. Are they? Yeah. So, no, I mean, so I mean, it is good, but that means that we don't have really any recourse. So, I think this is a really great question. I don't mean any humor by it. It's a real question. I guess in my opinion, that would be something I'd have to look into. Um, I haven't heard of um obviously uh any other cities having that issue once they've um adopted this type of ordinance. But that isn't something that's off the table and I'm not I'm willing to look into that. Thank you for that. We'll do that. Okay. Um, any other questions? Otherwise, I'll bring it back for discussion. Oh, Mr. City attorney, please. Oh, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make a note about the process here. I The city manager referred to it a moment ago. We set this up as an emergency ordinance. So, that would take effect right away. And these, you know, rather than having two readings that we normally have for ordinances over two council meetings, this will all take effect tonight. But it does require two votes. So, if you get to that point, Mr. Mayor, the first uh vote I' or motion to ask for would just be to adopt and approve the preamble to the ordinance. That requires a four-fifths majority vote. And assuming that passes, then adopt um the ordinance itself. Okay. With that guidance, I would bring it back to the council for discussion. I can start. I think this makes complete sense. um I think makes as much sense as seat belts make sense and even people skiing these days. Everybody wears a helmet. You don't even see somebody without a helmet skiing. And this makes I see so many kids going so fast and I'm concerned for their safety. And honestly, as a parent, this gives each parent an excuse to say, "Put on your helmet because everybody wants the best for their kids." It's the law. It's not optional. It's not something you can sit there and negotiate with. So, thank you for doing this. Mr. Anyone else like to weigh in with any perspective? I just have one comment and and it's it's it's a comment to parents. If you're going to buy a kid a device that can go 30 miles an hour, please please please give them guidance to operate with respect in the city of Weisetta, particularly in our downtown corridor. The whole reason that we're pushing this is because we have lack of respect. We have bad actors. We have speed. We have reckless, careless driving by juveniles and adults. And it needs to stop. And so my plea is to the parents that are buying these devices to amplify Mr. Parkill, please, please, please get your kid to operate it with respect and wear a helmet. I have one more comment because this haunts me. uh for the last two years. It haunts me. I nearly took a kid out. And if I hadn't um if I hadn't um hesitated on the accelerator, I would have killed an 8-year-old kid. And he went by me with the biggest eatating grin that I've ever seen on his tiny little scooter. And I'm just like, "Oh my god, my life would have been ruined." So, not only for the kid's sake, but for the poor adult or poor person driving who wants to, you know, live the rest of their life without guilt or even not be in jail. Yeah. Sorry, I'm a little passionate about that. It's a serious matter. I appreciate the passion. It's I tried to call the parent and parent never called me back. So, no, it's a serious issue. So, I'm glad of these comments and I hope that the wide public maybe pays attention. And kids, you're welcome to be in town. You're welcome to ride your bike. You're welcome to buy ride your ebike. Just do it with respect and within the rules. With that, I would accept two motions. The first motion is to adopt the preamble uh for uh the emergency ordinance for 850 uh pertaining to traffic regulations about helmets. Accept a motion for the preamble. Mr. Mayor, I'll make that motion for the preamble. Have a second. Second. Any further discussion? We need a four-fifth vote. So, let's just do roll call just to make sure the record's clear. Good idea. Uh, Council Member Parkill. I. Council member Pleish. I. Council member McDonald. I. Council member Sorenson. I. Mayor Bullen. I. That passes 5-0. Then I would second I would accept a second motion adopting the ordinance itself, which is ordinance 850. I'll make that motion. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? We'll do a roll call vote again just for the record. Council member Sornson I. Council member McDonald I. Council member Plekish. I. Council member Parkill. Hi. Mayor Mullen. I. So that passes 5-0. Thank you very much. Um interum Baker and staff and city attorney. Next on our agenda is considering adoption of resolution 1525 denying the sideyard setback variance at 1617 Park Street East. I am turning this over to who? Mr. All uh Mr. Mayor, uh uh consultant planners waver is going to walk us through this one as well. And we have community development director Sharp here to answer any questions too. Thank you, Mr. W. Mr. Zver. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, council. Uh yes, we are here to consider adoption of resolution 15205 denying the sideyard setback variance at 617 Park Street East. Um the owner is Robert and Jennifer Joseette, Joseart. Sorry. Uh and applicant is Custom One Homes the builder. So this property is zoned R3A. Uh it is guided central core residential as you see in that block. All the other properties are that same zoning and land use guidance. And the properties in the block surrounding the majority of them are that same zoning and guidance. So here we are showing the existing conditions of this particular property is located on the well the project north side of Park Street East between Walker Avenue and Broadway Avenue. We are showing uh the exhibit on the right uh where kind of underneath all that line is line work is the original plat and then this particular lot uh includes all of one lot and a part of the lot to the west. So it's a little larger than most the other lots on this block. Here's photos of uh the construction activity as it occurred uh last week. Um kind of showing two views here because the one to the left shows the property to the east fairly well and and the distance between uh the house being built and that um property to the east. The second photo shows some of those eaves and how uh there's eaves over the essentially the garage and a little bit of living area. Then the house actually bumps back in and then comes back out again on the northern part of the house. So the variance request itself is requesting the variance to allow one additional foot over the maximum encroachment of 2 and 1/2 ft into the east side yard. So, a little explanation on how we got to where we are today. Uh, the image on the left is the survey which shows that the um where the garage is located and the remaining of the portion of the house is at least 10 ft from the east property line which is what the building setback requires. Um they do show a couple other things on survey such as areas where there's cantal levers, areas where there's a window well etc. But on a separate plan sheet there is the eaves and so in the building plans that shows the eaves on all sides, east, north, west, south, they're all three and a half feet. So, uh, what staff should have done is taken a look at these two separate plans together and seeing that the east property line set back is 10 ft, the eve is 3 foot6, that is 1 foot further than the 2 and 1/2 foot encroachment allowed under the city code. So to help try to explain this a little better. Um so what we have is the sides of front being facing south, rear facing north, and then the east and west sides. For R3A, the building setbacks for the front and the rear are 20 ft. And then for the east are 10 ft for each the east and west. The building as they proposed it actually has a front setback of 30 feet. So 10 feet farther than required by code. On the east side it is 10 ft. On the west side it is 12. So on the west side it is 2 feet set back further than required by the code. Then you can see on the north side it is quite a bit uh beyond the 20 foot required. So again, what we're looking at here is the eve encroachment because the front setback is 10 ft beyond what's required. That 3 and 1/2 ft eve does not encroach into the sideyard at all. But on the east, since that's right at the property line, that 3 and 1/2t eve encroaches 3 and 1/2 ft into the east sideyard. There happens to be some encroachment into the west uh sideyard but that's one and a half ft where the code allows two and a half and then again because of that large setback um there is no eve encroachment into the north. So we have the building setback itself the home meets those building setbacks. We have a code provision that says your eaves of the building and some other elements can be encroach into that sideyard two and a half ft. So only the east eve violates that code provision and does it by one foot. The rest of the building is compliant. The engineering department has no comments in the proposal. Uh we received two comments and they were both emailed to you and provided at the dis. Uh the property owner to the east um which is the one that has the encroachment provided a letter in his statement is in there that he reluctantly supports the variance but states you know his reluctance that we have to be in this situation today. and then another resident opposes the so at the planning commission. Well, the planning commission ultimately voted to approve the EC report and recommendation that recommended denial of the sideyard setback variance. And as I know all of you are aware uh the planning commission process is a two-meating process where the first meeting the planning commission votes to prepare a planning commission report and recommendation. At that meeting it was recommended to deny but it was a split vote of four voting for the denial, three voting against the denial. And so the action steps here are we are asking you to adopt resolution 152025 denying the sideyard setback variance at 617 Park Street East. And the owner is here today um that would like to speak to this item as well. But I would stand for any questions they have. Uh questions of staff and then we'll give you a chance to comment if you wish. Questions of staff uh at this time. I do. Go ahead, Mr. Park. So, was the original um pad for the the home shifted to the right one foot or why did they do 12 ft on the left and 10 ft on the right? Thank you, mayor. Council member Park this if we just go, you know, except it's already built. Well, I know, but I'm just wondering if it got shifted when it got built and that's what's caused part of this problem. Anyway, uh, Mayor Mullen, Council Member Parkill. Uh, no. In fact, the house was shifted off of that western property line in large part to save a large tree on the western side of the home. You can actually see it in the photos if we were to go back. Um, in the front of the house, there's a significant tree that you just see next to the portal restroom. um that was a focus of retention for this property owner and why the home was kind of shifted as far against that eastern property line uh as possible. So they were right up against their eastern property line for their setback and the foundation. The eaves themselves traditionally encroach in when you build a home on a smaller lot. You will see that throughout the neighborhood. However, when you do a larger custom home like this with significantly larger eaves than what code traditionally uh anticipates, that's where this issue came into play. So, this tree and up in the left corner, that is correct. Looks like it's in the front yard. What's that have to do with the shift? Did they didn't want the shade in the front window or something or to retain that tree in its RIT zone? you with the construction equipment, the putting in the foundation of the home, you would need to have a wide birth around that tree. You'll see actually tree protection around or there has been tree protection around it where you'd see how close that would actually get to the existing foundation and the construction of the home. and and that is actually on the exhibit on page 360 of your packet, the survey, they show uh what is the anticipated root zone and and even with the house where it's located, what impacts um there's actually two trees that are saved. Okay, thank you. Other questions of staff? Just uh speaking of trees, they have this this one tree, but um could you recap maybe what was taken out? I mean, I believe there were some trees on the other side of the lot that were removed that um I only know as much on the front, but could we get pitch 360 of the Well, I I walked the property today and there was I'm sure within appropriate there were trees taken down um for sure because you can see the cuts. Uh doesn't mean that's wrong. It just zoom down a little bit. There was a third tree in that southwest corner and so one of the three were removed and the other two are showing to be retained. But you do see there with that drip line that even with the position of the house, those two trees have root impacts, but not so significantly that the code would require them to be counted as removals. Further questions of staff? I have one. Um, and this isn't intended to assess blames. It's just trying to draw out the facts of how we got here. Um, and this was consistent with the line of question that occurred in the planning commission, but there seems to be no evidence of nefarious action by the builder or the applicant. It seems like a miss. Is that a fair assessment that it was a miss by the builder and it was missed by staff? because you normally get to a structure being built to the level it's being built and then it comes before a governing body like this after the fact and then says oops uh there was a miss and again I'm not intending to assess any blame I'm trying to draw out the facts of process and approvals. Thank you mayor. Uh you are correct that this was a line of questioning at the planning commission. Ultimately uh the discussion that the planning commission held I think was a very good one in that yes there uh this could have been caught during the initial permit review. Uh staff fully admits that that occurs from time to time particularly in the odd case of a 3 and 1/2t eve. Traditionally eaves are around 18 in 2 and 1/2 ft is actually a pretty exceptional eve amount. 3 and 1/2 ft feet is a architectural element and design element to a home. So easy to see where that can occur uh because the survey was submitted correctly and this is a unique circumstance for a unique home. Uh zero evidence from the developer that there was a nefarious desire. Uh but certainly they are responsible for submitting correct plans in the same manner that staff is responsible for. Yeah. And again I I'm not trying to blame anybody. I'm just trying to draw out the facts. Understood. Okay. Thank you for answering that question. Any further questions of staff? Would the applicant like to make any comments? Uh you're you're welcome to. You don't have to. You're welcome here and we we would appreciate your input. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council, and and staff. Um first, I want to apologize. My I should introduce myself. I'm Bob Joart. Robert, my mom is mad at me, but otherwise Bob, formerly of uh 22 20 2122 Portico in Weisetta, currently 2454 Crown Hill Road in Minnetonka and coming hopefully back in August to Visetta. Um the first thing I'd like to do is apologize to the mayor, to the planning commission, and to the council for all the time spent on this one foot. That should have never happened. Um we uh um never intended to this happen. The original plan as my wife and I approved them fit on this lot completely in compliance. It was supposed to be one foot farther to the west. It was and to this day I still don't know why I'm sitting on that east lot. I don't have an explanation. Alex has got one there that I haven't heard until tonight. So, um I I you know to me part of it was the surveyor made a mistake. But certainly the house was never intended to be on that lot line. was in fact intended to be one foot farther to the west. So, in fact, we would be in complete compliance. So, I apologize. We shouldn't we just shouldn't be here. Um, I really did uh do that. Um, I think we had a pretty good presentation here, so I can skip some of my uh um comments, but I I want to un everyone to understand what we were up to here. Um, that's a large and different home in that neighborhood for sure. And I asked the architect, Dave Charles architect, to give us a home that compl compl compleimemented the neighborhood, but yet was unique to the neighborhood and was respectful of my neighbors. It's a unique lot. We have two neighbors in the in that distance on the west side, and I have one neighbor on the right. And so the 30-foot setback comes to line up with the two neighbors in the front. And then we tried to push the house forward a little bit. So, we were lined up with the back of Sarah, the the west neighbor, her house on that Randolph. Yep. Yeah. So, that's why the house got kind of wide. And I'm not I'm not 28 anymore. I'm looking for single level living. So, we dropped that down. When we did that, we also didn't want to have um because a lot we didn't need to have these straight up twotory walls. We realized that we could step the house back on both sides and give us some room from our neighbors. And I think if you drive by the site, you can see that that we're not it's actually much less tight to our neighbors than many of the other homes on that very street. You're talking about from massing. Yeah, the mass it actually walks away from the neighbors and there's a fair amount of open air on both sides of the home. So I I you know, I think we accomplished that um until a location thing happened. Um I got to again apologize. our our presentation by the builder at the planning commission meeting was uh less than stellar and very confusing at times. I was confused at times about what he was trying to explain. So, we got off on some tangents on there. Um I want to be clear about one thing that that home as as submitted is 100% code compliant. If we weren't code compliant, we'd be moving the home, but we are code compliant. we are not compliant with your building ordinance, the EVE setback requirement. Um, and that's where we run into the um the issue. Uh, a request, I think, is relatively reasonable if you consider it. Um, you know, I think we're in harmony with the neighborhood. There was no intent to be in and our request, you know, I like to I like to hold up. We're asking for 12 in that much of eve set back 10 feet in the air on a portion of the east side of the house. Not all of the east eaves are enroaching just the garage is and a little bit of the part that and then a little porch in the back. Um I think you know that's intended for the ordinance. I think that meets our intent meets the ordinance. We just missed uh missed that by a little bit. Um uh I think the plight of the land owner is an interesting one for us and I think I explained a little bit of how unique that property is to that block. It is the biggest lot on the block and it is the only one that affords the opportunity that we presented and um I you know we wanted to do that. Um I I still think it's not my fault that we are where we are. I think this foot to the east got happened without our knowledge. I mean, I was I'm I'm a snowbird. I'm in Arizona. When I got the phone call, so I was more surprised than anybody that all of a sudden we're not in the right place. I said, "What do you mean? The last time I signed off on these drawings, this house was fit on that lot according to all the ordinances and all the codes." So, I u I'm a little uh crazy about how I got there. Um uh the the other requirement here, variances granted uh will not alter the essential character locality. Um boy, that's a pretty nebulous statement. So I I don't know how to answer that, but I'm going to try to enlist my three neighbors. I think that they're my best help to answer that. There's an intent of all us to live in that neighborhood together. I've had long conversations with my neighbors to the east, my neighbors to the west, and my neighbor to the south. The one that has to look at every day. Universally, all three like the design of the home. They're anxious to see it done. All three of them want this variance approved. And all three of them are quite puzzled and apologetic that it hasn't been proved. So, they are all wondering, as am I. If these three people, the most impacted by a mile, are in favor of the variance, how are we having such such a struggle here to get my little one foot approved? I don't deny it's it's not in compliance. That that we understand. We It's just a goof. And hey, it's construction. Stuff happens in construction. And uh this is one of those deals. It's a It's a goof. And uh I'm sorry for it. I apologize for it. And then we could sure use your help. Um I did allow construction to continue. Um I didn't want to drag out. So we put the roof on so we could start going on the inside. And we needed to do that because when you're coming up that east side, um, our solution is going to require us to lob a foot off, but you still have to keep the shingle line and some of the other building lines in place. And the only way to do that is start at the bottom and come up and then cut it off at that line. So, we have a repair. Um, you know, I think it goes from dorky or look chopped to hideous, but we can we can cut off that east side one foot. Um, it vastly alters the front u elevation of the home. Um, it really does. And I had a plan until last night that I was going to plant some taller trees on it east corner that would help hide that and make it a little more palatable. But my neighbor Gareth um informed me last night that their porch would be and and their living room windows would be really impacted if I plant tall trees on that corner because they get some really nice west sun. And so I committed to him last night, not I'm not going to plant anything. So now I'm gonna now if if we don't get the variance, I'm going to look at my chopped my chopped east side, but we we can do it and and we're willing to do it if if the council says this doesn't work for you. Uh thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions from council of the applicant? Uh thank you for uh your transparency and thank you for being here. Um you know, this is a little bit of a wonky thing for us as well. So appreciate your transparency. I appreciate your transp transparency, Mr. Sharp, and holding uh accountability on both sides. That's a a positive thing for me. So thank you for that. So I'll bring it back to uh the council for discussion. Yeah, Mr. Pleish. Yeah, I I guess I'd like to start. Uh first off, I'd like to say Mr. Josar Bob, I'm sorry you had to be here as well. Probably not as sorry as you are, but I'm still sorry for you. Uh I'd like to start by making a bit of a philosophical comment which is uh the planning commission by design is supposed to be black and white. They're supposed to interpret code and make a judgment based on what's black and white. Council on the other hand is to exercise wisdom and judgment which is a little bit different um responsibility. Uh in this case the planning commission kind of did what it was supposed to do but it was split. it was, you know, could have one vote would have changed it the other way. What I will say now is that even though you could find fault on both sides, I personally hold the city staff to a much higher standard than I do the builders or certainly the homeowner. Um, so if there had to be one side or the other, I would I would go with that. And I do not believe that the homeowner should be put in a position to bear the brunt of a bad decision that was made again to which I hold the city more accountable. So I will um I don't know how we do this because before us is to is to vote for denial, but I actually want it the other way. I would vote for an approval of this variance. Uh thank you, Mr. Mr. Sorenson. Yeah, I I think the plan commission did a really nice job in kind of digging into this and asking all the right questions. It was analyzed and debated very well and it was interesting. It was a pretty much a split vote. So, you can you could argue this thing either way. I I I think um you know, like someone mentioned, I mean, there was no malice here. I mean, it was an honest mistake. I appreciate uh the homeowner acknowledging that and his attitude towards towards this. And um I mean I was a custom home builder for seven years. I I can't I can't imagine what the fix would be that wouldn't that that that would end up looking even kind of okay. Um I think if there was an easy fix, you know, we could maybe go there, but I don't see what it is. If you cut up a foot, you have a fascia board in that side that's another eight or 10 inches higher than the rest of the house. And the transitions in the corner are going to be awkward. So, I just don't um I just don't see where there's uh an easy fix here. Um you know, I think it is interesting that uh throughout this whole process um we have a letter that was um shared with us just today. It's the first um thing I've seen where someone objected to it. This was an individual on on Broadway. Um the owner pointed out that the people most affected, people on the east and west and across the street are in favor of this variant. So it it kind of makes you wonder, you know, what are what are we what are we doing here? Um, and I would agree uh with some commentary of uh commit of uh Councilman Pleschik that um you know we create these ordinances and these um and these standards and regulations the best we can. you know, this is a unique situation and um we really need to, you know, in your terminology, you know, wisdom and judgment. Mine was kind of we need to be use uh practicality and what's reasonable as we look at um something like like this. So, um I just don't think it's it is reasonable to tear into this house, which is a which is very well done and it has um symmetry to it. We did it on one side. I don't know how you not do it on the other. Um I would be uh I would not be in favor of the denying this um variance. Who would like to go next? I would if I could. Okay. Please, Miss Mcd. Thank you. Um, I've been looking at this slightly different than u my colleagues up here that I've heard from thus far, which is how I'm reading these letters of support. All I hear is reluctance in them. And these are my neighbors. I I will be your neighbor, Mr. Jonesart. And this makes it very difficult for me. Um, for all of us, this is a hard job up here and sometimes we have to make the hard decisions on behalf of the people who elected us because your neighbors want to be your a good neighbor to you. And I don't I don't blame them for wanting to get off on the right foot. um this prior to um you moving in. I mean, you haven't moved in yet, but this is a this is a very important neighborhood. This is a beautiful lot, the biggest in the neighborhood. And we have been studying the zoning in this neighborhood now for for quite some time to make sure that rules are followed. The scale is is appropriate with the neighborhood. And and I don't see that the variance request is hitting all of those marks for me. Um, I don't think this was due to the to the circumstances of the land. I don't think economics is the right reason to um support this this request. So, I'm I'm in the on the other side of things here where I just I have a hard time um saying it's okay for a variance when you had have the biggest flattest yard and and um clear, you know, just scraped a house and started from scratch. Mistakes, oversightes, yes, but that doesn't change the situation and the reality for me. So I I'm doing that. I'm saying those hard words out loud when I think your neighbors are just trying to be courteous. So thank you, Miss McDonald. Mr. Parkill, um first of all, I want to thank planning commission for I read through the whole thing and you guys really spent some time on it and um I think it was a hard decision. And I think it's something that's very difficult to make. And also staff, accidents happen, things happen. You know, sometimes there is no blame and you guys do the very best you can and things happen. So, um, and thank you, Mr. Josart, for building a beautiful house and for suggesting a potential repair. Um, it's a beautiful home. Um, symmetry is very important to me. Um, I think that, uh, we live in a very complicated world and a very expensive world and a very regulation intensive world. It's hard to always comply. And this is somewhat of a complicated and unfortunate situation, but um I don't see any real harm done with um allowing this variance. I think that, you know, um, you know, I I I I I respect what, uh, Council Member McDonald is saying about the neighbor because you did send some hesitancy in the neighbor to the east voice. Um, doesn't want to be a bad neighbor, but, um, I think in this case it's relatively minor and hopefully things and now he's not going to have a tree to worry about. So, and there is president precedent for us approving this variance because there was a mistake done in H Highraftoft about a year or two ago where they didn't account for the road to curve and we would have had to take a corner quarter of the a corner of the uh garage off and you know things happen and uh so I am in favor of approving this variance. Okay. Thank you Mr. Parkhill. Um, I'll try not to be duplicative. I I did have a chance to talk to the neighbor to the east and to the west today. I had a long conversation with the neighbor to the east and I had a very lengthy text message with the Randolphs uh to the west. Um, I don't want to speak for them. Uh, Mr. Elliott put in record his position in April and I would say from the text messages I exchanged with him today, their position is consistent. Um, are they frustrated with the homeowner? No. Um, are they frustrated with the city? Yes. Are they frustrated with the builder? Yes. And I would like to I promised them that I would provide this feedback on the record. And it sounds like I don't intend this other than just to relay, you know, the most impacted folks. they have found the developer or or the your builder to be tonedeaf, to be lacking response to um not being a good neighbor in the way that they build and and how they park their cars and a number of different complaints over time. And I don't think this is news to you. I promised them that I would center their feedback on where they felt it is most appropriate. So, I'm putting that into the record. I would say it if your builder was sitting right here. Um the second thing that was interesting to me is um both of them emphatically said please approve the variance. They do not want the project stopped. They do not want the project delayed. They were explicit. Do not um you know get in the way of this. Approve the variance. Um the only suggestion other suggestion that came from Gareth and and I'm offering it as a suggestion. I I don't I'm not going to fall on this. He asked that I bring it up. One unknown to to them is the drip line. I walked the property today in my in my mud boots uh in in the pouring rain and the drip line, you know, does put a little gully there. Um, I would say he's indifferent at this point, but I would encourage us if if the direction is to approve the variance to potentially attach a condition that the developer and the applicant would work with their neighbor and if gutters and or a catch basin is appropriate to protect erosion, runoff. I'm not suggesting I'm not um suggesting that it has to be there, but if that neighbor, you know, has impact from the eve and the drip line, you know, right on their property that the the applicant consider working with the neighbor to to address it through a mutually acceptable solution. I'm not even going to prescribe a gutter because some people don't like gutters. It's not about that. It's about the drip line and the impact of water runoff on their property and their landscaping. So, that those would be my comments. I think what's before us is is is a recommendation to deny. I'm hearing consensus that may not be the will of the council. So, I'm gonna ask the city attorney. I think we have a couple options here. We can we can deny this and then request staff to to bring something back different. We can How would you like us to address this? Sure, Mayor. Thank you. Um so as you pointed out we we have an a resolution before you 15 2025 that's would deny the variance based on the report and recommendation of the planning commission. So, um, you could take a vote on that and if that vote fails, uh, entertain a motion to direct staff to come back with an alternative resolution to approve the variance with findings based on the record here this evening that was articulated by the council, articulated by the applicant. We could also include that condition that you'd like to consider, work with staff on articulating that and bring that back to you at the next meeting. So I guess you know unless you would think otherwise I would probably start by just entertaining a motion on what's on the table. If that fails then direct us to come back with an alternative resolution. Are we Go ahead, Mr. So just question. Is there a way to just get this um dealt with all tonight? Uh, mayor and council member, I think there there is um we generally don't like to do that because we want to make sure that we've got a good solid legal foundation of findings. Um, we would have to spend some time actually writing those up now and working on the wording of that condition. So, um, and I don't get the sense that there's a significant delay or, uh, with the construction right now. It's already built. Yeah. And it's sounds like the building continues on the interior. So, I would rather take the time, get it right, make sure we capture particularly if you're going to have a condition as the mayor has suggested. And I don't know if there's support for that. I'm just passing along feedback. So, just sure that's for the council decide. I'm just relaying what my conversation was with the neighbor. So, okay. So, with that, do we have any questions of staff or Mr. Shelzel? Are we comfortable proceeding then? So, I think the first step would be to accept a motion to approve this and see if that holds or fails. Yes, that's right, Mr. Mayor. I think the resolution or the potential motion is right in front of you. Yeah. So, I would accept a motion to approve the adoption resolution denying the sideyard setback variance at 617 Park Street. Question. Go ahead. I have a question because I get the sense of the council, too. If there's no second to this motion, does it fail? You don't. Yeah, we don't. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, mayor, council member. Yes. If if no one seconds this, then then you can take action and the mayor can enter ask for a different motion. Sure. I'm open to whichever way. Would anyone like to make the motion? I'll make the motion. Okay. Just to move this along, I'll second it. Any further discussion? So then, let's just do a roll call vote. And again, to be very clear, the resolution on the table is actually denying the variance. So, if you're going to vote yes, you are actually affirming the planning commission's recommendation to be clear. If you vote no, we're going to take a different step. With that, I would uh I guess it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? So, now let's just do a roll call vote just so we can officially go through this and then take the next step. Council member Pleish, nay. Council member Sorenson, nay. Council member McDonald, I. Council member Parkill, nay. Mayor Mullen, nay. So that's a 4 to one denial of the recommendation to deny the variance. Mr. Motion fails. Yes. I would accept a motion to direct staff to prepare a approval of a variance to be brought back to us and and I would accept the motion with or without the suggestion of of the neighbor. Um so how important are these findings there? I mean, seems like we could just get this off get this guy moving forward. Um, mayor and council member, as I said a moment ago, we we could do that. Findings are essential legally to support uh action. Um, and I think also to to work out that condition. So, if we we have the time, my advice is to take the time, do it right, get uh a resolution that's in writing, that's in part of the record. think that serves the applicant well, the land owner well, uh it serves council well, and the city well to have uh findings of fact. Um we could do that on the fly. It's just going to take some time. I'd have to work with staff in real time on that. We generally don't follow that process unless there's a deadline issue. So, it'll come back in two weeks and we can approve or deny the resolution, the new resolution. And then is it if we approve it, it's done. It's granted. Okay. Okay. With that guidance, I think what we're looking for uh unless there's any one that wants to, you know, maybe adjust the city attorney's recommendation process. Is there anyone that would like to challenge that? It's okay if you do. Okay. So, we won't. So, I would accept a motion to direct staff to bring back a uh resolution for approval of a variance at 617 Park Street East. And within that motion, if if whoever is making that motion feels that that the condition that I suggested is merited, please include that. If not, that's okay, too. I'll make the motion to send the this resolution back to the staff to come back with u reasons to vote for approval but without any conditions. Make it black and white. Thank you, Mr. Pish. Do you have a second? Uh I would second that with another comment. that would be um another way to deal with um the amendment that you discussed is to have the applicant come up and tell us how he would deal with that issue. It wouldn't be part of the the resolution, I guess, but it be another way to at least partially deal with it. Okay. So, I want to there's a motion on the table. Um I guess what I'd like to do from a process standpoint, Mr. Mr. PL, would you be okay just withdrawing your motion to to Mr. Sorn's suggestion? We wouldn't bring it back with an amendment, but we just allow the applicant in the record. I don't think we need to. We can just proceed on the vote. Okay. So, we have a motion on the table. We still need a second. He was a second. He said second with with his suggested approval. So, do you want Are you okay with second without your recommendation? I Yes, I am. Okay, great. So, we have a motion and second on the table. Any further discussion? So, we'll just do uh all in favor say I. I Okay, that passes. So, um Okay. Well, I I didn't hear. So, sorry. I thought you were going to say those opposed. That's my apologies. Okay. So, it's 4 to one. Um so, what happens now is staff will prepare a new uh action step for us to come back to approve this with a variance. Uh and thank you. That was a little bit of a sticky wicket. Thank you for everyone's patience. And um thank you to the applicant. Now we'll move on to uh the next item which I believe is city manager report. But before we get there um I just had uh one item that I wanted to bring into the record. Um you may or may have not noticed that DB Joan Cadri uh passed away recently. Um she was a longtime Wisetta resident passed away peacefully on May 11th, 2025. The reason I'm bringing this up is she was I think would be considered a super volunteer at public works. Widely known to our staff there, volunteered tyrously for decade or so at public works and just wanted to recognize her passing. Um there will be a funeral service um at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 29th at Redeemer Lutheran Church for anyone that's interested in honoring uh DB Joan Cadri. Um with that, I would turn it over to the city manager um for your report. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And just to add on to that, you know, volunteering is really about building community and working with your community members to for the greater good of the community. Uh she did that. She's a great huge part of that. But she really added a lot of value for us at public works. Like it was it was free, really professional, helpful work in our office. So to your point, Mr. mayor. Uh she'll be missed and we're just grateful that she was around for so long. Thank you, Miss City Manager. Uh two quick things. One is want to uh highlight the festivities uh the events going on on Memorial Day to honor our all of our uh um military who served. Um, Monday, May 26, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 11:30 a.m., excuse me. The Weisetta Legion will be conducting five different events. The ones specifically pertaining to Weisetta will start at 9:15. Uh, there'll be an honor guard ceremony at the Green Land Cemetery on Park Street and Weisetta Boulevard. Then they'll go over to uh the old Weisetta Cemetery at Weisetta Boulevard and Walker Avenue at 9:45. Again, an honor guard and memorial ceremony there. Uh after that, they'll head to Summit Hill Cemetery on the west side of town. Um again at 10:30, honor guard and memorial ceremony. Then lastly, they'll finish up at Heritage Park uh at the corner of Weisetta Boulevard and Central Avenue at 11:30. Uh in addition to the honor guard and memorial ceremony, uh the commander of the legion will say a few words. Then taps will be played. Honor guard as well with a three gun salute. And then we will have our honorable mayor uh saying a few words there too. So weather looks good. So please community come out. Uh we've got a variety of uh of uh recognition events uh throughout the day on Memorial Day. Uh if you have any questions, just go to our website. that all the information is on there. The only last thing is I just wanted to acknowledge uh Deputy City Manager Jagger. It is her birthday today. So, yay. Happy birthday. Birthday. Should we sing? I think we should either sing or I don't know if she's got a few prepared words or anything. What a great way to spend a birthday. It would only been better if you were still in the audit. All right. Are there any questions of city manager at this time? Okay, with that then I would accept a motion to adjourn today's meeting. I'll make that motion. You have a second. Second. Any second with Mr. Pleish? Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. We are adjourned.