okay real good we are back in session at the city of Grant June 25th meeting sorry about that we're having some technical difficulties with our sound system as you might realize we really don't have air conditioning in the building and some of our equipment is overheated so we'll be looking at that later but let's move to another happy occasion which is the swearing in with the oath of office Mr Ben cornet our newest council member Ben uh thank you Mr Mayor I will take the uh swearing in of the new council member can you hear me okay yes sir all right uh first of all Mr cornette congratulations on your appointment and we will now administer the oath of office so please raise your right hand and repeat after me I Ben cornette I Ben cornette do solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Minnesota and of the state of Minnesota and will Faithfully discharge the duties and will Faithfully discharge the duties of the office of council member of the office of council member of the city of Grant of the city of Grant in the county of Washington in the county of Washington and the state of Minnesota and the state of Minnesota to the best of my judgment and ability to the best of my judgment and ability perfect congratulations and uh the clerk will have an oath for you to sign thank you sir congratulations Ben Ben right we got a new member do I have a motion to approve our regular agenda please not for me motion to approve the agenda hey we have a second thanks John hi hi thank you Kim you've all had a chance to take a look at our consent agenda in the bill list we have a motion to approve s Jee we got a motion from Mr Geer second second from Ben hi hi thank you Kim and I we are going to turn right to our engineer Brad Reef regarding a consideration of a guard rail project uh Brad I hope you can hear us we can hear you go right ahead thank you mayor members of the council um again you're uh we're seeking a motion tonight to approve H&R construction company for installing plate beam guard rail along Kimbro Avenue and Jarvis Avenue uh the proposed guard rail improvements are an important component in providing safe roadways for the citizens of Grant uh like I mentioned there's two locations the first location uh is along Jarvis Avenue just north of 60th Street to protect vehicles from going off a steepen bakman into a wetland complex and the second location is over on Kimbro Avenue there's actually three locations on Kimbrell the first one being just north of 75th Street to protect vehicles from going into a a wetland complex uh just east of uh Kimbro Avenue and just north of 75th and then a second location uh probably a quarter mile north of uh 75th Street there uh we're proposing uh guard rails on both sides of a large Wetland complex again to protect vehicles uh from the Steep embankment so um we did go bought and get quotes we solicited quotes from two contractors that have done previous work in the city of Grant um we we uh received quotes from H&R Construction in the amount of $38,500 and a second quote from Insight Contracting for $ 53,6 25 uh City staff has recommending awarding a contract based on those results to H&R Construction in the amount of 38,00 ,500 uh and we are proposing that uh this work is funded using the special roadway funds of the city of Grant so with that said I would be happy to uh answer any questions the council may have thank you Brad I appreciate that looks like you got a good price any questions from this side Ben Jeff Tom John okay real good then you're just looking for a motion on this g yep real good gentlemen looking for a motion to approve the bid at 38 five your turn down there somewhere yeah Tom's hiding over second okay hi hi thank you Kim and thank you Brad let's move right into the event of the evening consideration of amending chapter 32 zoning regarding minimum lot size and dimensional standards of existing Lots on record Tom you want to explain this you kind of champion this to get it on the agenda if you could talk to us about it for thank you Mr Mayor yeah I just I don't like getting sued and I don't like taking away people's land rights um especially don't like getting sued so I guess to me this is a two-part deal you know whether we can um tell people they can't build on their SW Lots I think in the ordinance I think it did a really good job they did a five acres and they did B they had to combine the Lots I think that was great if you have one acre lots combine them our assessor looking at the assessments on some of these lots that are next to each other has done that um one lot would be worth 232,000 the other would be worth 14 so the assessor knew what our ordinance was I think the issue is what about the lots that aren inj you know what about the one that's sticking out there that's 2.2 acres and we could get a house on it more tax Bas more residents do we just say you can't build or do we do what they did for lots that are two and a half bers and they took a lot of exceptions to Front Edge all that stuff they just that stuff that didn't matter you didn't need a variance for that stuff so do we want to do that for the smaller Lots so it' be know one two and then add three or do we not and that's a council decision of course but I was curious what the turn and there are two lots right now out there that are smaller one of them we already voted on and there's another one just so everybody knows that are smaller that have offers on right now so just just so you know so I I'm done yep that is true there are offers out there we'll talk about that as we move forward do we have Jennifer on the line good evening Mr Mayor members of the council good evening um so I did prepare a that was in your packets uh at your last meeting would you like me to go through that as an overview or how would you like me to proceed well there's nothing wrong with doing that overview uh particularly in interested in the progression uh both Township to Township and County to City setting their own development ordinances so and how that's changed and you could even I mean you can go all the way over Jen you tell me what comfortable with in terms of covering this okay uh thank you Mr Mayor members of the council so what I'll do is I will try to keep it brief but I will kind of give a little bit of an overview of exactly what's in our ordinance today and then as well as sort of how it came to be or basically my understanding of how it evolved and came to be um so uh as council member Carr referenced uh we had a concept plan that came before us that we took a look at in terms of a substandard l or a lot that was less than 2 and a half acres uh and talked a little bit about whether or not variances would be acceptable on that particular property uh while you did indicate whether or not you would be comfortable with that or not there was no formal vote that was taken because it really wasn't an application uh what we had was basically an overview so I just want to make that clarification in case uh someone were to come back with that particular property uh there would be additional analysis that would need to be done to determine whether whether or not it would qualify under our variance criteria so um as it stands today in our ordinance we have a minimum lot size of five acres which everybody is well aware of uh and then we have basically a section that establishes some exceptions or exemptions uh for existing lots of record those exemptions are tied to specifically ordinance changes that occurred over time uh first in the township and then what were adopted by the city so uh those exemptions really were tied to when uh the city and at the time it was the township determined that it would go to five acre lot minimums um and so that five acre lot minimum was a doubling essentially of what the minimum lot size was up until that point so between the years of approximately 1968 and 1983 the minimum lot size in the city or the township at the time was two it was actually 2.25 Acres so 2 and a quar Acres prior to 1968 uh I don't have a record of exactly what the minimum lot size was however I do know that it was well below that from the standpoint of uh that was pretty Universal uh universally accepted because it was actually Prem Metropolitan Council so it predated when the Met Council was established um that's important because the Met Council was established in 6869 and one of their Prim primary charges when that that establishment occurred uh was that we had a sanitary sewer problem and we didn't have coordinated efforts when it came to sewers so uh in the late 60s they said we need to fix this we need to come up with some policies to protect our water bodies and to ensure that we're not contaminating groundwater and surface waters uh and part of that strategy also applied to individual septic systems which of course we know is what uh the city of Grant is fully on so from that perspective uh they established minimum lot sizes and at the time it was about two 2 and a half acres which is consistent with what then the city or the township at the time adopted so uh that minimum lot size was directly correlated to the policies that were going in place at the Metropolitan Council uh which was actually I think called the sanitary Su metropolitan sewer commission or whatever it was at the time uh and it was very deliberate and it was intended to ensure that we created Lots in areas that had appropriate or adequate area for septic systems to support those primary and secondary sewer or drainfields excuse me so from that perspective the the township at the time very closely followed what the regional policy was at that Metropolitan Council level as it was getting established and so between 68 and approximately 83 uh we had a minimum lot size that was in that two and a quarter uh standard uh to ensure obviously that we had those septic uh areas available for each of our Lots so so we've kind of got these three different distinct periods in time we have prior to 68 when we've got much smaller Lots in some cases we've got between 68 and 83 where we've got about two and a quarter minimum lot sizes then we fast forward to 83 that is when we get the minimum lot size of 5 Acres uh which is where we are today obviously and so um from uh what gets Exempted and what is an existing lot of record uh those periods are very important especially as we evaluate whether or not lots are buildable or not um and obviously that is just one piece of the analysis that we complete in terms of when that lot was created and so the exemption uh that exists in the ordinance today for lots that are 2 and a half acres at least two and a half acres mirrors that change that occurred uh essentially in 1968 and what our exemption also says is if it's less than two and a half acres then it must be combined with an adjacent lot of of common ownership which is what council member car was was uh identifying now over time you can see throughout the city that smaller Lots uh have been acquired by adjacent Parcels in fact uh it's it's a very common occurrence across the whole city uh and when we performed the analysis on our side uh we looked at it specifically for lots that were less than two and a half acres uh and lots that did not have common ownership with an adjacent parcel and during our analysis we identified approximately six Parcels that met that criteria all other lots that were less than 2 and 1 half acres uh were actually then had common ownership with an adjacent parcel and so we did not do an assess like a value assessment uh because that really doesn't fit into our analysis from a from a zoning ordinance perspective but what we did do is look at the common ownership the size of the lot and whether or not they were owned by Common Property Owners to determine how many of these isolated incidents or or Parcels do we have out there today and as it stands We believe We have about a half a dozen so you know if you Mar give a little margin of error we're somewhere in that 6 to 10 lot range if you will and so from that perspective um the exemption was very specifically tied to the history of the ordinance and and how it evolved from 68 to today um and so as it stands which is what we discussed when this property came forward a couple weeks ago or a couple months ago as it stands there is a process that if there's a lot that exists out there that we can go through um and that process is a variance process and it would be a variance from a specific standard so uh if for example someone came forward and they had 2.2 Acres uh as council member Carr referenced we would take a look at that and say that might be a deviation from that 2 and a half acre minimum um but if that parcel was platted prior to the time that we enacted the ordinance first of all and it was uh deemed buildable at that time which if it went through a plat process for example it likely was it met the standards Etc the deviation would be from the lot area uh and likely not from a lot of the other standards and as long as they could demonstrate that there was adequate area for septic systems Etc um we would certainly have to give a lot of um analysis to whether or not that variance criteria is met but it would to go through that variance process but it's certainly not establishing that any lot that is less than 2 and a half acres is not buildable um because a lot more analysis would need to go into that and it would require a variance um however uh there is that process that's available for those lots that do exist in that case so from that perspective the history becomes very very important even when we go through a variance analysis process um and and we would obviously tie it to what those major timeline thresholds were so 83 and 68 uh and whether or not the lot was created uh and what period of time in which it was created now as council member Carr suggests the other alternative would be to take a look at the ordinance and say we need to make some adjustments uh and we would rather see uh that you know exception statement you know instead of being two and a half acres uh to be some other number what ever that is whether it's one acre whether it's an acre and a half I don't know what it is but that would be another way to address it would be to change that exemption now the one thing I see with that and uh you know our our City attorney Mr Vivian could certainly weigh in right now we've got it very tied closely to the ordinance changes and to those time periods so we tied it to the fact that in 68 things changed and then we tied it to the fact that in 83 things changed um and our our lot sizes those exemptions were pretty closely tied to those changes both at the regional level and also the local level and so we would want to be very deliberate in why we would choose a different number because the number that is is given today it you can trace the history as to why those decisions were made so we would certainly want to take a look at that if we were to start making some of those amendments uh or changes so hopefully that summarizes everything that's in the memo I'm happy to answer any questions I know we're um going we're going way back in time here if we're all the way back in the 60s um but that is how far back we have to go to kind of take a look at where some of these standards came from so with that Mr Mayor I will toss it back over to you and I'm happy to answer questions all right thanks Jennifer that was that was good yeah there are going to be some questions at least I have some gentlemen on the end of the table Mr Geer yeah any changes we would make Jennifer would need to be approved by the Met Council uh Mr Mayor members of the council likely no uh they do not review our zoning uh ordinance per se but what they do get involved in is uh if there were uh you know a let's say hypothetically a grouping of lots that suddenly uh were being built at one acre or or 05 Acres or something of that nature um they do look at uh like plat monitoring and they start to look at build permit so it's not to say that they would review it um they would not have uh the authority to say we could or couldn't do it in our zoning ordinance uh but we are required to make sure that our zoning ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive plan so um we would need to be able to defend why that change occurred and why it is also consistent with our comprehensive plan um that likely would not come up um until we were to do our next comprehensive plan which would be uh 2030 which is actually not that far away when it comes to the comprehensive planning period but the the the short answer is no the zoning ordinance does not go back to the count or the Met Council however uh that's not to say that they would not become aware of it through other means so let's say they would become aware of it would that tend to um sway them more towards um looking at bringing in a public SE water to Grant or less so Mr Mayor members of the council I'm not sure that it would actually uh do either they very well might voice concern over smaller Lots uh to make sure that they can be adequately served um by septic systems uh the the main concern that they have especially um in areas that are not within the urban service area the or the long-term service area uh is ensuring that they're not going to be put into a position that they have to bail you out uh that has occurred over time that's actually occurred in quite a few communities uh in Lake you know Lake Elmo for example I'm sure you're familiar with some of those around the Lakes Etc the bailout situation becomes very expensive uh and it is not something that they want to uh have to enter into because it costs a lot of money if they do have to bail out then that is when they start to say we need to sewer more than just this bailout area to make the the cost of the pipe work so from that perspective uh they they may have something to say about it especially because in our uh Community designation we are supposed to be at four dwelling units per 40 acres uh but they also do acknowledge that there are certain times where we've got existing lots of record that predate several of the ordinances the comprehensive plan Etc so they're they're not likely to get involved on a oneoff basis for lack of a better way of saying it but if we had a collection of lots for example that certainly could become a a discussion item for them so we would need to make sure that if we were to make any changes we wouldn't want to put ourselves in a situation where be down the road requiring a bailout right absolutely you would want to prevent and and eliminate that to the extent possible so um and as we all know smaller Lots uh the biggest thing is making sure you have enough space for a primary and a secondary uh drain field and that is that's also state state rules 7080 which also requires that so from that perspective we have to be very careful to make sure that whatever lot size uh on that existing lot of record uh that that we would be consistent with both the state Rule and the M counil rule when it comes to that the uh lot line Readjustment process that we've used in the past where we have a larger parcel a small parcel same ownership they put them together in order to do a buildable lot what normally does that run someone doing a lot line adjustment just a guess is that $1,000 $2,000 to do the research to do all of it um it's probably in that neighborhood um I can think of actually over the last you know 12 or so years that I've been with uh the city that we've had actually I can think of I think three or four where uh folks have purchased the adjacent parcel or uh you know Consolidated or combined lots to get up to that two and a half acres particularly uh I can think of up in the with row area for example where we had all of these very small lots and folks said you know we want to make this buildable so they purchased additional smaller lots to get themselves up to a place where they would would get get up to that two and a half they met the standards going through the standard process avoiding the variance process right uh they achieved it through that that's correct um there's certainly I can think of two times maybe in the past uh 10 years or so where we've had folks who have said um I'm not sure if I can quite get there if somebody wouldn't sell them the property for example uh and it's in those cases we've talked talked about well uh if you let's say you get to two acres and you can demonstrate it's buildable um then you would need that variance from the minimum or from that lot size standard however um basically do your best to get as close as you can and actually they've ended up being able to get there um but we have talked to them about the fact that that would require a variance well to make it easier for people who may be watching people in the audience the way I tend to think about these types of things is it's it's a funnel you know the ones that have the land they have the 300 foot circle they have three 100 foot of Frontage they've identified two septic sites right they're in the wide part of the funnel as you go down further and further you get to smaller and smaller Lots that's where you get the variance processes and that is for lack of a better term a bit of a gamble because Jennifer and City staff are going to have to put a lot of time and effort and money into those land use applications okay so most of those aren't going to make it through the the fun those small ones it's just not going to happen people can buy them they can combine them they can they can do all kinds of things with them but making them buildable just as a part of actually redoing our zoning and trashing the comprehensive plan that that's pretty problematic and and I worry about that um once that happens what Jennifer didn't really get into and I wish you would have a little bit more was what happened in Lake Elmo and when Lake Elmo had permed all those smaller lots and their septics started failing because there was only one there's no place to put a second one what happens with the Met Council well they raise their hand and say we're coming in to save you here come the here comes the calvary well the calvary brings with it pressurized water and sewage and then you are forced to start breaking up these large Lots you are forced to become Woodberry or lake ELO or someone else and you have no choice this is the danger of not following comprehensive plan and making sure that your development rules are closely mirrored in that comprehensive plan and the way that the comprehensive plan is approved by the by the Met Council and is for lack of a better ter it's a Cooperative process but it is imposed it's imposed uh you know they're they're appointed by the governor so it isn't is an imposed situation and agreement so that's what I worry about the city already has multiple processes to handle this problem and I heard someone say well I don't want to get sued you're going to get sued if you tell these people they can build on one and all these other people spent money to combine lives right all these people spent money went through the planner and we followed your process and then you allow these other people to do this with none of the hassle none of the problems nothing else because you change 32 uh we want to be compensated it's what I would do I'd send the city a bill if you did that moving forward forward with this the process remains there for Citizens land owners to take the initiative to go for that variance variance is not an impossible process but variances are granted are they rare in this city yes they are because if the staff can't look at something and Jennifer made a good point you know it's two acres it's 2.19 it's you know those are probably more likely to make it through the funnel right they just make more sense they have two septic sites they probably get a 300 foot circle on they may even have all the frontage right um so those are more likely to get through um that's why it is frankly a real bad idea to move away from what we're doing right now it's a plan that has evolved as the city was a Township and the county was doing all permiting into its initial City phase and then as we move forward uh and we started to develop better and better policy that's where we sit now a professional planner who can look at this stuff so you know deviating from that is going to be a problematic on a number of different levels um the other thing I will say too and I I just want to wrap up my comments with this I did notice there were a couple of substandard lot sizes for sailing Grant and actually contingent and one of them said on there build your dream home and I'm like H someone doesn't understand what's going on here they have no clue what's going on so I got a hold of these guys and told them that neither I your neighbor anyone on this Council can tell tell you that those are both of the loots we do not know it has to go through that land use process in order to know and make sure that you're disposing this to everyone in this transaction you're a contingent so you better be disposing this stuff right and one of them said hey great thanks the other one I haven't heard from yet so we'll give him a call tomorrow and see what he has to say but uh this is a very dangerous thing to do the reason that they F was built up the way they are and they look the way they look and not like Grant at all is this exact scenario this scenario will the Met Council know we all know the Met Council know about five minutes after we do something like that we so uh further discussion John Tom gentle Jeff had his hand up unless you want no go ahead Tom um yeah for right no I I get I don't look at this as a pet C thing I mean talking six to 10 Lots scattered around the city of Grant that's that the mech Council didn't say we had to get rid of when we went to our five and 10 so that's and Jennifer said that um as far as doing the um you know the variances yeah I always generally we don't like variances in Grant and you just said it Jeff that you know it's very expensive for the residents and I just when I brought this up at the last meeting that's what I talked about I go why don't why don't we give them the same exemptions we give for two and a half acre LS you know I mean and as far as the septic goes those are they've improved a lot since the 80s and you can probably put just multiple different kinds of SE so so we don't give those the county does so it wouldn't be up to us so my my thing would be I didn't want to get variances because it's expensive for the residents there aren't that many scattered around I think it's kind of a non-issue with the Met Council I guess you have liers but that's fine um and so I thought we'd maybe clean it up a little bit put one more section in there just for substandard but if we can go through the various process what I agreed with everything Jennifer said and she said it's just so these lots are not not buildable they just have to go through your process so if that's what the council wants to do I was just curious what the attorney would say that that was my only other question I just wanted a legal opinion on that but I don't disagree with what Jennifer says and if the council wants to go with the variance process something don't do often then we can just do that individually for these lots and that's fine I just thought we'd save the residents some money and what it was heing so well I just want to make a quick comment and Jeff Stern first of all the Met Council does not make private lots and private ownership Lots disappear that's not within the pro you lot you got a one acre lot we're gonna make it go away because you can't build that's not what they do someone could do something else with it so they don't do that um the point of building on the 1acre lotc to make it just CST so clear is that the problem is not building up the problem is 10 or 15 years down the line when someone hasn't taken care of their septic their septic fails now they're sitting on a half million 3/4 million dollar house needs to be rescued how does that happen the same way it happened in Lake they come in ier I could I can if I can comment on that please yeah no they they don't do that worst case scenario they want you to build on a fresh piece of ground I've done this in multiple transactions in different people what if neighbor doesn't want a septic they don't have to sub so if the septic goes they can as a last resort dig it out Bring sand in and replace it in the exact same spot we've actually had some to do that so it's possible so I don't think it's going from the septic fail to City s and seity water I think there's some inter room spots but that's just I work with that that's all but I and again we're talking six to 10 lots are scattered everywhere yeah and who cares I mean that's my thought but that's fine someone definitely should have put about that go ahead um if you guys don't have any more questions for Jenifer I was gonna ask if we could hear from Nick yeah that was next I just want to get my question Nick we're gonna call you up and ask you a Lego question here certainly hi Nick who wants to go first Jeff I guess you um that's all right oh I I didn't I didn't know if Nick was gonna I'm ready but I thought Nick was gonna say presentation on this part this is Jennifer's okay so um Nick when we talk about like the potential getting sued is one of the um potentials is we get um sued by people that were forced to come find L as Jeff said is that a is that a reality and and I have a second part to that question too well I mean any anybody can sue anybody for for anything right I mean that's just kind of the world that we live in um you know that that being said I think your ordinance is is clear and I think Jennifer did a really nice job of of tracing the ordinance back uh to sort of the watershed moments in history which relate to smaller Lots um and you know I've been in in around grant for a long time um and one of the things that has always been a top priority is is keeping the density of lots the four per 40 uh intact and and uh just maintaining the the Integrity of of that degree of density uh which is where a lot of this is is born out of right you can you can have smaller Lots but you've got to Main mainin the the density we know that historically you know going back that there have been some some smaller Lots which is really what the existing ordinance solves for and provides a process for um council member car is not wrong when he says we can as a matter of policy change the ordinance that's you know if the council looks at it from the from the perspective of policy and wants to allow for smaller Lots or wants to change change the the density um it it can certainly do that it it has the authority um but that's a policy determination that that gets made by the council and I think that's how he he stated it uh early as as he was kind of talking about this um but the fact of the matter is that that these ordinances have been on the city's books for a long time um and so if if there is a sale of a small lot in the in the city of Grant uh it would certainly be advisable by anybody selling those lots uh to consider the terminology that they're using when they're marketing the Lots um and then secondarily before anybody uh buys a lot or uh puts in a non contingent offer uh without you know doing inspection or or diligence uh they should call the city and and make sure that the lot truly is is buildable um and it's it's not so easy as to say yes something buildable or no it's not you heard Jennifer go through the sort of the Litany of you know when is a when is a lot buildable or when is it not uh buildable what are the exceptions and the exclusions and and what might be eligible for for a variance so there's analysis that needs to be to be done there so I I guess with with everything as stated um in the ordinances of of the city um in particular like everything being tied to to well identified dates I I'm not overly uh concerned of the the risk of a lawsuit uh because the defense is is going to be the ordinance was on the books the city didn't change anything the buyer has the responsibility to do its diligence um the seller has the responsibility to to do their diligence um and if there are there are questions then they should be in contact with the city to discuss the rights and responsibilities and in fact you know over the last several years certainly in in my time uh dating back to about 2006 we we've had a handful of property owners ask you know is this particular lot buildable is it not buildable um and you always look at the circumstances you always look at how the lot was created and what the density was at the time of creation um and all these various different different factors so if if the council desires to to change it that's certainly within the council's authority uh but as it stands today particularly with a variance process available uh I'm not overly concerned about the risk of liability you done well I just said one more comment I reviewed the comp plan it didn't seem if we were to make any changes to allow more development would be consistent it's not they'll find out that's obvious so yeah and then they'll come in and bail us out at some point they would love to have us develop this just like L I think other folks might want to develop it too so uh Nick anything else to say on liability I'm not really worried about being sued by a buyer of a property um that is substandard needs to go through the process again buyer beware cavat for know what you're buying and there is a process if you do find yourself in that situation I will note the two lots I was talking about before are both contingent what they're contingent upon I did not know I did 20 years in the Real Estate Field retired I've seen these situations before you're better off making people aware what is happening so that we don't have lawsuits we don't have hard feelings we don't have people hurt I don't want to do that if you can prevent it you do it by disclosing so that was the only point on those two l Nick I get what you're saying um just just one other one other comment on the comp plan piece I that's a that's an excellent point um and you always have to make a determination as to whether your code is consistent with the comp plan it should be you know I tend to believe that the small lots are best dealt with on a from a variance perspective and if if somebody believes uh or desires uh to seek a a variance from the city then they they come in and they explain their their situation and and ultimately the council then maintains control uh over whether the the facts and circumstances support a variance and typically you know that's going to involve somebody coming in and saying hey this is this is not an issue of of my making this was a condition that existed you know well back predated I didn't have anything to do with it um and and so they're are seeking effectively leave or relief from from your code if you look at it in the reverse and if you were from a policy perspective to change the rules on on size then of course that would apply to all lots of of that particular size or Parcels of that P particular area um and the council would have no further say over uh those parcels and so you know just sort of thinking about the decision- making process you know would you rather just have a blanket rule that allows smaller Lots uh to be deemed buildable you know or would you prefer a structure that places the burden on the property owner to come to the council and request a variance or permission to deviate from the code when the circumstances warrant because they're beyond their control and they they create significant difficulties uh for for building so you know the more conservative approach uh would be to maintain the variance uh and and to utilize that process for dealing with this scenario uh but if you wanted to address all smaller Lots that's where you would you would potentially craft language that uh would allow smaller lots to be built upon thank you Tom yeah and thanks no I I agree with PA Nick side too I mean it's it's a it's just again when I brought the up was more of the variance part and you don't like I don't variances but also as Jeff said it's going to cost the residents who have those small lots more money which is fine I guess I don't like that one either but it's I could be um and then we do allow exceptions already for 2.5 so um these lots are also scattered or six to 10 that's all we're talking about we don't have a ton of them and so I thought it would be better for the residents to do that but however that is fine if uh we just want to keep it the same way I I totly understand what they was saying um residents will just have to know that and I agree with Jeff because when that lot came up that we we kind of turned down at the last meeting not turned down for Jennifer we didn't turn it down we but I first thing I did a client called me and I client a resident called me says this is for sale can they build there it was a neighbor I called him back I said I don't know and so I called the agent and he went through the process and went through the land use application and because I said just what up said you know you better know before you try to sell the something because that we don't want that we don't want them buying it coming in here begging and cing they were going to build I don't want that and it JS up same thing so and this other one I also talk to so yeah and they know that too so um but yeah no it's fine then but that's I just wanted to make sure we talked about it got a legal perspective and uh thanks for Jennifer and Nick for weighing in on that that makes total sense I kind of know where we stand with it anyway so and that in my opinion I change it but that's I don't think the council's going to it's fine we don't have to you change it back to the I think I would no no no all I would do is add that third section because we have a five and a half five acres we have B if it's you can combine between two a half which I I'm 100% agreeing with but then the section is what if you can't you know and then just add something there with the same exemptions that the twoa paper Lots get for Frontage and all that stuff and and the one bottom line because we're all concerned about the sewer and I hear that about the Met Council and everything but we don't give out sewer permits the county does so if you can't build on it you can't build on it and we don't give variances for sewers SE so so any just what I'm saying I I agree with what next said we could just leave it as variances at the so it's what I heard also was that the smaller lots are not not Vis that's what I heard so now we know that the uh just so everyone understands we do not give out SE the per yeah but if you come in here for a variance and a 1.5 acre lot there's going to be a development agreement that you're not turning a shovel full of dirt and until you have two per that's the way it works okay we may not issue them but we can put together a development agreement that protects us from further headaches and frankco the Homer moving forward right that's requ allots it's a way to say it's a development agreement what I'm saying is that every lot has to do that and on that type of size lot you would have to go ahead and be extra careful to make sure that that happened before someone got hurt is my entire Point Jeff and then let's let's get this fin done what are we gonna ask for a a vote or if no one's interested there's no motion on the table what do you want Council mord you would aming I'll second deny any changes to chapter 32 keep it the same second there you go hi hi hi hi thank you Kim moving forward we have nothing for a City attorney under new business uh June 20 or June 4th 2024 city council meeting minutes Ben will need you to abstain on this one oh that's sit outside okay yeah get out of that's right I wonder why this was in there like that um have to go ahead and approve those because it's in the same month like this so I need a motion to approve those minutes I'm sure we've all read them with relish I'll second second hi hi hi good job yes thank you uh let's move on here real quick uh consideration of the community Festival Mr Ro go ahead please we had discussed uh several meetings about some form of uh getting the city to sponsor a and to Institute the tractor parading and we've uh dealt with some things on a budget site and we have a quote from as part of the uh things from the gas house very Hunter and the owner has graciously uh put together that quote for us to use the property to use the adjacent land where that they do not own uh where we used to park the tractors stage the tractors allow people to park and um and I think there's there's two aspects that we have to discuss is you know is is the uh legal aspects of parking there and having the city sponsor parade something that we want to talk about and the second thing is uh the budget for such track so I guess I know that uh Nick had mentioned something about this I think I asked himim to forward some of this information to Nick and uh did Nick have some information that he had worked through regarding uh some of the uh information that they that the G house sent I think that's a great first question to start with John because on something like this the city's never done this before so this was done by private individuals we would be picking that up and running forward with it so I think you're you're absolutely right to look for the legal aspects of this first and Nick I'm also interested in that if you have some things to say on this can you hear us Nick find my unmute button here yeah yeah yeah so I I appreciate the The Proposal um I I think these community events are are always sort of challenging particularly in in small communities um where which don't have uh a lot of Staff uh to facilitate an event like this so I mean at at a high level I I I look at this type of event um and my first question is always who's going to facilitate the event who's going to administer it um are we relying on Kim and the council are we required are we relying on folks uh that we're we're paying uh to to do work are we required are we uh required here uh to rely on on volunteers um because you know presumably you're going to be dealing with a fair amount of people um and there's a lot that goes into um an event of this type you know particularly if if we're looking at at a parade um and then hosting 200 people um at a restaurant so that's that's kind of my my first question you know as we kind of work through it then I I appreciate the The Proposal that's been uh provided by the the G house um and I I look at it from the perspective of of what do we as a city need to do uh to police parking uh what do we need to do to police participants um and folks that are that are there um you know certainly they want the city to indemnify and hold the property owners free and harmless from any and all liability um occasioned by this use of the property owner's land I I'm not exactly sure what that means uh because presumably uh the Gast house will be serving uh these 200 or so folks that will be attending and and participating or you know at least that that's their their estimate um and so you know if if if we as a city are expected to indemnify the operator uh that means we're we're responsible for for ensuring that this thing or or an event of this type uh goes off without a hitch and and ultimately that uh there is no liability because the last thing that that we'd want to see um is some sort of a claim against the city or some sort of a claim against the G house uh that ultimately we would be indemnifying uh the operator uh against um and and so you know and they go on to say in their letter uh that we would at our sole cost and expense defend the property owners uh in any case uh where there is a suit brought against the property owners um under circumstances where the indemnification applies so again that's you know from my perspective operationally that becomes a significant challenge um and then as we kind of work through the The Proposal thinking about the use of a particular space uh within the facility um a fenced in area for for lunch um checkin of entrance again you know we're not particularly staffed for that um and so then the question becomes com how many volunteers do we need how many people do we need to pay um and just how are we doing that and how are we ensuring uh that uh things are going as as they should um question with respect to you know who's responsible for ensuring that the adults at the event are responsible uh well we would expect that everybody participating would would be responsible um if we are indemnifying uh the G house uh then ultimately we're taking on that responsibility and and liability for ensuring that that all guests and and participants of of the city um are in fact being responsible and and we're making decisions if if there are any issues uh that we're going to step in and take responsibility for for removing or correcting uh folks that are not acting uh as we as we might like so you know unfortunately my job is to spot risk and and to be the the cynic in these situations um and if we did this sort of thing all the time and we had staff uh that could manage and and facilitate a party of of 200 without issue um you know I might think otherwise but uh this is from my perspective biting off a a fair amount of liability indemnifying the G house for everything that happens on site and agreeing to defend them against any liw that they might have as as a result of of any suit that's that's brought um that's you know that's a lot of risk for the city um and certainly from a policy perspective uh I think worthy of consideration by the council uh before agreeing to host an event of of this type so Nick I'm going to jump in here um I think the thing that we were only asking you you don't have to worry about volunteers or anything like that we are simply asking you is is there some boiler plate that you could have so that the owner of the second property where we park not the gas house is simply the owner of the second property that wants to be indemnified not the gas house not the guests it is just the parking at that second property that the gas house does not own that's all we're asking don't worry about volunteers don't worry about those things that's that's we've got that okay so can you put boiler plate together that says that if you sign up or you go eat that you have to sign up and especially for the tractors that are parking there and the people that park there um that they have to sign this boiler plate that says that you will not Sue this property uh across the street from the gas house where you're parking that's I think the question that is presented I can let me let me answer that question first and and then let me respond to sort of the limitation of of the scope so could we put something together you know sure is it the city's role to put together a waiver for participants to sign in favor of the adjacent property owner um if if that's a directive from the council we could we could certainly we could certainly do that um I but I don't you know I don't think that's the the issue here I mean ultimately yeah we could we could draft a waiver it's just like if you go to a ball game or if you go to anywhere else where you've got to sign away a right uh to uh file suit uh we can we can certainly do that um you know how you administer that is you're going to have to have somebody out on that property ping out waivers that people sign on on people who park in that particular location sign on site um but you know we can we can get there uh through through drafting um I I don't think that's the sole issue here though because if you look at the letter specifically submitted by the gust house it it has a number of these other issues sort of woven within the proposal where they're asking the city to take on indemnification um and and liability so that's the only reason that I commented on those points because ultimately those are those are risk issues from a legal perspective that the council should consider i i i Nick maybe I'm I'm not a lawyer but it seems as though the only thing that they're asking is about the property across the street from the gas house can you reference a specific language that you're concerned with regarding the Gast house and acceptance of liability in the city's Park please that me trying to yeah I'm just looking at the letter so first the city requests to use the field east of the gas house across from Lofton Avenue Gast house does not own this property um hang on I got one it says the property owners yeah so so essentially what they're what they're asking and and if if this does relate solely to that field that's that's fine but it's still asking the city to provide a written indemnification keeping and holding the property owners free and harmless of any liability and so you know specifically with respect to that to that property it's this isn't necessarily a situation where they're asking that the those that park on the property uh sign a waiver and release the liability that would be presumably that would be the city agreeing to indemnify that property owner seeking waivers from the people that park there that say that they won't sue the owner of of that property because we're asking because if they do then we're going to be responsible right so I mean we're we're trying to I I if if what I hear is if I'm hearing it correctly we would be asking for a waivers for our own protection because we will have agreed in this respect to uh hold the owner of that property harmless if there are in fact any claims against that that owner so it it does put the city directly in the middle of that particular issue with respect to the field east of the G house um where they would park I guess yeah thank you Nick we try to keep it quick here and release a snc t well to to um John's point I think it says owners not owner is there one owner of the field or two was the from what I gather it was the father passed away now the sons were Sons so it's one property so when you say owners that would be could be misconstrued to be the G house and that property it's just the property I know but it says owners that's poly phras s right um Nick a couple other questions for you uh I forget the name of the particular liability and insurance insurance that covers it but when you serve alcohol for money there's a particular type of insurance that you need to make sure that they're not overs served and they cause some type of Mayhem on them leaving the bar is that something that the gas Cy would be responsible for even though we have our residents we paid for them to be there and if they're drinking alcohol it's a complex litigation nightmare it seems like to me I don't know well you're yeah you're you're talking about dram shop liability for for over over service I mean that that's certainly one issue that we would want to talk to the guest house about is you know presumably how they would how they would operate this is a City Event a public event held at a private um establishment again you know what responsibility are we taking versus what responsibility are are they taking obviously ly they would serve um and we would not be responsible for that but but where does where does that split happen I mean are we required to do anything um are we are we required to to Marshall um uh participants or is that the gas house role uh ultimately to uh serve 200 and and also you know make sure that that that it's only the two people the 200 people who are invited on behalf of the city and nobody else is is in uh or whatnot so I mean it's just without knowing more uh it's it's really hard to say where those lines are going to be because obviously the G house will be responsible for some aspects uh but presumably the city will be responsible for other aspects uh of the operation of this event okay another question for you I uh hung around one of these one they actually close down mcusic for a portion and then go up to the other Road I forget the name of it but um would police be required would we have to actually hire police officers to actually direct traffic keep traffic from running into the parade I mean is that something that we would need well presumably traffic control of some kind would be required not necessarily law enforcement but you're going to have to have you know clear DeMar of what's open and what's closed what the detoured routes are if there is a if there is some sort of a detour um but you know obviously you're going to have to have parade staff uh who are either City staff or volunteers uh directing traffic okay was concerned about that in terms of again if they're directing traffic to get run over it's going to be our problem if it's police they're covered through their own insurance and the whole thing which is usually the reason why you have police at these things and not volunteers uh in a yellow vest so just wondering on that other questions gentlemen one other Jeff one other thing I'm sorry I should have mentioned Mr Mayor uh the con concept of a limitation on attendees is somewhat challenging in the municipal sense in that the council should consider if it's going to spend dollars on a public event that those are those arex taxpayer dollars that are that are being um allocated um and if there is a if there is a cap and if more than 200 people want to participate uh but you do have that that cap there's sort of an interesting conflict between spending public dollars for the benefit of the entire public uh and a a limitation on who can participate based on effectively who shows up first getting to your getting to your cap so there's a bit of a conflict there um if in fact we are looking at a at a hard cap on an event like this I I don't know if uh just J in I don't know if there's going to be uh the tickets all that stuff I think every resident that wanted to go should be able to go and so I'm sure that the gas house has overage uh plann and if we needed more we would have more so I'm not going to say that only people that that that are on the tractor parade are the only people that can eat because I'm sure that there's people on the parade route or local houses uh that are part of it that would want to go to the gas house so I'm not going to you know I don't think the ticket scheme is going to work I think we need to open up to the citizens and everybody that wants to go could go and we'll have to work that out but I don't think having a having a a person at the gate checking tickets is the right way to go I would agree but um to that point I'm not sure if they if the gos house really understands based on that letter what I read in that letter I don't know if they understand all what's involved in pulling off something like this mentioned that there would be no volunteers needed um but so who's going to do to me it seems like if we could get a uh project management plan from them like to understand everything that needs to be done who will be responsible for the activities when will these activities need to be done um so that who what why when where any dependencies and then you know who's responsible for the cost I'm not so much worried about the cost in the budget I think we could find that just me the the planning and scale of this you mentioned now that you know this might be much bigger than the intended how are they be able to handle that if if we see some more concrete like project plan type information from them where they have these contingencies know parking Insurance signage police U printing Flyers how they you know all these things if we saw um more detailed information on that then I uh I think would be um uh better for us to make this yeah I don't know if they are responsible for flyers or Billboards or posters um I think that's probably in the cities plan for the budget I think that's us uh I think the volunteers I mean they have the volunteers for you make my point that we need we need a project plan to say who's going to do it right but I think the volunteers we need to you know have have H volunteers from the city to you know and and to just point the uh I think a police officer to at stationed at uh ausk to stop the traffic from going where the parade route's going to go you know all you have to do is think back yeah and I'm not just I'm not trying to I mean I'd be willing to volunteer to do some of these things I'm not trying to PO through the idea I just think that we need to um be really organized about make sure that Godel understands what they're stepping into yeah and it's very clear as Nick said who's doing what when it's gonna be done and who's responsible for the liability so to Jeff point this is I just was listening it but yeah I mean I think if you're going to be an event center which I don't know if the gas house is then you need to be an event center and and you we shouldn't be asking all these questions they should just have it all ready to go and this is what it's going to be this is what it's going to cost you want to have an event come and to have an event if you're not at Event Center and then you're dabbling in it comes very problematic for everybody and a lot of work and so I I just that's my only thing I I know what I know what John's saying I just I certainly don't want to I said I want to get sued I don't want any problems with that especially for the city but there's all kinds of things that that come up that Nick said that I tend to agree with on the other hand and um you got to start somewhere so maybe it's not this year maybe it's next year maybe the Gest house gets a plan together so if they want to have EV they used to have events they had October 1 so I'm done hang on a second guys they Washington yeah dir traffic they also paid them they don't come free and then I guess to your point that you can't limit it um everybody should all of Grant residents my question would be how was how are you because we had the same thing at up we have start asking for driver um I had been to that event with one one time and not that I know everybody in Grant but I would guess probably Happ them or not from Grant um and my concern would be based on the proposal if you do open that up to everybody and Everybody Eats U what are those costs in that could easily double especially if you're getting other res Ben no go ahead Ben I have a question for Nick if you can so I was just reading through it and they mentioned serving alcohol to the people driving the tractors what is our liability of something happening during the parade like where do we stand on that and what would we be opening ourselves to the actual serving is after the okay you don't know if they're drinking in the parking lot beforehand before they get on trail we're just looking for you know open the of alcohol I know yeah Nick do you want to go ahead and just answer that if there was some Ty alcohol related accident on the road does that liability transfer to us it's our road how does it work well it it depends on whether we've done anything to contribute uh to the accident so I mean if it's a if it's a rogue actor that that drank alcohol prior to and and you know we've seen some of these things before where somebody drives off the road or something like that that's probably not going to be our issue if we had nothing to do with it um if we though had a situation where we were directing traffic and one of our volunteers didn't direct traffic properly and there were um a car tractor Collision or something to that um effect then we may have some liability so it's it's a question of you know whether we've got it sufficiently planned out so that ultimately we're eliminating the the major risks um and if something intervenes it it intervenes and that's that's somebody else but you know again it doesn't it doesn't stop a claimant from making a a claim that the city negligently designed its Parade route or negligently did did something uh but that's what you have insurance for so uh but it it is a matter of having a sufficient plan and I think there have been a number of of comments uh to the effect of you know let's let's take some time and make sure that we've got the details planned out if we're going to do something like this that we've got all of our bases covered uh so that we you know we know exactly what the what the risks are um and I would I would Echo that sentiment than you yeah okay um Nick just I want to go back to the waivers for a second you were talking about people attendees showing up and having to sign a waiver um and this I may be getting deep into the weeds here name but if we issued tickets with the waiver on the back and those tickets were taken out a gate would they not have agreed to the waiver well it it depends there's there's case law that certainly doesn't prefer required waivers in order to participate right so at least if I go to a Twins game I'm making the the conscious decision that I'm going to pay my 50 bucks and I'm going to I'm going to go in um and those are you know it's it's my dollars here if I'm required to sign a waiver to access a City Event where taxpayer dollars are being spent um I I think there's an argument that that waiver may not may not hold uh water just given the fact that I'm accessing city services that are available to to everybody else I shouldn't have to wave my rights to Avail myself of use of those taxpayer dollars so um it's it's not automatic certainly okay all right that tells me a lot about the liability aspect of it in terms of using City dollars and and I will Echo the sentiment I think everyone Tom or attorney and the gentleman don't here are perhaps looking for more detail uh would like to see gas produce a stepped set of pricing depending on the amount of people that come um if we're sending if I'm spending these people's tax dollars I think I need a little bit more detail than this so that's that would be kind of my position on it Jeff and you know kind of along those lines this has been done before it's not like you know it's it's not you know insurmountable task have the people um that are currently um under the ownership the owners of God's house now were they do you know John were they um part of the prior thing so they have a template to follow yeah they have they have the that's where the numbers came from okay uh they said that that they've done this in the past for 200 so they handled all those things that we the signage the police all that stuff well they didn't provide posters they didn't provide whatever was you know what I mean though they they provided food speakers the sound systems that all the stuff that was used before um they the other things that were on the people those posters that were sent uh bul to every resident uh and the the uh Banner that was on the corner of 96 in was okay so those are the things and then obviously the trophies that they they purchased now they did have Raffles to help defray some of those CS okay if you remember but way it would be nice to see those details to see you know how they pulled this out before and how they divy up the responsibilities and yeah Kim you don't need any sort of action on this we need to move on we're kind of beating this one to death a little bit May counc MERS at this point would like some of motion because it is anual that motion whatever you choose gentlemen looking for a motion you can approve you can deny you can say awaiting more information as not move forward with this at this time there we go Kim's always a good long suggestion it's your item what would you suggest you know it's it's we've we've been doing this since I think March um and now it's the end of June and now we're looking for more information it would have been nice when I first brought this up if you guys had mentioned that earlier we could have done this we could have pulled this off this year had we known all the information all these questions that we've been going through since March so I'm disappointed I'm going to put a motion out there to proceed we're good do you have a second I'll second it for discussion go ahead discussion anything me taking a vote here you can discuss it so what is proceeding proceed me wants to move forward with it he wants to Barrel ahead first week of September first week of September okay that's the motion then question for discussion it's up for discussion before we vote on it then I'll call a vote I have the information I need friendly Amendment just so um just we're gonna move forward with more information at the next meeting at final can we would you accept that okay so well it be the last time to John's point he didn't get enough we're going to get enough next meeting and make a decision how's that um is that okay okay well that's you accept it you accept the friendly okay real good I no nope not no way to do it all right 2025 budget work session Kim you have something planned out you got a date in mind [Music] IE an hour or a half hour I think that's up to you guys but with the cost of everything you know High you might need more time so I am proposing your meeting is August 6 5:30 5:30 right before the before the meeting yeah we come in real quick and discuss it John you have a question for um I'm just gonna say I I will get all the information to you gentlemen before the August meeting okay okay yep this seems as though I'm I'm not to be here for the if you need help you're you're not going to be here for the next meeting not for the AUG meeting okay mayc members I would that we need that information right I will put that okay 5:30 yep yep Kim will let you handle the assessor appointment why don't you go ahead and make a motion so same trans Arcy and announcing meetings for the August gr session you'd like me to what make a motion on that my God we already second thank you hi hi May sure uh mayor council members consideration ofor appointment at your last meeting you appointed an assessor private accessor Ted Anderson Ador Anderson um I had been in touch with him throughout the month got the paperwork in got everything submitted he contacted the county uh they needed some stuff from the city to put him into the system the next day he sent an email that said he does not have time and I sent that out to you I likeed them a lot I did uh respond to him on Monday was on Saturday and said I would very to hear that may I ask what changed your mind about working in the city of Grant and he said I was looking at my summer and fall schedule and realizing that I wouldn't be able to provide the quality of work that I would expect to provide in the time aive so that being said um we had another proposal from Patrick uh poek po yeah his pricing was 276 we had a proposal from the county at 38700 and I did get in touch with the Delwood Birchwood Marine St Roy um assessor private assessor his name is Chase but there just was not time for him to give me a proposal it's tonight um can we I knowly so we can't wait to hear from those guys you know I guess I would that can you go assess for a month I don't think so because it's on a cycle and it starts you'd have double work toang got is Nick on the line or not Nick we still got you I'm here yep okay Kim has a question for for you believe on the assessor uh Nick if the city's assessor his license expires the current Tod Smith license expires June 30th and we wait another month the city Waits another month to a point an assessor in uh August is there an issue with not having an assessor for a month other than the cycle and the timing no no no I mean I you know obviously there's nothing we can we can do about uh Mr Smith and and when his license uh expires and you know either we have somebody appointed to replace him on that date or or we don't I you know certainly I'd recommend doing it um as soon as as possible but if if we need to wait until August we can certainly wait until August Nick we have two other proposals on board which which the council has gotten all that information it's it's from the county and another uh private assessor and that was all presented last month to the city council the only reason the council might want to consider waiting till August is to get pricing from another private assessor but again that would put the city without an assessor for a month and Tom first hang on a second did you have a question my my question to Kim is did that person that you found seem interesting yes well then I love and it sounds like they had um experience in the area you know surrounding areas that again I just would like for ni to comment on it's okay we can table Yeah the the yeah I'm sorry but I the only the only question I would have is is whether we need an assessor to do any work during the next month so as not to get behind um on any deadlines if you know if that's the case then we should move forward with an approval of one of the recommendations if we can afford to wait um and if it's not going to create any issues with the assessment deadlines then you know you're certainly welcome to to wait for another month yeah makes sense Nick him just real quick question if we were to hire an assessor is there time in our in our assess timelines to make that a reasonable assessor you've worked with them for years and years is there enough time left if we hold off for a month and they get all the assessments done and reported to the county in time yes that's not done until like next January it depends on their workflow that be starting a month late great thanks thanks for answering my question I appreciate that Jee you're next Tom go ahead oh thank you Jeff um yeah I've had assessors do a lot in two months so here here's the other thing so you you talk to you know this other assessor that wants to put the bid in I'm assuming they're going to be probably comparable to the we don't know okay because the only thing I would like to do to clean this up just for my B I mean I would trusting with you talk to them they're working in De with they working era make a motion if the I would make a motion if the council would accept it that we go with that assessor as long as the pricing and everything was comparable to the other two private assessors we had and then we wouldn't have to worry about it if it's not then we don't and then we can revisit it in a month so I don't know if that's something we could do Mayers if you do that you certainly can I would put a cap I wouldn't use no no no no I know I know and so what what was I can't remember what was p uh Patrick was 276 um think the same so anything under 30 30 exactly 30 bucks and if it is 30,000 or 30,000 I'm sorry all right I thought it was per per parel no well that's what that equals oh got it I got it okay so so if if the council would uh want to Pi a motion like that I would make um can I make a motion no you can one's on the table right no I'm just asking I'm just the coun if you wanted to I'll be quiet we're gonna hire an assessor let me make sure I understand yeah we're going to hire an assessor who we've never met haven't seen any paperwork on haven't checked his references have no idea if he's at a certain price no no that Kim talks to him and makes sure we get and we can get the information he's at the right price you don't have to delay we've done it before on different things why not no we can I just was trying to clean it up yeah I kind I kind we don't need to clean up that's fine I'm just was asking we got I make a motion we table for decision next yeah then we have all of our we have all our ducks in motion table I'll second it there you go hi hi hi any unfinished business cam nothing any updates city council reports gentlemen uh one thing do we have to vote on this resolution fores was AGA could remember all right city council reports Mr corn that time going to have you read our community calendar for the city please right uh public school board meeting Thursday July 11th and July 25th M District education center at 7M Stillwater public school board meeting Thursday July 11th at Stillwater Hall 7M Washington County Commissioners meeting Tuesdays Government Center 9:00 am. with that I make a motion to adjourn we have a second second nice all right thanks Kim all done good job