Good evening and welcome to the Newport City Council meeting. Today is Thursday, December 18th, 2025. We'll begin the meeting with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Will staff please call the role. >> Council member Schmidt >> here. >> Council member Sumar >> here. >> Council member Ingamman >> here. >> Council member Taylor. >> Mayor Elliott >> here. Next on our agenda is to adopt tonight's agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda this evening? >> Hearing none. Do I have a motion? >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> I have a motion from Council Member Sumar and a second from Council Member Schmidt. Any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. The agenda is adopted. Next on our agenda is public comments. This is where members of the public can address the city council on any local government topic that is not included on our regular agenda this evening. This is limited to items that are relevant to City of Newport affairs policies or practices. We ask that you come to the podium, state clearly state your name and address for the record and to limit your comments to about three minutes. Generally, the council will not take any official action on items discussed at this time, but will refer matters to staff if appropriate. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak during public comments? Seeing no movement, we will move on to the consent agenda. Um the consent agenda is items that are considered to be routine by the city council and are all approved in a single motion. There will be no separate discussion unless a council member or citizen so requests, in which case the item will be removed and considered at the end of the consent agenda. Are there any changes to the consent agenda? We'll >> move the consent agenda. >> I have a motion from council member Ingramman and a second from council member Sumar to adopt the consent agenda as presented. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. The consent agenda is adopted. Next on our agenda is the engineers report. We have city engineer John Herdigan with us this evening. John, >> good evening, mayor, members of the council. Two items for formal consideration this evening. both partial payment uh requests for ongoing projects. Uh the first is our 2025 street and utility improvements. Uh this partial payment is uh vastly made up of stored materials. Uh these were the materials that the contractor has purchased and was not able to install uh during the construction season. So they are stored on site and we've documented the uh both the that all the materials are there and have receipts for the value of those materials. So the partial payment application in your packets has a has a schedule 1.1 that that details out all of the uh value of those uh materials as they are reinstalled or as they are installed next year. Uh we will pay the the balance of that uh unit price for these these materials. So, the uh the partial payment request uh from Meyer Contracting uh for these store materials is $180,921.76. We would look for council consideration on approving partial payment number six. >> Any questions for John? Do I have a motion to approve that partial payment? >> I'll second. I have a motion from council member Ingamman and a second from council member Sumner uh to approve the partial payment to my contracting and the amount listed by our engineer. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. >> The partial payment is approved. >> Next is our uh partial payment for the water system interconnection project. Uh quick update on the project. We do have our flow meter that will be installed uh as the water enters in from Cottage Grove. Uh we are hopeful that we get some uh some above average temperatures to go run out and uh install that. Should take uh a day or two. Uh we are waiting on an electrical service uh to be installed for the Cherrywood or adjacent Cherrywood development uh which we are expecting in late January early February. So when that in or installation uh is complete then we can get our control panels wired and uh move to uh getting that project started up. Uh the partial payment uh that is before you this evening uh includes a variety of of work items this uh now that the contractor is uh is not actively uh constructing. they're getting their uh files in order and so they've requested some uh additional quantities that we've verified in the field and uh and those are listed on the partial payment application in your packets. The the requested amount from uh A1 is $46,600.73 cents. >> Thank you. Any questions for engineer on this? Do you have a motion to approve? >> I'll move second. I have a motion from council member Sumar and a second from council member Ingamman. Um all those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. Partial payment number four is approved. >> And that's all I had, but I'm happy to stand for questions. Mayor, >> I think we'll move on to our next agenda item. We've got quite a bit on on this evening's uh calendar. Um so next we have the administration report. I will >> Right. Oh, I'm sorry. Super. Oh, well, you're on the naughty list now. >> Sorry, Superintendent Public Works. You're way at the bottom down here. >> Uh, good evening, Mayor Elliot and Council members. I have nothing formal this evening. Uh, but I do have two updates. Uh, one, we received notification that we received 124,000 in uh, from Met Council for the private INI grant, which will go towards the Third Avenue reconstruct project this coming year. Um, we were the third highest recipient out of 21. So, that was pretty pretty great. So, um, John and Joe and I have all been working on those. are pretty well practiced now. But uh so uh and then our my other announcement is that we plan to open the skating rink on Monday. Um and the just a reminder the hours are 4 to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 1 to 9 on weekends. So, um, like I said, the ice won't be perfect, but we'll, uh, it'll definitely should be skatable, and we're, uh, fighting the the thawing temperatures, but, um, like I said, this is the earliest that I can remember being open in quite some time. So, we're pretty excited about that. But, >> did we have any, um, water mane issues with that cold snap we had a couple weeks ago? >> Not yet. >> Okay, that's good. Well, I think all of the repair work that we're doing and stuff is we're kind of tackling some of those um areas that have had a lot of breaks in the past. So, >> correct. Yeah. So, with that, I'd be happy to stand for any questions. So, >> thank you, Matt. Now, we'll move on to the administration report. >> Mayor, members of the council, we have a number of planning items tonight. Uh first one is a variance for Red Rock Manor, and I'll hand it off to our city planner, Nathan First. >> Thank you, Joe. So, uh, we're looking at a variance for the first, uh, planning item here on your agenda. So, this is a a variance request for the Red Rock Manor property. I'm going to go pretty quickly through this presentation in the interest of time, but if you do have questions, feel free to jump in and stop me. So, uh, just as an overview, uh, Red Rock Manor is at 1421th Avenue. Common Bond Communities owns the property and is the applicant here. Uh the the reason they're coming in front of the city uh to request a variance is they're actually requesting to do quite a bit of work on their property that uh kind of stems from some water damage that happened about a year or so ago. Um you know, they're proposing some pretty significant site improvements here. Um not only fixing the building, but also improving the site, including the parking and drive areas. Storm water features are being put in, and there's some landscaping down uh proposed as well. So, uh, the site you can see, uh, on the aerial on the screen, and we can always come back if you've got questions. Zoning here is R2, which is the urban residential district. Um, really the constraints on site are that we have, you know, buildings and stuff already in certain locations. That provides us with some constraints. The impervious proposed overall with the resulting condition here is 51% which is below the overall maximum of 60. So, the big constraint here that they're dealing with is that we've got a a requirement in the city code for driveways that are two uh two directions, one in one in each direction, one lane in each direction. Uh those areas have to be 24 ft wide. And we also have a setback for for driveways from a property boundary of 5T. And so I'll show you kind of the image here is the um the drive that's being actually increased in width is is still not quite hitting 24 ft. In order to hit 24 ft, it would actually have to go into a 5-ft driveway or that setback for the drive area from the abuing residential property. And so in this case the the better compromise felt like having a 22 foot wide drive and allowing that snow storage area that 5ft setback to maintain be maintained. So uh that is the fundamentally the request here in front of you. There are as I mentioned other site improvements being proposed and so you can see here they're going to be um rehabilitating the parking and drive area south of that um variance. We've got landscaping proposed on site as well that's going to come in as they're uh completing their improvements. So that's that's definitely a benefit. Um both uh new trees and fencing in addition to uh a patio improvement on the property are proposed. So pretty significant improvements all around the site. Um these are in addition to storm water uh management improvements. So uh pretty good um benefit to uh to the site as a whole. As we review for variances, we look at the comprehensive plan and zoning. We also look at um the practical difficulty test. And so, um there have to be unique property circumstances that are unique to the situation. Um and they're not going to be through issuance of the variance variance altering the essential character of the area. So, I think we're good. Um we held a public hearing at the planning commission. We did get a couple of comments from residents. Um, there were some that were actually in favor of tree removal in this case for dead trees. Uh, we also got some questions on access and so I would just remind you that there's no access new access being proposed in this area. Um, they're going to keep, you know, current access points onto 10th Avenue and traffic should generally be the same. So, uh, we do we do have conditions that are proposed um by staff and that were supported by the planning commission. We have six of them. Generally, these are fairly standard conditions. Um, one condition just uh suggests that there's there be coordination between the property owner here at common bond and some of the neighbors with those trees that might be along a shared boundary if removed. So, that's what we've got proposed for you. Uh, the findings and conditions are found in resolution 202585. Well, I think this sounds like a good compromise. Um, do we have any questions on this for our city planner? Hearing none. Do I have a motion to approve the resolution 2025-85? >> I'll make them motion. >> I'll second. >> I have a motion from council member Sumar and a second from council member Schmidt. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. The resolution is adopted. >> Okay. The next item on administration report is the conditional use permit for 1750 Hastings Avenue. Uh this is a drive-through request. Uh specifically, it's a conditional use permit for a drive-thru. Uh this should be familiar to the council as we've discussed at a recent workshop. Uh what might be proposed here. So the location we just talked about that the applicant SGS holdings. I I see Sally is in attendance. So welcome. Um, we have specifically got a requirement in code for cups in association with drive-throughs. This drive-thru would serve a coffee shop and wine bar. Uh, just to be very clear, the drive-through is for the coffee shop, not for the wine bar. Joe tells me it's illegal to do that for the wine bar. So, um, here we are. Here's the site. Here's an aerial closeup in in case we need to refer to it. And here are those improvements that are proposed by our applicant. So you can see the drive-through would come in at the existing access location. Uh the access would be widened to 24 ft wide. Again, that's the city's standard for these areas. Um and then the drive-thru would come into the site and loop around uh to be able to get cars um close to that existing structure where there would be a new window installed for a drive-thru. Um so generally speaking here you're seeing mostly just improvements to the drive and parking areas on site. So we looked at the site plan. Uh here's a highle overview. Again this is an MX1 uh zoned property. The principal uses here are classified as restaurant with that cup for the accessory use the drive-thru. The building itself is considered the design the facades are non-conforming with respect to the ordinance but they're legal non-conforming. pre-existing. Um, in terms of parking demand, 26 spaces would be required based on the occupancy of the building and so that's being supplied on the plan. Uh, at this time it does not seem that any new lighting is proposed, but a lighting plan would be required. If so, um, specifically to, uh, noise the city does have to review for, um, any external speakers, and I know there are some speakers proposed, um, to pick up and, you know, work with people that are ordering, uh, through the drive-thru, and we'll talk about that. Um, signage is regulated by code, so you can have a sign um, 10 feet from the property boundary. It's currently proposed at 5T. And then landscaping, we do have some site standards for that. we would have approximately 10 trees required on site given the permeable area. So, um here's the bulk standards review that we've done. Generally speaking, the setbacks for this property are met by both the structure and the driveth through. So, conditional use permit criteria for review are generally summarized on this screen. And we can always come back to this if you've got any questions. I did want to get to the annotated um plan here that's on the screen. This is kind of summarizing some but not all of the conditions should this move forward. Um the I'll start from kind of the top to the bottom. So on the top you see an arrow pointing to where an ordering screen and speaker were initially uh proposed given the the narrative that was submitted to the city. Um given that that would be on kind of the wrong side if you're driving that that should be relocated into a new spot. That would be better for folks that are ordering and and maintain the egress from the rear parking lot. Um the uh the rear parking lot area has a pretty wide if you can see my cursor um point where you could have lots of potential issues with just people not quite knowing what's going on. So, we're uh suggesting a bumpout be uh located there to help um kind of consolidate traffic flow. Uh then as the ordering the lane wraps down to the ordering window, uh they're currently showing 18 ft and in coordination with um just review staff, the 12 foot standard feels most appropriate there. That's most common for drive-throughs. that would allow for a larger rain garden and potential storm water management or possibly allow for a little bit more space to relocate that ordering screen. Um going to the left side of the screen here, uh just noting that there is curbing required uh along parking areas per code and that currently that the sign appears to be 5T as proposed from the property boundary. Uh 10 foot would be the city standard. And uh just reminding everyone we do have an overhead power line in that corridor and so there could be height uh restrictions based on coordination with Excel. So um we we are proposing nine overall conditions for approval. Um this looks a little different than what we showed to the planning commission but it's been mostly just reorganized for clarity. Uh the first three conditions are more or less standard. Uh, one requires any necessary city, watershed or state permits. Two is all any licenses that are required or received and kept up to date. Three is uh requiring the property owner to just continue to make timely payment for property taxes and utilities. >> Four is um the the kind of the big one where uh we're we're talking about bringing the site either into compliance with or maintaining compliance with certain standards. So 4 a uh requiring rev revised site plan a civil plan that's compliant with parking circulation landscaping and storm water standards. Um parking areas bring being brought into compliance with code. That means like um curbing around parking areas. C is exterior speaker systems have to meet code. So again just focusing on where they're proposed that location of that speaker is probably of the most concern. And then not having the volume totally cranked up super loud. Uh having signage meat code, exterior lighting if proposed meet code, and any future site improvements needing review potentially if significant enough needing an amendment to this UB. Um one condition that we've added is just that queuing of vehicles does not create traffic impacts on Hastings Avenue. So hopefully they're very successful and they can get a lot of cars into the site and um if if there are a queue that goes out into Hastings, we will have to address that condition and see what we can do to to make make sure that we alleviate those concerns. Uh parking stalls being uh painted within a year of the use being established. Um so you can kind of see some of the other a little bit more again kind of standard conditions just making sure that we're meeting code. So uh that's what we have proposed for conditions. Uh the planning commission also held a public hearing on this project at its December 9th meeting. Uh we did not get any comments uh from the public on this project. So um staff are happy to recommend approval of resolution 202586 with the conditions and findings. >> Nathan, I have a question. >> Yep. Uh the neighbor to the north of this proposed site uh asked me if it's possible to get a some sort of a fence along the way uh like a privacy fence or something. >> Okay. Yeah. Um well there's a couple of options and I think maybe the property owner should also kind of speak to to this. Uh the city could require um a fence along the northern property boundary through the conditions of approval. >> Um fences in front yard areas generally shouldn't exceed 4T but then once you get >> behind the front yard setback so >> maybe in in just eyeballing this picture right around here getting up to about six feet tall >> and six feet is the max in this district. keep the neighbors happy. >> Well, it's it's one thing. It's Is that up for we discussing that or are we we >> just are we >> Yes, you're present. >> Yes. Questions for Nathan? >> We did. >> I've got some as well. Marv, did you want to go first or? >> Well, I guess I I just I guess that's I mean it's kind of the the COP is I guess it's does this use a drive-thru merit offense? I guess that's kind of the question. It's not whether it's is I guess I don't know. I guess I'm just trying to think about that is I just I don't like us to just require things just because the neighbor I mean it's I guess I guess I'm trying I'm just thinking about whether that should be a requirement or just an option. So I'll just kind of provide a little um guidance on just giving conditions in general. they should be reasonably tied to what's being requested and helping to resolve potential um nuisance or other concerns. So in theory, the city could consider a fence on that basis that it's helping to alleviate possible concerns, but it's up to the council as to whether that would be required. I mean, I could see it I could see it alleviating potential with the drive-through next to a single family. I could see that as a legitimate, you know, mitigating measure, I guess. So, I guess I'm open to the open it on that basis. But >> would But >> would the the fence wouldn't start at Hastings. It would be past the city property, what's considered city property. And >> yeah, so if the property owner were required to install a fence, uh they would only be able to do so on their own on their own property, potentially along a shared property boundary. You can see there is a 5-ft setback here. Um so there would potentially be a 5-ft area uh for the installation of a fence. I I I know we have the applicant here this evening and so you might also consider hearing hearing their thoughts on it, too. While we ponder the fence question, um, Council Member Schmidt, you had some questions. >> Yeah, I was actually going to start with the same and maybe what could help drive that one is the speaker location you mentioned. Where is that currently uh um proposed on on the sheet? >> So, we we got a a narrative that had an I'll call it an annotated um plan with it. And where the cursor currently is shown, generally speaking, is where there was an X noting that's where they wanted the the speaker. >> And on your red markup, you had indicated that that needed to be moved. Was there a recommendation for where that should be moved? >> Yeah, it's kind of it's kind of tough to um I think that might require a little bit of conversation with the applicant because it's kind of a tight area. So if you you sit on the left side of your car and so if you kept it where they were proposing it, cars would have to kind of come against the flow of traffic, right? So I'm thinking that um given we have extra space created by reducing this this lane from 18 ft to 12 ft. It could be possible that some type of um speaker is installed like in the middle of this area, but we haven't really talked with the applicant about that possibility. And I think they might want to have some influence on exactly where it goes. >> Right. I I think the crisscross traffic pattern is obviously one thing that just it does seem a little clunky and that's just difficult with the space and and I'm in favor of this by the way. I just that's one really clunky piece. The placement of that speaker though and that engagement and talking, no matter where you put that, it is going to be on the north side facing that neighbor, >> which is where I do come back. I I tend to agree um with with Tom on this, like I I do think some sort of mitigation there should be as part of this conditional approval in my opinion. The other part of this was the drive-through width on your markup version here. Is it 12 feet all the way around or just in that one section? And I asked specifically where you're adding this bump out. >> Yep. So, um, this is obviously not all the scale. It's kind of a rough drawing just for kind of illustrate things visually, but really as soon as you as soon as you start to wrap around here and turn towards the building, um, you know, you're driving on the right side, so you in theory could have um the 12oot lane start like right around where the cursor is. Now, the idea was you're going to have people coming and going from this rear parking area, and they need to be able to egress up, you know, up on the north side of the site. >> Okay. >> All right. >> So, if you a lot of times with drive-throughs, people call them like bailout lanes where someone's in line and they realize, I don't want to be in line anymore. Um, not all drive-throughs have them, but you know, we just want to make sure that, you know, maybe it's a little too late once you're over here, but you you could in theory turn around and leave. >> Okay. Um, I'm going to think on that one. And then the queueing of vehicles. Just cur how would we even enforce that? Like what would be I mean that's really an after the after it's in place type of thing. So that shouldn't even be on the CF then, right? Well, it's it's in there because I feel that we need an opportunity to revisit this should there be issues with traffic. >> How would we know there's issues with traffic? >> Vehicles are queued backed up onto Hastings. >> How's that reported? I guess I'm I'm looking for like specific metrics on how we capture this. Like how how can I confidently know the number of times it's happening with evidence and all that? Like how are you actually gonna >> Well, it's you know it part of it like with any enforcement thing, you got to verify it. So, it'd be photos of queuing on Hastings. I'm not suggesting that's necessarily going to happen here, but I did I did want to add some type of um condition into the cup to allow the city to revisit this. And that would be a conversation with the applicant. You know, I don't think that anyone's looking for issues, but if um we did have issues with traffic on Hastings, it would provide the city a tool to revisit this conversation. >> That makes sense to me. Thank you. Nothing else. Okay. Other questions or comments before we circle back to the fence question? Council member Sumar, >> as far as the volume of the speaker, is there are there standards for speakers? Is there do all McDonald's have a certain distance that they can be heard or is there a limit on any speaker outside as far as the the radius of the volume area? So, if you're going to measure speakers, it would be in terms of decibb. >> Yeah. >> I don't know if there's an industry standard for decibb of a drive-through speaker. >> I do I I do just know based on looking at the site plan that it's likely the speaker would be pointed to the south, which is good. Yeah. >> Because it'd be away from the residence. Um but um if you were to have to try to um you know enforce a sound issue, you'd probably be looking to place some kind of requirement of like beyond a level of decibb beyond ambient at the property boundary. Something like that that would be measurable. >> It's also two-way too. The person is speaking towards the property that's placing the order. So you've also got that variable as well. It's hard to measure. my speaker, right? >> And is it is it going to depend on complaints from the property owner in the north side? >> Most of the time um enforcement will be complaint driven in most in most cases. >> And then different people have different different sensitivities. some people and it depends on the hours if they if >> hopefully you'll be open early for people to get a morning coffee, but that person is a night night worker and they want to be sleeping till noon or something like that or on the weekends when a lot of people might be accessing this. Is there a time and uh date standard that's going to have to be incorporated into this concern, too? >> Well, um the city could place restrictions on hours of operation for the drive-thru. Um I wasn't suggesting that that be done, but that is a possible type of condition you could >> Well, I don't I don't want to limit them from operating at the time. People want to get coffee. Yeah, I think um this is all really good discussion. I think South Suburban Rental has, you know, large vehicles going in and out of there that people are renting trailers and and um you know, they've got some bigger trucks you can rent. They're probably going out at 7 in the morning as well, so fairly early. I think the speaker issue, it's so contingent on people's ability to hear and some people are younger and have good hearing and some people are older and have harder hearing and you're trying to find that speaker volume that, you know, accommodates a variety of people are going to, you know, want to come through and and order up a coffee. So, that's a little uh trickier. And you're right, if you know the speaker is a little further away from the property line by putting it with, you know, some sort of little burming around it so that it doesn't get knocked out um accidentally. Uh so I I kind of understand there's going to be some challenges with with this speaker. Um I guess the only the only option there is you change it to a touch pad like when you go to an ATM and you just order off something like that. Um, but I think that's probably pretty expensive technology uh to install and implement and keep working in cold weather. Um, so um but knowing that there's there could be a sound issue there, I think the fence uh question is probably one that has some value. Um, and I don't know that it necessarily needs to run from the west property line to the east property line. It might be something that only needs to be 20 ft um to kind of just catch and absorb that sound. >> Um and I don't know, maybe it curves in at the ends to just sort of bounce the sound back towards the building rather than letting it just, you know, flow past the fence line. I So I think there's some options there. I don't know that I'm ready to solidify an offense as a conditional use tonight. Um, I'd be interested in hearing other thoughts on that. >> I guess I mean I I think I guess I I mean I'm kind of reluctant to support it, but I I do think it is mitigating not just for sound but for like the just especially within that proximity of that loop area >> because you're going to have headlights potentially headlights coming in, you know, if you're before sunrise and you know headlights coming towards you know you're not these aren't just coming in and out like a typically they're now or you know if they're coming around that loop they're going to shine right on that house. And so I think it is for sound and for that purpose. It is a you know it's a it's a very distinctive use with a route that loop there. And I think that as long as that loop area which is kind of between the garage you know I think that's if there was a fence in that area I think that would address the concern of the neighbor in a reasonable without being excessive. You know if I think that as a requirement I think that is appropriate at mitigating. >> So the applicant is here. I don't know if they want to speak to any of this or share any information or thoughts. >> Coming up to the podium. Um, and just state your name. Uh, and I think the business address is fine for the record. >> Okay. Sally Aerman. Um, SGS Holdings. Uh, 1750 Hastings I think is the address. >> Something like that. Yes. Um, so, uh, just to address a couple of the concerns that you guys have been talking about, uh, the what we thought after submitting this in terms of where the X should be was much closer to the existing garage on our property, so it would be farther away from the neighbor's house. Um, and in terms of a fence, I don't think that's a problem. Uh, I don't know how much a fence would affect the headlight issue that you just brought up that I didn't even think about because the h the house is on Hastings, the neighbor's house, and our the noise would all be back towards our garage. >> Um, >> oh, it is up a ways. Okay, that's that's a garage and see. Okay. I guess maybe Yeah, it's >> And I'm glad you brought this picture up because I in terms of where the fence goes and so the neighbor has that fence going uh it's just a chain link going to the their garage. And so is this our property line, the yellow? >> Yeah. >> Is that correct? >> So then we would put the fence on that line. Um but yeah, hopefully farther back towards the garage so that it wouldn't block the visibility from Hastings. >> Um in ter So yeah, so right kind of where we wanted to put we were talking about putting the um the speaker closer to our garage kind of on the curve. >> And if you would go back to the other proposed Yeah. So, I had this idea as we're sitting here, and I'm not sure I I haven't really thought this through, but when you're talking about the bailout lane, why not make the bailout lane on the south side? So, like scooch the rain garden up and make the um the approach the 18 ft and then the bailout going the same direction as the exit anyway. Is that That's just a thought. I I'm I'm not I totally open to to why that's not possible. Um was >> Yeah. Do you have any thoughts on that? >> Well, I guess my first concern is that, you know, it's it's going to be tough to retrain people that are just so used to driving on a certain side of the road to all of a sudden, oh, on this one area, we're going to start driving on >> it's a oneway and I'm going on I'm going left or right, you know. So, I think just as much as we can keep kind of in line with people's general expectations for how to drive in through a parking area, that would be my off-thecuff concern with with that arrangement. >> Well, she's >> okay. >> She's still staying. I think she's Isn't she still you're talking about coming in? >> I thought the the So, if I understand correctly what's being proposed, you see a 24 foot width here. This would get skinnier. >> Yeah. >> And this 18 ft would get wider. >> So, you would have to if you were going to um go to this back parking area if this was your goal and you wanted to actually sit inside >> or you're an employee. Um how are you getting back to this parking area? Is it kind of awkward to navigate through here? Are we creating potential conflicts? >> Oh, are you waiting behind people who want to order coffee because the lane isn't wide enough by two vehicles? Got it. >> So, I guess that would be my concern. >> Sally, quick question for you. Is there was there any discussion on the west side of the house to put the drive-thru? >> You mean on the Hastings side? >> On the Hastings. >> Yes, we did discuss that. We had lots of discussion. >> So, it's a no-go. And that's >> um it would kill too much of uh the parking, I think, and to get in and out. We only have the one access point. We are in conversations with Jeremy about this this other access point which um would would help a lot. Um but for right now because we only have the one access point, we thought we'd keep that on that on the north side. Um yeah, it is it is a tricky one. I'm I am not trying to pretend that this is not a complicated uh in-n-out area and anything any suggestions are more than welcome. Um and I do I did appreciate I think you had a proposed uh little blip, didn't you, Nathan? Yeah, this is this was interesting for me. I like that. Um >> which part? >> The bump out. this this uh the funnel the funnel into the parking the back parking. >> Um but yeah, the the the bailout I think people are just going to have to figure out. We can put up signage. We can do whatever is necessary. We'll just have to make a commitment to whatever the bailout is or the bail out that's not the right bailout lane and then funnel people in a way with signs is >> however it works for the city. >> Mayor and council, the way that the conditions are kind of set up here is to allow us to kind of work through some of the finer details about um this ex this design. Um so for example, the ordering screen, where does that exactly go? not quite sure yet. Um but because we're making that drive-through lane skinnier, we do have more space to play around with. So, um definitely open to we're continuing to work with the applicant. And I think um if the condition if the conditional use permit is approved this evening, I feel like we have strong enough language to at least, you know, require plans be resubmitted with a little bit more detail and work through some of these questions. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That was going to be my question was how locked in are we and and how locked in is the applicant um with the approval of a cup tonight. Can you flip back to the aerial photograph of this area? Um Sally mentioned the fence the existing or somebody mentioned the existing chain link fence on the um home to the north. It seems to me like it would be very odd to then have the applicant build yet another fence and create this teeny little strip. >> Um, >> be a privacy fence. Headlights would not go in the side of the house. Well, it's just and I think as a mayor you you know you have to be careful about throwing thoughts out, >> but it might be something where if there's already an existing fence if you were willing to pay for slatting or something that rather than construct a second fence with what 3 ft between the two fence lines there. I mean there's just something that I think someone would drive by and say this doesn't make there's there's something odd here. Um, but it might be something that if it does turn into an issue that maybe it's something that can be worked out with an existing the existing fence that's there. Um, >> rather than expecting a whole new fence. >> I think he has spoken to that neighbor to the north and they were happy to be in touch with us and excited about a coffee shop. And >> I think, you know, I mean, we we'd understand that being next door is >> that's gonna that could cause some major noise. And I'm >> Yeah, >> I'd be happy to work with um on putting their fence up higher if that's what >> I don't know, you know, because they're they've got up to the garage there. So then we're going to want something um visibly like as I as I imagine the visibility from our side it I would want to go like farther beyond their garage but I that's just you know maybe for future conversation and it's not >> we just have a general like have their planner work with to try to you know develop a >> fence permit should be submitted to create privacy or screen yeah to coordinate just using the abuing >> develop a plan to screen that north. >> Yeah, >> just a screening and mitigation plan, you know, screening pl develop screening sufficient screening for the north property >> and sound mitigation or no? >> It's I I I I I hesitate to get in sound mitigation because it's like it's then you're going to I think the location of the the speaker box is going to be the bigger issue. You're not gonna I mean a privacy fence doesn't really mitigate sound. I'm sorry. >> It's not. And this is this is where the I mean this the speaker itself. Yeah, that's the one thing. But this is a down this is a downtown use. This is our downtown. So you are going to have some of these activities that is part of being on Hastings part of this area. I mean we want to mitigate the specific use here before us the drive-thru. But it is a you know. >> Yeah. >> Do we want to add some language to the resolution about exploring fencing? Um >> so mayor and council I could imagine you might add a condition 10. The condition 10 would be to um the applicant shall provide a screening plan and fence permits as applicable. >> Sounds good. >> Okay, >> sounds reasonable >> for light and sound. >> Marv has >> Well, just I mean it's a it's a it's just it's mostly I mean it's to screen the traffic mostly. That's I mean the drive-through traffic is what whether you call it light or whatever it is, it's not it's not really going to mitigate the sound. I mean that's a whole other thing to mitigate sound. I mean because it's you're not going to noticeably reduce the decibb no matter what you do unless you build a big really sound absorbing wall which we don't expect of any business >> and it's just that's one of the reasons why drive-throughs can be sometimes contentious. you know, in some areas there there's lots of reasons some cities have been restricted and it's one reason we require a cup is to look at these things. But I mean, we expect it to be used and it's it's yeah, I think is it appropriate? >> I think I think if the neighbor there does >> probably we can come back and >> I think the neighbor you're trying to prevent it here, but I think that what this does seem in line with the neighbors recommended does seem to be what it the type of things that we're trying to mitigate with the cup and I think it's but yeah, we're not going to mitigate everything. That's >> great. Council member Sumar, >> there's always going to be a lot of lot of noise coming off of the highway and off of Hastings in addition. So, >> and South Suburban. >> Very, very true. Yes. Yeah. So, >> so with that, I would entertain a motion to approve uh resolution 2025-86, the conditional use permit for 1750 Hastings Avenue drive-thru with an additional condition of the applicant will provide a screening plan and fence permit as required. >> So, move second. >> So, I have a motion from council member Ingamman and a second from council member Sumner. Is our planner okay with that language? Yeah, and I think you know the applicant understands kind of the intent of this requirement. So that's important that you we kind of understand what we're going for here. It's screening between this drive-thru and the budding residential use. >> So I feel good about this. >> Thank you. All those in >> just one more question. >> Is that home owned by the current resident or is that one of the rental properties? >> I don't >> Do we know? >> I don't know. >> One to the north. >> Yeah, >> I think it's owned. >> Okay. I think so. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed. The conditional use permit is approved. Thank you so much for coming tonight. >> Thank you, council. I'm glad I made it. >> Yeah. >> Well, this sounds like a really um exciting business for Newport and I think a lot of people are looking forward to having it. >> Well, we're excited to give it to Newport. >> Yes. >> Thank you so much. >> Welcome to Newport. >> Okay. Number three, last for me, uh, Daily Electric. So, we have a concept plan review for Daily Electric. I think you can nearly see their property from city hall. So, maybe not today with the snow, but um, very close to where we are now. The zoning for this site, as you know, is MX3. So, um, the future land use is commercial residential. We're looking at a site of about 084 acres. And so the proposal is to uh put on a pretty significant addition to the existing building to allow for the expansion um of the daily electric use. So we have an existing building of about 4,000 square ft, a proposed addition of just under 12,000 square feet uh proposed on the concept plan in front of you. So, um, I'll talk through a number of the site um, design elements here as as I walk through this presentation. Gener generally, you're seeing a obviously a large building addition in addition to new parking south of it. Just as a reminder, the concept plan review process is advisory. So, feedback is really all all that's asked of the council on this item. In terms of uh the city's bulk standards, uh the proposed lot would be significantly larger than the minimum standards. The setbacks um for the building are are generally met on the site plan. Um parking and drive areas, there are some existing um non-conformities with respect to how close the parking areas are to the property boundary. And so in those cases by, you know, expanding the parking lot, they would simply be um expanding that already um that parking area that's already a little too close to the property line. So the setback is 5T and in some cases the um parking area is is at zero feet from the property boundary. So we'll look at the site plan again and and talk through that. terms of lot coverage, uh, the current site is somewhere, I don't know, I just eyeballed it and guessed it was above 90% and impervious. Uh, with the the city standard is 75% max. With the addition, you're looking at 83% impervious. So, the ratio of of lot coverage impervious surface is going down, but the property still would be above the maximum. So, that would be a flexibility that's requested through this process. So uh we looked at the uh city's site design and building design standards uh with respect to the application. I just want to talk at a quickly at a high level about what we're seeing in terms of site design. Uh one thing and we were able to coordinate with the DIY team as they've kind of led up to this application. uh we felt that it was important to communicate to them that the city has kind of long-term vision about you know really creating a nice district along um in along 21st Street. So the building being oriented towards 21st Street was a priority. Um so newly expanded parking areas that are proposed in kind of dark gray on the bottom of the site plan are mostly screened from public view. That's generally seen as like a good practice for site design. um landscaping around the perimeter of the site helps to kind of soften the edges of the of the building and the site. And then um one thing we're not seeing on the site plan is just surface storm water ponding areas or infiltration basins. And so you know to meet those um city and watershed standards for storm water management looks like they're proposing underground at this time. If if surface management is needed then that would obviously change the site plan. In terms of the building design, you can see some nice renderings from the the Dy's team about their building. You're looking at a generally a two-story addition. Um, in terms of the building materials, the city does have standards for commercial buildings. Um, we don't have a list of proposed materials yet since we're at the concept stage, but it does seem like this building could generally fit in with some of those design standards that we have or as we may have amended. Just as a reminder, the city does have a window coverage requirement of 40% of facades facing the public street. In this case, I do feel that, you know, 21st Street is an important corridor for Newport and it is important to pay attention to that window coverage. It really kind of creates a lot more of an engaging um walkable environment. Parking. So in total um when we look at the office uses versus the storage uses proposed within the building uh we're we're looking at a requirement of 18 stalls proposed or 24 on site. One other consideration for parking areas is just where is the loading and service areas. Um any new service areas are or loading docks or doors are kind of positioned not towards the public street. Uh the city does have landscaping standards based on how much permeable surfaces are, you know, are on the site and what we're seeing right now does meet the landscaping standards access and circulation. So, uh, right now the site does have three points of access to a a public road, two points of access on 21st Street, which is a county road, and one point on Second Avenue. Um, I'll talk about Washington County's comment letter that's been attached to the report. We talked about this at the planning commission as well. Um, Washington County's letter and generally speaking, the county likes to consolidate access along county roads and so we'll talk about the implications of that. Here again is an aerial image that we can come back to. Uh in terms of sidewalks and trails, uh we do have a pedestrian facility proposed to get people from the front door into the parking area, specifically near the ADA stall. Uh the prior city policy has been to not require a sidewalk on the south side of 21st Street. Um I do think that we could have a conversation about that county letter and potentially what to do about that. So at a high level um I don't want to speak for matter John but we do have some good comments from them on um things to consider. First of all storm water management will be required. Concrete curbings required along uh drives and parking areas on the site. Um the western driveway access to 21st Street should be removed. um the county was having or had the comment to remove all access points and um that seemed to be fairly restrictive and so just having one of those accesses reduced helps to address the county's concern. It might be a good compromise. Lastly, a coordinate with the city. So there are planned improvements to Third Avenue 2026, I believe. So, Washington County's comment letter, this was in the report, but um first of all, the county provided a comment um that their comprehensive plan requires a total right-of-way corridor width of 120 ft or potentially what that could mean is 60 ft from the center line of the road. Um, I think if you look at this aerial image, you'll notice that even 60 ft from the center line is a pretty significant area of not only this site, but many sites on this 21st Street corridor. And so, uh, Joe's office, I think, is within that is why Joe's concerned. So, >> in any case, um, the the county does have, uh, that that recommendation for having 120 foot corridor. Uh that being said, there are county policies regarding um cost share should cities not require that. And so at this point, I'm going to give Joe or or John an opportunity to step in if they have any any thoughts on this or uh or not before we move on to their other comments. >> I I can provide a little bit of uh context. So the the county has a uh a cost share policy where they come through municipalities and do improvements to their county roads. There are portions of those improvements that are uh that are uh city responsibilities. So on our uh County Road 74 project, 65th Street, they're putting in a a pedestrian trail. The city is uh contributing a portion of those costs. So sidewalks, trails, ADA accessible ramps, those that types or type of work is um is eligible for city cost participation. If the uh city has an opportunity through a platting process to acquire right ofway for future improvements, uh the county strongly encourages the city to do so. If they uh if the city does not uh uh obtain that rightaway through a permitting process, the city would be responsible for 100% of the rightway acquisition costs needed to construct that uh those improvements. Um that's their policy. Uh that's not to say that that policy is set in stone. It guides most of their improvements. In this case, we did walk through recently an improvements. Was it two, three years ago that we put the trail connection in? Uh, and at that point in time, you know, there were improvements made to the uh to the road as well, uh, where they got rid of that uh that center turn lane, right? >> Yep. Um, so and as Nathan pointed out, that 60 foot uh requirement is is pretty is is quite a bit and poses a pretty substantial impact to the uh budding properties including the daily site, but also um you know the city hall and then others to the to the east. >> So, thank you. And just add some context, we were asked as a council which side of 21st that trail should go on. And we had discussions about how it just wouldn't work on the south side of 21st because of where the businesses were located, where parking is located, and it was kind of their intention all along at some point to put a trail on both sides of the road. I'm not quite sure why a they asked us where we thought it should go, b why they went through this entire, you know, public comment and feedback period and then think they're going to come in at some point and do yet another construction project um in here to add a trail on the south side. I just it it that doesn't make sense to me at all. It just we're an old community. these businesses were here long before, you know, 21st became what 21st is. And and I I just I would not be in favor of that should the county come in and decide that's the project they wanted to do. So >> we're listening >> there. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Council member County bring this up when we were doing the initial work on 21st Street that they could have eventually come and and require. >> Yeah. The the cost participation policy is is I guess known uh as we uh go into these these projects. And you know they at the time they they were looking at doing a trail on the north side and potentially a sidewalk on the south side. And we had a very similar conversation as the mayor described that we just don't see a ton of value at this time to have that sidewalk. Um, and there are other options to to have a sidewalk for people on the south side of 21st Street that don't ne that do not necessarily need to to follow that 21st Street corridor. And you know, we have the the sidewalk and trail along the west side of city hall that could go in or that can eventually be extended down to 20th Street. And then perhaps we can use that 20th Street corridor to get folks over to uh 7th and eventually to the uh overpass over uh 494, excuse me, highway 10. Uh they, you know, there there are other options than that very narrow congested corridor, I guess. in in our from a staff's uh opinion. >> Okay. >> So, I'm going to keep rolling through these comments and then we can stop if you have more questions. So, um the yeah, the second comment that the county had in their letter was relating to that trail. They indicated that a trail uh would be envisioned on the south side of of 21st, which you mentioned. Um, I I do think that, you know, following this meeting and and feedback provided to the applicant, city staff intend to reach out to the county and kind of have another meeting and try to talk through these these requirements and make sure we understand them. >> Um, and then the last comment is one that I talked about, which is that, uh, initially they were hoping for the closure of all access on 21st and I think we can probably settle with the closure of the the one. So, um, that's where where this is at with county comments right now. Thank you. Um questions and comments on this. Just a reminder, this is just a concept plan review. So, um it's really just discussion and nothing more than that. >> I I do have a couple more slides in far away. >> Um not to >> Sorry, I thought you'd come to a conclusion. >> Almost. I'm I'm so close. Um, so I did want to just reiterate that this this project as currently in front of you are proposed would need flexibilities. Uh, one thing that I did not mention is that this use is a contracting office. In our code, we do have a requirement for contracting offices to be located on a property that's an acre in size. In this particular case, um the city could consider having them come forward with a variance to the one acre standard specifically because we have an existing business that was pre-existing before we created that standard >> and potentially, you know, and they're at 084 acres. It's not as though they're really low, you know, a half acre or something. So, um that that is one flexibility that would be needed that that could be granted. Um again, lot coverage, there's still non-conforming as proposed. Uh same with the parking and drive setbacks. And then front yard. This is one of a very few, I'll call it triplef fronted lots in the city. And so depending on your interpretation of a front yard, um their eastern property boundary is is currently proposed with a 5ft set back. Um and and 10 feet is the the front yard standard. So depending on how you interpret that, that could mean flexibility as well. So that's just kind of a summary of what we're looking at right now. Um and and just to talk about what would be the next steps here, they would need to come forward with a conditional use permit for the contracting office use um because they're expanding their use and uh they would need to either request variances to those flexibilities I just pointed out or the city could potentially consider doing that through a planned unit development. It's a little bit of kind of up to the city in terms of the philosophy for how these tools should be used. I think they're both an appropriate path. Should you want to do four different variances, that could work. Uh should you want to do one planned unit development, that could work as well. That's what I have for you. And really, that's the question that I have kind of to to conclude is just um what concerns might you have about the flexibilities requested? Do you have any comments on the site plan? And then for next steps, should we look to do variances or a PUD? >> Can you put the map back up with the trees on it? The >> Hang on. >> This one. >> That one. >> Yep. >> You know, when I look at this and I look at the rendering, I'm just concerned about so many trees that you can't even see the building. And I do know that if you know law enforcement's driving by and stuff, I I want people I want them to be able to see the building. I don't necessarily want just a big row of trees there. I'm you know, and and they provided a rendering and I sort of felt like, boy, when this stuff sort of fills in, who's going to know what's going on behind there? And it's, you know, what you've done to the existing building from what it looked like uh when you moved in and I believe it was a three bay car wash at the time. Um it's a nice looking building. I assume the expansion is going to be nice looking as well. I think that's a kind of a tribute. And I'm not against trees. I like trees, but I look at this plan to do one for every thousand square feet of impervious or yeah, non-imperous surface, and it's just it's like they've got to put a tree everywhere in order to meet that requirement. And I I don't know if that's if there's we allow exceptions to that. When we take a look at the overall kind of site plan and the shade trees, we've got them stuck in a back corner because it's the only place they'll fit. And I I don't know. It just it just doesn't I just think we need to apply a little bit of common sense to how much and maybe maybe it's shorter shrubs instead of so many tall trees or something that's just greenery versus >> Yeah, the city in the past has considered a few different things like with cherrywood. um they had >> they had a lot of trees proposed and they had a lot of trees required >> and they couldn't quite fit all the trees they needed to in their site. In that case, the city did accept a cash in L of the additional plantings. Um, in this case it could make sense there could be some kind of a compromise here >> to not necessarily have the overstory type trees but keep the foundation plantings along the >> Can you go back to the rendering that they provided of this um there and that's where it's like you know I assume the bottom picture is what you'd see on 21st and it's like and they've got a couple other little trees kind of thrown in there and then some little shrubs and then we got another side of the building with no you know I imagine you're working in an office you're looking out all you're seeing is a tree and I was like oh look I have a window oh great I can't even tell what the weather's doing. Um I I don't know. I guess I would just like staff to kind of work with them on what makes sense from a tree perspective. Um that it will look good, it will look attractive. Uh it'll be an inviting property when you know clients or you know customers come to the building. Um, and it will look good as as part of our entryway into our community as well. >> Uh, one consideration just to, you know, kind of continue to talk about this um 21st corridor. >> Um, obviously the county's comment had the the trail requirement and that seems to be not necessarily the same. The city doesn't hold that position. Um, there could be some consideration for potentially like a easement area to if there ever was a need for a sidewalk there. Um potentially the city could ask for that in in lie of the tree plantings. >> I don't know, you know, it's not obviously been really thoroughly discussed by, you know, planning and engineering and public works staff, but that that is a possibility. >> Something just just explore it. I mean, and work with the applicant and yeah, council member Sumar, >> maple trees can be pruned such that they lift the beginning of the of the foliage up 10 or 15 feet. So, you you could have the patrol officers drive by and see the base of the building. >> Yeah. And it could still allow the beauty of the trees, but it would also allow them to be planted. >> I think those Yeah, maybe more so in the in the bottom right corner of this image, but out on the street, don't maples grow pretty wide. Aren't they kind of a more >> mayor mayor and council? There's overhead power lines in this area as well on 21st. So, I just think >> maybe we just as staff kind of work with the applicant to revisit that. tree location and maybe there's just not a great, you know. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. Council member Schmidt. >> So, just just to be sensitive and I I haven't spoken to this property owner, but uh 2075 on uh Third Avenue, just south of the property there. Um if I've got the aerial correct, 2075, kind of bottom right where the new development is going to go, just south of there. If you could go to the site plan real quick. In that middle parcel, there's the dark gray parking lot that's being added and then a two-story structure just north of that effectively. Just I don't I mean from my understanding of the zoning and all that, every right is given to construct this, right? There's no there's no issue there. Has there been any dialogue with the resident south of there? Is that I'm just curious what this looks like? Mayor, members of the council, we've attempted multiple times to contact the owners of this property in order to uh have discussions regarding this property. And unfortunately, it uh just hasn't gone well. Uh currently, this property is um I believe unoccupied. Um and uh I mean I I I would say you know should this proceed um maybe we do require you know some kind of screening or fencing being that there is a residential home and may be a residential home in the future. Um but yeah this uh there's nobody that I'm aware of uh living at this property currently. So >> I I'm not in a position today to say yes on the screening or not, but I am sensitive to that. The other discussion in the height of this, like not trying to add cost to this project, but I do think some sensitivity around it being a residential home >> may may be something to look at. >> I I do think there is potentially a fence proposed on that southern property boundary, and I think the applicant and their uh team can respond to that. >> Yeah. If you would like to step up to the microphone and >> house. >> Yep. and uh introduce yourself. And >> Tom Dailyaly uh 222 21st Street. Um the house that we're talking about I believe has been vacated for 24 >> years. I mean I think it's time to knock it down. >> I mean I >> honestly I don't know if you can in construction I don't know if you can make that house livable again. >> So in short, no communication with the current owner. No, we believe it's in foreclosure and we've tried to actually reach out to buy it >> because we want to do this project and it's just we can't >> can't get a hold of anybody. >> Mayor, members of the council, uh Mr. Daly is correct. It is um it is in foreclosure. Uh and you know, I I know we've had conversations about this expansion for >> Yeah. >> a while, >> over a year. >> I would even say maybe three years. But um yeah, I mean we've met on this quite often. Um and we jointly were trying to maybe get that property uh in order to help get them to one acre and then also storm water. And there was like I mean we've been talking about this project for I I think dang near three years. I And >> we had coffee every time. >> Yeah. So, >> so even the foreclosure institution, you haven't been able to get them either. >> Uh, that can be very challenging, but it did go through the sheriff sale. It is in foreclosure. I can't speak to exactly where it's at in that process, but um, you know, we've had challenges at at times even getting the grass cut. We've been semi successful. Uh, and I know previously when we first had this conversation, y'all had actually talked to the owner who was living there at the time, but this would have been two and a half, three years ago. And unfortunately, I think he was just >> trying to let it go. I think he owned 130 on it, but, you know, was unable to do that. Was maybe trying to make a deal with y'all. You know, I was kind of going back and forth contemplating making an offer from the city side, but we we weren't there 3 years ago. Um, and yeah, unfortunately it did go to foreclosure and it's owned by a bank um at this at this time. >> Well, I'm just I'm curious here because it is vacant. I think that is is that we're kind of a consensus that this is a vacant property. >> Correct. >> And that is a you are required by our city code to register and pay a $1,000 fee. I was looking at our fee schedule. A vacant property. Are we doing that? >> I believe so. Yes. >> There they are. It is registered vacant and there should be I >> I don't know. >> Yeah. frankly, mayor and council, but this is known to be a vacant property. Whether or not, and maybe maybe tonight we can look on our uh utility bill certification or our other certifications to see if it's on there, but yeah. No, I I I don't know whether or not it's been registered, but um I do know it's vacant >> because that' be one of the reasons you do that is to have a point of contact for the parcel and >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Correct. And to maintain certain safety standards. That house is it is one of the most dilapitated homes in this city. I mean it is I mean I'm just be honest here and it's a safety concern at at a certain point and but yeah it's it's separate from this question but it is it obviously it becomes part of this question too. So >> thank you. Um any further comments or questions on this for staff or for the uh business owner? Well, I think for me the one the biggest, you know, I think the the contracting 1acre minimum I think because it's actually bringing it closer to conformity by going from to 0.85 from this existing. So I think is that a positive and so I think that I think the one challenge for me is the the lot coverage and storm water. I mean you when you include the existing you know you kind of show it's like it's decreasing but that's only if you don't account for the new lots we're adding. So, I mean, I think that's that lot coverage, storm water management, it's it's it's putting a lot on a small area, and I think that's to me the one area I'd like to see make sure that we're addressing that. You know, mayor and council, just to comment on on that. So, um, lot coverage often, you know, is trying to does a couple things at once, but one of the things it it does uh is try to help manage storm water impacts around the city. And so when a developer can effectively manage all storm water per the rules in some cases that might help help an issue um or help provide a a finding in support of a variance. >> Yeah, it's I mean it's a nice project like I like the project for the neighborhood and corridor. I just I think that's you know I would love to see I talked to the dies after last they're planning commission me I'd love to see that house become it would help soften up the the buffer a little bit to the neighborhood. has helped with storm water management. It helped with a lot of things, but it's like obviously I know that that's why it becomes part of this question. It's not just it's so it is but it is not fully under control of obviously of the the applicant here either. So just something that I think that's for me we're going forward is making sure that obviously the county pieces are something I think we all we all have similar probably views of that working with the county is is obviously going to be a key. But it's just I think we made our I think view that when we redid this a few years ago that we don't expect a trail and I think if we have you know I I don't expect I'd be reluctant to require you know giving up right away to the applicant. I mean even you know I just I'd really be reluctant to require that. >> We can probably think of other places the county could spend their money in the county >> and in Newport. Yes. Any other any other comments before we move on? >> Okay. Thank you. Oh, wait. >> Can I wait? >> I have a question after Go ahead. >> So, I guess we have I had three questions coming into this. Um, first of all, are the flexibilities that are on the screen here? So, generally agreeable. You're not providing any approvals, >> but in terms of feedback, are these generally agreeable to council? I mean, we heard some discussion on, you know, making sure law coverage. We're thoughtful in in that. Um, is there generally support for the project at this stage? And if so, um, variances or a PUD, is there a strong opinion on the path forward? >> My strong opinion would be whichever is simpler for the applicant to process through. >> Okay. >> All things being equal, >> work it out and get her done. I mean, I you know, I I always tend to prefer not going down the PUD road if we don't have to, but so I tend to prefer variances just because it I always worry that PUD's become a bypass of zoning. And so I know but if we're close, I mean, I'm not going to be dead set against it. But if we can do it without another mean, I I like to we just had we've had so many issues in this town over the last 10 plus years with PUDS becoming an open slate to just bypass zoning. So I know this isn't it's close enough that we're not bypassing zoning here. So, we're not using it. But it just I think that's I would let it go. I would support it still if it was beauty because it's close enough. But that's my that's my philosophical two cents. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Darby Regan, 21476 Granada Avenue, Lakeville. Uh, I just wanted to say thank you guys for taking the time to review our concept plan for the dailies. We're very excited, you know, to continue their growth and development with and in the city of Newport. um you know looking at our site if you guys have seen now looking through the uh staff report that Nathan has put together along with the city engineer and public works um you know it is a difficult site to to find a way with all the city requirements but I think um given what we've heard tonight and at the planning commission um generally it feels like you guys are favorable and we appreciate that uh sentiment as well especially again again on the uh the county letter regarding the rideway on 21st Street. That's at this point I think our our biggest roadblock to pedal to the metal let's go is is making sure that would um be something that we'd be able to proceed without um given if we dedicated 60 ft of rightway from the front or from the center line of 21st Street. uh we did a brief site sketch assessment and that would totally eliminate the front parking lot um as is today. So even the parking against the building wouldn't be accessible. Uh so it really is um something that we uh are watching closely and appreciate your support on that. So just again thank you guys for your time on this uh snowy windy Thursday evening. myself. Um, but thank you, >> mayor, members of the council of MMA. Um, I've been holding my tongue all night, and if this Washington County is going to come down to Newport and try to get rid of my office and the council's supportive, I think that's going to be a no-go for me. I I just, you know, it's near and dear >> plan is to have >> I I mean I I've looked at the plans and um so I I think you know to the dailies we we are we will have a conversation with the county. We're going to work it out. Yeah. I don't think it's going to be a problem. >> Well, and I don't think so either, but and I know they're just sort of following this is a policy. It's a county road. This is generally the direction we try to go. Um, but they're reasonable people and you know they they can listen to mitigating factors, but it's a little confounding that it was just a few years ago we kind of walked through this whole process and talked about how, you know, the southside just it it doesn't work for your business now. It doesn't work for city hall. It doesn't work for the businesses to the east of you. Um, you know, even if we could do it, it would be the sidewalk to nowhere, you know, because it would have to end at, you know, your existing building property line and and you know, where the next property uh or business is located. So, it's just a little confounding to me that that they would come back with that. But again, I think they're they're reviewing this on a checklist and they're just saying what doesn't line up with our checklist and sending it back. So, >> it make 21st a one one lane street. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yes. Okay. Well, thank you for uh coming out this evening and waiting through the uh first part of our meeting and our discussion. Uh we appreciate it and we appreciate having you in Newport. Um you've been really good neighbors and really a really good business for us. >> We love Newport. >> Great. Great. Thank you. >> Okay, Joe, you're up. Mayor, members of the council, um I have a couple slides here in regards to the budget and levy for 2026. First off, a little bit of background in the timeline. Uh you know, council has been working on the budget for uh 6 months. Uh we've done a detailed review of the city revenues. Um we've reviewed the uh staff recommendations for changes to the general fund. Uh we've reviewed the 2026 to 2030 capital improvement plan. Uh recently I did move there was some money uh for the park at Cedar Lane $350,000 for development. I did move that to 2028. Um just so folks know that. And then we also have uh move reviewed the enterprise funds including water, sewer, storm water, and lighting although that's not on the slide. Um some goals for the budget. Uh we are you know have been really uh looking at the impact to taxpayers our capacity needs. Um we've had so many staff changes in the last three years. I think recruitment and retention is a big concern for me. Um you know just thinking about how we can keep the good team that we do have here. Public safety obviously we did get the cops grant and uh adjusting costs based on the hiring for that deputy that we did finally get. uh later in the year. Um and then our fire chief transition and uh what uh Chief Marson's trying to do in the department. Of course, in 26 we do have um well, and this is a little late there, the Cedar Lane and Trail. We're not going to be doing anything on that, but we will be doing the 10% needed uh for the 65th Street Trail. Um we're going to continue to work on the next steps for the area study. Uh we're going to look at the Newport Library and Community Center and we're very much focused on our long-term financial stability. This is the third year we did a uh a team approach for the budget. So that's great. We're teaching folks kind of what's happening across the city and folks are able to give feedback on that. Our residential assessed property value did increase by approximately 8%. Medium home value increased by 22,900 from 305,500 to 327,800. Our debt service did increase by approximately 125,000 and our LGA did decrease by almost 45,000. Again, uh you know, we want to make sure we're keep an eye on the impact for residents. our tax rate. I really want to try to keep that fund reserve between 50 and 60%. That would be very healthy. Uh because we are going to have some costs in 27. Um and we may want to use that to absorb some of those costs. I'm kind of looking at a basically a 10-year plan for Newport. I'm looking out until about 2034 and and how we can balance a number of these things until then. um a number of things happen uh between now and then in regards to both development and then also our debt levy. I'm also looking at the service levels and our staff capacity. This is a worry for me. Uh I also want to keep the city in a in a financially flexible position because things come up and focus on investing for the future of our community because we got to start planning now. So why not a 0% increase? And I've kind of gone through this. Um, but we have to balance our service needs with capacity. We do have infrastructure that's been neglected for a number of years in the city of Newport. Um, this is our parks, streets, our water, etc. And we do have um a significant amount of debt until about 2034. We are building for the future now. Um, we are trying to improve the quality of life. It's why we focus focused on so many parks, uh, trails, things like that. We do have support from Newport residents to keep on this path in particular with the parks and other things like that. We've got two park surveys now that really, I think, uh, are built that confidence that we're heading in the right way. We want to create an atmosphere that's going to apply uh, be good for economic development. And, um, you know, thankfully, we've really seen a lot of improvement there. And I think also that long-term financial stability. Some of the challenges that I'm seeing really is the service levels. There is an expectation now in the city of Newport that we do provide high levels of service. Um and that's that's a challenge. We haven't really added much capacity. We did we just got a new deputy. Um, we added some staff in public works, one staff person, but frankly with the turnover, we've had challenges with training and building that capacity. We've had a lot of staff turnover uh in administration, you know, retirements, things like that. Also, in the leadership across the city, I mean, I've been here about three years and staff, uh, Matt's been here about three years in leadership and of course Derek was just promoted to the fire chief position. Sergeant Leget's only been here a year, so we have a a lot of new folks on board. Um, we have been focusing a ton on customer service and communication, of course, development, proactive code enforcement. Um, and we do have that that deputy costs which are going to go on the 2027 uh budget. In 2026, we will be reviewing our compensation uh in regards to the union negotiations. And I would probably be pushing staff to look at or or council to also look at non-UN staff during this time. And I I believe I'm going to be looking for help in administration in the 2027 budget. Infrastructure neglect and needs our parks. Uh this is a quality of life investment. We've had some repairs that have needed because uh been needed because of safety issues and basically because of the mayor's hard work and the $100,000 we got from Marathon. We've been able to accelerate some of these things and I think that's created some of the m momentum uh that's been building with the community. Now they expect us to actually do some good work. Um you know the city is going to be turning over in the next 5 to 10 years. We have about 27% of our community is families without kids. And when those folks move out of their house, we want to make sure that we have families choosing Newport to come and buy a home. So what are we doing today to make Newport a place for folks to come and buy a home? I think you look at the elementary school, you look at our parks and trails, you look at quality service, you look at making sure, you know, the worst of the worst homes are getting better. I think also uh streets, water, and sewers. You look at what we're doing on Second Avenue. Um, you know, this is this is really good work adding that curb and gutter, taking of uh taking care of storm water ponding. Um, it's interesting. And Christina's been doing a deep dive and I really like it on code enforcement and I did notice a trend that a number of our complaint and proactive code enforcement cases correspond with places that don't have curb and gutter and our priorities in regards to our infrastructure and I I do think there's a strong correlation with that. Uh this is numbers that we just talked about this week at staff and it's very interesting now when a city and you know that that that the expectation is it's we're going to take care of the work. we're going to do this good work. Now, the the the expectations are are moved up and I think we're we're doing that uh brick by brick and day by day. Debt and financial stability. Again, our debt is nearly 30% of the total levy until about 2030. It does drop a little bit then. Um but how do we invest in our future without overburdening the taxpayer? So, you know, being cognizant of being, you know, doing these improvements, maybe borrowing for some, but how can we pay for that bond if we need to for some of these projects without adding it onto the levy? Um, and we need reinvestment and redevelopment. I think tonight was a great night. We have, you know, multiple businesses coming in, turning a property, seeing its potential, and then improving it. We also have, you know, a lot of other places across the city doing this work. In 2034, we do have about $400,000 coming off our uh our debt levy. So, that's that's a critical year in my mind for Newport. Uh in my mind, we really have to manage our finances well until about 2028. Um, and I think looking at how we can reduce our relative tax burden, our tax rate compared to other communities in Washington County over this time. We have to continue our economic development and redevelopment activities to increase our property value. It is absolutely critical. >> Let's talk about planning and visioning for the future. I'm really excited that we did this area study. It really gave us a road map. Um, and I think, you know, we just got to continue to follow it. When we're talking about following that road map, we are building our future. You know, in 30 days or so, we'll be updating our zoning code. We've been doing code enforcement intermittently for the last two years. Um, but this is going to improve our image. It's going to improve our ability to bring in more redevelopment. Uh, it's in process. I mean, we only did about 6 months. In 2024, we had 100 cases and 35 of them were proactive. I think that's actually really high for a city of our size. In 2025, we had 132 cases and we had 63 that were proactively found by staff. I think that's uh going to be the trend for 2026. I'm very interested to see what we'll do when we have a full year. Crossing my fingers, I'm talking to administration staff right now. If we can hopefully have a full year of data, uh I I would expect this to go up maybe for a year or two and then maybe trend down. Um that would be the hope. That that's my goal um for thinking about how we can improve our community. Park improvements. We've done four projects in the last three years and we have two in the works um that are coming up hopefully in 2028. and the pedestrian trail network. We did approve that plan this year and it's so great. You know, we've se we've done this area study. Um we it told us to do a trails plan. We did a trails plan. It was approved by council this year and we're seeing already frankly like instant uh results by getting this flab grant. We had been uh told we were earmarked for 400,000 by the National Park Service and this is one of the only grants that you can match with other federal money. So right now we have about 1.8 million. Now granted this is federal money. So you know you tell me if we're going to for sure have it in 2028. I don't know. But right now we've been awarded the grant. We've been told we're earmarked uh in 2028 for the 400,000. So this is this is great news. Um, and it uh we were told very specifically by our contact at the N National Park Service that the reason we got the flap grant in that amount was because of our trails plan. So again, we're seeing success from that 2023 work. Talking about developments that are coming, um, this isn't everything, but 2026 is going to be a very, very busy year for Newport. These are a lot of projects. This is a lot of development that's going to happen. Um, some of them, many of them have been in in progress as long as I've been here. Uh, and we really won't see the benefits for this until 2028, 2029. Um, you know, and again, I I'm very confident these things will occur. With that said, you know, let's not count our y'all know what I mean. control. >> So, why not increase taxes by 25% or higher in order to really, you know, knock out a bunch of things, get our staffing up, really go for it. And I think Newport's in that growing phase. We need to balance growth with our ability to pay. You know, we're we're a very poor community. We have the highest poverty rate in Washington County. Uh, and we're we're going to slowly do this change um effectively over the next 5 to 10 years. We do need to focus on lowering taxes and making Newport more affordable while also offering highquality services. Um, and I feel like this budget is building that uh building that over the next 10 years. I think it's very important that we compare ourselves to other communities. I think, you know, how how do you know if you're doing well? Um, you know, I have some comparisons here about city levy increases uh and the Washington County levy increase. I I went to a meeting the other week and there were 13 cities represented by Washington County. Um and we were the third lowest. Uh the only one that was lower was I believe Scandia and then another township. Um those were the only lowers and they they weren't much lower. So I I I felt very good about that. With that said, happy to stand for questions in regards to the budget. Um, I would ask that the council approve resolution 2026. It says 2025. 2026 uh 2025-87 approving the levy year for 2025 payable 2026. adopting the 2026 general fund operating budget, the 2026 water, sewer, storm water, and street light enterprise funds, the state public safety funds dispersement, and the 2026 through 2030 capital improvement plan. That was a lot of 25s and 26s. >> Do you want one for each of those or a general? >> Just one. >> I'll make that recommendation resolution. Okay. So, I resolution. >> So, have a motion from council member Sumner and a second from council member Ingamman. Yep. >> For resolution 2025-87, approval of the levy budget and other items suggested by or suggest listed by um our city administrator. Um thank you for that presentation. I really appreciated that information and I know it took a lot of work to pull all that together. It's probably one of the most comprehensive reviews we've had of our budget. Um, certainly since I've been on the council, which there's people up here have been on a lot longer than I have. Um, did did I see correctly that our debt is going up 125,000 for next year? Was that it was fairly early on in your presentation, but is that correct? >> Uh, mayor, members of the council, that's correct. Yes. >> Okay. So between debt going up 125, LGA going down 42, small cities assistance going down eight, that's about $175,000 swing from this year to next year um financially and basically hitting the general fund. And when I look at our 2025 approved budget at 4005 million and for 2026 at 4.182, we're not we're basically breaking even. When you take a look at what we're losing in revenue, our levy is basically a break even levy. It's just enough to make back $175,000 roughly that we've lost from other revenue streams or an expense based on how the debt levy operates. >> Um, was that a question? >> Well, you can confirm or deny. >> Uh, mayor, members of the council, I would describe this budget for 2026 as keeping the lights on budget. >> Yeah. I I mean and and and I don't want to downplay the impact that you know this will have on our residents. Um taxes do go up unfortunately. Uh but this isn't we're we're not asking for a lot. This is going to keep the lights on. This is going to keep us going in the right direction. I am concerned about 2027. Uh the full cost for the deputy will be coming on in 2027. um our uh uh uh uh fund balance, our our reserves are fairly healthy and that might be the saving grace I think for 27 which is why I don't really want to go with a lower uh levy than than what's recommended tonight. Um because it's going to keep it relatively I in that 50 to 60%. Um, but I I do see that coming down significantly in 2027. And the last thing I ever want to do is come to the council with an extremely high uh dollar impact levy that could could put people in a more difficult position. Um, so I feel comfortable with this. Now, with that said, you know, you tell me what the future's going to bring and I'll be able to adjust the budget accordingly. Uh, but it's, you know, I I'm very comfortable with the number now. Thank you. Um, discussion, council member Schmidt, >> I have a fair amount here, so I appreciate everyone hanging with me. So, just to confirm, the 2027 concern is primarily operating expenses or is it also including capital expenditures as well in the CIP? Both. So, off the top of my head, I'd say there's 200,000 or so in up um in in newer or cost of inflationary cost for the operating budget. With that said, the the general fund transfers into the capital improvement plan, uh they're the same, so they have not increased. Um we did and I believe it's still in the budget um we did transfer some funds from park dedication. Um but that doesn't that's not on the levy. So that was just an interfund transfer. >> Okay. So that that that is helpful. So for 2027 there's concern primarily around opex because we're maintaining certain distributions into our capital improvement funds >> from the general fund transfers all that good stuff. >> Correct. Okay. Then for the CIP that is part of the um uh I guess what is being asked for the resolution tonight approving the CIP for the next five years. What does that mean exactly? Great question. Um so a capital improvement plan is basically a planning document. We don't have to spend any of the money. With that said, I think it really is a plan um where if we're going to maintain our infrastructure and kind of building equipment, things like that, firet trucks, vehicles, um we need to plan for that. So, we put money aside, savings account. Certainly, it's it's uh easier to spend cash, especially when it's, you know, significant capital um instead of borrowing. Um, >> so more specifically then for approving the CIP for the next 5 years, is that approving all of the fund transfers into that account as well? >> No. >> Um, very early on, and it's interesting, um, you know, now that I've been here a couple years, and this is my fourth budget, but I've only been I'd say this is my actual third, but I did get a budget approved in the first couple weeks being here about three years ago. And it's really interesting. So just just three years ago uh was the first time well two years ago was the first time council actually had the entire CIP in front of him and approved it. So I I like and for me like a big concern and council said Joe we want more clarity. We want to understand what's going on. The CIP again it's a planning document. nothing in there is generally spent. Uh I mean if it's less than 25,000 uh it comes across my desk and a lot of times I'll approve it. If I feel like it's even a little bit controversial or maybe something that shouldn't be spent, it goes to the council a lot of times on consent. If it's bigger, it's coming to the council even if it's in the plan because these can be significant uh purchases. This is, you know, it's a planning document. You got to be thinking ahead. But again, um, you know, Matt and I and and Chief Marson, we're we're we're pretty frugal. Um, some might call Matt cheap. I wouldn't do that. Um, but no, we're just not going to we're not going to spend money uh or or we'd want to make sure council was was on board and understood the reasons why. Uh yeah. So, can I consider this more of an acknowledgement that a CIP has been presented without any strings attached to the items? >> Correct. The only expectation that I think council should have on this is that the transfers did occur and that we are planning for the future. >> So, this is agreeing to the transfers that have been listed in the CIP for the next 5 years. >> No, >> just for 2020. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> 2026. just for 2026 >> because that's the budget we're approving is 2026. >> Correct. >> So, >> but you do acknowledge the full 5 years of a CIP >> and you acknowledge the debt that we have in all three portions of our CIP in the future years. So this was a previous discussion that we had in a work session which is at some point we're either going to have to cut the CIP the transfers to cut items or do a lot of development and get more money in here. I know what my preferred method is. I like more money. I don't like cutting unless I have to. But if we have to cut, then we'll cut. So >> So let's move over to the operating budget here real quick then. So yeah, and the mayor had actually um highlighted this question, but I'm going to drill in a little bit further. What is on the resolution for levy certification >> is a dollar figure for 4,26,300. In the budget presentation on page 111, the general fund budget has a revenue of 4,182 379, a variance of 23,921. >> I am curious which number are we using for our budget? >> Uh the one in the resolution. So perfect. Okay. Correct. >> So, yep. Okay. That's great. >> Then for the revenue that's coming in, just confirming that includes the 5% tax levy that was proposed earlier in the year. So the 4 million2 includes the 5% increase. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then for the operating budget, just curious for all of those pages 111 through 117, does this include the debt service? I see no debt service mentioned to my eye. I could have missed it, but if we have 1,19,383 in debt service, I did not see it in our 2026 budget. >> Um, correct. So, we levy for it, but that's paid directly twice a year, principal and interest to those bonds >> from where >> we collect it. Um, that's a great question. I I'm not sure. I think it just gets put on the ledger ledger and then transferred. So, we keep it in a bank account >> and some of the debt that we owe is paid from utility bills, >> a portion of it. Correct. >> Yes. Correct. So the bond for this building comes out of the bond that was sold when we built this building included some infrastructure that is paid out of utility bills. The 12th and 12th uh project uh was bonded at that time and we refunded and reissued two existing bonds at lower interest rates at that time. So, I too have tried to sort out the whole bonding, you know, situation. But if we're bonding for a um sewer project, sewer utility rates pay for that bond, >> a portion of it. >> That's correct. >> So, when I look at page 128, the resolution that's presented. >> Yep. I see a general fund of three million and I see three bonds listed at various amounts and then the city hall fireh hall refunding exercise and that gets us to our levy certification. >> Correct. >> This to me implies that our operating expenses are 3 million. >> Correct. >> And we have debt servicing of the 1.1. >> Correct. But in our operating budget for 2026, which is what's being proposed for acceptance tonight, that actually totals um something different because we have expenses of where did that go? There's water. We have total expenditures of 4,9747. So, where I'm getting tripped up here is we're bringing in revenues. It seems like our expenses are $4,97, but then our expenses also include a million of debt servicing. So, to me, this gets confusing because it looks like we have 4 million in expenses before you include the debt servicing on page. Sorry, I'm on 117 at the top. Total expenditures 4,97. >> Okay. Um and and in short where I'm going with this is are we having expenditures of $4 million 97 including of debt servicing or is it $4 million 97 without debt serviceing? >> You're kind of looking at this as it all lumps into this the levy and it doesn't. I'm not sure that even um I don't think that's all of the bond issues on this resolution. I don't I don't think that's every bond that we have currently issued. It is. I'm >> We only have four bonds issued right now. I >> uh I believe so. >> Um I don't know that that's true. >> So, you're mentioning the what page? So, I'm I'm pulling up the packet now. I'm sorry. I was going back and forth between the resolution and the memo. This is hard to >> So you're uh >> I'm not quite >> at the top 117 has the $4 million as as of budget >> and then that's 117 and then 128 is the resolution which contains the three bonds >> excess deficient. Okay. So you're at 117 and then can you repeat repeat that again please? >> 128 on the resolution page is >> 128. Okay. >> So, where where I'm getting tripped up is our operating budget is 4,97 and that >> and that's on 117. >> Yep. On 17. >> Yep. 4,97. >> And that >> 97 everything in the pages. Okay. It appears that our operating expenses equal 4,97 before you pay a bond out >> because I didn't see a single line item for those bond payments. in the budget. Okay. And where I'm going with this is I'm trying to understand what is our operating expense before debt servicing. What is our operating expense plus debt servicing? And then that is going to lead us to effectively our operating profit. Whether that's a positive or negative. >> Well, it's a negative, council member, if that's your question there. And the reason it's a negative is our fund balance decreases with this budget. So the details there, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to answer it on camera tonight. Um I I think we should have a conversation, maybe you and I and the accountant to understand exactly where the conversation or you know where these transfers are occurring from. Um but I get what you're saying. I think >> it is really Yeah. So, so ultimately, and this is why I wanted to do this as a collective because this does get very tricky to move a budget where it's unclear where money is coming in, where it's going out. We've also got fund balances. I I believe we have fund balances for the heritage preservation fund, parks fund, city fireh hall fund, equipment fund, fund, and I didn't see those listed, so I'm also unclear where those transfers are coming from. uh they're coming from the general fund right here on page 117. >> So those those specific nuanced funds are are rolled up as >> Let me take a look here. Yeah. I I mean 9,000 is transferred into the economic devel uh I'm sorry 9,000 is transferred into the heritage preservation fund 150,000 is transferred but that's all going to the CIP >> Yep. >> Because then there's a fund balance page I think this is back on 117 where it's like the sum total of those is like >> fund balance >> like three million fund balance. So yeah, it's about three million for what appears to be those funds in sum total. And and where this gets tricky is I I I see I see on some some pages we've got our our savings account at Midwest, our money market account, and then I see the enterprise fund balances, and then I see a sum total of three million here. And it's it's very difficult to track how much money does the city have that we're sitting on. It seems like we have I mean just doing rough math here 10 to 12 million we're sitting on. >> Yeah >> it well it's at least it's at least >> nearly 12 million from the money market and savings account alone. So, mayor, members of the council, there's a lot of questions being asked here. And I think if you look at each at our packets, each quarter, we do review and approve. Council approves, and I'm pulling it up here. Maybe that's not it. And and I don't mean to throw curveballs here. My my entire point of asking these questions is >> sure >> if we're going to approve a tax increase and we're sitting on quite a lot of money and we're running profits across each of our enterprise funds in 2026 and we're approving an increase in taxes while running profits in those other accounts and we're sitting on a lot of what appears to be a lot of liquidity in my interpretation of this. I'm trying to understand exactly where we are running short and why we wouldn't fund balances down further before going back to the public and asking. >> Well, so to be clear, mayor and council, we are uh running down our fund balance with this budget. Additionally, tonight on consent, we did approve the uh financial status report period ended November 30th. And so you can you can pull that up. That is where it gets into all the fund balances and then also our checking balances, which you're correct, council member. Um that we do have some large balances in there. primarily that is you know with our water sewer um nida funds uh other things and then we take those in uh funds and we invest them with Ellers and then we get profit uh interest maybe 5% you know some of it's a little bit lower right now um with that said the goal for those investment accounts is order to uh grow those funds so we can do different infrastructure projects We do have um we have our total cash investments in CDs of 12 million 38,847. With that said, much of that is reserved for doing projects like water and sewer, things like that, streets. Um, in a previous budget memo, I think I came up with the number and I, you know, it's going to be off the top of my head tonight, but I believe we have, if we were to do all of the work that I think may or may not be recommended by John and Matt, about $64 million in infrastructure projects. So, kind of this fund here. And some cities when they are really in great shape will pay cash for their streets or different projects like that. And I'd love to get Newport into that position. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. Um, we will have to bond for some of our infrastructure projects, maybe 3 million bucks. My hope is we could use some of the interest from this 12 million right here. uh we get about $274,000 per year in interest and I'd want to use that interest in order to pay for the bond so we can carry our finances until well as long as possible hopefully until 2034 cuz you know putting that additional bond payment I think the payment would be over that 274 but I'm hoping to kind of pay for some of that within the general fund. So, you know, again, we're going to be having to juggle a lot between now and 2034. I I hope that makes sense. >> I think we need to be very careful about thinking of this like it's one big giant pot of money. A year ago, the NITA account had about $2 million in it. That money is designated for economic development. That is not money that can be used to draw down property taxes. It's got a designated fund and purpose and that's guided by state statute and how that money is spent. It's the same thing for the enterprise funds. We can't just look at those fund balances and say, "Well, there's $500,000 here in a in a in a a storm water account. Let's just use that and draw down our property taxes." We are trying to do storm water improvements. We're going to see wide fluctuations as we build those balances. and then do a high value two or $3 million project and then all of a sudden it dips and that balance goes lower. And this is part of how you know financing and funding a city is done. We are expected to keep on the books at least enough money for six months of expenditures because we only collect property taxes once every six months. So we need to be able to float that. you know, we had an EMS request come in for $50,000. You get unexpected expenditures and you need to have funds available for those kinds of things. So, it concerns me to kind of lump this all together and say, "Hey, we've got all this money. Why are we even, you know, doing this level of uh of a property tax increase?" And it's really about understanding how long-term financing works. And Joe has explained to us with our CIP that he has concerns within the buildings and equipment that we are underfunded within three or four years within that CIP account. That's one of the reasons we have a long-term CIP so that we can look at and say what's coming in the future and how can we make sure that we are ready for that. And so I think um this is probably a better conversation for you to be having either one-on-one with Joe um but I I think this is um we've had multiple budget conversations. This is, you know, belonged more in a workshop, I think, than, you know, sort of a gotcha moment here on camera with our administrator. >> Was not intended to be. And I held this back because this was something we wanted to talk about last week and or two weeks ago and wanted to make sure everyone was here. And I do think this is a collective discussion of what we're proving the significance of what we're proving. And I do I didn't intend to. >> Okay. With that, we have a motion on the table to approve the 2026 levy. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed? >> Yeah. >> Motion is approved on a 4-1 vote with council member Schmidt voting no. Next item. >> Mayor, members of the council, um, if you look at the agenda, it says 2020. Supposed to say 2026. Uh I have a resolution in front of the council resolution 2025-88. This is approval of the nonUN salaries. Um we budgeted 3.25 for this adjustment uh which is the same um for as the collective bargaining agreement that we have approved already for 2026. I'll move that motion. I'll second it. >> Have a motion from council member Ingamman and a second from council member Sumar. Any discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed. >> The resolution is adopted. >> Thank you, mayor and members of the council. Um, next item here. Prior to two years ago, uh we did have a number of health and benefit sheets that we'd uh use with staff. We generally have a way of uh adjusting that with the union over the years, but it would never get approved by council. So, it last year was the first year we did it um cuz that's the way most everybody else does it because it is a compensation piece. So, I have in front of the council approval of the health and dental benefits. um that's being offered to city staff. Uh I ask for approval of resolution number 2025-89. >> Make that so we can discuss. >> Second. >> I have a motion from council member Sumar and a second from council member Ingamman. Any discussion on this? >> Do you happen to know the percentage? >> I think it was 11 11.27 maybe something like that ballpark. Yeah, I see in the resolution 11.34 on dental and um health went up 11.34 in dental 4.67. >> So the city is going to pick up these costs >> uh just a percentage. It's broken out depending on the insurance that chosen. So and we've been doing that for a number of years. Correct. Correct. And this is in addition to the 3.25% increase in their salary, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. Other questions. All those in favor of resolution 2025-88 uh relate I'm sorry, what? >> 89. 89 uh related to health and dental benefits. Say I. I. Those opposed. The resolution is adopted. >> Uh next item here, we do have utility bill certification. These are folks that have uh up until today. We just updated that uh list today. I think if it's uh you know, we we notify folks, give them a chance to um make a plan. Uh otherwise it does get certified each year. So uh I would ask that council approve resolution number 2025-90. Traditionally this is on consent but uh uh yeah we got uh new staff and we're learning. So thank you. >> So move second. >> I have a mo motion from council member Ingamman and a second from council member Sumner. any um discussion on this? As Joe related, it's fairly routine and um >> just just comment. >> Yeah, council member >> Sar these then are put on the property taxes that these individual um property owners would be paying to the county. >> Yeah. and any costs would be levied by the county in addition in excess of the actual water or other utility. >> Yes, it goes on the property tax levy and then it comes flows back to the city through that process. >> Correct. And there is a there is a fee that we charge. Some of it we keep and some of it is paid to the county because they do uh charge us a bill for this service. So, >> and the county charges a percentage. >> They actually charge a flat fee, I believe, per um per assessment. Uh exactly. Per delinquency. So, then we we pay them that and then we collect a a small percentage and that is included in that certification there. I think it's 25 bucks is what we charge and I think the county collects 20. >> And there's some >> 24. >> And there's some interest that's charged on these accounts also. Uh I don't that's a good question. I I think we just have late fees. I don't think there's any interest. >> Says on it says in the resolution the council elected to charge a service charge of $25 $5 of which shall be remitted to Washington County an annual interest rate of 18%. >> Oh, there you go. So there is an interest rate. >> Yeah. Okay. So >> I just want people to know what they're signing up for by not paying these Further discussion. All those in favor of resolution 2025-90, approval of utility bill certification, say I. I. Those opposed. >> The resolution is adopted. Anything else, Joe? >> No. But I will stand for questions. >> Any questions for Joe? Okay, moving on. We have mayor and council comments. Um, I just want to note earlier this evening we approved our meeting schedule for 2026 and our normal meeting will land on January 1st being the first Thursday of the month in January. So that is being moved to January 8th and in order that we don't have meetings um seven days apart. We're going to move our second meeting to January 22nd. So, in January of 2026, we'll be meeting on the second and fourth Thursday of the month. In February, we will go back to our first and third Thursday meeting schedule. Um because there's five Thursdays in January, we'll still end up with two weeks between um each of those council meetings. Also just want to say um I attended along with uh council member Taylor the reopening of the transit site and um I think I'll leave it to Marv to kind of talk about those destinations and where that's going to go. But that's a pretty exciting development um for us. And we had our volunteer dinner last week as well to thank our volunteers for all of their work on our committees and commissions as well as people who work at the community garden and keep uh flower beds and uh some of our public plantings weeded for us and there just a number of other things that um help us out in the community. So that was a fun event to attend with that. Um Council Member Ingamman >> I have nothing. Council member Taylor >> uh attended a Red Rock corridor commission meeting on Tuesday just we tal MDOT gave a presentation about some improvements to Highway 61 more Carver north towards 94. So those I think are coming in 2027. Those some trail improvements as well. So just something to keep on radar. Yes, as the mayor mentioned we have the route 345 that opened here at the transit station. It's hourly service from Woodbury stop in Newport to stop in West St. Paul on to the MSP airport and the Mall of America. So, it takes I think the full run is if it's not traffic like tonight, it's about 40 minutes for the full run from Woodbury to to the mall. So, it's a it's a great service. I had the opportunity to ride it. If you want to check it out, obviously they have a website. The met council does. I also noticed we had flyers for the route map just inside city hall when I came in tonight. I was happy to see that as well. So, uh encourage you. It's just $2 for a ride. you can transfer onto the gold line if you go to Woodbury or at the from the airport to the mall Mary you can catch the blue line which is the light rail to downtown Minneapolis and other options as well. So it's it's a going to be a challenge. It's we don't have a lot of transit service in the east metro but this is a key starting point. A very different concept than what had been guiding our transit station in the past kind of the north to south. We're still that still exists in a limited state and it's not been abandoned but currently isn't stopping in Newport. This is, I think, the hight traffic route that we see going east to west. I think this is kind of positions Newport differently than than the than the previous routes. So, please do check it out. I think if you use it to go to the airport or the mall, I think you'll find it or even go to Woodbury or you'll find it to be a good option. So, >> and I just want to thank um Council Member Taylor. He serves as our council liaison to the Red Rock Corridor Commission and they were just sort of the main impetus behind getting this line back up and running um and this transit site back in use. And I I think it's just great opportunities for everybody. And Marv, do you remember the hours that is it 7 to 8 7 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. or it's >> it's around that. I mean it's >> you can check it out on the Met Council uh transit site for that. But it it runs the full length of the day. It doesn't skip mornings or afternoons. It's not a rush hour line. It's all day long. Um >> 6 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 7 days a week. >> Okay. 6 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Yep. Thank you. Okay. Council member Schmidt. >> Yeah. I just want to pass along a thank you to public works for all the hard work with uh snow removal. This is earlier than expected and I've heard a lot of appreciation for the hard work you guys have done. So, thank you. And then also just to thank you for all the hard work administration's done on the budget, the planning. This is threading a needle. this incredibly tough conversation sometime. Very much appreciate that. So that is all. >> Thank you, Council Member Sumar. Yeah, the uh library had its seasonal event and it was an opportunity to meet with some of the crafty individuals in Newport and I bought a number of gifts for family members and supported one of the library funds by uh the projects that were made by one of the one of the volunteers. We also attended the volunteer dinner. I took my granddaughter. It was the first time that she's attended with me. It was just wonderful to have her come and meet the people in Newport and see all these individuals that I talk about when we get together and also attended the community advisory committee. And this is an important part of the watershed because it also provides funds that help projects in Newport. So I'm a active member there. Great. Thank you, Council Member Sumner. With that, I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. So move. >> Second. Have >> a motion from Council Member Ingamman and a second from Council Member Sumar. Any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposed, we're ajourned. Thank you everyone for watching and have a great holiday season.