City Council - Regular Meeting

So that is

he came in the system. You had to click. So, so it wasn't

show up. Go. Joe, is everybody coming home for Oh, everyone's in Kansas City, right? Or pretty close. after the 30.

Oh, yes, she could. Yeah. Yeah. Is that because you get all your free I don't know

a lot of our subont have to wake up today. That's

just dry. So then I have to burn and then I got to wait. I don't know why.

Oh, yeah. We'll make a place all the stories of the

How are you? My daughter things in this town. Yeah. Yeah. You told me that story. And then he had fire. I didn't know that. I didn't know that. That's

the whole football. Why would

you look? I bought enough to do our 30 foot evergreen's Pretty sure

I saw it all the didn't want you.

I know people would consider the yard. Yeah,

good. No, we're just there on the make it to

end it. Yeah, it's the reszoning. It's or 4C. Sorry. Yeah, double check just to make sure. Yeah.

Yeah, I think so. 4C. I'm not sure. once. Which one was it? C 4C. 4C. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. There's been no I'll be back into 7:00. I'd like to call the December 18th Dotto City Council meeting to order.

All please. Lane here. Sabo here. Bradley here. Patterson here. McMurray here. All the present. All right. I would invite you all to please rise and join me in 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.

All right. Our first item tonight is our consent agenda tonight. On the consent agenda, we have approved minutes from the December 4th city council meeting. Approve pay ordinance number 1010. Approve renewal of 2026 CMBB licenses. Approve agreement with Sergeant Drilling for well 18 motor replacement. Approve agreement with Widman Inc. to replace 2-inch water line. Approve final plat for carriage houses number 16. And approve resolution 2087 establishing 2025 corporate boundary. Is there any item anyone would wish to remove for further discussion hearing? None. Can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I'll make a motion we approve consent agenda. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion of the motion? Roll call, please. Bradley, yes. Seo, yes. Lane, yes. Patterson, yes. Mac Brian, yes. Mayor Walker on 1F, yes. Motion carries.

All right. Item two's called to public. Members of the public are welcome to use this time to comment about any matter relating to city business not listed on tonight's agenda. The comments that are discussed under call to public may or may not be acted on by the council during this meeting. There is a 4-minute time limit. Does anyone wish to address the council under call to public? All right, I'm not seeing anybody. So, we'll go on. Item three is old business and we don't have any. So, we'll move on to item 4 A. Consider change order number 62 for city hall remodel.

Thank you, mayor. Um, I know it's been a while since I've been here for a change order. I figured you guys were missing me, so I figured I'd come back. Um, this change order is for additional carpet and a demo of carpet here on this first floor, which is going to be phase two of the remodel project. Um, contractor is very close to finishing up phase one, which is the second floor, and then we'll be moving down here onto this floor. As they've started preparing for that, they've been looking through the drawings, talking with their subcontractors, discovered um a number of spaces that were drawn in the drawings for new carpet, but in the de uh demolition plans got missed for demolishing the old carpet. Um in order to install the new carpet, the old carpet's got to go. And then as part of that, we've also uh identified three additional spaces that um once are vacated on this floor, the carpet um probably should have been included in the scope from the get-go. The carpet's in very poor shape with either staining or seams separating to where um while we're doing the carpet and the remodel on this project, we felt it was appropriate to do um those additional spaces to where the entire first floor, those are the those would be the only three remaining spaces that would still have flooring. That was original from the 2000 remodel. Um so that would ensure that the entire first floor was uniform. all the office spaces had um carpet that was newer than 25 years and in good condition um to where it would last for the next decade plus um and not have to be replaced in the next couple of years. So with that, I'll stand for any questions.

All right. Any questions from council regarding this change order? Right. Do we have a motion to approve the change order? Uh motion to approve change number 62 city hall remodel. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion of the motion? Roll call, please. Lane, yes. Yes. Bradley, yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 4B, discuss revisions to the animal control regulations.

Good evening, mayor and council. Um, this item ask council to approve a 60-day expense suspension of the animal pet licensing program so city staff can take a harder look at the program. Um, pet tag renewals are due in January, which makes this kind of a natural pause point for staff. Um, as you can see in the rather lengthy um, life paper that staff put together, compliance has dropped to about 10% and the program has generated only about $380 of revenue um, so far year to date. Uh, while staff is uh, require while staff is requesting time to process this um, take payments and keep tag inventory. Um as shown in the graph on page five of the white paper, registration has remained se has remained low for several years even as our population has continued to grow. Um again raising questions about the value of continuing the program. Um during the proposed suspension staff will evaluate alternatives including approach including approaches used by our uh neighboring Johnson County communities namely Shaunie and Leewood um both who have eliminated pet tags in their in recent years. I've spoken directly with staff from both those communities um and they have indicated that they have not experienced any significant issues with making the changes. Um both actually recommended that Dodto follow the similar path. Um staff has prepared a detailed white paper in the packet for background. Um but the ask for tonight is simply to suspend pet licensing for 60 days to allow us to complete the review and return to you in February with clear recommendations and uh language for an ordinance change. Um, with that I will stand for any questions.

All right. Any questions for Brandon regarding the pet tag uh suspension? Um, it is pretty obvious we are getting pretty poor compliance with that. Um, I'm not and I'm not sure that it from my perspective it meets the intent that we had for the uh ordinance when we passed you know when we started the program. So certainly look at a better way to I think the the goal would be to probably get pets keep pets from getting away, but if they get uh become in our custody, the find a way that we can get them back to the owners as quick as possible without without having to have ship them out to a another uh shelter. So

reading through it, it looks like the microchip option was in the white paper seemed like a good option. I know those readers are not terribly expensive anymore and it's not a a large burden. Probably less of a burden than paying for pet registration because it's a one-time microchip on a citizen. Yeah, that's kind of been the trend. People as they revise it, um they're going to microchipping or pet just simple pet tags. Um if you want to get it, you can get those at Walmart, Amazon, anywhere. Some people are um opposed to kind of putting pet uh putting the microchipping on their animals, but either one of those options are popular.

Then is the 60-day suspension is that like a notice that will go out to the public that it's I know that 60-day suspension and like how would that go out with that? Yeah, so I will bill. Yeah, I'll work with u with our communication staff. We've been actually um Whitney and Libby did help with this white paper. So, um, we're going to I'll sit down with them tomorrow and we'll work on a communication strategy. I believe there's a newsletter that comes out tomorrow. We'll put it on our social media and then it'll go out in the, uh, next utility bill as well.

So, we would need a motion then to suspend the Is that correct? Right, Brandon? Yeah. Uh, make a motion to suspend the pet registration requirements for 60 days. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion of the motion? Roll call, please. Macaran, yes. Peterson or Patterson, excuse me. Yes. Bradley, yes. Sabo, yes. Lane, yes. Motion carries.

All right. Item 4 C, consider ordinance 2672, resoning land at 8870 Commerce Drive. So, this was the item uh requesting uh to be tabled. So, if I could have a motion to table this item to the February 5th meeting. I'll move that we table the agenda item 4C to the February 5th meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I.

All opposed. All right, that passes and we'll take that up on February 5th. Item 4 D, consider ordinance 2677 annexing 80 acres north of 103rd Street and west of Evening Star Road. council. For my part, I included um an ordinance annexing the two tracks. Um we also in connection with that uh asked the owner to sign a um agreement not to protest future benefit district for road or um sewer improvements. Um and they they've signed off on that. Um, I know GW Well is here, um, representing the owners. Uh, also might put together a little memo for you on the sort of the advisability of whether you want to see.

Okay, Mike. Uh, yeah, just briefly, uh, my memo is really just background information. Um, I provided a map there so for reference you'll you'll know where on the world where in the world these uh oops the tracks are. Um, I've got it shown here on the screen. Um, they're at Evening Star Road and K10 interchange just north of K10. The two parcels outlined in blue, both about 40 acres. Uh you may recall earlier this year we did annex several other parcels um along in this area and you can see the city bound current city boundary lines on this map. Um so you can see the parcels that are north of K10. Those were the ones that were annexed uh earlier this year. I just provided a future land use copy of the future land use map uh really kind of to just to demonstrate that uh from a from a long range planning policy perspective. of the comprehensive plan is the document that we primarily look to to ascertain what you know what is the policy stance of the governing body of the council um you know at within a current snapshot and you can see that um within that we we do we we're showing some designations of future land use that are not say long-term or not agriculture um but you know some other higher higher uses there are indicated police department. So, that's an indication. Now, there's nothing in the comprehensive plan that says we intend to annex this area or that area or we don't intend to annex the other. We don't really have that and we've not, at least in my time here, had a policy that says yes, we're going to do this or no, we're not. Um, but that is one indication. Um, the other things that I that I provided and the other sorts of things that you should be thinking about when you're thinking about annexing

areas outside the city is whether or not the city can provide city services to those areas. In this case, um, both the properties, they're in the water service territory of rural water district 7. Uh, we have a number of of parcels uh, in the city currently that are under uh, rule 7. So, that's nothing necessarily that causes pause in terms of an annexation. Um, and on a future sewer, there's no there currently no sewers to these properties, but we do have a future sewer map that contemplates how they might be served in the future. This would be very long-term. Uh, they'd be kind of in a future sewer service basin uh out to the west there. So, I just provided this just sort of as a background policy uh document that you can look to to help make uh make your decision. So, I'll stop there.

Okay.

Questions from council? So I guess the the two points I would make is that or questions I guess I would ask and the same ones Mike as can we serve it? Do we have the utilities uh the ability to a plan to provide services to that area? Um is it consistent with what our growth strategy might be? Um and um does annexing the property give us uh more control over what might happen on that property in the future? Um I think we in prior councils obviously took action to annex property um north of uh K10 and saw that as a area that the city could grow into. um uh the long-term sewer plan, I'm not sure how that what the time frame might be on that, but um it has been thought out, but it's it certainly a plan. This doesn't outline the time frame for that or how it might happen, but um that there has been consideration for that. So, um I guess it just would be an adjustment to our boundaries, but not an approval of a specific use or um plan per se. Just that it's a a reasonable extension of the boundaries of our corporate limits. any go ahead.

Um, so I guess if we're in agreement with this, then we would uh make a motion to approve ordinance number 2677 annexing the property. Yes. And that ordinance will approve the agreement not to protest. Okay. So you just need this Make a motion to pass the ordinance. I'll make a motion to approve ordinance number 2677. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion of the motion? Roll call, please. Lane,

yes. Bradley, yes. Sabo, yes. Patterson, yes. Macaran, yes. Motion carries. Okay, moving on. Item F, consider ordinance 2679 regarding amendment to the city code for keeping goats named Steven Kevin in the city of Hill for keeping goats in the city. Yes, council. Um, oh, I'm sorry. Did I skip one? I ready to move on to goats.

We can do the goats first. Oh, the resoning. Sorry. Yeah, I had already checked the resoning. My apologies item. Sorry, Stephen. Kevin, you got to wait one more item.

All right. Thank you, Mayor and Council. What you have before you is a reserving request from rural agriculture to RO residential suburban. Uh, this has been before the planning commission. The planning commission did hold a public hearing on this item and did recommend approval. With that though, I will go through the staff report. Trent Teiger representing GTI Group is the applicant. He's in the audience tonight along with Todd Allen brand uh engineer with Renaissance Infrastructure. So if any questions specifically for them, they are available for comment. As I said, we did have a public hearing with planning commission on this item. As you can see, the tracks are along Cedar Creek Road, which is the very far eastern part of Dodto. It's about 80 acres and they are proposing and we did have a discussion last Tuesday at planning commission about the preliminary plat but planning commission did not take action on that because the zoning actually hadn't been approved. It's quite rare that planning commission meeting falls before the actual meeting where the city council would potentially approve the reszoning. So, we did take comment and there's been some public concern and interaction and comments over this site. It wasn't so much surrounded by the reasonzoning itself, but because of the creek and the flooding issues, there was just a lot of concern to have the city as the applicant and the applicants engineer study this at a point where we all feel comfortable with this potential project moving forward. So, we're still working through some of those issues, but the overall broad picture of the resoning itself and we do take a certary look at those items, but really is it we look at only the land use. Is this a spec is this specific use compatible with the area that it's being proposed? So if you look at page two of your staff report, you

can see that the areas around this tract are residential rural agriculture R1 and R O residential suburban. So it is consistent with the existing zoning patterns and the existing land use. Also in your staff report, we go through our zoning compatibility factors. something that we all look at as far as how to ultimately gauge whether or not this is a good decision or a recommendation that the planning commission wants to make or actually they can also recommend a denial but in this case they have recommended approval. So first thing we look at is character of the neighborhood. Land use plan that we have developed in our current comp plan does show this area as being large lot subdivisions and that's exactly what the uh applicant is proposing and so it is consistent with the surrounding zoning. Uh has the property been restricted or is it restricted by using or by not approving the reszoning request? In our RA district, you can only have homes on 10 acres. So, uh, this would restrict them quite a bit. They've got 80, so they, uh, 80 acres and a lot of it is, uh, there is some flood plan issues. So, they might be able to get five homes or somewhere around there. Um, but the change to to the RORO, they could get up to about they they're proposing 19 homesteads in this site and they're all between three and four acres, so they're generally pretty good size. I'm getting a little bit into the preliminary plat and some of those issues, but I'm just trying to fill you in on some of the details that came up in the planning commission as well. Length of time the property's been vacant. It has been farm ground as long as I'm aware of. Is there a need for this type of use in Dotto? There isn't a particular need, but that's the way we've envisioned for quite some time

that the eastern part of Minnesota would develop into residential or large lot subdivisions that don't have connections to sanitary sewer, which is one of the aspects of that RORO subdivision um or RORO zoning district is there isn't really a opportunity or a time frame in which wastewater treatment would be available to those lots. availability of required utilities. Water one is actually the service provider out there. They have submitted a letter of that they can serve this area. Everg supplies electricity. They've also been uh supplied information to the city and the developer that they can serve the area as well. Fiber will also be included in this development. Uh, additionally, and then we also look at accommodations for fire, parks, and then, uh, basically emergency services. I don't see that the adding of this or changing this zoning would make make a significant difference as far as the uh, EMS is concerned. said, "Would the proposed zoning adequ ad adversely affect the capacity or safety network of the street network?" And you know, Cedar Creek Road is a narrow kind of winding road. We did just recently overlay that road. So, it has been improved, but adding several homes along that don't see it would be a significant impact to that roadway. Environmental impacts. The one thing that once again did come up was the concern about the the creek and the flooding and and downstream issues because in this case this is at the downstream so any kind of impacts would be coming farther from the from the south and heading north to the Kansas River. So there's a lot of concerned discussions, but the applicant has submitted a storm water report and and

discharging the water into the creek quickly is is part of the process and that's been confirmed. Joe's looked at that and I've studied it as well. Feel like the there won't be any significant concerns with any kind of flooding in this area. Then the economic impact certainly having 19 or larger scale houses would be more beneficial to the city than just vacant farm ground which is a nice thing that we do have. We have a very rural lifestyle out in the eastern side of Dninnesota which everybody seems to like. That's why they people like to enjoy and like to be out there. Don't feel like this potential change in zoning will affect that in any way. And then consistent with consistency with the comprehensive plan as I had mentioned we are showing and have shown for many years that the eastern part of Dotto will be large lot rural subdivision type usage. So the recommendation of the staff to the planning commission was approval and then ultimately the uh planning commission after taking input at the public hearing is recommending to the city council to approve the resoning request as well. So with that, I'll stand for any questions that you all may have.

Questions from council. I have a question. Given the nature of it being in a sort of a flooding zone, no storm water sewer planned, what is the mitigation for controlling storm water runoff? Well, Joe, do you want to take that? Um I mean you're the you've looked at in more in depth on on the storm water report.

Yeah. And with this area being rural there is no storm sur so it's pitch streets um with two natural channels that are taking the water. Um, so when they looked at the 100red-year flood, um, the so when when you when you talk about, you know, increasing the flooding potential of Cedar Creek, the the peak of this development will pass way before the peak of Cedar Creek. So the two don't line up to increase the volume of water within the channel. So this is a a in this area this is a a very um appropriate design uh these rural subdivisions to uh to keep the water on the property um and not putting into a city storm sur and discharging it into uh in this case Cedar Creek. So with the large lots um the percentage of impervious areas is quite smaller than what you see in a residential unit is about 35%. So now you're about 15%. Um because you're looking at three acres lots or larger uh so that the the the footprint has much less impact um on drainage than you would see in a normal subdivision.

Thank you. Questions Danny?

I have one concern and talked to a few of the residents out there along Ced Creek. Um the only concern is we got 14 residents right now that are all on a 2-in water line. Okay. So we have pressure problems already there. Now, uh, if this subdivision goes in, I'm sure that water one has I understand, but I'm not sure on 88th Street, uh, on top of Teacher Hill. That's what it used to be called, um, is a fire hydrant. We don't know if it's hooked up or not, but we suppose there's a 12in main down below there. And uh if they come down with that water source, then there would not be a problem with the 14 residents on a 2-in line running down Cedar Creek Road. Uh that's the only concern I have is the infrastructure there supplied by water one.

Yeah, thank you council member. Yeah, the uh the plan is to extend that water line. Then that's when water one has indicated that that 80 inch line will come down 88th Street and serve this development. So the water pressure will be maintain it as best possible. And certainly where you're at farther on the up the 2 in line is another story, but this subdivision will be able to be served.

Yeah, I have no problem with the uh reasonzoning. I mean it's just the water issue. That's all I have. Thank you. Um, I had issues with the water as Danny said. I want more information on preventing this flooding because just this past spring that flooded really bad. Um, and then the safety of people walking. A lot of people walk up and down Cedar Creek. Now you're adding more cars, more vehicles. It's a narrow road already, so you're adding more to it. So those are my biggest concerns. Yeah, I guess I would answer your question as one those are the issues that planning commission has been we talked about at length is you know a trail system as Mike pointed out to me the other day. We do have on our comp plan that there should be a trail actually we showed along on our comp plan along Cedar Creek Road. So those are things that come up during the preliminary plat. So once we're just specifically looking at a land use issue here, but make good points and that's exactly what our planning commission has been went back.

I would want to know the answers to those before I move forward anything else because if I'm approving something to this zoning then I'm saying it's okay if you put houses in. You're correct and and I I appreciate your comments and this is where we run into a lot with our residents when they come to the resonings because they want all the specifics on what's going to happen and we don't have all those with a resoning request. It's just a basically a change of color on the map to allow certain uses. uh and then we get into all those types of details with the preliminary plat which is what's been was at the uh meeting on the 16th. So I wish I had a better answer for you to saying we could specifically say this is what's going to happen but we don't have all those solved yet and that's why the planning commission is has uh did table that item until the next meeting in January. The reasonzoning action is just to consider whether or not the use is appropriate on that piece of property, not how specifically it would be developed. So what what uh road improvements or uh water utility infrastructure might be required. Those will those are developed and required as part of the preliminary plat process or plan development process. We don't require that um at the at the resoning. and the reasonzoning. The question is, does it fit what we see um the appropriate use for that property in in our vision in our long use plan? Is it aligned with our future land use map? Have we always is it consistent with um what's what's being u the neighborhood uses that are there now? And I for me those questions are answered yet. This has uh always been envisioned as um that that type of use. It's one of the things that uh I think is unique and special about Dysotto is that we have a multiple uh options relative to

lifestyle. So uh the large lot uh lifestyle is available on uh acreages you know south and east of town and and then we have more traditional suburban type homes uh closer into town. But, um, I think that's what I like that we are able to offer is, um, and I would say certainly that we don't have any lots similar to this available right now. And I would venture there's some significant demand for this type of housing in the in the Johnson County and Dotto market right now.

Thank you, Mayor. I have a question. Mike, I see you pulled up to Jooko Ames. Um, if I'm looking at it correctly, that that flood zone is the creek there. And then there was another What is that light? I can't really see.

Yeah. So, the um the the regulatory flood zone is the darker blue. That's the one the quote unquote 100 100year flood. It's turn 1% chance flood. The lighter blue is a they the county calls it future conditions, but it's some area that may be prone to flooding in an event larger than a hundred-year flood. So, it's sort of just like a planning. It's not a regulatory flood plane. So, uh in terms of flood insurance requirements and our own zoning requirements, we don't really recognize it as being in the flood plane, that future conditions thing, but it it's a decent planning tool uh to have. So, um there's kind of a nuance difference, but it's it in essence when you're talking about the flood plane, it's the dark blue. And I pull this map up because I think it's illustrative of um where the risk um may may lie and where it where it does, you know, where where it's less risk as well.

The other question I had and I wasn't able to find it was the county has a number of uh streamway trail corridor. Have have they defined one along Cedar Creek? No, we do though. In our own comprehensive plan, we have a a a citywide future trails map and that future trails map does show one along the creek itself. It would be um but again um it's it's long way out and was deemphasized really in the comp plan as as such being a long

a long time out. So, I guess my remaining question was um council member Mike Moran brought up was the road width. Uh I think it was Yeah. Uh is there any plan to widen or ensure that the roadway meets current standards as opposed to as built standards?

Well, at this point it and we did we are talking with the applicant. they're going to have to dedicate some additional right away should that come to pass. But at this point, every indication we have with talking with the developer and talking with Joe is that the potential use of those properties won't significantly impact traffic on that road to the point where we need to widen it or anything like that in the near term.

Just the rightway addition. Yeah, we are going to request additional square foot or length of rideaway along the whole frontage whole track. I have one uh question and comment. Um so I'm familiar with this area. I live on the east side of Dodto. Um, and Victoria, you made a comment um about this area flooding this spring. Um, with this map up right here, do you know what area of that map you saw the flooding? tell you off the top of my head. I know Danny used to firsthand

the last flood was uh in the basement there on the um first house there right there where the cursor is. Uh that house was flooded. Um the back side it had 12 in water in the basement of that house. on down uh continuing on further um at the next barn. Uh that whole property there right further down right there that was completely blocked off there and that was a lake all the way to that barn there and that was impassible

uh for the first uh stage. It wasn't as bad as down by the bridge. That's the second blood stage. It went over the bridge, the new bridge that 95th 95th. Uh but that there was the first impassible and it went down the first, but that was completely a lake there across the road and you couldn't get through there. And um then the next place was that flooded completely over was the bridge and that was impassible. That's here but that was the only places uh Zach and Joe.

Okay. So in in the current map in the current area that we're discussing now was there flooding in this area? No sir, there was some flooding in that area. Yes. Not to the extent of what you just explained, but in that area. Yes, there was flood. Yes. Yes, there was flooding from that creek there. Yes, it went into that house there that you see. Yes, it also went into visa, too. Yeah. No, in the flood zone, it did flood. It did not flood the field. Oh, from what I saw because I live right down the road. I saw it.

I think so. I think what we've just kind of visualized is that the map that we have before us is fairly accurate that it shows that Cedar Creek Road would flood in the 100 year. I think we knew that 90 our new 95th Street Bridge. It was uh made clear to us that that we that was not going to be outside the 100red-year flood plane when we built that bridge that it would Yeah,

it was it was impossible to get that bridge up. So I I mean those those are the conditions that are ex are going to exist down along that stretch of Cedar Creek Road on you know po periods of of uh heavy rainfall that um um I don't you know there's not a lot uh affordable solutions that we could accomplish that would have any impact on that. I don't know that we could spend enough money to bring Cedar Creek Road out of the flood plane to uh to maintain access through those most intense storms.

Well, pardon me, but my understanding is this is just to change the zoning. What we're discussing is more plat related. Correct. So really that some of this we've already discussed, we would perhaps discuss again when it comes time to approve a plat. Yeah. Now the preliminary plan is approved by the planning commission. Then the final plat comes to council to accept easements and rights away. So uh sorry that's what I meant. The city would Yes. Yes. It looks like I mean based on the information here I don't see any and you guys seem to have done a lot of research and figured it out and

the houses that were mentioned that flooded they were in that flood plane area. It looked like on the it to me that seems like um a risk that the homeowner took by building the home in the in the flood plane. Is there any risk for the city if we approved the zoning? And then I don't think there would be. Right.

There's not. There's not. I would mention too just um particularly for the new council members on a reasonzoning um that is controlled by um fairly strict case law in Kansas and you've probably heard of the golden criteria. So, when you have a recommendation by staff to approve a reasonzoning, if you want to vote that down um as part of your motion to deny, you would need to specify which of the criteria, which I include the criteria in the ordinance. So, you can look at the text ordinance. It's uh A through N. But you would need to articulate in your motion to deny which criteria you believe are not supported that you disagree with staff on. And that's required by the Kansas Supreme Court has indicated that if you are, you know, going to deny a resoning, there needs to be a record made as which of the golden criteria you are basing that on. So, just a a word of caution there.

It's a different it's a different item. Any other questions from council? So, I'll just repeat. I believe that this is in uh it's in conformance with our comprehensive plan, our future land use map, and what we'd always visioned. I I see it as the appropriate use, and I would I would be supportive of the reasonzoning of order. I make a motion to approve ordinance number 2678. Uh reason

second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion of the motion? Roll call, please. Patterson, yes. Bradley, yes. Sabo, yes. Lane, yes. Matt Maran, yes. Mayor Walker, yes. Carries.

All right. Now, on to go. Yes. Yes, mayor. Now for something completely different. Um, several months ago, we got a complaint about a couple of goats and applicants back or resident's backyard. And upon research, though, those goats had been there for several years and nobody knew anything about it. So clearly there wasn't much of a problem but somebody happened to notice that and brought that to the council and council directed staff and to bring this planning commission to come back with a recommendation on this particular item. Just a little bit of background. In 2017, the planning commission took up goats in the city and talked about, you know, really looked at goats as livestock and those should be on the larger eastern part, eastern tracks of town and and not in the downtown or uh typical smaller lot suburban subdivisions. And that was adopted several years ago. Didn't have any issues with it. Um, but then when we received this complaint, had to look into it. Council asked staff to bring this back up to the planning commission to see if there's a way to work around this since there had been no real reasons. And a lot of the neighbors came to our planning commission meeting in support of the goats. They're Kevin and Steve. I've know got to know them a little bit and I see them a lot more often now that I have been paying attention to this. But uh so it's been kind of interesting and fun. But our planning commission did take this, you know, very seriously and looked at a lot of the information that we presented in 2017. And uh we did look at a couple other items as far as and learned some things

about about goats. And one thing that the uh uh I did we have in bold is that the the horning requirement for goats should be removed regardless of council decision. uh but basically bringing forth the two options. You can actually affirm the existing policy which is uh no goats in residential historic zoning district which is where these are or the planning commission did recommend a new subsection which addresses specifically these two codes and I'll have to give Patrick the credit for writing all this language because he dove into it quite quite deeply as far as making sure that we caught everything that we were supposed to catch and and that we have a deadline of February 2nd, 2026 that after that date, the existing policy of goats must be in the uh 2 acres or more and in in the eastern part of Dodto. So, anybody who may have a goat has about a month and a half to

come forward to come forward and turn in an application. So with that, I will stand for any questions you may have, but we did have a lot of fun with this, but it was also a serious topic and try to find ways to make things happen and and keep the peace and everybody seemed to be uh pretty happy with this recommendation.

Well, I appreciate the planning commission uh giving this uh due diligence. It's kind of a a an offshoot of their function. Not specifically their responsibility, but uh it was appropriate spot to have hold this uh these discussions and come up with the recommendations for us. I appreciate the effort and the and the solution that are these Nigerian pygmy goats. Well, I guess in in essence, and you're you can answer that question, but you want to come up. We we never got it confirmed by any kind of blood tests or anything like that. So,

well, I just noticed this. They don't appear to be. So, I Well, someone has information on people. One of them's Nigerian dwarf. The other one is a miniature lancha. It's derives from a Nigerian dwarf. They're so both are Typically, they are a pygmy because that's based off of the size of that they are. They're small. Thank you. I believe I'm only disappointed that Steve and Kevin are not here. anything we can do.

I I read through all the supportive um neighbor letters and comments uh from the Moors uh Braramlets. Um I I um yeah, several of your neighbors and u um I I think they must be very well behaved and accepted in in the community. I would just like to point out that uh for anyone who thinks that Dodto is no longer a small town, we are at a council meeting discussing goats.

I might just make a comment too. I think it does also illustrate that, you know, with zoning regulations, you know, the easiest thing would be just take a vote of the council. Yeah, you can keep your goats, but that's not how with zoning regulations, we can't do that. We have to change the regulation, which is what we did here. So, um, so just thought that was worth commenting on because we we can't do things that are beyond what our regulations say we can do. So, that's the purpose of making this change. So, anything from this side? resolution.

What was the other name? Steve. No, Jen or Jim. Oh, yeah. I'm not sure what I called them the first time. But I understand. No, they're Kevin and Steve. Might have been Jim. All right. So, I think we're ready for a motion then to approve ordinance 2679 regarding the amendment keep to the city code to keep goats in the city. Uh, I make a motion that we approve ordinance number 2679, the uh Kevin and Steve ordinance. Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mayor Walker. Yeah, he doesn't vote. Oh, I'm not city. Yeah, text him. Excuse me. I apologize. I was trying to let you vote. Mayor Macmar, yes. Patterson, yes. Bradley, yes. Sabo, yes. Lane, yes. Oh, she cares. But Kevin,

thank you. Item G, consider ordinance 2680 regarding a text amendment to zoning regulations on home occupations.

Yeah, thank you, mayor, councel. This is very similar type of discussion that we had planning commission, but once again, there was a resident that set up a small accessory building to sell retail products out of out of the accessory accessory building and our code doesn't allow it. So once again, we went back to the planning commission at the direction of the council and the mayor, see if we could sort of thread the needle on a way to come up with a process that would allow something like this to happen. So we talked about this at at least three or four meetings and had a public hearing. And so you do have a recommendation before you and basically what the planning commission came up with was to allow retail sales but you have to have five acres and if you're going to have an accessory building you have to have a special use permit. So there will be another public hearing. So, it was important the planning commission to recommend to the council that if somebody was going to enter into this type of use that the neighbors be notified because there was some spirited discussion about, you know, residential use is residential use and you shouldn't be selling anything out of your home. But, you know, in this day of, you know, marketplace and eBay and all these things, it's it's going on. So, um, we came to this recommendation, like I said, over a process of several meetings and and really the one of the bigger sticking points was the accessory building use is if you're if you're not going to sell out of your house, which we already addressed that in the city code that you can have retail sales uh at your in your home, it can't occupy too much of the home property itself, but you can do that. But in this case, there was a separate building

and that was something that the code just said no, it wasn't allowed. And so when we went through the process, the plan commission did recommend that you can't have uh accessory retail sales is as in the maximum size of the building is 300 square ft. You'll have to have a public hearing and a special use permit. The architecture of the building needs to be representative of the structure, the homestead itself, and also some public safety issues as far as egre ingress and egress uh need to be met. And so there was some safety concerns that wanted to be met. There has to be ADA requirements. Uh there's a minimum number of parking spaces. Certainly didn't want to have any. There was no parking allowed on the roadway itself. they need to be contained in the on the property itself. And so with that, you do have an ordinance in front of you about and and mostly it's there are some tweaks that that Patrick did make as far as, you know, we have this line in there. It says secondhand sales were okay, but brand new products were not. And so we just said, you know, retail is retail whether you're selling antiques or uh brand new clothing line. So, so we clarified a few things, but that's really where the planning commission came up with with the recommendation is yes, you can have a retail business on a 5 acre lot or more and it can't be more than 300 square feet. You have to have a minimum of three parking spaces. You have to have ADA accessibility and you need to have fire safety, building codes, all those things met that you would of any kind of place that where the public might be invited in. And so that's what you have before you council Patrick you've got any additional comments.

One point of clarification if you look um letter R. So, you would need a special use permit if you're if you're not using an accessory structure, but you have consistent and regular retail sales, that would also require you to get a special use permit. So, you wouldn't need if it it's occasional and intermittent, but if it's a constant retail sales you're doing even out of your, you know, your dwelling, you would have to get a special use permit. I had a quick question. So on the special use permit, is this a oneand done just

one time that you would go through that or is this a Yeah. Now it is one thing that and it does it is not transferable. So as soon as say the property owner has a retail business for 10 years and then they decide to move from Dodto and sell the property that special use permit goes away at that time. So it doesn't carry over to the potential next owner of the property. But with a special use, the planning commission could put a term. They probably would put a term on that. You know, it's three years or five years. Any special use permit, we never make them in perpetuity. They always have to have a term. So it would need to have a term.

Okay. And then I was just curious on the minimum five acres how that was determined.

Well, we did have some discussion about that quite a bit as well because there I mean there's some larger tracks in Oldtown Dotto that when we talk about well is one acre enough is you know so that is a little bit subjective but we didn't want to make it or the planning commission didn't want to make it so it was potentially widespread. you had to have some sort of cut off where it's just, you know, we want to make sure you've got room for the parking, for the building itself, the safety issues, you know, potential EMS equipment on site. So, they settle on five acres.

I was just curious. I noticed in the presentation that Commissioner Milbour voted against it because it wasn't compatible with the comprehensive plan amongst other things. Is it compatible with comprehensive plan? How does it affect comprehensive plan?

Well, I guess in the comprehensive plan, we did talk about that is and he he was the one that was adamantly against retail sales period. felt like, you know, if you're in a in your house, you shouldn't have to deal with any kind of traffic or noise or lighting or any hours of retail sales. And I think his points were well made and considered by the planning commission, but this was a situation where, you know, even the applicant or the the person that now is is wanting to have this business, it isn't going to be something that's particularly intrusive and they really want to find a way to allow this to to move forward and not just say, "All right, sorry. You're we do have a kind of a trend toward homebased businesses and homebased occupations and cottage uh food production and all all those things and and um I think you know that we we're not strictly an a uh community anymore but maybe that's our connection back to it is kind of you know these uh allowing these unique um opportunities like this that might promote some other but based on 5 acres. There's a limited number of sites where this this possibly could happen in the city. So, um it's not going to be widespread. Um but um I think the five acres also, you know, Justin made a good point that, you know, if we were allowing these on any lot in the city, if you purchased a home and you there would no there wouldn't be really any record that you would know. So you buy your home and then after you move in you find out you know your ne nextdoor neighbor is selling goods you know on a regular basis you might

think that's you know not really a good thing. So with the five acres it's you know it makes it more of a remote thing. Anything over here? Questions? I think we're ready. Motion. I move that we accept the ordinance 2680 regarding a text amendment to zoning regulations on home occupations. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion of the motion? Roll call, please. Patterson, yes. Bradley,

yes. Lane, yes. Sabo. Yes. Motion carries. All right. Do I vote on this? Yeah, I vote on this one. So, I say yes. Yes. Sorry about that, Mayor. All right. Then the next one because it's a zone. Both of these are zoning related regs. Okay. Um, consider ordinance item H. Consider ordinance 2681 amending zoning regulations to exempt agurism signs adjacent to K10. All right. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Again, we had a interesting situation come up because we threw a lot of them at you all.

Yeah, we sure did. It hit us hit the planning commission pretty pretty hard the last uh three months. But uh and this is all part of the uniqueness of Dodto because we've got a very tight-knit core downtown, but we've got, you know, Panasonic and development heading in the southwest growth area, and then we've got these large lot tracks to the east, but we all have to find a way to be one big happy family. And so we we talk about these things. We had a big discussion one time about playhouses and where those could go and the setbacks regarding those type things. So these things keep coming up because we have just a lot of unique things about this town and and we take them seriously enjoy those discussions but uh and have been able to find a pretty good solution on on almost all of them I would say. Anyway, back to this. Um, George Hoff, you know, he opened the Stonepillar Vineyard and Winery, and part of those are tasting rooms and having people come out and all sorts of things. And he put up a billboard just for some directional signage to help find his new place. And of course, we don't allow billboards along K10. Uh, and so we had to go back and kind of look at, you know, Patrick had to research. Agricultural exemptions with the states laws and public signage is not one of those things that they're exempt on. So our local zoning ordinances do apply. And so I talked to Mr. Hoff about, you know, why he was doing all this and he's trying to promote his business. He's new to town and and wants to be successful. And these are good things to have new new types of businesses in within the city. So back to the planning commission and one of the things that uh I think was important and and Mr. Hoff had was a

uh agurism business life or certificate. And so that was one thing that plant commission said well that's kind of important. If you're going to advertise a business, you need to have some sort of tourism license or and the state of Kansas does provide this and I do have pictures of the billboard in the in your staff report. And so with talking with Mr. Hoff, he's like, you know, I just want to have a sign to help people get to my place. And so we went through several discussions, came up, you know, got this measurements for the sign itself and the size and and and Patrick crafted some language about we only want allow these agurism signs along K10 and they have to have that certificate in place. um they can only have one sign that you know needs to be maintained well and kept in good condition and things like that and planning commission thought that was a reasonable approach and Mr. Hoff is happy that he can get to keep his sign and so that is the recommendation to the city council and that's uh what you've got in your suggested language to be added to the code for page on page 505 of the staff report. So with that, I'll stand for any questions you may have.

Question from council. Excuse me. I I do have one question and comment. So under um item F. So we're talking one private non-electric sign, are we assuming that uh visitors to Stone Pillar are only coming from one direction?

Yeah. Well, I mean certainly you're right. That's a good point. But we the way his property is set up, you would only be able to visibly have that one sign. If you're going the other way, you're already past his property. You'd have to go up to Cedar or Cedar Creek to turn around. And so he felt like most of his clients because he was in THA actually fairly in a fairly becoming a more dense area of THA and kind of got just pushed out by the pricing and I guess gentrification if you will and so most of his clientele comes from is coming out K10 on heading heading west and so that's why he chose that location but also the eastbound traffic just wouldn't work particularly well for having a second side.

Okay. And then the only other uh question I would have is so we we have um measurements for how wide, tall, and the sign can be. Is there anything that says how far it has to be off of K10? We do not have a a dimension for that because, you know, it might depend on, you know, the terrain, things like that where it can be. So we didn't put a dimension a distance. It just needs to be part of their property and it's an agurism business.

Understood. Thank you. If I can just add so the you know we talk about the zoning regulations a lot and they're you know can be strict but if you look under these exemptions so these are things that at the beginning of the zoning regulations we just say these items are exempt from the city zoning regulations. So what we did is just add this sign. But I do want to point out it. So we're just essentially saying we're not you don't have to get a permit. It's sort of a freebie. You can

but you do have to have an aggra agurism license. But keep in mind we can't control what that sign says just due to first amendment. So yes, they have to have a agurism license, but you know, technically speaking, they could put anything on that sign, and we really don't have any control over that. But the thought is, I mean, really, this probably is only going to apply to that property when you look at um

you know, who might be uh eligible. But um so yeah, they won't. This would be just code enforcement. If if the sign was falling down or it exceeded these, we would address it as a code violation, but we would not be doing permits or approval like that. And I agree that the sign is nice. I had a handful of people since they moved out that knew I lived here calling me asking, "How do I get there? I pass the exit." Um, so I do think the signage and it's nice looking. It's very professional looking

and I don't know. I haven't I've been on that road at night. I don't Is it lit by chance? No, his sign is not lit. No, he could potentially light it though. But he could light it if he wanted to. Yeah, I was going to say right now with the time change, people will probably be coming out and not be able to see it. And they're still open. Jill, were you wanting to find it in a like a quarter within so many feet of the rideway or

um I I only asked because uh as as I've passed the sign and and you're moving at 70 miles an hour, it sits a little far off of K10. Um and it's the the print is rather small and and you really have to look at it very quick. I mean, obviously the photo here is specifically looking at that sign, but when you're you're moving on the highway, it's uh um you know, you can make out stone pillar and so you know, do we do we consider a sign uh bigger or up to a certain size or do we keep these dimensions as in stone? could you could make it bigger if you thought that was appropriate or he could move it closer. You know, he could he strategically picked it because there was a line of sight between I think trees further east on K10 and you know that you don't see in the picture, you know, the clearing along the the fence line as you approached this sign. Um that's what kind of I think led him to put the sign where the sign is. And and I would just add reiterate those the dimensions in there are the dimensions of his sign.

Right. Yeah. So I noticed that there was no thought of further like proliferation of billboards obviously because of the requirements in their agurism license. Um and that was one of the concerns that I'd heard from some constituents. I don't think it's um an issue based on what you've said.

Right. I am a little concerned about the the lighting. He could put up any lights that he wants right now and it could be distracting or otherwise as sort of Joe had some concerns about the location and the concentration requires to read the sign may be an issue. Uh and at night it may prove even more of an issue. Is there would the staff be opposed to requiring it remain non- electronic and non lit or non-lighted? I mean, no. At this point, I've certainly at least my opinion was we were just trying to accommodate Mr. Hoffen is existing sign and I believe Commissioner Lane at the planning commission brought up can they light it? That's where we got into that discussion. Yeah, it can be lit. I mean, illuminated. You can't have a message board or anything like that. It can just have some lights showing up on the sign itself. So that's an option.

Yeah. By a twothirds majority vote of this body, you can change it however you want. So if you wanted to add what you just said, then that's within your jurisdiction to do that. Not sure if I make a point of order for that or or what I think. No, you would just make a motion um and include those specifics in your motion or you know certainly we could table it and if you wanted to give it some more thought but so you saying no lights

I think so. Uh and the reason being if we do have more signage or if the lighting becomes an issue with uh already being on the highway, uh but also I take into consideration that you're right with the time change a lot of people are driving and it's dark. So I don't know maybe um should be some limitation to like we don't want you know super spotlights that are blinding people. Well, and I think the light would be on the ground shining up to the side just enough to see the sign when you're driving, right? It's like a normal billboard. I agree. I just don't know how you control that.

Be a weird thing to control. Reasonable lighting to illuminate the sign. You know, that could be, you know, only lighting allowed. I like that. You know, to illuminate the sign. I I think that's reasonable. Has the applicant made any other application that he had any future desires for larger or something else?

He did talk to me about an additional sign. And what I told him is, you know, I think since this is sort of outside the realm of, you know, otherwise we'd require a sign permit. I told him, I think, you know, you're getting one freebie on the sign. Any other signs would have to come. he can have other signs. They just have to comply with our sign ordinance. So, but that's the only request he made of me. And he understood when I told him, he goes, "Yeah, you're probably right. You know, if there's not a limit to one, then it probably would concern planning commission or this body that you know that there'd be signs all over." So,

some provision that lighting would be limited to what's necessary to light the face of the sign. Yeah. Why don't since it's an ordinance, if you want to move on to the next item, I'll I'll just write that in here and then you can make a motion. Okay. Including that if you're So, we can table it until we contact him. Oh, no. I'll Well, you could, but I was just going to write it on the fly. Yeah. Yeah. So, we can add the card in there. So, he's just going to write what

All right. We'll take this back up a little later. that. Now we will move on to item I. Consider ordinance 2682 setting maximum assessment for countryside farms benefit district.

Oh yeah, that's me too. So yeah,

sorry. This so um this is the last step in the benefit district. um for the countryside farms. You recall at the last meeting uh we formed the benefit district. So this ordinance sets the maximum assessment. So the 7,916,000 that's the maximum assessments that can be placed on this property. You know, normally in a benefit district, you have several property owners. Here we just have one property owner. So that assessment will be on this property. Um, so with the passage of this ordinance, you're just simply setting the maximum assessment at that number.

Any questions from council on this? So when we set that number and the improvements exceed that number, what then happens? That's on the developer. They they have to come up with the extra money. And so they intentionally make sure that number covers um so I mean it does there are times when you go over but it's just tough luck cost of business it's co right it just can't be financed under this benefit district finance under some

mechanism or paid cash whatever any other questions questions. So, this is agenda item 4 I 4 I but we're listed as 4J, are we not? Yeah, in the in the packet there's two four looks like there's Yeah, I think this was a typo here. Sorry,

but the ordinance is it's only one ordinance. So, 2682 is the critical number. Make a motion we approve ordinance number 2682, maximum assessment for the countryside development. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mcmrain, yes. Patterson, yes. Bradley, yes. Sabo, yes. Lane. Yes. Okay.

All right. 4J, consider ordinance 2683 authorizing a loan from the electric utility fund for the purchase of equipment.

Uh, yep. This item um replaces a 2006 dump truck that's at the end of its uh useful life for our street maintenance um crew um primarily for street maintenance and snow removal. The replacement um was already planned for in the 2026 equipment replacement program and in the 2026 budget. Staff recommends purchasing one 2026 Peter 548 through a cooperative purchasing agreement including an extended warranty to control maintenance costs. The total cost is $48,229. Um and the truck will be paid for using an internal loan from our electric utility fund rather than outside financing. Essentially, the street department will be repaying the fund over five years at a five-year interest rate. Um, this approach um is typical with our larger purchases for heavy equipment. Um, with that, I will stand for any questions.

Questions from council. So, this process uh this ordinance process was created because we wanted uh to protect the balance in that electric utility fund and make sure that we didn't pull that balance down that we always would replace it. So, anytime we pull funds from that uh an ordinance is required by the council to to authorize that um expenditure. Um and it's um since uh Dave's time on mayor uh 2920, we decided to use our own funds to finance our purchases because we were getting limited uh in interest income on uh the invested part of that uh interest rates were super low and so we weren't so we were paying our own interest a little bit higher. um but always replenishing the funds in electric utility fund and saving ourselves um financing costs and paying them to ourselves. I I think if I could it's also important uh to understand the reason it's called the electric utility fund has nothing to do with uh trying to uh electric it was because in the 90s the city sold our own electric distribution system to uh was westar at the time and so that was the source of the funds about $2 million that's why it's called electric reserves so we don't yeah we don't maintain an electric system so

it was the important important point, but I have one question. Uh, Brandon, I I know we spoke on this earlier today, but um what we didn't speak about and what is the plan with the uh current 2006 unit? Do we plan on, you know, uh an easy appraisal, a a sale? What would we do with those funds?

Yeah. Um, so with the lead time, um, we don't, um, this authorization is for the purchase of it. Um, with the lead time of getting a truck, it takes about a year for us to get it, which is why the ordinance has that full price. What we do is we'll sell it. Um, generally speaking, we sell it on purple wave. We take it out to auction. Um, and we reimburse ourselves with those funds. Yeah. Those go back into the electric electric reserve fund.

Yeah. And we first started doing this the we set the vote at so five of the six members of the governing body have to vote in favor of the ordinance. It was sort of a protection thing to protect this fund. So the mayor will cast a vote on this one.

Any other questions? Ready for a motion. I'll move to accept the quotes from KC Peterbilt and American Equipment for the purchase and equipment of one 2026 Peterville 548 dump truck for the street department not exceeding 48,229. And I also move to adopt the ordinance as presented and authorize city administrator to sign agreements pending final approval by the city attorney. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Motion. Roll call, please. Mayor Walker, yes. Patterson, yes. Mcmarin, yes. Lane, yes. Sabo,

yes. Bradley, yes. Motion carries. Are we ready to go back to item H? So, all right. Are you ready with a motion? Yes. Zach? Yes, I am. Okay. I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance number 2681 with the addition uh or the amendment that in item five uh F we add number five only lighting allowed is for reasonable lighting to illuminate the face of the sun. Okay. Have a second. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mayor Walker. Yes. Matt Bran,

yes. Patterson, yes. Bradley, yes. Sabo, yes. Lane, yes. Motion carries. All right. Item K. Consider memorandum of understanding with Johnson County and the Northwest Consolidated Fire District to evaluate governing structure for the fire district.

Yes, council. Um, a number of us attended uh the uncoupling ceremony at the new fire station uh last week. Um, great event, fantastic facility if you're able to do that. Um, they they also uh rolled out uh their new fire truck, $ 1.8 million uh ladder truck, the mayor's tree lighting rescued Santa off the building uh off this building here. I think both of those events kind of symbolize um a change a significant change in the nature of the fire district service um and the increasing um you know um function of that district um in a way that um that was different from before. So um the north the consolidated fire district was formed in 2010 and essentially combined the Dodto fire district with what uh Johns County rule three rural fire district three into a single district. And at that time um it was decided that both the city council and the county commission should appoint a five member board to make the decisions for for the district. And essentially the appointments are split 50/50. Um so recently with with the economic developments going g going on in doto there's a realization that maybe that governing structure might not be the best thing for the current fire district or the fire district moving forward. Um and so we thought it was good to for all three parties, the district, the county, and the city to have a discussion about that to see um what the best uh future scenario might be considering uh where where things are going uh in Dotto. So what we thought would would be appropriate was for all three parties to enter into just a really simple memorandum of

understanding that we're going to um engage in that in that discussion. uh we don't we're not obligating any funds or or any anything other than staff resource and and and time potentially. So the memorandum you have in your packet there does that. Um there was some modifications to that. Um, after the packet went out, uh, we did receive a redline version from the Northwest Consolidated District and their attorney look at it and does have some suggested red lines. They're really nonsubstantive. They they just kind of add clarity and a little bit of explanation to a few of the things. Uh, most specifically, the term district is defined a little better. Um, I think within the language. Patrick's had a chance to review these good. So in the on the online packet there's the redline version and then a clean version there. Um so I'll stop there. Essentially oh the other thing we did is um in the previous version there were some percentages left out. Uh so if you look at the the district as a whole uh this map here uh shows where the Northwest Consolidated Fire District is. is sort of this bigger green boundary uh that uh that encompasses uh down to you know 143rd Street and over into parts of near Oletha there and you can also see the city limits also. Um so you can see in terms of geographical area we're becoming a larger part of of the district. Um, and Zach, you noticed that this doesn't include the city uh boundary that's that's the golf course north of the river. And that's really just because the the ctography here is from Johnson County, not Levworth County. So, but um does show the district. So, you can see

that um geographically, but I think more impactful is the amount of assessed valuation. And so those numbers, so we're about 37, if I don't get these numbers revised, yeah, 37% of the land area of the district, but we're 72% of the total property valuation. Um, so that again is indicative of maybe why it's uh would be fruitful to have this discussion moving forward. So I'll stop there. the clean version of theou there is updated to 21725 clean version I recommend approving thatou questions

yeah uh just a point of clarification not necessarily a question because I don't think you'll have it on top of your head unless maybe you do but the 37% um is the service territory of the district and 72% is the valuation and not wanting to sound like it's all about money um populationwise Do we know what percentage of the population of the district resides? I would imagine most of it is within the city. Yeah. No, I don't want to misquote anything. Mayor, do you have that? I don't have I don't have that. It was on the It's on the I think it's somewhere We're somewhere around 6700 6,800. The district is somewhere close to 10,000 something.

So pretty close to the valuation somewhere. Not not to get don't quote me, but I think that's I can get that number. And my point in sort of staying in asking that is that it's not just about the money. We have most of the people in the district. So that's one of the reasons why we're sort of wanting to renegotiate that if if I'm understanding correctly. I wouldn't call it a negotiation, but discuss to reassess and discuss. Yeah. Yeah, that's fair. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

Good point. Anything else? All right. Ready for a motion? This would be a motion to authorize the mayor to sign the clean version of theou uh with the two parties. I make a motion to approve uh or grant permission for you to assign the motion theou item four. Uh okay. Approve item 14.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion of the motion? Roll call, please. Matt Marin, yes. Patterson, yes. Bradley, yes. Sabo, yes. Slain. Yes. Motion carries. All right. Item four. I no L. It looks kind of like an I at this point in the night, but it is an L. Consider purchase of holiday streetlight decorations.

Good evening, mayor and council. I also thought it was item 4 I and to learn it was 4 J 4 L. That's wild. Um, but I do I think we're going to end on a more fun note. So, this item is a proposal or request consideration staff recommends to replace and expand our current holiday street light program. So right now you can see in the picture our parks and recck department hangs these snowflakes. You can go to the next slide from the east Y to the west Y on 83rd Street. And so yeah, there's 31 of them. That is not to scale. Um but right now the park staff they've they've really they've said that the the the snowflakes are degrading. they're end of their youthful life. Um, every time they try to repair them, they're crumbling in their hands. So, it it would be great to first replace those. The next part is in 2013, there was a council agenda item and it the council envisioned that once there was infrastructure on Lexington, streetlight infrastructure, that the holiday streetlight decor would expand on to Lexington. So now that that infrastructure is in place, we think this would be a good time to expand. So that would be 14 street lights from the east to west Y on Lexington. So we don't have a a particular vendor picked out. Um it would look something like this. Maybe the collection on the left or the collection on the right. Um we would hope to solicit quotes from municipal focused holiday streetscape uh vendors. They specialize in commercial

grade polemounted decorations and those quotes would be based on quality, durability and compatibility with our current infrastructure. So install complete in installation would be 45 units of 31 on 83rd Street and 14 on Lexington. But we think it would be a good idea to have a couple spare units. So our request is ultimately 50 at least 50 new snowflake decorations. They cost about 750 725 $750 a piece. So we're estimating a prelim preliminary quote that they'll be about 36 to $42,000 plus freight. Our ultimate request is um a not to exceed amount of 50,000 to to provide us some flexibility at the end of the year to find the best option of snowflake decor and be able to use those extra funds in case we need it for installation purposes. Um some street lights might have to be reworked and have some power moved down. So that's what some of that extra padding is for. But that is the request and recommendation. And where does this money come from? There is sufficient budget authority in the communications and events budget. Okay. Questions from council. I'll just share. I've had a uh well from the two ladies that brought the agenda item forward in 2013 have asked me uh Rick when are you going to do the lights on Lexington? Do you remember that?

Yeah, I do. But so I have a question. Is there any thought to further expansion um later? Uh have we thought about where else we might put them or just looking at the map? I think the the first place I would probably expand them is from the the west wide down to Commerce. I think you'd be able to you might be able to see those from the highway. We actually if there are some still usable snowflakes, I think we could even use some of the ones that are not totally degraded and and pull those down to commerce.

How long have these been up that we have now? So some of them we had some prior to 2013 and then 2013 was a major purchase where we added uh enough to do the whole we had we had enough to do like downtown Main Street initially and a little bit beyond. So there were um maybe 15 or 16 originally and then 2013 we bought I think another dozen to add that to go why to Y. So, some of these are of unknown age. Some of them are uh 12 years old, 2013 to 2025. Um and and and that's what like the light uh fixtures when they try to repair or replace the light, they those are crumbling apart on some of the a lot of the older ones. So,

are these LEDs? These are I think C9 lights maybe. These are not LED fixtures. The new ones could be LED. There's I think both options there. Yeah, the old ones are not LED. Where are these stored? We have a very nice holiday decor storage area where they store the the the holiday tree and all of those downstairs. They're hung very nicely on the on the wall down in the basement. I don't actually know how to get under the stage, right? Is it under under the stage? Oh, okay. Maybe is the old gym. It's under the gym workout room. Yeah, it's downstairs under the stage. really just wonder if they were stored in a barn or if they were inside. No, they're they're climate controlled. Yeah.

Yes. And there are there is sufficient space to store the additional um fixtures that were it is impressive what the park staff has created to hang these. That is very nice. Thank you.

I think it's a great idea to expand the snowflakes onto Lexington. I think it's a good time, right? We might get some postto holiday sales on some that is what we are hoping for. And maybe we could have a future discussion if any council would like to input whether we go with a cool light or a warm white, whatever feels inviting to the community. I think we go with a bright light. Um and we should look at future consideration uh south of K10.

Oh yeah. Yeah. In the future. And I I would add that I would really like if we have enough lights that are still serviceable once we replace and and do these that we can expand that along like you said south of the western Y I think. Yes. If they're still ser I mean sure maybe even Kill Creek in the future. I might be another option. And we did just put up some nice new street lights that look very nice. Right.

Has Jay agreed to just hang these. Yes. Thank you, Brandon. We already talked. I move to approve the purchase of replacement streetlight holiday decorations on 83rd Street and Lexington Avenue through a competitive quote process from a qualified municipal holiday decoration vendor and an amount not to exceed 50,000 with sufficient budget authority existing communication and outreach budget. I'll second that. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion of the motion? Roll call, please. Lane, yes. Patterson, yes. Savo, yes. Mcmaran, yes. Lane or Bradley, sorry, excuse me.

Yes. Motion carries. Thank you, council. All right. Thank you, Whitney. Uh, no executive session, so we'll go to advisor today. Yeah. Go ahead. I don't want to steal your

Okay. I I just I just wanted to compliment uh Brandon Whitney, the mayor, all who were involved in the monument sign uh there. We cut the ribbon on the monument sign for Riverfest Park and Daryl Zimmerman was able to attend there and say a few words there. Um kind of a windy sort of ceremony, but um just a great addition to that. I'm so happy we could get that done. Um so Brandon, really good job on that and the event was great and everybody behind in that really appreciate that. Also wanted to compliment uh Whitney on the great job uh strategic timing to ask for Christmas lights for next year in the council meeting before Christmas. That was all I had. Thank you.

City attorney, nothing for me. City planner, mayor. Nothing tonight. Thank you. City engineer Joe. Happy holidays. Merry Christmas and happy new year to everybody. All right. Assistant city administrator. I know you guys. Yeah. I did want to bring up just the January 1st meeting. I know we talked about the last meeting. I hadn't heard anything from uh council or staff. So, I'm hoping maybe we could I would suggest we just cancel that meeting. Yeah, I agree. Concur. So, what do we need to do to cancel the meeting? Make motion. Yeah. Make a motion that we cancel the January 1st meeting. Second.

All right. We have a motion, a second. All in favor say I. I. I. All oppose. Same sign. All right. No meeting January 1st. Uh 2020. Well, probably ever, but in perpetuity, right? We could say indefinitely. No meetings on the 1st of January. Yeah. Uh, anything else, Bren? I I just wanted to um shout out the CEK students that took the art piece. If you haven't been out in front of city hall, they did um excellent work on that. and then just say happy holidays to everybody else. All right. Thank you, Brandon. Uh council comments. Danny, you want to start tonight?

Uh yeah, I just had one thing and that was I want to congratulate the city staff again for doing such a great job at the monument sign down at Riverfest Park. That's about four exciting things for Darald uh that I wanted to pass along. He um was a great educator and a historian for Dotto. He's always been that. And um he put the steeple on by himself with some help of course, but uh he put the steeple on the Baptist church out here, which was a marvelous work at that time because of the way he did it and engineered it himself. And then uh also that may not know that he got the uh donation to the Dninnesota High School football team all over his house to insert the concrete fireplace into his house. So that was done by the Dninnesota High School football team back in that day. And the final thing was the uh cutting of the river ribbon at Rivercest Park. So, I just wanted to do those kudos for Daryl for his lifetime achievement here in this.

All right. Thank you, Victoria. Anything? Rhonda? Also, just want to say happy holidays to everyone. Be safe and merry. Zach. Yeah. Uh, I know that we have the uh city employee staff appreciation events happening and I wanted to say I really think that's a great thing that we do for for all of the full-time staff here and our three partners. Yeah,

can't forget them. U, but I just wanted to say I I also echo uh Council Member Lane's statements that I really appreciate the city staff and all the efforts that you guys put in throughout the year. You know, we're just here two nights a month. You guys are doing all the work. Uh, thank you and that's all I have for you. Thank you. Thank you, Zach. Joe, um, nothing for me other than, uh, merry Christmas. Uh, everybody be safe and, um, reconnect and have fun with your families. All right. Um,

thank you. Appreciate that. Um, just reemphasize that that sculpture. That's pretty cool. Uh it was fun to watch the kids put it up. Um uh great. They just that process I think it took quite a bit longer than we thought. Like the kids that originally designed it, they graduated and some of those are guys are about to graduate. Like one of them was back from a welding program I understand. And he's about to graduate from his post high school first trainings, but he came to see that. So I think that was a neat partnership that we did with the school district and CEK. And hopefully we have some other opportunities like that in the future. Um, and then merry Christmas, happy holidays, happy new year, I guess, since we canceled the January 1st.

And with that, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. I'll move that we adjourn. Second. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? We're adjourned. Good thing there's only two.