City Council - Regular Meeting

It is 7.30. I will call the regular city council meeting of June 15th, 2026 to order. We do have a quorum. Please stand for the pledge. All individuals are asked to either silence or turn off all cell phones, pagers, and other electronic devices that may disrupt this meeting. Approval of the agenda. Before we approve the agenda, we need to amend the agenda. The amendment will take place under new business, items 9D1 and item 9D2. to include updated resolutions with additional findings of fact. And you received those this evening when you got here. They were in your place here. With that amend, approve the agenda as posted and amended in accordance with the open meeting law. And herein place all agenda items on the table for discussion. What is the wish of the council?

I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Second.

Motion by Mayor Zilka, second by Council Member Glaze. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. Approval of minutes. Special work session meeting of June 1st, 2026 and the regular meeting of June 1st, 2026. Approve. What is the wish of the council?

I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

Motion by Council Member Liljegren, second by Council Member Meyer. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Carries. Approval of bills, electronic checks 4283 through 4309 and checks 114492 through 114567, totaling $497,977.32. Approve. What's the wish of the council? I'll make a motion to approve the bills. Second. Motion by Council Member Glaze, second by Council Member Hanson. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Carries. Awards, donations, presentations and proclamations. We do have a presentation tonight and that is the Police Annual Report for 2025 to place it on file. Police Chief.

Thank you, Council President. have the 2025 annual report for the police department and hopefully maybe had a chance to kind of go through it. Um, I'm not going to go through everything. There's a lot of information in there, a lot of stats, um, just kind of the, um, different activities that we've been up to, uh, over the past year and kind of what we're looking at doing in the future. Uh, I just highlight a couple of things. So just kind of some comparisons in 2025, we had 9,152 calls for service and compared to 2024, we had 8,386 calls for service. Regarding our overall crime rate for 2025, the overall crime rate was 3,994 per 100,000 population, which is compared to 4,170 per 100,000 population in 2024, which is roughly a 4.2% decrease in our overall crime rate. One other thing I wanted to highlight is our overall clearance rate, which is 51.5%. uh, in 2025. Basically what that clearance rate is, it just shows the, um, how all the reported calls that we get that are resolved through either arrest or, um, some other type of means through court or something like that. So, um, that actually ranks us in like 17th out of 61, um, other communities with our population. So, um, There's just one number that kind of helps to highlight just, you know, the dedication that our officers have to seeing through a lot of these crimes. That's kind of the highlights of that. I don't know if you have any questions or anything, but I do just want to make sure that, you know, I thank all the staff at the police department. We have a very highly professional, dedicated men and women, both officers and our administrative staff that do an excellent job day in and day out. And we work very well with our City Hall staff, we work very closely on many projects and we definitely appreciate their support, as well as our residents. This is one of those jobs that, you know, there's only so many of us and we can't do this ourselves. So we get a lot of support from our community and we just want to thank everybody for that. And the City Council and Mayor, thank you all for the support that you give us over the years. Without that support, you know, our jobs would be a lot more difficult. So we do appreciate that.

Kyle, I want to thank you for the great job that you do. You have really good leadership, and I know that they feel like a team, and that's because of you, so thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Council President, I just want to comment on how much training all of our officers go through. It's a remarkable amount of training.

That is one of the things that we highlight. Number one, I would say we want to be the best trained as we possibly can be. It also helps with retaining officers and just knowing that in the future when positions open up that they're gonna be able to step into those roles and be able to handle themselves.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Once again, you and your staff, thank you very much. Moving on, consent agenda. Tonight we have the Animal Control Report for May 2026 received. Application for a Display of Fireworks, Air Ball Productions, LLC and Morrison County Ag Society, June 26, 2026 approved. Application for Exempt Permit, Friends of the Lindberg Heritage Raffle, May 21, 2027 approved. Application for exempt permit, Little Falls Hockey Raffle, December 15th, 2026 approved. Building reports for April and May 2026 received. Heritage Preservation Commission minutes, June 1st, 2026, receive. Letter of resignation, Ryan Viveric, Park Maintenance Worker One, receive. Post Park Maintenance Worker One, authorize. Petition request for traffic signage, Prairie Drive, receive. Commendation of Interview Committee, Austin Udy, Assistant Golf Course Superintendent, accept, appoint. Recommendation of the interview committee, Ryan Fusi, police officer, accept and appoint. Recycling report, May 2026 receive. Wastewater report, May 2026 receive. And the water control report, May 2026 receive. What is the wish of the council?

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Motion by Mayor Zilka, second by Council Member Glaze. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries under lettings. We have one. Splash pad, internet installation, CTC Public Works Award. Greg.

Thank you, Mr. President. At the splash pad, we will have security cameras as well as automatic door locks to open and close the doors. We reached out to CTC as well as to provide internet access to that location. CTC provided us a quote of $8,700 falls net provided us a price of $4,800. The difference between the two is that falls net, we would need to have a roughly a 45 to 50 foot tower. Um, and so staff is recommending going with CTC, um, to provide that internet access. Uh, we have CTC at a number of our other locations. We do have falls net at two of them, uh, but CTC at the, at the remainder one. So, We are asking the council to approve the quote from CTC in the amount of $8,700 and then there is a monthly fee of $100 for that service and that would be charged to the park improvement fund.

What is the wish of the council?

I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

Motion by Mayor Zilka, second by Council Member Hanson. Any discussion?

I have a question, Mr. President. Go ahead. what are we getting for the amount of money that it costs? I mean, how much equipment is going to be there? I guess I just don't understand.

The vast majority of it is fiber installation of the fibers. Right now it's at Potter lane and they have to extend it over to where we're at. It's not far, but it's still, fiber is still expensive. Um, so that's what that cost is for.

And then we're getting the cameras and then we're getting the automatic locks on the doors.

Those are included in the bid price for the building itself. So we've already got that approved. This is to make them operational.

So this is basically just to have this internet capable. That's correct. It just seems outrageous to me.

It is outrageous.

I, and I understand having a preference for that as opposed to a big tower. Correct. I get that, but I think we're a pretty good customer to CTC with all the stuff we have wired in. I think they could probably do us a little bit better to run that fiber. We can request it.

Have you been seeing what they're doing out in the country? There's, CTC signs everywhere.

Well, sure. But that's there again. That's probably government money, grants and stuff to run that in the middle of nowhere. And then where we're a better market for stuff like that, we don't get the grants and then have to pay to hook it up.

Possibility going back and we can, we can talk to them. Um, I'm not sure if there's any wiggle room or not in it, but we can, we can definitely talk to them. I know they did. They did provide us. If you look at the quote, the $2,000 credit for it already. Um, but we can ask if there's any more additional investment that they can provide.

I don't want to be obtuse, but I think we need to try to do a little bit better than that. I mean, we have another option for not quite half the price. If push comes to shove or the, No, that tower would cost that much more, yeah.

It won't cost that much more to put the tower up. $4,800 for Falls Net, which includes the tower. How much? $4,800. Including the tower? That is correct. And we have to put the tower up? That's included in that $4,800. But we would have to fence it so that kids don't climb up and stuff like that. That would be our responsibility.

And who maintains the tower then falls net?

I don't know that answer.

Yeah. Who owns the tower?

We would also require the installation of the security fence around the tower and ongoing maintenance of the structure. So we would ultimately own it and have to maintain it.

And what, any idea what the cost might that be for maintaining that?

I don't paint it every 10 years or something. I don't know.

Well, Greg, I will tell you that the reception out where I live is not the best.

True.

And there is a lot of, uh, CPC out there.

Yep. Yep. I do know we have better reception with CTC. I mean, it's fiber. It doesn't go out nearly as often. Um, cause we have both, um, fiber as well as falls net on some of our other cameras and some of our other parks, um, where we, I mean, we just have to go and reboot the system to get the cameras and the door locks to go. Um, but it's nice where you don't have to reboot it and you know that the system is operational. So that's why we selected or recommending CTC for, for this.

Cause the cables that much better than the tower. Fiber is a lot better than the tower.

Any other discussion? Go ahead, Raquel.

Sorry, Dave. Mayor, you said that a lot of people in your neighborhood already have CTC?

Yes.

So fiber is already out there. It's right there close then.

It's at Power Lane, yes.

Edmond Drive is full of CTC.

It's right there. It's pretty close. Correct.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think they should be able to do better.

Okay. Council President, if I may, so we're horizontal boring this, I'm assuming? Yes. Well, I mean, I think CTC is a better option, but I know horizontal boring is not cheap. Those machines are quite expensive, and I understand, you know, I concur with the rest of council that we can ask for a discount, but I think in the long run it's going to be a better option because what we don't want to have happen is have the one company not be adequate. And then we're spending $12,000 all of a sudden. It's just, you know, I feel this is more reliable from the get go. Yeah. I'd rather use the cable in the tower any day. Where are they? I'm sorry. Where are they borrowing it from? Potter Lane. It's about 200 feet West of where the park is at right now. Is that the circle of the development? Potter Lane. Okay.

What life is saying is, you know, 200 feet, $8,000. How much is that a foot? A lot of money.

40 bucks a foot.

I believe it. How much a foot? 40. 40. I don't know. Like I said, I'd like the cable.

But then it's another a hundred dollars a month just for that location. Correct. That's $1,200 a year swing a better deal for all of our services with these people. We've been a good customer. I'm going to state that again. I mean, we kind of got the ball. And when I say we, I mean, I mean the tax paying resident kind of got the ball rolling on fiber going around here.

Okay.

Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Carries.

Wait a minute. I thought Mr. Kimmon was going to go back to them and ask for...

I will. There was a motion and second to approve it, so I believe that's what the motion or what you're voting on. But I will still go back to them to see if we can get a discount on it as well.

After we've already approved it.

And you come back next meeting with what they say.

Yeah.

Well, why would we approve it if we don't know whether or not we're getting the discount?

We would assume it's at this $8,700, but see if I can work some magic to get some money off.

Okay, well, at $8,700, I say no. If it comes back lower, I would say yes, but the council just approved it as is, whether you go and talk to them or not. So now that the council's approved it, you don't even have to because the council already approved it.

We can come back and say, no, we don't want it, can't we?

Well, Greg, there's about 15 new houses out in that area. So, um, I think CTC will kind of dominate that area. Sure. What's your own hurt to ask? Correct.

Right. So I don't think we should vote on it until after you've asked is what I'm saying, because now we've already proved it.

The challenge is that'll be one that probably will hold up opening of that area. So we want to, we want to get it going so that we can open that up and get it used. But if we want to wait, we can definitely wait. But that's the council's decision on that.

Well, I know we waited for 20 years to get that thing in there. And if we wait any longer, they're going to be running down our throats. I think I can trust Greg to go back and see if we can get it and bring it back. And we can amend the motion with a price on it at a later date. And within two weeks. I'd hate to slow that process down anymore, because they're like, OK, is it going to be open in July? There's no sense to open it in September, because no one's going to use it. So we need to get it done here within the next few weeks. TODD BANDUCCI. Yeah. See what they say? TODD BANDUCCI. So since we voted it through, I can amend your vote to a no, if you would like to do that.

I did vote no.

TODD BANDUCCI. OK. So it still carries. Yeah. Yeah. But then, Greg, you just.

So my point is kind of moved.

Check into it. Yep. I'll let you know. Okay. Thank you. All right. We have no old business, so we'll move on to new business. Item A is regulating recreational and special vehicles. Call for public hearing ordinance number 62, 7th series, amend city code chapter 10, section 10.18. Regulating recreational and special vehicles authorized. I'll take that.

All right. Thank you, Council President. Oh, you're going to take that? Okay. Yes, I'll take that one. And then if there's anything to add, we have Chief here who can fill in and answer questions. So for this one, we are just looking to call a public hearing regarding the ordinance on the ATVs. So we would be set to do that on our next council meeting, July 6th. We're just looking to authorize the public hearing.

I just want to reiterate too, I talked with Alex about this also. There's no state law, if I remember correctly, there's no state law that requires us to have a public hearing. But with discussions with Alex, I felt it was very important to have a public hearing, to let the public come in and be able to share their thoughts on it, because they came forward originally to bring this to our attention and to try to come up and solve this problem. So I know you always hear the thing that the city hall does whatever they want to anyway, and we just have to do it. So I just want to make sure that We would have a public hearing so people can come in, ask questions, and they can have them answered so that there's transparency about why this ordinance and how this ordinance was brought forward. What's the wish of the council?

Council President, I move that we authorize the call for a public hearing for ordinance number 627 series.

I'll second.

Okay, motion by Council Member Lundberg, second by Council Member Glaze. Any discussion?

Mr. Council President, I have. So we're calling for a public hearing, and the second one down is ordinance number 62. And the third one down says ordinance 62A. So all of this together is for the public hearing, correct? We're not approving anything yet. We're just calling for a public hearing.

CHRISTIE WOODARD. Calling for the public hearing, the introduction of the ordinance, and the summary publication, which is just shortening that down for the newspaper posting. So it's all related to the ATV to be voted on in July.

TODD BANDUCCI. In July. We're not voting on it. We're just voting for the public hearing. Correct. With all this stuff? Yes. Okay.

That's what I want to know. So item number one is just calling for the public hearing. Number two and number three, we're just introducing the ordinance.

Okay. Now, I just want to make that.

We're introducing it. We'll discuss it and vote on it at our next meeting.

I just want to make that clear to everybody that all of this is just going to be at the public hearing next July.

Okay. Any other discussion on item one? Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Carries. Item two, ordinance number 627 series, amend city code chapter 10, section 10.18, regulating recreational and special vehicles, introduce. Alex.

Thank you, Council President. So this one is introducing that ordinance that we have been so actively working on. And this one, if there are any additional questions or if Chief would like to summarize that, I will. hand that over, but otherwise we're just looking to introduce that ordinance today.

What's the wish of the council?

I'll move to introduce it.

Thank you. Moved to introduce by council member Lundberg. Item three, ordinance number 62A, seventh series, summary publication of ordinance number 62, introduce. Alex.

And for this one is just introducing the summary publication, so a shortened down version of the large ordinance that will be put into the newspaper. So we're not having to be charged in an arm and a leg for that one.

What's the wish of the council? I'll make a motion to introduce. Motion to introduce by Council Member Meyer. Item B, Ordinance Number 63, 7th Series, Amend City Code Chapter 6, Section 6.37, Food and Beverage Tax. Introduce Alex.

Thank you, Council President. So for this one, with the restaurant tax not being addressed at State this year, we needed to update our ordinance 63, or we needed to update our code on this. So this ordinance introduces a new subsection that adds limitation of authority. Essentially what that says is that our restaurant tax will only be in effect in our city So long as we have the authority to do so by the state statute. So the state statute that is expiring at the end of this month is it says it expires at the end of the month. We will go by what the state statute says, and then should it be reenacted in a month or in, sorry, in a year state statute will say it's reenacted. We won't have to change anything on our end. So it's just some terminology in there to set now that will, um, go with whatever the state statute has.

What's the wish of the council?

I will make a motion to introduce.

Motion to introduce by Councilmember Meyer. Recommendation of Heritage Preservation Commission, Policy 31, Heritage Preservation Commission Loan Grant Criteria, Local Funds, accept, adopt. Sonny.

Thank you, Council President. During the HPC meeting earlier this month, we met and discussed updating the loan and grant policies. The idea behind updating those policies is to streamline the administrative process behind it and make most of our policies or our loan and grants more similar to other areas like the EDA. If you recall, we just updated the EDA a couple months ago. So the changes that we are proposing is on both policies that the grant portion will now be forgiven at the time of the project completion rather than prorated over a 10 year period. On both policies, the interest rate change, how that is structured currently, it is 0% for the first five years, and then the years six through 10, it goes 1%, 2%, 3%, so it increases 1% every year for that six through 10 year period. Just the... managing of that reminding loan holders that their payment amount is changing annually after they've already had the loan for five years it's more of an administrative burden than it sounds like it should be so the proposal is to change it for years six through ten is a flat three percent instead of every year increases and then finally In the federal funds policy, the grant portion was written in as 70% of the project. Every single other policy that we have around grants and loans is that it would be 30% of the project. We think that might have been a typo from years ago, so we're recommending to change that to a 30% grant, 70% loan to align with our other funds. So requesting that the city council adopt policy 31 and 32 as updated.

What is the wish of the council?

I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second.

Motion by Council Member Glaze, second by Council Member Liljegren. Any discussion?

Yes, Council President.

Go ahead.

Sony, in previous years when it was forgivable by a seventh a year for seven years or a tenth a year for ten years, if it was sold before that ten years up, then that last part wasn't forgiven? Correct. Is there any way to address that so that they're not getting that grant money and then... turning around and selling.

The idea behind making it forgivable upfront is the projects that we would fund are things that stay with the building. So like roofs facade, something that actually improves the building and the structure of the building. So, yes, if they sell it, are they getting something out of that? They are. However, the main benefit stays with the city that our buildings are in good repair. So the idea behind it is to really incentivize people to use this, especially with the HPC. As these loans and grants come to the HPC, they then have to be presented to council. So at that time, there is the ability to limit how much grant funding is done. So we could limit it to, whatever number makes sense for that project, to feel good about that change. The other thing with the current structure is the proper paperwork has to be filed with the county, and then the abstract company has to notify us that they are selling. if that piece is missed, we may not know that they are selling and we wouldn't know to collect the funds. So there is a chance that even under the current structure of that one 10th forgiven every year, there is a chance that it is missed. Okay.

Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. Policy 32, Heritage Preservation Commission Loan Grant Criteria. Federal funds, accept, adopt?

Thank you, Council President. So I kind of covered both in my first walkthrough. So again, changing the grant portion, updating the interest rate, and then the federal funds policy is where we're updating the wording to 30% of the project. Up to 30% of the project can be a grant. Currently it's written as up to 70%, and I do believe that was probably a typo from years before.

Okay. What's the wish of the council?

I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

Motion by council member Glaze, second by council member Hanson. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carries. Item D, recommendation of planning commission. Item one is resolution 2026-31, deny variance sign that exceeds maximum height. Quick trip, ink, accept. Greg.

Thank you, Mr. President. On June 8th, the public hearing was held by the planning commission for this particular variance request. It did fail on a 2-2 tie. So by technicality, it did fail. This is for the property located at 1487 eight, six, seven 18th street Northeast. Um, we do have a couple of folks from quick trip here in attendance as well. I will point out, we did get some additional information. Um, today the, the FAA has approved the higher sign if that's, uh, the direction of the council. Um, uh, what else was there? Um, I do have the video and I'm sure the planning commission folks have seen the video. I will share my screen real quick here. Um, in regards to some of the items that the folks were talking about, Oh, can you stop sharing your screen? There we go. So this is the southbound. Um, you'll notice as you're coming around the bend on the southbound, um, quick trick did a number of studies to determine what that sign location and height would actually look like as you're, you're viewing it. Um, you'll notice as you get a little bit closer here off to the left hand side, you'll see a red blimp off to the left-hand side of my cursor is kind of in that location where you will eventually see it. But as you get closer to the off ramp is when it starts to appear. You'll see Walmart and right about there is where you can, you can see it now just over the side of Walmart. So I'll pause it here right there. Oops. Right below my cursor is where you can see the, the red blimp that is where the sign height would be at and the size of the proposed sign, um, would be at this location.

So Greg, is that the size of sign that quick trip requested?

Yes. Okay. That is consistent with the size that they requested. Um, I will also bring it up.

It also fits in with our sign ordinance too, correct?

This, the size does. Yes. The height is what they're asking the difference. So right now the height, um, of our sign ordinance is 35 feet. Obviously with the over, uh, overpass coming up, that's why the Perkins, the country in its suites, those, they're much higher. They're at like that 60, 65 foot Mark. Um, this property, as they mentioned is set farther back. And so that is why that one is, is higher up, uh, for the, for the request. I'm going to move this up a little bit so that you can actually see it as we come around. This is the northbound portion. This one's a little bit easier to see, um, just because there's a little bit more visibility. Once you get around this, this curve, you can kind of see where it comes in, but once you see the blimp where it's at, the blimp is essentially in line with the McDonald's, the Arby's, the Perkins, the country and in sweets. Um, and so it doesn't necessarily look out of place, even though it is higher than those. It's that line of sight that is essentially the same as what, uh, what those other ones are. So you can just start to see it now, right by the American flag, just to the left of it a little bit is where it shows up. Um, I can move my cursor up there. right there is where it just starts to show up. So I'll play it a little bit more. And there, as you get to the off ramp, you can, you can see it right, right in front of you. You've got the American and the rest of the fast food folks, um, in that location. So when I initially heard the 80 foot, I was, shocked as well that it was considerably higher than what our ordinance indicated. Um, but after seeing the video and I, I mentioned this to the quick trip folks, um, that it made sense based on where it's at, the size of the sign, um, and the line of sight with, with all of them. So, um, I was initially in agreements with the planning commission that it should be a note, but after seeing this, you know, this was two, three weeks ago before I went on vacation, when we saw this video, it made sense the requests that they were, um, were, were asking for, at least in, in my mind. Um, so.

Oh, and I would say we're very fortunate to have quick trip coming to our community.

Um, did you get, excuse me? I got to have a motion first. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry, Jerry. What's the wish of the council?

I'll make a motion.

And I'll second it just so we can have discussion.

Okay. Motion by Council Member Ludegren, second by Council Member Lundberg. Any discussion?

Mr. Council President? Yes. You did mention about the airports. People said that it's not going to bother the planes or anything coming into the airport. That's correct. And that's already been done.

That's been approved. That's what that aviation said.

Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that everything is up front. Okay.

So my question is... Go ahead. if we vote yes to this then we're denying them the 80 foot sign that is correct and if we vote no we are not necessarily approving that sign or are we that is you are also correct that if we vote no then we are not approving it we would have to have a second motion to yeah yep and that could still be done tonight that can still be done tonight yes well i think 80 feet is really tall, but I think it's also necessary.

Sure. Yeah. I'll, uh, Mr. President, if I may, um, I'll just restate the same objections now that I had a week ago. And I understand with the ordinance, I thought it was 30 feet, not 35, whether it's 30 or 35 is, irrelevant. I understand they needed taller sign than that, but I'm not in favor of an 80 foot sign. There are no other 80 foot signs there. And I'm, I'm concerned about starting a sign war. There is already a gas station up there at the same east to west location. I drove the highway, again before coming here this evening. And before I hit that exit, I can see the holiday gas station sign. Um, also there would be other options for them to place their sign to have more visibility. Mainly it could be on the property closer to the 16th street location. That's just where they want to put their sign. That's not the only option. I get they want the visibility. I'm somebody that travels a lot and not just around Minnesota, all over the country. I'm on the road a lot. Our guest even mentioned the blue signs. I'm just telling you, that's what I personally rely on. a big parking lot sign. If I need to stop for gas or food at an upcoming exit, I'm looking at billboards before I get there of which I counted. If you're heading north on highway 10 in between Hilmerson sports center and the exit, there's already 25 billboards that can alert people that quick trip is available at the next exit. And then, I don't know what the process is for the blue DOT signs, but that's an option as well. And that's what I personally rely on when I'm traveling. I just don't think it's fair to an existing business dealing with a lot of the same products and then mainly gas that we, well, you can have a, a taller one. So, I'm in favor of a taller sign, not to exceed the height of the tallest sign in that corridor.

Council president. So just to recap and reiterate, what is, what is your net 60 feet? The ordinance is 30 or 35. I think it's 30. And that ordinance is already being. Like there's already signs higher than 30. Oh yeah. 60, 65 in that area. Yep.

Okay. So theoretically every sign up there would have had a variance to go in or it would predate the current.

Okay. And in the past, have the science asked for variances and we've granted them.

Depends on the situation and what the request was for and the reasoning for it. If it was something to the blight, something to the property that was unique to the property, not just because they wanted it higher, such as the overpass. That's obviously something that wasn't caused by the property. Um, if you have, I'm just going to say a five or 10 foot sign, nobody's going to see it going up and over that overpass. So that's where it makes sense to go up, up higher than that. Um, tree vegetation is one where that you can look at that and say, okay, it makes sense because if the trees are on the adjacent property, they can't just go cut them down to get that visibility, um, that type of stuff. So it has to be unique to that property and not caused by that property to be able to grant the variance. And there's a number of questions that have to be answered in order to do that.

Right. And just to clarify what that blimp was showing us is that the fact that from the horizon, it doesn't look like it's much, it's doesn't look taller than the other signs. That's correct. I'll be, it is taller because of the distance that it was away from that. That's correct. Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other discussion? So just to reiterate this again, if you vote yes, that means you are denying the variance. If you vote no, it means that you're overriding the recommendation of the planning and zoning commission.

Correct.

Okay. So, it's a resolution. Call the roll, please.

Lundberg? No. Lilligren?

No.

Meyer?

No.

Zilka? No. Canafla?

No.

Glaze?

No.

Hanson? Yes.

Keres? Now, if we want to... Mr. President, it fails. Or it fails. I'm already flipping ahead here. Okay, it fails. Allison, know what I meant. So now if we want to approve it, then I would need another resolution to the positive stating that.

You would need a motion to end the positive. I will make such motion.

I will second it. Motion by Council Member Meyer, second by Mayor Zilka. To approve... The sign? 80 feet. 80 feet. The variance.

The variance. The requested variance.

To prove the requested variance.

Is that the top of the sign or the bottom of the sign? That's the top.

Just wondering. That's the number, 80 feet. That's the number.

Any discussion on this?

So now we're going to set the precedence that 80-foot signs are cool all over in that corridor.

No, just a quick trip.

Right. I think, I think that's what our job is. We get to decide because they're not asking anything that's really outlandish. What they're asking for is a sign that matches from the horizon, the height, the height of holiday, the height.

So we're not, you know, taller, it's taller than holiday sign and it's closer east west to 27 than holiday sign. So

but you have to drive right past holiday to get to it.

That's just a matter of who decided to build their first, right? I I'm just against the special look as much as I like quick trip. And I stopped at four of them, uh, a weekend ago, driving for work to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, and back and believe quick trips are every town you go through. Great. They're clean. I'm sure other communities stick to their sign standards and we're making an exception for this one particular vendor.

Well, somebody else comes along. We have to decide.

Are you going to say no?

Well, I'm going to say no. There's no trees in front of their sign. I mean, they have to get above the sign from a distance in front of the trees, and they have to go that high to see it. So I'm just going to make my decision on each individual person that brings in they want a variance for their sign. And this one, Quick Trip would like a variance, and I think they should get it because of the nature of it. I mean, does Holiday have any trees or anything in front of it? No.

Does Crip Crip?

Yes. So, I mean, each individual who comes to the city council for approval or not approval, we have to do it individually. We can't just override every, I mean, we can't just let everything go. There's always exceptions to every rule, and I think this is one of them.

And my issue is we're never going to go backwards, right? Once it's there, that other land where the trees are is going to develop. The trees are going to be gone. We're not gonna ask them to lower their sign.

I don't think that's gonna happen. If it does, you don't think that's gonna redevelop?

It doesn't matter.

We won't know. Not like that. We can't predict the future. No.

What do you mean you can't predict the future? That's what we do sitting up here is actually try to predict the future.

But I'm also looking at the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission, we had the public hearing, and there wasn't anybody there that came up to oppose it. One person came and wanted to know where the sign was going to be located. When he found out where that sign was located, he was perfectly fine with it. So I mean, as long as the residents didn't come and complain, the other businesses didn't come and complain, I guess that's what swayed my vote for yes. Okay. So any other discussion? Okay. So this would also have to be a resolution or just, I said it'd be a resolution.

It'd be a resolution. Um, and it would amend the current resolution to be in favor of the 84. Yes.

Okay. So yes means that you would approve the 80 foot sign. No means you're against it. That is correct. Okay. So resolution call, roll please.

Lildegren.

Yes.

Meyer.

Yes.

Zilka. Yes. Canafla.

Yes.

Glaze.

Yes.

Hanson. Nope. Lundberg. Yes.

Carries. All right, moving on. Resolution 2026-32, variance front and side yard setback 735 9th Street Northeast, except Greg.

Thank you, Mr. President. Again, on June 8th, we had a public hearing for an additional variance. This was at 735 9th Street Northeast. Allison, do you want to bring up the packet? It had a nice picture of where that location was and what the proposed building would end up looking like. The request for the variance is to change the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet. and the side yard setback from five feet to four feet. Um, and when we get the schematic up here, you'll see next page, um, you'll see the highlighted ones is essentially what the addition onto the building that they would be looking at at doing. Um, you'll notice right now, the current building is already at 20 feet, uh, from the, from the road. And so they're looking at putting essentially an addition just to the side of the, of the house. Um, and because it's kind of a pie shaped lot, it, there's a little triangle that, gets into that five or into that, uh, side air setback of five foot. So there's a triangle that would be at four feet instead of the five feet, uh, planning commission did recommend approval of this, this variance request. Um, and so we would be looking for the council to approve this resolution 2026 dash 32. What is the wish of the council? So moved.

I'll second motion by mayor Zilka second by council member, little degree. And any discussion hearing none resolution call roll, please.

Meyer?

Yes.

Zilka? Yes. Canafla? Yes. Glaze? Yes. Hanson?

Yes.

Lundberg? Yes. Lildgren? Yes.

Carries. Next item, resolution 2026-33, Tourism Convention and Visitor Services Agreement, City of Little Falls and the Little Falls Area Chamber of Commerce. and tourism, approve, adopt. Alex.

Thank you, Council President. So with the restaurant tax not being addressed again by the state, we have an agreement with the Chamber that essentially it's the agreement says we will give you the funds from the restaurant lodging tax. Well, this update is just removing the restaurant component from that agreement. Other than that, the agreement has stayed the exact same. It's simply removing the restaurant tax component, which we would then reinstate should restaurant tax come back. You want to make sure that our agreement with them is, you know, is accurate. Um, the summary of what the agreement covers is that the chamber will continue to cover or covered the city's convention and visitors Bureau and perform tourism promotion activities on behalf of the city. The chamber will get 95% of that lodging tax proceeds, which they use in their tourism component. And the city retains 5% for the administrative costs. They will submit an annual tourism budget to city council for review and approval, and they will, or the city will conduct an annual financial review of the chamber at the city's expense. So again, this is the agreement we've had enacted before just removing the restaurant tax component. We have this set up for an additional five year term, which is what the last week last length was. Um, obviously if the restaurant tax were to come back, then we would, um, update it at that time. So we're just looking for, all right. And then a small note there with doing some of the math because the restaurant tax is actually a larger income than the lodging tax. The city possibly may exceed the 5% retained administration costs in covering the audit and the staff time. Unfortunately, state statute does not allow us to take anything more than the 5%. So we just wanted to make it known that depending on the lodging tax proceeds and the cost of the audit of that year, we may need to provide some of that funding from the general fund. So with that, we are asking that city council adopt resolution 2026-33, approving the agreement with the chamber.

What is the wish of the council? I'll make a motion to approve.

Second.

Motion by council member Glaze, second by council member Lundberg. Any discussion?

I do have a question, Mr. President. Alex, what would we project that 5% holdback not covering?

Sony, if you wouldn't mind. So the 5%, roughly it's about $102,000 that's collected. The 5% is roughly about $5,300 some odd averaging the last two years. It's been increasing each year, which is fantastic. And the audit historically, or the reviewed financials historically have been anywhere from 4,500 to 5,500. I'm unsure of why that thousand dollar difference. So if we collect, we're talking about a couple hundred dollars, so if we collect $5,300, the 5% that the city retains, and the reviewed financials cost $5,500. Then we have a deficit of $200 and that doesn't account any of the staff time to collect and make calls on or do anything else with the lodging tax. So that's where that deficit comes from. And we just want the council to be aware when, if, and when in the future, the restaurant taxes are enacted again, and we're able to collect those. Those are closer to $130,000 that the city or that, um, the, uh, chamber gets. So we're retaining about $6,000. So in that case, we're getting about $11,000. Then we have our fees and then there's a little bit of cushion for the staff time there. So the, the big, the big change here is not having that restaurant tax.

So you're saying that we may not get all that 5%?

We will get all the 5%.

But anything extra we will not get.

95% goes to the chamber 5% retained by the city, but with only lodging tax, it's about, it's probably closer to like a 6% fees in relation to, um, the not audited, but the re the reviewed financials as well as staff time.

So just to clarify, the question that I asked was on it's, it's the difference in the hold back. And I was going to, Thank you for the explanation. You answered my question perfectly. I'm okay with that because I was going to suggest we explore, well, why doesn't the chamber cover the difference? I think we're talking about a number that's potentially so small it's not worth the logistics of trying to figure out.

That's the point I was trying to make. It's like maybe $200 or $300 at the difference is what you're saying.

Of cash specifically, not counting staff time, one of the things that we discussed, because we had that discussion internally, the chambers already hit about $120,000 or $110,000 because of the loss of the restaurant tax. Once that is back, we won't have this negative. So it's hopefully a temporary negative.

Right. Okay.

Could you make me feel better by saying the tourism component, I mean, it used to be the CVB. We're going by visit little falls, right? Make me feel better. And can we please stop saying this money's going to the chamber? I will do my best. Okay.

It's going to the CVB going to little falls. Okay.

All right. Any other discussion? Hearing none, resolution, call the roll, please.

Zilka.

Yes.

Knopfla.

Yes.

Glaze.

Yes.

Hanson. Yes. Lundberg. Yes. Liljegren.

Yes.

Meyer.

Yes. It carries. Any announcements?

Mr. President, I have one. I did speak with Jeff at the chamber about three weeks ago, and I told him that I will be running for mayor again this fall. Just wanted to make that point.

Any other announcements? Hearing none, we will adjourn at 8.24. Thank you, everyone.