City Council - Regular Meeting

I don't know. Eight more seconds. Call to order for the city of Canon Falls City Council meeting, Tuesday, April 7th, 2026. If I could get a roll call, please. Diane Johnson absent. Zimmerman here. Chad Johnson here. Jeepson here. Noach here. Croninburgger here. Montgomery here. Please rise for 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. If I could get a motion to approve tonight's agenda. So moved. Uh motion from Chris, second by Lisa. All those in favor?

I opposed. Carries. Uh nobody signed up for public input, so we will skip uh part five. Go straight to our consent agenda. Consent agenda items may may be adopted under one motion as presented or may be removed for discussion and resolution as council business. Item A, the just and correct claims for the accounting period ending March 31st, 2026. B, meeting minutes March 17, 2026. Item C, second reading and adoption of ordinance 414 and summary of publication, an ordinance amending Canon Falls City Code relating to the Canon Valley Fair. Item D, resolution 2863, accepting a grant for $1,62.50 from Celco to the library. Item E, approve professional services agreement for the 2026 street rating project. Item F, resolution 2864, accepting a donation of $5,000 from the DNR to the fire department. Item G, approve applying for a grant for the fire department. Item H, approve the 2026 contracted police services rate. Item I, approve disposal disposal of fleet vehicles and equipment from the police department. Item J, approve disposal of vehicles. Item K, approve bodywn camera audit. Item L, approve hiring of unscheduled part-time employees to the ambulance department. Item M, resolution 2865, accepting a grant for $7,76.668 from the Minnesota Office of EMS to the ambulance department. And item N, approve appointment of Laura Funk to the library board. Is there anything the council would like to pull from the consent agenda?

C. Item C. Okay, that will be city business item A. Anything else from the council? Hearing none, I would see a motion to approve the consent agenda. So moved. Second. Motion from Jeep, second from Diane. All those in favor? Opposed? Carries. Gets us to city business. So what was item C is now item A. And Lisa, you pulled it down. Yes. So it was uh 152.828 828 um 4. I would like to change the time to 10 p.m. instead of 9:00 p.m. so we don't have an issue when they're doing a special event.

So you want to change the time to 10 instead of 9? Yes. Can you uh say the section of that again? 152.828. It is C4. Got it. So, it's going to be on pa top of page five. Top page four. Oh, I'm looking at the digital version. Okay. Got it. Yep. Five digital four packet. Uh, topline motorsport activity may only be held during the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. You want to change that to 10 p.m.? Yes.

All right. Up for discussion with the council. Um, I guess I would disagree just because knowing that the fair board reviewed this and didn't ask for that originally to my knowledge. Berlin, did you ask for that when you guys met? Do you know?

You want to talk to the mic in the mic? No, it's good. There's been a lot of discussion on so much of it. I'm not exactly sure, but I believe noise ordinance falls till 1000 p.m. on weekends state code. I'm not sure on city code, but that would be what it is. If

I can speak to where that change came. So towards originally 10 p.m. was one of the draft times that we were discussing as we met um you know with after the planning prior to the planning commission approval. Um there was discussion about reducing that to ensure that uh there wasn't any lingering effect of motorsport activities. So trying to shorten that time frame up. There wasn't at the what we discussed in my recollection when we were talking we wasn't resistance to moving it up and shutting it down, you know, at least stopping the motorsport activity earlier. Um, but that was something that was changed later on in later drafts of the ordinance.

Can I add to that, John? Yeah. So, I believe also on that what part of it was is we would attempt to always have it done at 9:00. The noise ordinance really wouldn't come into effect if it didn't get done right away at 9:00 with the idea we would be shooting to end at 9 with everything. But if you ever had a run over, someone got hurt, also the events got to run an extra 20 minutes. We're still falling under the 10:00 noise ordinance. So, I think it's just uh agreed to try to be done at 9.

Yes. Try to end the activity at 9 knowing that, you know, people leaving everything wrapping up is may generate noise up until 10:00. Give it that little buffer. I would kind of agree with that. Um, with them targeting for nine, I mean, you have no no idea what's going to happen, right? Something catches on fire, somebody gets hurt, everything comes to a stop, takes them 20 minutes to get it cleared up and resume.

Then they run till 9:20. They're loading up their stuff. There's going to be probably 20 minutes of noise associated with with that possibly. It's still getting done before 10:00. So if you run till 10, then you're running past that 10. And I don't think that would be, you know, what they want to do and then they risk having to prematurely cut off things. I'd rather explain to somebody why we we viewed that in that the dynamics of that situation and still had it done before 10 than the other. Right. Okay.

So, it seems like the consensus would be I mean we can have more discussion but the consensus would be to leave it 11 to 9 with knowing that the noise ordinance would have that built-in buffer which then if there's a reason that goes past 9 it could be explainable. It's still a compromise to the citizens if things end at 9. So the original verbiage I feel like people will have the expectation then oh it was 9:30 and it it was still running and it's like people leaving or something happened. So, I'm I'm okay with extending it to 10. I don't see You're okay with what, Jaden? With with her with the 10.

Yeah. And I I'm comfortable with leaving it at nine with the understanding that at times it, you know, due to unforeseen circumstances, it might run later. And I'd rather explain that to the people than have it say 10 and then it end up to be 10:30 or 11. Yeah. And I think, you know, we went over this last meeting and at planning commission. Um, and we were all pretty comfortable then with 9:00. Vote on it.

Yeah. There. This was just pulled down to We're still in discussion. There's been no motion to uh pass in either way. So, it's open if somebody would like to make a motion to approve. So, it's clear that, okay, our plan was the event is going to start at 6:00 and it's going to end at 9:00. If it goes to 9:30, are they in violation of anything?

If there was not an outstanding dynamic to it, then I would say yes. But I would think that the fair board and whatever vendors they're going to have operating any events have a pretty good idea of how long things would run under normal circumstances. Um, but if you know, I mean, I've been to uh demo derbies where suddenly a fire starts and everything grinds for 15 minutes while they get that out, get everything cleared up and get back at it. Those are situations that I think we can explain why it went longer than anticipated as opposed to they're just going and they didn't stop it at 9:00 like they should have.

And I guess that's why I'm not comfortable extending it to 10 because if I understand you correctly if the fair scheduled something from 6:00 to 10 and something grinds to a halt and then they go till 10:30. Yeah. But your city ordinance says 10. So then they bound by that. They have broken 10 o'clock in the past and nothing's happened to them. Right. But Laura, your concern also right now uh section four uh under C says I just want to make sure the eyes are dotted and the te's are crossed. Get that.

But I'm totally I'm on board with we're planning for nine. If something happens and it goes a little bit later, as long as for sure it's done by 10, that's ideal. As long as that's what this is allowing, then I'm cool. I believe that's it written that way. We restate it. Yeah. Can we say the the final event has to have started by 9. Can I because two three minutes.

Can I point something out? Just I'll explain something real quick to you is so doing a lot of dirt racing and and stuff that I've been involved with. So, a lot of their curfews, what it would be is 9:00 could be the curfew, but what it would stayed in there is we can't start any new event after 9:00. So, if you're running heat races or the features and the feature starts at 10 to 9 because we got delayed earlier. Once that one's done, we're done. And it has to be done before 10. But we couldn't start if we didn't have one. We still had one to go. We couldn't do that because that'd be a brand new one. But that's the way a lot of tracks with noise ordinance will state is nothing new can start after that time. It just kind of clears it up in language.

I like that. That makes sense. That's what the standard is for these kind of races and these motorized events. I think we should adopt the standard there. Nothing new. Don, what are your thoughts? If we change it now, do we have to have a second public hearing? Public hearing or No, it's not enough of a change. I just like the way it's written, having that buffer, whether it's inferred or known, whatever, as opposed to, hey, here's 10 o'clock, and then they go over and then things run arai. Like, I like having that buffer built in, whether it was intentional, unintentional, whatever. It it makes sense to me the way it's written, I guess. So,

I just don't want it to be an issue later. I know the only point I know there I know there's possibility of scrutiny over over this and you know that it's the enforcement of the of the rule and if so we see them operating after 9 you know police officers are on duty they're going to go check in you know hey what's what's going on you're still operating the races after 9 providing the explanation like okay we're not issuing a fine for this and they're wrapping everything up

like I think that would be something I would see as a legitimate thing to happen and then they're not exceeding 10 or 10 o'clock firm deadline for no noise generating activity. There's still I mean there's still the state standard is is that in the evenings and I think that's I don't call if it's 7 p.m. So there is a lower threshold five decel reduction at in the evening time for residential property. So there is we will need to be mindful of that and that's regardless of our deadline of these events. So, I think it's I I I liked the idea of moving it to nine and keeping that so we didn't run into the hard buffer

for the 10:00 stuff because there was there was concerns brought up in our conversations about this of things in the past where they were going till potentially 1 in the morning and that was just not acceptable. So we wanted to ensure that there was, you know, firm expectations and understanding of, hey, we want things don't start them, but we absolutely have to have things done by 10:00. So can you write that in there?

Can't start new events after 9. That's kind of like where we're going with. Or is it even possible to say something like, you know, between the hours of 11 to 9, uh, noting that if there's extenduating circumstances, a race may if a race beginning before 9:00 may be completed. Does that sound like the language you were talking about, Finland? That's pretty much what it is. I mean there a lot of tracks have that type of thing where it started before nine they let you finish that one but you can't start another one type deal. That makes sense to me. I like that.

Okay. We don't want it running to one. The council is interested in putting that extra verbiage under section four or part C section 4 with no race may start after 9ine uh unless due like you said the extend circumstances it's you know except due to extraordinary circumstances a race that begins before 9 may be completed. What's extraordinary circumstance? Let's get

Yeah. or maybe even just said um you know except due to you know delays erase that begins before 9 may be completed. Yeah. Would it now you're talking verb legal words but would it be better to say scheduled? Oh use the word schedule instead of hold held. So that way if it was scheduled to start at 8 schedule something to start past 9 o'clock. Yeah. Yeah. Because they're supposed to be quick. So I'm just Maybe that's just a more definitive.

Yeah. I'm I'm wondering if that then allows for a race that starts at 10 to 9 to go. They say they're only that one makes because then it says scheduled if it was scheduled to start at 8:50 but they're running behind with no extenduating circumstances, no weather, no crashes and they still start at 94. Well, we were scheduled at 8:45. I Yeah, I thought the first one was safer that Diane had said that no race may begin after 9. Mhm. I I think that's probably clearer. Mhm. Um, you know, when you get whenever you get into exceptions within, you know, ordinances or or statutes, that's when it gets harder to pick apart the legal ease of the wording.

Our lawyer wouldn't need, you know, whether that mean, right? Okay. Yeah. So I think for to help me I think the leaving the first part of that up to the semicolon would be I I'd like that to remain as a recommendation and then with a comma after PM and no no race or no motorsport activity can initiate after 900 p.m. or can't start.

What about um all I don't know what the word is race or event must commence prior to nine or I mean not the whole event but the beginning should be scheduled to end at nine and if it goes a couple minutes longer they don't get in trouble. I don't know the but like and they got they start at 52 then they just keep going and they finish that one but they can't start another another one after that with no race to commence past no motorsport act it's motor yeah leave a motorsport activity just because that's defined in the ordinance

with no race to commence to be to commence I don't know if race would be the Yeah, motor motorsport activity event or heat or you know um the when you start writing ordinances and stuff terms matter I know I just I just and we're writing it to go there and hope they be able to see the show that they're paying to go to and if those we're we're just trying to figure out how to say that chat. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I I hear I hear I hear the intent of the council and I'm trying to figure out the words.

So maybe that goes back to your point. Leaving it more ambiguous is better because then we can use discretion with our police officers and enforcement. And yeah, we don't want too much discretion, but we don't also don't want complete Do you want to table it until you talk to a lawyer on it? If if we leave it the way it is, no. Because any um and it becomes an issue, can't we go back and revise it? Yeah. As is. I mean,

provide some discretion to interpret, you know, by our the police department or, you know, through what the fire department is telling us occurred or the ambulance is telling us occurred as to why we did this, right? I mean, I would much rather be able to explain to somebody why we gave them that extra 20 minutes. Mhm. because they had this event, right? As opposed to finding the the vendor that decides to design their heats around the last one starts at 8:59 but doesn't end until 9:25. I'd be comfortable just leaving it the way it is then. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I think so. Is that a motion? Motion. Motion to approve without any changes. Second.

Second from Diane. Any more discussion? All those in favor? I opposed carries. All right, that gets us to reports and chamber of commerce carry. Good discussion. Thank you guys. I got to go to a fire meeting. Appreciate we finally getting

Good evening. I am Carrie Lorenzan. I'm the new Chamber of Commerce director here in Canon Pulse. So nice to meet you all. Um I'll just update you on a few events that are coming up. Um one would be the annual summer fest funfest um which will be Thursday, June 5th or June 11th, sorry. And then the golf tournament will be Monday, June 15th. So we're working on the plans for all of that. And then I'm in the process of moving from our current office to city hall here. So uh you can find me here. My door is always open. Happy to to chat and catch up with any of you. So, if there's any questions, let me know. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Carrie. Welcome.

Thank you. Uh EDA, we don't have Laura here. Um John, if you want to run with that one, you can. Otherwise, it was mostly uh we did have a meeting to talk to uh Fieldstone and Yes, we We had a we had a few uh purchase agreements that were on the agenda for the meeting for uh phase two uh this third third addition to the hardwood estates. Um field so uh family homes was uh representative from there representatives from them

were on our call. They were the purchasers of I believe what three lots I think in total in the sub new subdivision. Two were already kind of developed but they became part of the new subdivision. And then they had another one. They had there was a lot of discussion we had around um off in the purchase agreement offers around um first rate of refusal on multiple lots within additional lots within the subdivision. Ultimately settled on um moving that just from four requested to two requested and shorten the time frame in which they have to take action. So, in the broad scheme of things, if we receive a purchase agreement on a lot and it's one of those that has the first right of refusal, Fieldstone would have seven days to act on their own purchase agreement to be able to buy that lot. Um, it either way in the end in the end that lot's going to be sold and uh, you know, hopefully developed in a in short order and more homes are going to be constructed out there. But there's still um pleased to say still lots of of uh good interest in in building homes despite you know some of the changes in um the economy and and whatnot. But it's it it's been a very good project right now. It's been very successful. So we're very pleased with the work that we've had with the partners that we've had built and u very encouraged for more um intent even private local you know folks to to want to build projects out there. So everything's available and it is what the price is. There's no negotiating. So and and as a I think the EDA board set as a priority, we want to take first come first serve on on those purchase agreements with the exception now of these two with the right of refusals, but they have interested people and that's why I think there was the agreement to accept those conditions.

Yeah. Great. Go around the horn. Jed. Um, I've had a couple calls on uh dirty water complaints. Just a reminder that we are flushing hydrants this week and next and possibly depending on weather into the third week because it's been so cold. Um, but yes, uh, as they flush, it is going to stir things up. Your water might be tinted a little bit yellow. It is still safe to drink. It's just iron um that is oxidized in the water. So, we're still good to go. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Jud. Bill, welcome. Thank you, Mayor. Uh we'll be taking bids next week on the 2026 street project and then that next council meeting then what we'll be doing is we'll be setting the public hearing because we'll have final assessment amounts. Uh then that'll uh take place in May. All right. Thank you. Spring when it finally gets here. Yeah, exactly.

Izzy, I will just throw out another reminder. April 20th is the deadline for the comp plan survey. So fill those out online and get paper copies over to city hall for us. And then secondly, McDonald's is open. if you've noticed. So, that project is completed. So, awesome. Head over there. It's all It's all ready to go. Yeah. Going back to the uh comp plan, the survey, our original goal was it 200? How many do do you happen to have an idea of how many we have right now? More than 200. I It's been a it it's been a week and a half, but the last email was over 300. Okay. That on the update

goal reached, but uh the more the the better. So, thank you, Chief. So, winter is pretty much done. Although, you can tell by the temperatures this morning. Um, so, you know, want to thank people again for, you know, just being mindful when, uh, we have had some of those snow showers and stuff, even though it really didn't amount to anything, my officers told me that a lot of the cars were off the roadway. Um, so had it gotten plowable, um, that's really helpful for, uh, public works because our our winter parking ends on March 31st. And then the other part would be um for residents. Uh I've seen a few solicitor uh requests come through that we've sent back over. Um so that's that time of season. Uh you may see solicitors they should have a permit from the city. If they don't um you know please call and report it um so that the officers can make contact and find out why. That's all I got.

Thank you. Do you happen to have any details on the solicitors like so if people see them they um I don't know the the actual companies um what they're going to be selling and stuff and and what I see um Izzy would have a better idea. So currently new ones are HBC. Okay. Um and then Mad City Windows. Okay. So windows and home improvement. Okay. Spring project stuff. Yeah. Got it. Thank you. Sarah John

uh quickly like was able to attend the coalition great Minnesota city legislative update um March 25th uh great turnout uh for kind of a late um one in the session and a and a off somewhat of an off year. So you know the budgets there's a two-year budget cycle so budget years tend to be the busier ones. They start the sessions a little bit earlier. This year's not a budget year so it started a little bit later. Um but really really pleased. Uh Governor Walls was able to be there as well as I think the minority leader in the Senate, Mark Johnson, um came and spoke to our group. Uh and then we had a reception uh afterwards after our legislative uh meetings in the afternoon and then uh met in the evening for a meal at Mancini's and got to um coordinate and actually met with all of our our reps again um at that event. So So it was really cool. uh to be back in a part of that. I did a lot with them. Uh and fortunately, right before that week, I was asked to participate in uh testifying as for some legislation that was proposed on on a housing bill. Uh at this time, the lot of the language in there is not uh we feel is not conducive to actually helping cities out and uh establishing more affordable housing or getting housing built in our communities because it does a lot to create preeemptions that aren't actually going to um support the things that we're doing. The good things in the bill are things that we're actually already taking taking place. We're doing like the apartment complex along uh the highway and you know using commercial districts for more development or you know doing uh planned unit developments and uh like hard we have in hardwood estates and Timber Rich where you know we can really try to design those uh to meet the the you know more in tune with the times and what's going on. So we are taking a lot of actions I feel like in in supporting housing and growth and um

doing so with the tools in our toolbox and my proposal was give us more tools to add to our toolbox and not uh you know taking them away. Uh then just wanted to give a a update too on the data center project. So we have uh sent off our signature pages and that's getting executed and recording and the closing for the development agreement and then they are working on the final stages for the to get the final plat proposals uh before us. So very excited about those moving forward. Um so really happy that we're at this stage and and seeing action again taking place. So awesome. Thanks John. Laura, I'm good. Chris,

uh, just quick question on the data center. Is has there been any legislative action this session on data centers or any updates from that world? I have not seen anything come across my desk or emails for updates on that. It's it sounded preession the the scuttlebutt was there were things going to be proposed, but there was very little um expectation that there were like anything was going to get out of committee or or be, you know, coming forward. this being an election year for everybody um that it you know anybody taking a firm stance on on that and anything getting passed was going to be difficult. I've heard talks about them lifting the nuclear uh memorandum

moratorium moratorium. Yeah. So energy related. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Oh, that's all I had. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Oh, Dan. Um just a heads up to our department heads receiving three substantial grants and another one in process. So good job for everyone. All right, Lisa. Chad. Nothing today. All right. I have nothing as well. So with that said, I would take a motion to adjurnn. Motion. Motion from Lisa, second from Chad. All those in favor? I opposed. We're adjourned. Thank you everybody.