City Council - Regular Meeting

call the order for a watertown city council meeting for june 1st of 2026 please rise while hank rosso the chaplain for watertown fire rescue leads us in prayer thank you heavenly fathers we come to you tonight we thank you for your love for this community god we thank you that at your presence although it's often taken for granted it's so obvious with the law enforcement to watch over us, keep us safe, our fire rescue, run to our aid, paramedics. God, we're blessed. And our streets and all these things, God, it's a pretty great place to live. It's not a perfect world, but we love being here. I thank you for the love that's shared among this room and love for this community. I pray that love would prevail. We ask for wisdom, insight, and understanding. And we also ask your hand of guidance as election day is coming up and that your will be done. We ask these things in Jesus' name, amen. Amen.

I pledge allegiance 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. Finance Officer Bob Zien, please call the roll.

OK. Pauline? Here. Mormon? Here. Durance? Here. Peters? Here. Shetty? Here. Allen?

Here.

Hoyer?

Here.

Thank you.

Quorum is established. Chair will ask now if there is anyone who has a conflict of interest to disclose. All right. Can I get a motion to approve tonight's agenda?

I'll make a motion.

Made by Councilman Moorman, seconded by Councilman Shetty. In the Oh, actually, let me rephrase. Okay, I have chosen to use mayoral privilege and I'm going to be removing items eight I and eight J from the agenda from the consent agenda. So eight I and J and we will move them to first off in the regular agenda. So with those two changes, is that still okay councilman mormon and shadi to make that motion to approve yes okay so without any further discussion motion to approve the agenda please say aye aye aye any opposed any opposed say nay motion carries we're on to open forum is there anyone who would like to address the council on something not on tonight's agenda i'll close open forum we'll go right into WHAT USED TO BE ITEM 8I, WHICH IS AN APPROVAL OF A UTILITY EASEMENT RELATED TO THE AIR STAY WATERTOWN LLC PROJECT. WE'LL GO TO OUR CITY MANAGER, ALLEN STEGGER, FOR MORE INFORMATION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEN. THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A REQUEST FOR THE CITY TO GRANT AN EASEMENT TO WATERTOWN MUNICIPAL UTILITIES TO PLACE A UTILITY TRANSFORMER TO SERVE the Airstay Hotel that is being constructed immediately east of City Hall. That project is being constructed property line to property line, and the only place to really logically place that transformer is on city property. And so this will grant a perpetual easement for the placement of that transformer. Staff recommends approval of the item.

Thank you, City Manager. And City Manager, I know that items 8i and j are very similar. My intent was always to take separate hearings on that. I think you succinctly phrased what has to be done on this item. I have. Correct. Okay. All right. Can I get a council motion to approve the easement? Motion made by Councilman Schutte.

Second.

Seconded by Councilman Jurens. All right, let's open it up for council questions. This is related to item eight J. I don't think that's why most people are here. But I know that people are here to talk about this issue. So I will open it up for public comment on this issue. This is just the easement on the utility box basically, so not the permit. But I feel that it's fair to offer that up as well. Okay, close public input or public meeting. So council, any questions or comments?

Councilman Shetty. Thank you, Mayor. I guess just a quick question as far as standard practices for other projects that are similar over the years. This is just safe to assume this is kind of how we go about doing it. And when you're at fence line, the fence line, if you will, so we could follow up with that.

I believe this is a standard practice. In most cases, it's not on city property as the neighboring businesses that may share a transformer are private property. I don't think it's unusual to grant an easement for the placement of this infrastructure, though.

Any other questions or comments? All right. The motion is to approve the easement. We will do a voice vote on this. Officer Bob Zien, please call the roll.

OK. Helene?

Aye.

Moorman? Aye. Durance?

Aye.

Peters? Aye. Chetty? Aye. Allen? Aye. Hoyer?

Aye.

All in favor?

Motion carries. We're on to item 8J, which is an approval of a resolution to extend the permit on M25-20 for construction of the air stay project. And we'll go to our city manager, Alan Steger, for more. But I did want to point out, City Manager Steger, that this is not something that even had to be on tonight's agenda. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Because this could have been handled administratively.

Correct.

So that this is on the consent, that this is on the agenda to begin with, that it has been pulled so that we can have public input, on an item that does not demand public input and by law does not require it. I just wanted to say we want people to be heard. So City Manager Steger with that preface, please tell us more about this.

Thank you, Mayor. Before you tonight is a request via resolution for an additional extension. Actually, it is the first extension of the Occupy Right-of-Way Permit issued to Ayr State Watertown LLC to construct the hotel immediately east of City Hall. Originally, a permit was issued spanning a period of 15 months which came about through negotiations with the developer to match the amount of time that they believed required to complete the project. As the project progressed, the first initial six-month period was granted through our engineering staff. As most people might recall, there were some delays and problems with the project. I have met with the developer several times in the last couple of days. They believe that the problems are behind them at this point. They are ready to move forward with opening the alley yet today and opening Second Street at the end of the week for a period of approximately three weeks. After that time, they will then begin the precast concrete portion of the project, which will necessitate closing Second Street again at that time. We have actually put some requirements 1 through 4 in this resolution to give it a little more teeth around the communication than we had in the past. In the past, the developer would merely say when asked about the street that they have permission to keep it closed for 15 months. And that didn't give us a lot to go on or to cooperate. And they are not keeping the street closed out of malice or spite. There are legitimate problems they have encountered in the project. as well as legitimate issues with temporarily opening a street under the conditions that it is in. With these conditions, we do believe this would be a much better managed process. City staff has always intended to have two lanes open as soon as it is reasonably practical to do so. That reasonable practicality is when the site is backfilled. we are able to open up two lanes. We anticipate that that's coming shortly and will last through June before the crane is brought on site. The crane will be a more difficult portion of the project as it's a fairly large crane with a footprint easily in excess of 30 feet of width and will require the street closure again. However, that should be a much quicker portion of the project. A couple of the requirements It's been difficult in this project to communicate with the public and to communicate with the council as we haven't been getting good information on construction schedules and timelines from the contractors involved. So this resolution does create some specific requirements to update staff, who then can update the public and the council. We also have the ability for special events and special circumstances to require that two lanes be opened. on Second Street, and we have also asked for a communication notification period of 48 hours in advance of closures so we can attempt to keep everybody as informed as possible. And then finally, completing the project, there is a requirement to restore the right-of-way to equal to or better than its pre-construction condition in this resolution. As we have been working through solutions to constructing this project and taking care of the neighboring business owners, we have also encountered many suggestions for things that could be done on the project, such as why don't you just use city property? Well, that's an easy answer, and if it were that easy, that would have been done at the beginning of the project. The simple answer is there is not enough city property for the developer to effectively work on it. Secondly, they, by their choice, do not want to place a crane the size of the crane required on the asphalt surface that we have in the city parking lot, or they will be buying a parking lot in addition to the project. So there are many things going on with this. As the Mayor stated, we could have done this administratively. We as a staff did not want to do that. We think it is good to have this discussion. It is good not only to allow people to be heard, but it is also good for the developer to hear that there are concerns, that this isn't just somebody picking on development. There are legitimate issues with closing a street for an extended period of time, and we need to do our best to communicate and work through all of the issues for the betterment of Watertown. I will pause and take any questions that you have.

Thank you, City Manager. City Engineer Peterson, did you have anything to add at this point? Okay, thank you. Council, I will ask for an approval of the resolution. And just to explain to everyone, just because you make a motion does not mean that you support it. It just means that we have to actually have the motion and the second in order to even legally talk about it. So with that, can I get a motion? Motion made by Shetty, seconded by Peters. Is that correct? OK. Thank you very much. I will open now for a public hearing. So again, I'd like to say I welcome the input. And I've always said that anybody who takes the time out to come to a city council meeting deserves the right to be heard. So I ask you just to please identify yourself and who you represent. And just make sure the red light is on. Or green light. Sorry.

Yep. Nope.

No push.

Okay. There you go.

My name is Jeff Gamber or part owner only for foods with my son and my wife 37 years 37 years being a family business in Watertown Battled against big-box stores Super Wombats over it Through all that we survived little tiny independent grocer downtown butter If this road closure and the The way this has been handled continues at any point. I mean, we are not going to make 38 years. I can guarantee you that, that we will be closed. Through those 37 years, we poured as much money as we can into community events. Everything helped out, volunteered. It's been disheartening how all this was handled Most Did you know that? In the state of South Dakota, there is only two grocery stores that are downtown in cities Which is a real gem to have in your city, there's most most towns and most cities are would die to have something like that. And we're going to be losing one here soon. This is just our last ditch effort. Hopefully we can get some kind of relief in opening up and getting some follow-through. There's a lot of people here that I'm only speaking on our family. There's a lot of people here in businesses uptown that are struggling and have issues too with this. But we really, really are pleading counsel for help on this matter. That's all I have.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify?

Good evening. My name is Megan Olsen. I own a store down on West Kemp, so the opposite end of Kemp Avenue. But if you remember, I was in front of you February of this year. And I asked each and every one of you to get on board with a big, bold vision that we had for downtown. Right? Let me ask you this. When you took the oath of office, did you think you were going to be in the business of deciding winners and losers? Because tonight, that sits in your hands. When you've got people like the Gambers, who have done more for this community than most of us will ever dream of doing, pleading with you to do the right thing, I implore you, this is your opportunity to right a wrong. So when they take the vote, please, please, please make that consideration. For you, I know a lot of you have done research. I know a lot of you have been reached out to by your constituents. Remember that. This is more than just check in the box, yes or no, you get to go home tonight. These folks across the street have to figure out how they're gonna continue to make it and serve this community. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

It's kind of scary coming up here, but we're all friends. We're not here in anger tonight.

Just please identify yourself.

We all know you, but... Jill Makepeace. Tim and I own Makepeace Jewelers. Tim's been up here for 44 years. I've been with him for 36. Annette and Jeff, and now their kids, I've served on many committees with them. Anytime I've ever asked them, girls on the run needs bananas. We'll have them there. We need water. We need something on the downtown. They've always answered and said yes. They're good community members. Now, Jeff and Annette can probably walk away off into the sunset and retire. Tim and I, we can walk off into the sunset now and retire. We're holding on for our kids. You all probably know Dylan is next in line for our store. Their kids are with them tonight. They're next in line. We can go away, it doesn't matter. But we want our kids to be the second generation. And hey, maybe some grandkids to be the third. This is hard to have the road closed. Michelle's a little shy, but even AMJ, it's been hard for them. Gather, my girlfriends are going to coffee. Oh, the road's closed. Hey, I'm just going to go to Caribou. They're losing business, too. And it's hard to measure. We don't know how, but I just ask you, save the gambers. Save County Fair. We need it up here. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Colin Paulson, I'm representing myself. I'm here for a different reason for work, but I'm also a former assistant city engineer, former council member. I've worked with a lot of these people behind me. I've worked with every single one of you. Watching this happen is not normal for Watertown. This is not a normal circumstance, and I get as a contractor that the challenges that come with working in spaces like this. But you have to factor that in when you're working in spaces like this. And that has to be accounted for before you start a project, not after, and not on behalf and the detriment of every person in this room. I do feel bad for everyone here, including the city staff, because they're also taking a beating every single day. I'm sure they're getting calls. I've been there, and I feel bad for them. And I know the city manager, I know the engineering department. Um, I feel bad because it's hard to take all negative everything and try to turn it into a positive. Um, but I wanted, there's a lot of challenges that haven't been addressed out here either. Uh, there's no erosion control in place as a contractor. We're forced to do that on every single project. I drive by and see no inlet protection, no silt fence up. I mean, it's mind blowing to me as a contractor, as someone who is certified in erosion control practices. You know, there's just things like that that haven't been addressed and I think it's wrong. And I do hope you guys are right or wrong here.

Would anyone else like to testify? I'll close the public hearing. I will open it up for council consideration. City Manager Steger, I would first like to just make very clear to the council and to everyone in attendance and watching what exactly this proposal, this agenda item does or does not do. in part because I think, I speak on behalf of the council, we would like to see some way of helping the matter and helping the downtown business owners, and in particular, County Fair. What are our options here? Because I know what this does, which is gives the city more power to actually control the issue, which we did not have previously. But explain a little bit more what this proposal actually does. You are absolutely correct.

This proposal gives us the clear ability to control the street. Now, you could say we've had that ability, but it would involve moving mountains of dirt piled up and equipment that have been staged haphazardly on the site. This makes it very clear that an order from the city manager or the city engineer to open the street needs to be complied with. And all we are asking for is some cooperation, that if it's apparent that there will be no work at the site for a period of time, we need the street open. And we are at that point where we've been told it will be open by the end of the week and kept open through June. We do know that there will be a period of closure. And again, that's where the update every two weeks would be so helpful. We anticipate they will tell us the date they are planning to start. Erecting their precast concrete in the date they plan on Ceasing that operation which will allow us to then say okay. What is a reasonable period of time for that street to be closed? they may have to come and ask for some exception due to weather, but it's not just a complete open at the discretion of of the Builder for the next nine months when they want the street open and when they want the street closed. So the primary difference here is it puts the city staff in control of the site.

Thank you, City Manager. Which, as a follow-up, which is basically power that we did not have under our old ordinances, or under the old permit.

Our former permit, we had limited, we had power that wasn't tested. I will say that. And we want to be accommodating. You know, this is a very substantial project in the community. We could be looking at a vacant building. And if we're not careful here with this permit, we might be looking at a hole in the ground, right? The worst thing that could happen here is for the developer to walk away. And I think that's a developer trying to get started. They maybe don't have the decades of experience. but that will kill our community, is if people can't develop here for fear of being pushed out of the downtown area, that's a future we don't want either. And so I would just say we all need to find a way to work together for the betterment of existing established businesses and the development opportunities that are right in front of us. Half of you on this council vetted this developer. We were very happy with the proposal made for this hotel. Just think of where we would be without this project. We would be staring at a vacant building. Now, it hasn't been the smoothest project. They have encountered some issues, and maybe some of them were preventable, maybe some of them were not. We can only move on from here, because this will impact the next developer that wants to come to our community. and they will look at the actions that we take. And I just ask you to consider that as you look at what we're trying to do here, which is to get a project completed with the least amount of disruption as possible. We're not here to penalize somebody that had bad luck. We're not here to push anybody out of business. This is part of being a community with vitality. We've got to be able to work through these issues face to face, in a setting as people working with people. And I thought we were there, but I don't think we're there.

Thank you, City Manager. And Council, I want to ask a couple more questions because I want to just make it very clear what we're voting on or not on this. So, City Manager Steger, under the old process, we issued a permit that may or may not have given the city, whether that would be staff, would have given staff any power to step in and do something on that site. We may or may not have had that power. It has never been tested in Watertown and it was not spelled out in Watertown ordinances. That is correct. This proposal tonight actually gives us that power. to step in and have control, at least some level of control, over timing, communication, road openings, road closures, things like that.

It does, but I'd also caution you to think about what the remedy might be. The remedy might be city staff spending weeks moving construction material and piles of dirt on the street. So the best thing we can get out of this and which is why we're asking for the timely communication, is a project that everybody is cooperating and is moving as quickly as possible. So I know that's a vague answer that, yes, we have asked for some things, but keep in mind the remedy, if the developer decides to walk away, that isn't an easy remedy and it's not a position we really want. We want the developer to be successful. and to complete this project in a timely fashion.

Thank you, City Manager. One more question at this time, which would be the concern is the closure or the opening of the road. What's the fastest way that we can get that road open and still let the project go forward?

The fastest way to get that road open is the activity that's going on right now, which is completing the backfilling. When that is completed, over the next couple of days, the contractor will be coming in Moving the stuff that they've had on the street as well as cleaning up the street They intend to by the end of the week having at least two lanes of traffic open on Second Street and again, they anticipate that that will stay open through the end of June which is when their crane and precast concrete will be arriving on site and

Okay, I obviously was wrong.

I said one more question I have one more because I know that there are people out there listening and watching and they're gonna say we've heard this before What's different this time we have more Specificity this time in terms of who is delivering the concrete where it is coming from the planned date that it is coming Which we heard directly from? Directly from the developer this morning At some point, we have to have the faith that they're managing their project to a schedule and that they will carry through with what they're going to do.

Thank you. Now I'll open it up for council questions, comments.

Councilman Peters. Quick question for you, Alan. Let's say that this gets turned down tonight. What does that process look like for the developer? How much time do they have to get the street open?

I think we would give them until the end of the week to get the street open would be reasonable. I would like to require the developer, if you do choose to turn this down, I would like to require the contractor to reopen the street. alternative is that we we force it open through city staff and i would rather not expend that resource okay thank you i'll have more but i'm gathering my thoughts thank you councilman jones oh that helps a lot right there that answer

What I don't trust is them doing what they're gonna say they're gonna do. We had a meeting here. They were gonna go talk to their neighbors and ask them, and fill them in on what's happening. To my knowledge, that didn't happen. I think they're kicking us right square in the groin by not doing that. And that makes me want to vote no tonight. And unless I hear something way different than that, that's my intentions. Now, this question to Councilman Peters and the answer, I don't wanna put this on the table, but I believe if they can't open that road up in a week, we could call another council meeting and we could solve this in a week. But for me to vote yes tonight, I don't think it's going to happen. And I go back to something that's been around for many years. I had to look up the words. It's called the second greatest commandment. Treat your neighbor as yourself. I have not seen that. And that is something that really, really gets at me. I've seen another developer in town do the same thing. They got a TIF a few years ago, and they've been treating contractors, they've been treating their constituents, they've been treating their neighbors like crap. And I think we, as a council, need to make it known that we love development, but we want good development. We want people who are responsible that say what they're going to do and do what they say they're going to do. Until we've rid ourselves of that, I think the good contractors and the good developers will continue to come. I believe that we are very friendly to development. I believe we should continue to be friendly to development, and I want to be friendly to development, but I don't like it when they say something multiple times and then they go back on what they say. Now, this particular developer, I had a couple people reach out to me, only a couple, where they've been doing things in other towns and other neighboring areas against council issues, where the council and the city have had issues and they thumbed themselves. That seems to continue to be happening. By them not showing up here tonight, I know it would have been rough, but that tells me another thing. By one of them not showing up at our meeting that we had that was specifically designed to get some answers, the one main developer didn't show up. And then they didn't go out. That's just something that I don't trust that's going to happen. So if we do take a vote tonight, if that's what we all decide, I will be a no. Just want to be right up front to let you know that. But I wouldn't mind reconvening in an emergency meeting in a week if they do open up that road and then deciding whether I can vote yes or no at that time. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? So actually I would have one to the gamblers. So we did have a meeting with the developers here at City Hall and we encouraged them to come and talk to you and they said that they would do that. Did they ever do that?

They did come over. But that was only for a close in the alley purpose.

When when was that?

May 14th, okay. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you All right council councilman Mormon My colleague councilman Lynn Jurens He brought up a very very powerful point and that's the fact that the contractor that's causing all of this is All these problems, all these concerns, and all these issues within the community are not even here tonight to face their peers. And I think that speaks volumes. They're not even here to ask for forgiveness, or they're not here to explain their stance on why we're in the situation that we're in. And another thing I would like to say is, if there were delays, if there were circumstances that popped up that they weren't able to do the construction until now and stuff like that, as a councilman, as a council, I was never informed of what those delays were. I was never told that, hey, let your constituents know that I don't even know what the delays were. And going forward in the future, I think it's beyond imperative that we are kept in the loop as to what is causing these issues, what is causing the problems that are creating such an uproar in the community. Transparency and communication are just so vital. And to hear tonight that they've had some setbacks, this is like, June 1st, 2026 is the first I've heard that. And going forward, that stuff needs to be conveyed to us a lot sooner so we can also respond to our constituents about it. Was there ever any talk, I just want to ask this question, because I'm looking at Google Maps here, First Avenue Northeast. right to the north of us here, is considerably wider than 2nd Street, and it has a turn lane. Are they able to get their crane in in that turn lane area, park it, and do work from that road as opposed to having to be doing the work from 2nd?

We have asked those questions. Now, I haven't approached it in the manner of saying I don't believe what you're telling me, but The City Engineer has as well. We looked at a variety of things, including using the City Hall lot across from First Avenue, using First Avenue, using the City Hall property, storing materials on the other City Hall parking lot behind shooters. All of these actions were presented, and the developer responded with, Second Street is what they need. And for what it's worth, they have represented that having the street closed was a big part of their decision to move forward with the development. Now, it's not in any type of development agreement that we agreed to that. That's just their desire that they've stated as they contemplated the project. And I do feel uncomfortable that I seem to be the person here defending the absent developer. And trust me, This hasn't been pleasant dealing with people I can't necessarily rely on for answers. But we do also need to keep in mind that everybody has rights that we need to look at and defend as well. The developer has a right to close a street. This certainly is not unprecedented to close a street for a period of time such as a year. It wasn't too long ago that we had a street closed for the Lake Area Tech construction project for approximately the same period of time. We have had a U.S. highway closed in the city for many months without any access to businesses. We are trying to work the appropriate middle ground here between supporting a developer while at the same time not being overly disruptive to people in the area. That is part of development. I am just as upset as you guys are and the neighboring business owners are. In fact, probably more upset that I can't get honest, straightforward answers on where the project is. But on the other hand, I don't think you guys want me to be their project manager either. We need to find a way to compel the developer to get this project done and get it done as timely as possible.

One of the big telling signs to me as far as the contractor that we're dealing with, whether we can trust them or not, is they're moving the gravel pile out tonight. Um, they've had so many months that they could have drove rollbacks in or not rollbacks, but side dumps in all the gravel out, open the street up and then come back like for a day or a week at a time. Um, but instead, in my opinion, when they just sit there and they got all the dump trucks there tonight, and they could have had a many other time throughout this whole process, but when they just sit there and they know the public is frustrated, they know the business owners are frustrated. They know we're frustrated, but they just sit there basically, I don't know, for lack of a better way to say it, just not caring what anybody else thinks. And a couple days worth of hauling gravel out of there could have opened that road up for a long, long time. And when I went up there and made my video too, there's just a handful of things sitting on the road that could have been hauled out of there with a bobcat, and it could have been open for weeks on end. So I just I don't have any confidence. I just have no confidence that this Contractor is going to be conscientious in any way shape or form The last thing I would just say is I believe something like this does set a precedence if we Extend it or you know whatever my colleagues vote on I think it sets a precedence that Other developers could come in here and basically just have the attitude of, well, if we don't get it done, they'll give us an extension, so be it, and not have to care about any of the other businesses that are affected. So I like Councilman Jurens will also be voting no on this.

Councilman Peters. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I'll keep my comments here somewhat brief, and Alan, thank you for sharing your thoughts there. I tend to agree with Councilman Juerens, and here's the issue for me, and allow me to shed a little bit of light on the meeting that Councilman Juerens referenced that we had with the developers. If you remember back a couple months ago, we were getting concerns about the street back in March, and so we pulled in the developers, and we asked them for an update, and we asked them to give us some cover, quite frankly, because we were taking a lot of arrows on their behalf, Because the optics of this is this is a public-private partnership because we sold them City Hall, and they came in and developed it. The reality is that it's not a public-private partnership. We transacted with them a site, and now the responsibility is on them. hindsight I wish it was a public private private partnership because then we would have some some clawbacks we would have some securities because right now we do not and what gives me a little bit of heartburn on this is we were very clear in that meeting that we need better communication from you guys if we're communicating on your behalf it looks like we're defending you guys and we're not defending you guys we want you to be successful um I'm super pleased about the project I was pleased when it was when it was announced I'm still pleased today but I'd be super pleased if an Amazon warehouse came in with 2,000 jobs too, but I wouldn't be very pleased if they kept the street that they were operating on closed for longer than they said. So I'm taking the developer out of this. I don't want this to be a personal attack on them. I'm thankful for the investment that they brought into the community, but it comes down to communication, and I'll be honest with you, I'm super frustrated by it because I feel like they've put us in a bad position. I feel like they've put our staff in a bad position. I think Alan, to some extent, feels like he's on trial here. And I think that's unfair to him. And I don't think that he's doing anything wrong. I think he's giving us the facts. But the problem is, is we don't know the facts. And so my concern is that we get six months down the road and we need to have the dreaded conversation of extending again. Now, we don't know if that's going to happen. We sure assume that it's not. But if it does, that doesn't make us look super great. And so there's some things that were mentioned here tonight that I took note of in terms of picking winners and losers and just other development projects that were brought up. And this is quite the quagmire that we find ourselves in because we want them to be successful, but it seems to me that we've been patient and had I seen a better communication plan with the community when we specifically asked for them to do some radio ads or, um, you know, interviews with our media, um, that didn't happen. Um, it's frustrating to me as a guy who lives in development. So, uh, I'll be honest with you. This one, this one is, uh, It's a way different conversation if I would have seen a little bit of offensive work on their part, but I just didn't see that. So again, not a personal attack on developers, but Councilman Jerns brought up a phrase that I believe in and say it all the time, and that's responsible development. And I think that's what we need to take a look at here tonight. So thank you for allowing me to rant.

Councilman Hoyer? I'll take a rant. Okay, first off, I just want to touch on this real quick. Engineering, the comments on erosion control, does the site meet erosion control standards? There you go. Yeah, they did install waddles to protect the inlets. Is that all you need to do? I know I walked the east side of it this morning, didn't see anything on those storm gutters. Is it just specifically you have to go where the drains are? On the east side? To the county fair side. The, uh, I thought they did. I was there this morning. I didn't see anything on that side, so you might want to double check that. OK. Some of the things that I struggle with when I'm looking at this, number one, we had this meeting already once. I believe we told you they have until the 31st. It's past the 31st. I think we've given reasonable time as a council to do their part. And I personally feel that in government, especially in our local government, we don't always have very good consequences for when people don't do things. And I think that's created a culture of ask forgiveness after. And I believe that in other communities, you don't necessarily see that so much. You know, I would comment that, you know, and it's unique. I work in a business that's literally in the parking lot right behind us here. Watching City Hall get built, Those guys were here every day, every day. And they were wailing on that thing. And I know they were because they were blaring music the whole time. So I knew they were there every time they were there. And they were relentless. And I believe, did they hit their timeline? Anyone? Yeah, they hit their timeline. They worked when it rained. They knew when they had to get it done, and they stuck to it. Watching this one from the same perspective, Hasn't been very much movement, not a lot of sense of urgency. And then magically, when time runs out, all of a sudden, we can jump through a hoop and start moving gravel. I think that is telling. They knew, OK, I'm not going to speak for anyone in that sense. I, like Councilman Jerns, Councilman Moorman, everyone here, I do think it's very telling and a little frustrating that the people we're talking about aren't even here to defend themselves or explain anything or answer any questions. But everyone else that it's affecting was able to take the time to come in tonight. I think the gamblers and county fair have taken it on the chin long enough. think it's our responsibility at this point to ask for a little creativity from the developer and guess what if we can facilitate that on first north great if we can do that in our parking lot great i think there's just not a ton of options at this point for closing off second i mean it'd be so much easier to be understandable if i saw people working that whole time and seeing like okay we hit some hiccups but we're doing everything we can in our power to get this done i didn't see that Quite frankly, I didn't see that. I've been given a lot of excuses. I'll tell you, like, I had the courtesy from the city at least to come over to ask when they were closing the alley over here. I was told the developer would be coming over or a contractor or some representative. Nobody ever came. Nobody ever came. The city came. So, you know, kudos to you guys. Thank you for communicating. But I was told that they would come and they didn't. That's frustrating. And I thought that was telling. Um, at this point, I just, I like a lot of the things that were put into this. Don't get me wrong. I think they're good. Um, my concerns, and I previously voiced them a little bit reasonably possible. I think that's too flexible of language when requested by city. I don't know how long that response is. Is there going to be an excuse? And then it takes a week for anything to happen and then we're waiting a week. I just don't see. We have control measures, but I don't see any teeth. I don't see a fine if we don't comply. I don't see a punishment to if we're not doing what we're supposed to be doing. And I just worry it's not good development, and I wish they would come and have a conversation with us to convince me otherwise. You know, I'm going to be honest. I love to see development in our community. I love to facilitate it. I JUST AT THIS POINT I THINK JUST SECOND STREET IS OFF THE TABLE IN MY BOOK BECAUSE I JUST DON'T TRUST IT. MY FAITH HAS REALLY KIND OF BEEN SHOOK ON THIS ONE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT MOST OF THE ISSUES WERE EITHER AND I ASKED AND I DON'T KNOW AND I STILL DON'T KNOW. I WELCOME ANYONE TO CHANGE MY MIND. I'M VERY OPEN MINDED TO IT BUT AS OF NOW I'M A NO BUT I WILL HAPPILY HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING IF THEY WANT TO COME IN AND HAVE A DISCUSSION. we can work on it and collaborate because i think that's what this takes is some collaboration but right now we're not doing that we're just talking in a bubble in a room so i'm open to a community some communication i'm open to working together on this but they need to come and be present and have that conversation so for me tonight it's a no and i would argue that end of the week or 72 hours honestly second should be open thank you councilman shetty

Thank you, Mayor. So many things brought up tonight that are absolutely worth working through and helping us make a decision, because ultimately around this table tonight, we're making a decision here as a council. One thing that was mentioned was deciding winners and losers. That's not our job as a council to decide winners and losers here, or as a city. Our job, I believe, when we took this position was our goal or our objective, or I'd say our duty, is to create a level playing field for businesses, for citizens, for developers, whatever it may be, from if you have to have a dog leashed to street closures to whatever it may be. There's not partiality, equal scales, level playing field. That's what we're deciding tonight. Now, looking in the past six months, I guess we can all agree we could have done things a little bit better. And I say we. I'm putting us all in this. We're all on the same team. Let's just remember this tonight as we're sitting here in this room. We're all part of Watertown. It's it's not us against them. It's not developer against grocery store or business downtown versus city of Watertown This is we're on the same team. I'm not trying to be some philosophical thing here But we got to be reminded as we're making these decisions tonight Which got to believe we were working through this that it's our duty to come up with a way moving forward Right. We can't go backwards. But moving forward and how we can better achieve something that gives a level playing field for one business to compete against another competing business in town for a developer to be able to do his project and do in a way that's that is where he doesn't have more strings attached to his project versus another project. So. Again, that's that's our decision here. I believe as a council and as a staff as they're working through this So one thing that was mentioned here was setting precedents and So I like to think moving forward with what city manager Steger has brought up and with what staff has worked together to make To bring some proposals or four points that was brought up That's helping us learn from the past six months is helping a set of precedents moving forward and So I believe we are actually moving in the right direction in how to do this in a better way Again, this isn't trying to pin a developer against a against a city or against it against a business or whatever it may be The challenge though is has been echoed here tonight The challenge is going to be how do we move forward in this? Precedence we desire to set do we approve this with these four points and move forward tonight and just trust that it's going to get get done and taken care of and That's one option. Is another option that's been brought up, do we give them a week and then we get together again as a council to kind of have some steps in the process and try to rebuild trust, try to rebuild working together. Maybe if we waited a week and got together again, can this help work together as a community again? That may be a way to go about doing this. I'm for that. That's actually not a bad idea. I didn't think about that until it was brought up tonight. So I am for moving forward in a positive way that gives a level playing field for businesses downtown, for safety for downtown, for our public safety to work and perform, for a developer to develop. It's just... Again, all this conversation we're having, hopefully, is getting us to a positive outcome, not beating each other up from the past, but how we can move forward in a way that is productive. That's what I'm looking at. That's what I'm paying attention to. That's my job here in this council position is to not decide winners and losers, but to how do we create a level playing field. So I guess if we want to discuss or entertain the idea of what it looks like to have a vote a week from now, I mean, it is one ballot option, so I'm just going to... Pause now and see what else we have to say through this. Thank you.

City Manager Steger, let's walk through what happens if this gets voted down tonight. What happens to the development project? What happens with the permit? What happens with the road opening? Anything like that? And I guess conversely, what happens if it is approved tonight?

I would leave it at this. If this is voted down tonight, we will inform the contractors on site that they have until Friday to vacate the street. And if they fail to do so, we will need to vacate the street for them. And we won't allow the project to resume until whatever criteria is set for the reissuance of a permit. We will essentially pause construction on the site. The same thing is going to happen if you approve the permit tonight, because as the contractor told us earlier today, Their site is going to be paused for the next three weeks anyway, or the next three weeks following Friday anyway, as they're waiting for a crane and materials to come in. So the outcome is the same with either vote. The street will be open by this time next week, and then we could move forward with how do we want to issue the next series of permits in the project. And I say next series of permits because that may be the way we need to do that until we establish trust. We may need to issue a permit for erecting precast concrete. The expiration of that permit, when they want to load the next part of the building, they have to apply for another permit. And after that, we may ask them for a roof trust permit. After that, a permit for the roof. Administratively, We can do that. It's not that hard. But it's going to require the trust and faith that the contractor is going to do what they say they're going to do, when they're going to do it, or if there's any delay or extension in the timeline on any one of those processes, we are right back where we are today, which is having a street closed without a good remedy to reopen it.

Thank you, City Manager. So let's say If we voted up, we voted down. Either way, we're in the same situation where they will be cleaning the road by the end of the week. It will be open for the next roughly three weeks. And then at that point, assuming the developer wants to continue with the project, sometime in that three weeks, they would be, if this were voted down, they would have to come back and request another permit to move forward.

Correct. That is how I view it. I'd look to the staff to see if anybody has a different perspective. But to me, that really is how this looks, is either vote tonight, the street should be open in a week. What happens after that, we need to carefully, carefully plan.

Thank you, City Manager. And I'll ask one more before I know we have a couple of councilmen who want to say some things, but without asking why it wasn't in here, it might just not have occurred to anybody, but I do like the idea of having some penalty for lack of activity, lack of progress, or just something other than we want it to go forward. I see what we're trying to do here and I like it because it's the city trying to gain some control over what is happening in a development area that is very high profile. And this is a necessary step. I think the question many on the council have is, is this a far enough step or do we need to have some ability to enforce it at a higher level other than just waiting for the permit to expire and then go through it again?

We've actually had the discussion at a staff level about the necessity to have either a performance bond or some type of surety for general development projects. We have several in the works right now that are lingering on in excess of a year delinquent where we get the things at the end and the developers just don't complete the project. This would be another case with a performance bond of some sort of the project. If the developer forces us to reopen the road, we would, in theory, be able to call that bond. That is going to increase the cost and complexity of development. I'll put that out there, but in this case, it maybe would have been very helpful to have. Thank you. Okay.

Councilman Peters.

Thank you. Hearing that, this is what I would just propose for some next steps here. I think that the lack of attendance on the developer's part, I think we could have figured a lot of this out if they would have been here, said differently, allows us the ability to vote this down. And I think that we should call either a special meeting or a special city council meeting to figure out a new way to move this thing forward. Because hearing that they're not going to do anything for three weeks will give us enough time to figure out a path forward for the next couple months. And that, to me, seems like it would be a really nice spot to meet in the middle. We're not necessarily telling them a hard no. You're going to open it anyway, but we're not going to just sign this agreement, this extension. without a conversation first. I think that would be more than appropriate, given we're not hearing their side of the story, and they didn't come to the meeting tonight.

City Manager? Just a proposal, rather than voting it up or down tonight, you could defer action to a special meeting on, I'll just propose, Monday, June 8th at noon, and require the attendance of the developer.

Councilman Peters does that give us the ability for you to enforce that the road?

Opens up by the end of the week still if we don't take action it does the initial permit has expired We could Force the road open right now if we wanted to I would prefer to have them pay their staff to move that dirt than us pay our staff So I'd recommend we wait a couple of days for them to continue what they are doing. I

Okay. I do want to say something on defense of the developers, because we several people at the city have had conversations with them. They were wondering if they should be here tonight. I will just say they read the social media comments just like everyone else and they did not want to walk in and get attacked. I will just say that is part of the attitude that we foster with the negativity. So just want to point that out, that it was a conscious decision. But I would also ask anyone else, if the roles were reversed, would you walk into this? And that goes for everyone on the council as well. So with that said, I... personally like the idea of Calling a special meeting of the council a week from today. I think we will get to where we are going to Vote it up or down. We're back. We're at the same point Except in this way we have the extra added power and I think the unanimous will of the council to Proceed with something even a little bit better than what has been proposed here tonight. I

So with that said, City Manager? Just one comment, and I don't recall if it was covered in the roll call, but Councilman Allen is online.

Yes, and I texted Councilman Allen that if I don't see his hand up, he can text me. So if you see me looking down, it's for a legitimate city purpose. But I have not heard from him, but I do know that he's listening. So Councilman, oh, there he goes.

Councilman Allen or Councilman Durant?

Councilman Allen, your hand is apparently up.

Please speak. All right.

That's something hard to see. Just a couple of comments. I would agree. A special meeting in a week sounds good. I also concur with what others have said relative to some sort of consequence. Uh, for a failure to meet deadlines. Um, I'm also disappointed that they aren't here tonight. Uh. I know we've had other meetings. I can recall some with Dakota Commons, for example. When the room was full of people who were upset with those developers, they showed up, they made an argument. Uh, they presented a plan. Um, I just, I'm as others have noted Brent and, and, uh, Michael and others Lynn, uh. I, I really struggle with their failure to show up. Um, and to explain this is what delays that we've had and why we've had them. That would go a long way to rebuilding trust, which I think has been pretty significantly damaged. So, if we're going to hold a special meeting, if that's our decision tonight. To defer to that particular meeting as long as the street is open by the end of the week, I'd be willing to do that as well to sit down and try and work through our differences. Because I think I would agree with several of you that have said. We need to find some way to compromise, but we need some expectations that the developer is going to follow through with it right now. So far we don't, we really haven't seen that and it's very difficult to trust that. And I would also say on the part of the gamblers. Boy, you know, we have to balance the need for growth with the need to retain the businesses that we have in our community, especially those that have committed as much as this business has to our community. And I think he's correct in that there are very few downtowns that actually have a grocery store. And as we try to develop housing options, we try to redevelop the ruins, you know, People are going to want some place to shop downtown and I think it's a vital service that we have to protect as well. So there's a balancing act. I trust them. I don't trust this developer. So if we're going to go forward and meet in a week, I'm willing to do that and willing to try to find some compromise. But that's where I stand on it. Thank you.

Thank you. City Manager Steger, what I'm wondering is, I think we have a consensus among the council. What I'm wondering is, what is the best path forward? To me, we could defer action to a special meeting on Monday. I don't think any path gains us or loses us anything. We could vote it down tonight and be at the same position we're at on Monday, or we could just defer action to the special meeting. We're still at the point where we enforce the road opening by the end of the week.

You could do either. Voting it down is one less motion. And we can bring it back on Monday as a completely new item.

I am going to suggest just if you want to go down the route of bringing forward some better permit that has more stipulations to it, some enforcement mechanism, the wisest path forward procedurally would be to vote it down than to just do an extra motion and defer action and all of that stuff. We vote it down, then we basically have to resurrect it in a manner that is more appealing to the council and the community. Councilman Schutte?

I agree with however we go about doing it. However, in this process, we've got to remember, too, that, again, if there's more ideas than the four points already made, great, let's hear them out. If there's a different way of going about this, pulling out a permit just for doing the crane work and then the different steps of the project, let's keep in mind We've got to remove ourselves from just this project and this developer. The last thing we want to do is put our thumb over developers and projects too much. There's a reason why we've got to have ordinances. There's a reason why we have to do this this way so we keep things in order. Just whatever we plan to do on this project, as Councilman Moorman said, setting a precedence, this is how we need to look at it as an example on how to move forward future projects so last thing we want to do is because we haven't heartburn from this project we're going to all of a sudden create all these new ways for developers and make create more hurdles for developers to do their job so we got it we got to keep that in mind as we're doing this however we do need to yes rebuild some trust as councilman allen said um and and try in good faith to work with this developer as well um they're a part again they're part of this community too just as we all are so um how we go about doing this city manager staker

In fairness, sometimes I need to make sure that I'm speaking even for the people who aren't here who we represent. And I'd ask you this as you consider whether we postpone action or vote it down. Is there anything you might have asked the developer tonight that they could have answered to get you to a yes? Because it seems like voting it down is going to cause us to put some more restrictive requirements on as a penalty for not being here. And as the Mayor said, there's a reason why the developer is not here. We were specifically asked if it was mandatory that they be here. He said, no, it might be a good idea. I understand there are reasons why they wouldn't want to be here. So in fairness, I ask you to just consider Are you putting an additional penalty on the developer by voting this down versus reconsidering?

City Manager Steger, thank you for that, because just thinking about that, and also perception might not amount to a whole lot when it comes to dollars and cents of investment in a community by developers, but specifically not voting something down, but still being at the same place we want to be, is probably a better way of going forward, because we're not just slapping them down. We can still get to the point if we defer action to Monday and be at the exact same point. It's just different procedurally. So perception-wise in the community and talking to other developers, it might look better to say, we're not just killing it and resurrecting it. We're saying, no, we've got a path forward that we can work better with a better proposal. So I'd go Councilman Hoyer. Actually, Councilman Juerens, you had something.

No worries, Mayor.

OK. Councilman Hoyer?

Oh, OK. Councilman Juerens. Before I forget everything, I'm getting that age. Before I move to defer this for a week or noon next Monday, if that works for enough councilmen, I'd like to talk about the social media and us as a team. That doesn't mean we can't have disagreement, but I want those in the public to know and those that showed up tonight that we are a team. I've seen different ways on how these things go, and not that I've been around a long time. But the trust I have in our city manager is amazing. And it's amazing compared to what I've had before. And so I want the public to all know that Alan is not standing on an island by himself backing a developer. Um, we need to be pro development for the next developer that wants to walk into their room and get something done. Uh, what I'd like to say though, is that trolls on social media is really an ugly thing. And I don't know if it stopped him from coming, but it really, really makes things tough when they start calling out my city manager on social media without the ability to defend himself. And what he's done for this city in the last less than a year is absolutely amazing. And I know a lot of you haven't seen that and a lot of listening in the public. But I've said these things in public on the radio, and I'd like to say them here again. What he's done is exemplary, and he needs the backing of a good city council. And I want to go on the record of saying that. And that goes with what Councilman Schutte said about working as a team. We don't need to be divisive because we don't get anything done for moving this city forward if we're going to play games like that. And social media, there's a place for it. But inviting trouble where there is not really trouble to be invited is really an ugly thing. And I hope that, I know it's not gonna stop, but I want those that are inviting trouble and calling out city managers and calling out their form, the people voted on this. The people voted certain people off the island because of that mindset. And they voted who's on this to get in here and do the work, and do the right work. So before I ask for a motion to defer this until next Monday, I really wanted to reiterate those thoughts about us as a team. Not that we're always going to get along every day, because you've got to have dissent. You've got to be able to discern, and you have to be able to do what's right. And it's not a win and a lose. Yeah, you're right, Dan. I mean, Councilman Shetty. This is not a win or lose thing. And I know it's emotional, but we're all going to be okay in the end. It's going to be okay. So I would like to make a motion to defer this for a week to see where the communication goes in the next week, to see what kind of Progress we get and that we see and I'm like some that have mentioned it here before We are not councilman micromanaging things. We're not a city manager trying to micromanage things You think people could just do things by treating their neighbors as they would treat themselves So that's all I have but I would like to make a motion to defer this for one week and see where we head

So, Council, I just want to make something clear. We have had a motion proposed. I am going to call for a second. I am going to be polite to my colleagues. I am not going to make that as the final motion to squash any further comments than any of you might have, but I would like to say that we've had a robust conversation on this for an hour and a quarter already, and we will be having another one on the same topic in another week, and hopefully we're in a better position think we all are in agreement with where we're at how we would like to go forward so this would not be stopping any of you from making a comment but i do procedurally have to i have had a motion i have to ask for a second you can then comment upon the motion you can comment upon the overall proposal but could i first get a second if anyone wants to second second by councilman peters so the motion is to defer the action. So I will still allow comments upon the overall motion because it is germane to what will be going on next Monday.

And City Attorney Karakov, you... We're just discussing whether a motion to defer is debatable or subject to discussion.

Is there a rewind button? Well, I can look it up. But it is a substitute motion, yeah. So a substitute motion to defer.

I will look it up in just a moment. I'd take the leeway as the chairman and entertain the discussion.

Robert's rules exist to provide a structure. It does not exist to stifle discussion. It is just to provide for orderly debate and empower that. So with that said, I will allow any comments about the motion. Would just say my comment would be this is still a really good proposal as far as what we want to get for Watertown I know for many many years the number one thing that I heard that they wanted downtown was a hotel and This is getting one and it we're getting one at a site that had no Purpose it would have sat there vacant And the only other idea that I had ever heard for it was a parking lot, which would have necessitated taxpayers paying for destroying it, filling it all in. And keep in mind, filling it all in and putting a pavement would have been the same situation that the developers have encountered. And it would have cost a lot more because as I heard the comment from the developers is, do you see any black dirt over there? You don't because when it was, When it was excavated, it was not what anybody had expected underneath. So that was part of the problem. And it was a problem that the city would then have to eat at the cost of a parking lot. So you could argue if that was good or bad. I think overall, I would go back to the timeframe that most people think that a hotel would be beneficial to downtown. I believe it would be. This is a good way of getting that development at no cost to the taxpayer. We had the building removed at no cost to the taxpayer. We just don't want to kill that overall project, but we also want to be very helpful to the extent that we can with existing businesses. So I think this would be a good way of doing so. That would be my comment. Does anyone else have anything? Councilman Hoyer.

Just going back to you, I know we said it would be open by the end of the week. Can we set a hard time on that?

Sure.

5 p.m. on Friday. All right. Looking at the activity there, I don't think that should be a problem. I don't think so either. I just want to make sure that we have an accountable, measurable metric. So 5 o'clock Friday.

Any other comments?

Councilman Schutte. So as we make the decision on this deferring where we've got again just for the sake of us tonight us here tonight that are listening and partaking we're able to Well, we're hearing everything firsthand We've and we've got these points that are made that we're going to be discussing again potentially on on Monday if that's where it goes So let's be reminded as a council This information tonight that's been brought to us is Is beneficial it's a way to move forward the whole and again trusting that things will go this way To create a smoother path forward with the project over here One thing I guess I want to Just I don't know I guess I'm gonna be so philosophical for a minute again here, but there's a proverbs 1111 Says upright citizens are good for a city and make it prosper But the talk of the wicked tears it apart So let's just be reminded as a council, as a city, as business owners, as developers, let's try to take this week and let's try to look at the facts, the stuff that's been brought up, even if we don't agree with it, even as a council. But let's work through it. Let's discuss it like we did tonight. We can follow up this again on Monday. Let's take this week also as a team, as a city, to try to maybe even...

Watch how we communicate on social media and however else so we can we can better move forward as a city Any other comments councilman Mormon I Would just like to thank everybody that's in the crowd for being here tonight I know it takes a lot of courage and I've had the opportunity to talk with many of you or receive text messages or emails stuff like that and I appreciate that and The more I hear, the more we're informed, the better it all is. To answer City Manager Stager's question of what question I would have for this developer if he was in front of us tonight, the main question I would ask him is, why were you delayed? Because I have not heard anything about that until today. And then the other thing I would just comment having been in law enforcement prior for many many many years I can tell you The most difficult Situation to testify for is when you're the innocent victim it's now when you're the guilty party and If it was difficult for the contractor to come up here and talk tonight, or if they were worried I can't imagine how hard it is to for Mr. Gamber and others to come up here and bare their soul as the innocent victim in this. So thank you for coming up.

Any other comments? Motion is to defer until set time next week. I don't think we need to set the time right now, but we can. Do we want to go with noon? Anybody opposed to noon? Recommend noon. Motion is to defer action until Monday, June 8th at 12 p.m. All those in favor will say aye. Opposed, nay. Officer Bob Zien, please call the roll.

Colleen? Aye. Mormon?

Nay.

Burns?

Yay.

Peters? Aye. Studdy?

Aye.

Allen? Aye. Hoyer?

Aye. Motion carries. We're on to item 10A, which is an authorization for the Watertown Fire Rescue to apply for a staffing for adequate fire and emergency response, a safer grant, to fund up to nine new firefighter paramedic positions in the next three safer grant cycles. The cost share is 25% first year, 25% second year, and 65% third year. At this point, we will present a multi-year plan in support of the Safer Grant, but we'll time annual requests to match long-term funding sources available. Fire Chief Don Roland, please tell us more.

Thank you, Mayor and members of council. Tonight, we're here to ask permission for Watertown Fire Rescue to apply for the staffing for adequate fire emergency response. It's called the Safer Grant. So what is the Safer Grant? The Safer Grant is a program that provides funding directly to fire departments to increase the number of firefighters. This funding supports communities in meeting industry standards, achieving 24-hour staffing, and ensuring adequate protection from fire hazards while supporting the traditional missions of the fire department. SAFER grant has basically approved $6.4 billion since 2005. A little history about the SAFER grant for Watertown Fire Rescue. We applied for it back in the late 2000s, and we were able to ascertain the grant and hired two individuals for that. for a three-year period. We also applied a couple other times and unfortunately be in a competitive process that's hard to get sometimes. So basically what we follow under, and I think I've shared this numerous times with you folks before, is we follow the NFPA 1710 standards for deployment. And basically what that is, it's called the initial full alarm assignment, everyone. So in nine minutes, we need to have 15 people at an incident, any fire incident. And unfortunately, over the years, we haven't been able to meet that standard for quite some time. And I don't see it going forward yet for a little bit more. So it's just a matter of time that we get down that direction. So the primary purpose of Safer Grants, if you want to hold out there just for a second, Mitch, thank you. The key objectives is to staff nine new firefighters and paramedics on the east side fire station, increase the frontline fire apparatus with firefighter staffing, reduced response times, obviously, the East Fire Station will do that for us. Again, meet that NFPA 1710 staffing model for deployment, support the OSHA two in and two out, that would be a compliance that we want to set forth, and also improve that employee staffing for operational outcomes. Moving into the key matrix, you want to move to the next slide for me? The key NFPA 1710 matrix for FEMA reviewers is our reviewers that are following through with this. There's a computer portion of the grant that reviews. Once we pass that computer portion of the peer review, we go into what's commonly a firefighter review. And it's firefighters from all over the country that come in. And some of the matrix that they're looking at is current staffing shortfalls that our departments have, inability to meet the effective response force objectives, Increased call volumes that are identified as severe workload for staff. Simultaneous incident issues. These are concurrent calls that we currently have right now at our stations. And obviously the reliance of overtime to aid our baseline staffing. So the application timeline for this, everyone, is going to be June 22nd or three weeks from today at 5 p.m. There's around $324 million identified for the SAFER grant to the feds. If we are awarded the grant, the awards are going to be announced at the end of September of this year, possibly a 60-day period where they'll go into announcement. Once we know if we are awarded this competitive grant, we will have 30 days to make that acceptance of the grant. Once that occurs, we're looking at six months to do the onboarding and hiring of these new staff. So we are looking at potentially looking at, you know, February, March of next year of getting the announcement and moving forward probably towards the end of the summer, early fall of 2027. So it's a ways out there yet. The costs, I think that's always the biggest thing that we want to look at, right? If we were awarded this grant, the first year is going to cost us 25%, which is about $60,000. Second year is going to cost us about $63,000, which is 25% match for the city. And the third year is a 65% match for the city, which is roughly about $175,000. When Mayor Lean talked about the cycle, this is for nine personnel to fund that Eastside Fire Station. And this would be a three-year cycle, like he stated. And we are going to be looking at applying for three people for the next three years. So with that, I would stand by for any comments or questions.

Thank you, Chief. City Manager Steger, do you have anything to add?

I would just add this. This is a request that Chief Rowland has in anticipation of developing an east side fire station. This helps the staffing plan. But there's more work that needs to be done around long-term sustainable funding for EMS services. And we wouldn't accept or go into the next tranche of a grant cycle without that funding mechanism in place. It's important now, though, to apply for this with the window rarely opening. And we've got a window right now that's open. This is just the first step. as we continue to work forward on a long-term plan to maintain the viability of EMS services.

Thank you. Before I call for a motion, I got word from Councilman Allen that the video feed is out on the city's end. So he just says I lost the video on your end. So just Mitch, if you could just take a quick look at that to make sure that everything is still going out. I know that every now and then we have hiccups on that. Council, can I get a motion to authorize the application for the safer grant? So moved. Motion made by Councilman Peters, seconded by Councilman Hoyer. Council, any discussion?

Councilman Schutte. Okay, so on the surface, as much as I'm for, you know, voted for getting the new fire hall, at least getting the land purchased in previous councils, as we've discussed this, To me, it seems premature without having the plan to move forward with staffing in three years, not having the east side fire station built. So if you could just talk me, walk me through this, why now, I guess.

Which one of you would like it? I can answer that, Chief. Councilman Shetty. Basically, in a nutshell, we are still understaffed. When it comes to the current staffing model that we have right now we are continuously like city manager staggered when it comes to EMS our numbers are You know constantly growing every year pushing that four to five percent model when it comes to staffing our Overtime staffing is at an all-time high we're going to be coming before at the end of the year to do a supplement for our overtime process and that's still something that we are having difficulty with. The plus one model that we've done right now, we're using that as well. Where I'm going with it is we are in need of staffing right now as well.

Councilman Chetty. Thank you, Chief Roland. Having nine, after three years of, let's just say they all stay the course and you have three firefighters, nine firefighters for three years, rough idea what the math is and what that would be to our budget in three years after this?

I think it's about $750,000 to $800,000 sustained run rate that we would be required to have with a third station this level of staffing.

Any follow-up, Councilman?

I guess it's just that we haven't had much discussion on this. If we approve this tonight, then we're moving forward with this grant, and it doesn't mean we're going to get it, but let's just say it happens and we get the grant. I guess we haven't had any serious discussions about three years from now on that.

City Manager? We move forward with this tonight. We are moving forward with a three-phased proposal in a grant. We're not going to ask for all nine. And we laid it out specifically this way because we believe our chances are enhanced in the grant process to show that we are expanding our EMS services with a third station. I'd leave you with this thought. If we don't apply for this grant, there's 100% probability that we will get nothing. If we do apply, there is some probability that we might get something, but nothing is assured. This is a bigger issue that we need to solve for not only in Watertown but across the state, and that is how do we provide the EMS services in an expanded area when all of the funding comes from city sales tax revenue to do it. And we have been expanding in cost of providing services at a much greater rate than the rate of inflation, which is what we get on sales tax revenue. So this is a big issue for the state legislature to really grapple with. the timing of solving that problem will be right in line with each of the next three grant cycles that we would be applying into.

Councilman? I guess I did miss the up to nine, so I guess that helps clarify just a little bit. And this is where, as Councilman Jerns had said in the previous discussion, when you have proper staff in line here with department heads to city manager, At some point, like with this, this is why we have Mr. Steger at city manager. So that's why we kind of looked at him on the numbers and looked at, you know, that you've been, who am I to, you know, to, I mean, I ask my councilman, I get that, to vote yes or no on this. But we, sometimes we base our voting based on, okay, we're trusting that the city manager is properly navigating through these conversations. So I guess in faith, I'm going to trust on that one tonight.

mich thank you the video is back uh councilman allen just told me that so thank you for doing that mitch um one question to follow up on councilman shutting not to stop any other councilman from taking so just to make it clear we apply for it let's say even if we get it we don't doesn't mean we're starting to fund new firemen right off the bat?

It doesn't mean we would apply to or we would be funding new firemen and firewomen immediately. But I'll also say this, we have enough normal turnover in the department that we would have a new position that we could utilize the grant on without expanding staff and spending faster than the revenue base expands as well.

Thank you. Councilman Hoyer. Chief Roland, I just know that kind of the comment was made. There's always turnover. We're always competing with wages in other communities. So I know that some folks, I just know because one used to play music in town and stuff, but we've had some movement right now. Where are we sitting staff-wise at the department, say, over the last year here? Are we up? Are we down? Are we net neutral?

As far as staffing?

Personnel. Turnover? Just personnel we have on hand.

We are gonna be down one here coming up in about two weeks and then down to once we have a maternity leave.

Okay. Any other comments or questions? Hearing none, the motion is to authorize the application for the Safer Grant. All those in favor will say aye. Opposed, nay. Officer Bob Zien, please call the roll.

Moline? Aye. Mormons? Aye. Jerns? Aye. Peters? Aye. Studdy? Aye. Allen? Aye. Boyer?

Aye. Motion carries. Item 11a is a first reading of an ordinance zoning text amendment to chapter 21.79 swimming pools of the revised ordinances of the City of Watertown. Community Development Manager Brandi Hanton will tell us more.

Thank you, Mayor. So this is a request as we're looking at updating our IBC, just international building codes basically from the 2018 addition to the 2024. We contemplated if we would just adapt the international swimming pool and spa code in its entirety. This is a section that comes up as far as what we have in ordinance today and then what this ordinance amendment is proposing. So what we're proposing in this amendment would be a higher standard than the ISPCA. Let's see. ISPSC. So what we have in ordinance today is that if you have a permanent swimming pool that requires a permit, you are required to have a six foot barrier. So something that feedback wise that we get, there's new technology in place with automatic pool covers that are to a certain standard. that is accepted by this international code. And so instead of saying that no matter what, you have to have a six foot fence or barrier if you have a permanent pool, we're looking at providing the option of If you have a automatic pool cover that is two code, then you can have a four foot fence. So there's two options. But if we were to just go with the ISPC standards, if you have an automatic pool cover that is two code, you do not have to have a barrier. So we are trying to still uphold a higher standard. So with that, I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you. This is the first reading. We don't need to take any motion, but I would encourage any discussion. Council, Councilman Schutte.

Thank you, Ms. Hatton. So just a question on, so could you clarify then, we just did this a year ago, just a little under a year ago. Is that what it was, I believe, a year ago?

About exactly.

Okay. What changes, are there any changes specifically this recommendation or this ordinance versus last year, I guess, if you could clarify that.

No, there's not. It's just that where we're at in our code cycle and looking at adopting and what community feedback has been is why it's before this council again. And really, because in the coming month, you'll be seeing the 2024 additions for the building codes. So that's kind of what spurred looking at this again or bringing it back to council.

So you appreciate that One of my challenges on this is The fact that it was just not even we're just shy of a year ago There already was the International Code a year ago and it got voted down as a council I guess I was kind of surprised it Under a under a year. It's brought up again It appears optics that Well, it didn't go through last year Let's just try it again the next year. I don't want that to be a precedence as a city that we start, you know, we don't like the vote that the council made. We'll bring it back up next year or the year after. It just appears that way. Maybe that's not the case, but it's like if we voted on this a year ago, whichever way someone voted on it, I'm just looking at that. Again, does that affect the facts of the four foot and the six foot? Not as much. I mean, we do need to look at that. And I was at the planning commission, so I'm a little more privy to their discussions on this. I know that when we as a council did this a year ago, there was, oh, I guess the six foot was kept. in place because of another added measure. You know, they didn't say it here a year ago, but imagine you can have seatbelts in a car, but it doesn't mean you're going to be wearing them. So, you know, you could have a, you know, a cover doesn't mean you're going to have the cover up on the, over the pool. So it's like, do we just, you know, keep the six foot and why go down to a four foot for an added measure for, for the youth? I'm actually open to the four foot. I was there for the conversation with the planning commission. I'm not saying that I'm not against it just because last year I voted the other direction. Again, I'm open to conversation on this tonight. I'm just I guess for me just was a little bit like why why are we bringing I just doubt we have a Huge run in the City Hall for for pool fences And so it's like he said there was a public demand So I just didn't know if that you know, just was curious why that was brought up again. So, all right.

Thank you Manager Hannon and do you have anything to add? State on that? Could I chime in there quick before you?

Councilman Peters? So on that note, Councilman, I had the same thought. But if you think back to a year ago, we had a different council at the time. We've got three different seats now. Me personally It's taken I hate to say it a year to understand what is good because I've had conversations with folks that do have swimming pools in the community And I do think that with the new council and just the support for this ordinance I think it's appropriate to bring it back but duly noted on your thought of if it's if it's voted No, don't bring it back. It's just I think it's I think this has come a long ways and where it was a year ago. I

Council? Councilman Mormon. I was just going to ask, the purpose for going with a higher standard, what specifically have you been hearing from the public as far as to want to do this?

Yeah, and kind of to loop in to Councilman Shetty's remarks, too. So we did bring this to Planning Commission to get their recommendation to bring it forward because we do actually, we have seen an uptick in permanent swimming pools being applied for. And the reason for wanting the four-foot fence instead of a six-foot is a lot of the times view shed And then what this ordinance amendment also does is adds an additional safety requirement for the latching, having to be also in that four foot, the self-closing, self-latching and lockable fence. So there's that addition, it's just incorporating the important parts of the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code that staff feels will protect our community.

Councilman? Council, any other questions, comments?

Councilman Schutte. Thank you. Is there a, if you don't mind, Ms. Hannon, is there an ordinance for above ground pools that are, let's say, four foot with a ladder that goes in? I had one of those back when our boys were younger. What's the ordinance for that, I guess, for fencing requirements?

So they are exempt from needing a building permit because they're considered temporary. But great point.

So all summer long, you got pools. There's probably more above ground pools than in ground pools, isn't there? So that's kind of a challenge here. That's actually more of an issue, I think, than this four foot versus six. Now granted, can a child crawl over a little four foot fence easier than a six foot? Of course. We've got pools all over town, probably more that are three, four foot deep with ladders have at it. So I guess, is there any way to review that? Or I guess that is what it is. I guess you could just answer that question. Is there any national standards or anything we can do on that?

We definitely can if that's something that council wants to see. And we could do that research to see how other communities handle. Usually when they're temporary in nature, they're not permitted. But from a safety standpoint, yeah, I'd be curious.

Any other questions or comments? This is the first reading. We will be back for a second reading. Item 11B is a first reading of an ordinance amending the zoning map of the City of Watertown for lots eight through 11, block five of North Lake Drive addition from R1 to RG Residential Garage District. Manager Hanton, you're back up.

Okay, thank you, Mayor. If I can have IT go to page 61, please. Then I can show you guys the vicinity map. So this is the first reading for the rezone of the property that is adjacent actually to Pheasant Lane. And it is zoned R1 single family residential today. And it will, they're proposing to rezone it to RG, residential garage. It hasn't been pulled up yet, IT.

Actually, I saw Mitch walk away, so would you like to wait until he's back?

No, it's just on page 61 of your agendas, if you guys are able to use your iPads.

That's all right. Perfect timing.

So the overall square footage of this property is approximately 62,000 square feet. which meets the minimum zoning requirements. And then the property that is to the southwest of it is also zoned RG. So it is conforming with the zoning in this area, which is also this area is kind of the reason that the RG district was created in ordinance. And as far as access goes, they'll come from the north, from the east, county road that I, it is 38th Ave Northwest, and they'll be required to improve that street to the gravel road standard that the street is also accessing and coming from. So with that, I'll stand by for questions.

Thanks, and I saw Mitch is back. Would you like to request the specific part?

Mitch, could you pull up page 61, please?

Okay, Council. While we're waiting on the map, we're all smart enough to ask questions or make comments on that. Councilman Hoyer.

Brandy, I would just ask, the last one that was put in place, what was the, and maybe someone else will know too, but just the residential response to it, was it pretty seamless?

Yeah, and I didn't receive any feedback from the adjacent landowner letters that went out.

All right. Council? We'll be hearing that again at a future meeting. Item 11C is another first reading amending the zoning map of the City of Watertown for a portion of Watertown Equipment Company addition from I-1 Light Industrial District to R-2 Single Family Attached Residential District. Manager Hanton.

Thank you, Mayor.

So IT, if we can go page 65 now, please. This property is currently zoned I-1, light industrial. As you can see, abutting the property is the R-4s, the manufactured home district. So the petitioner and property owner is requesting the R-2, single family attached residential district, because, well, somewhat as a transitional zoning, because you don't typically see to go from residential to I-1. light industrial however this is down zoning and is more appropriate for the development in this area and the comprehensive land use plan supports that as well so with that i'll stand by for questions thank you let's ask if council has any questions councilman hoyer

Always got a question.

So the way where this is sitting right now, is this on the backside of whatever business is already existing there in the I-1?

Yeah, so it's a storage unit building there. And it's the same property owner, actually.

Yeah, I kind of figured if they were going there. But no, it makes sense then that it's on the backside.

Any other questions or comments? All right, we'll go on to 11D, first reading, establishing the zoning designation of A1, Agricultural District. For the north half of the northeast quarter, less McLaughlin, Willow Creek addition and less the lakes of Willow Creek, second addition, all of section 33, Township 117, north, range 52, west of 5th PM in the County of Coddington. Parcel number two, Manager Hanton.

OK, thank you, Mayor. If IT could pull up page 76, this will help. So this is also, I'm going to, if it's all right, if I could explain item D and E. Yes, please do. Together, because they are tied together. The only reason why they're not one item is just because you do have right-of-way disconnecting them. So as you can see here, we will be talking For item D, that is parcel number two, which is adjacent to current city limits. And then for item E, that is for parcel number one, which it's pinpoint adjacent to what will become city limits and will be the next contiguous border. So that is what is making them adjacent. Uh, these 2 parcels, they'll be brought in as a 1 agricultural district. They both stand alone are greater than 35 acres, which is what the a 1 agricultural district requires. The main premise for this obviously the well, the, the property owner is J and J land sales. They also own the city limit property to the west where they have developed the lakes of Willow Creek second edition. Their reason for the annexation and zoning that will also require future planning commission and board of adjustment action is to have a valid conditional use for the current mining operations that are happening on parcel number one. and that is required by conditional use in city limits by the Board of Adjustment. So, following annexation and zoning, it will go to the Board of Adjustment, actually on June 18th, and to have action on that, the current land use, and have that also be within city limits. So with that, I will stand by for questions.

Thank you, Brandi. I'll take over here for a minute. I know it's a first reading, but I know we have a representative from the company here. Want to come visit on this, Horace, Colin? Give us your thoughts and feedback.

Just state your name, please. Colin Paulson, representing J&J Land Sales.

Any thoughts you want to add to this before we dive into council discussion?

yes um i know this isn't a standard annexation and we realize that um we did want to bring parcel number two in uh shortly anyway because that is the next phase of our development um to make it continuous with the west development um which is just north of the ice arena we don't own all the land over there so that's not all going to be developed but that is 3rd and 31st. We are currently improving 3rd Avenue to the west of there. So this would be part of that too. Eventually not not this year and then the mine is being brought in. Mostly because I mean, Public transparency, we did have some issues with the county. They did not notify us that we no longer had a mining license. And so they said that we were in violation. Months and months after the permit expired, which it was a 10-year permit, we had bought the land from someone else that had bought the land from the initial permit. It just wasn't conveyed to us that we were in violation. And in turn, they suspended the mining license for four months, which we don't think was right. And we actually requested a special meeting for that, and they denied that. So anyway, we decided that since we're bringing the rest of this in, let's bring this in, get a valid mining license again so we can continue operations. And then eventually that will be developed into housing as well.

Colin, just to correct real quick, not the mining license, but your mining conditional use. Conditional use, yes. Because the license is through the state.

Correct. We do have a valid mining license through the state.

Sounds good before I hand it over to the mayor. I'd say just stay put because I'm sure there's gonna be questions from the council for you Thank you.

I will start with questions going to councilman Allen Thanks there I guess I'm I struggle with why we would want to annex of a gravel pit into Watertown I You know essentially that gravel pit being active impacts all the properties around there. And I don't know, I'm still seeing trucks roll down Third Avenue every single day. And I know that J&J has developed the Most recently, and next portion of that, I believe there are 3 houses there now, maybe a 4th going in. They're working on that road. They're working on 3rd Avenue. I don't know what their timeline is for when that road would be paved or any of those roads would be paved. But they're pretty heavily used and having an active gravel pit and the next thing, an active gravel pit. I just don't see why that would be in the interest of water tone. You know, I, I can't speak to the issues that they've had with the county. Uh, I can appreciate their frustrations with that. Um, but, you know, I, I don't see why we'd want to next that property.

Thank You councilman are there any other councilmen have any questions comments all right thank you very much I know that this will go in front of the Planning Commission on Thursday and then back to City Council so thank you very much I feel like we dealt with both D and E as you talked about both of them. We had opportunity to ask questions or make comments on both of them, so I think we can move forward with 12A, which is an application for a special event retail on-sale license to the Clark Fire Department for a private wedding at Stable Waters Ranch from 2 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on Saturday, June 20, 2026. Finance Officer Bob Zien.

Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, this will be a special event application. Everything's in order. All fees have been paid. Notice has been published. So we don't tend to do this very often where it's for a private, but we have done it in the past. So if there's any questions, I can answer them. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll open a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to testify on this item? I'll close public hearing, go to council action. Council, can I get a motion to approve this application? Motion made by Shetty, seconded by Durance. Thank you. Council, questions, comments? Councilman Shetty? Can we crash the wedding? That's up to you.

Any other questions, comments?

Councilman Hoyer?

Congrats to the couple. All right.

We'll just go to a voice vote. All those in favor of approving this application, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any opposed say nay. Motion carries. 12B is an approval of a two-year haying rights lease, renewable for one additional two-year term between the City of Watertown, Prairie Lakes Healthcare System Incorporated, and Lyle Bota, doing business as L&J Farms and Ranch for approximately 85 acres of land. City Manager Stager, please describe this.

Thank you, Mayor. The item before you tonight is a request to enter into a lease with L&J Farms for the haying of certain city property, including a six-acre parcel that is owned by Prairie Lakes Healthcare System. This is a new tenant for the property, as the long-term legacy tenant has backed out and no longer wishes to harvest the hay on these particular parcels. This tenant, Ellen J. Farms, is a tenant that we also have at the airport, and he will be doing haying operations at the airport as well as the areas identified in this lease. The compensation on this lease is a little different than we have at the airport, where at the airport we have a monetary agreement. In this case, the compensation is actually providing the hay needs that we have at the zoo. And so there'll be a variety of types of bales, and the hay is actually different at the different sites to meet the unique desires of the various animals that we have. Staff recommends approval of this haying lease for this season and the renewal periods.

Thank you. This item requires a public hearing. I will open one now and ask if anyone would like to testify. Close the public hearing. Council, can I get action to approve this lease? Motion made by Councilman Hoyer, second by Councilman Moorman. Any questions or comments, Council? Hearing none, we'll go to a voice vote. All those in favor of approving this lease, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay? Motion carries. 12C, second reading of an ordinance of the City of Watertown amending Chapter 15.04, Plumbing Licenses of Title 15, Plumbing Regulations of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Watertown. Finance Officer Bob Zien.

Thank you mayor. Yes in front of the council is the second reading of ordinance 26. Oh five This does move the approval of the plumbing licenses To do it administratively through the Finance Office. Oh if there's any questions I can answer them.

Thank you Thank you Council can I get a motion to approve this ordinance? motion made by councilman jurns seconded by councilman Shetty any questions or comments I Hearing none, we'll go to a voice vote. All those in favor of approving this, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay? Motion carries. 13A is an approval of a resolution of the Platte of the Reserve at Prairie Winds, second addition to the municipality of Watertown in the county of Coddington, South Dakota. Manager Hanton, you're back up.

thank you mayor i'd see if you want to pull up page 110. you can you guys can see the lot lines there so this flat was done previously into more of a condominium type configuration now the we're looking at doing the zero lot line development and it meets all the ordinance requirements the only reason that it's ahead of council and planning commission is because It is over five lots, which is a minimum requirement or a maximum requirement, rather, in the subdivision ordinance that if we are bringing forward a plot that has more than five lots, it needs to go through the public process. So with that, I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you. Council, can I get a motion to approve this resolution? Motion made by Councilman Peters, seconded by Councilman Moorman.

Councilman Hoyer. Sorry, just making sure I understand. And so it's going to higher density, essentially?

Actually, not necessarily, because it's what exists there today. It's just a reconfiguration of the lot lines. And the zoning still will remain CL Lake Commercial. But it actually, in essence, will be less dense than what was plotted before. because they combined the detached garages with the fourplex units.

So is the intent then that we're essentially compressing the building footprint, and then there'll just be more green space? I'm just trying to understand why we're replanning it.

It's just all about really the configuration of the common spaces that were there previously. So if IT wants to pull up page 119, then you'll see previously there the ownership, it would have been done by a homeowners association. The zero lot line development is trying to get away from that type of configuration or development and just sell it like a zero lot line development of a fourplex or duplex, you know, where you own your land, there's not an HOA. Okay.

Thank you.

Council, any other questions, comments? The motion is to approve the resolution. All those in favor will say aye. Opposed, nay. Officer Bob Zee?

OK. Helene?

Aye.

Moorman? Aye. Durance?

Aye.

Peters? Aye. Shetty? Aye. Allen? Aye. Hoyer?

Aye. Motion carries. City Manager, anything to report?

Yes, I have a couple of items to report. Follow up on some requests that council members have had regarding ordinances. We've received a request at the last council meeting to look at an ordinance restricting the use of glass bottles in bars and perhaps restaurants. We haven't found, as we've looked across the nation at different ordinances, An ordinance that's really applicable that we like. There is one in New Mexico that is sort of what we want. What we generally find is most areas that have an issue with glass have either adopted very restrictive open container laws outside of the buildings, which we already have in both state law and city ordinance. So perhaps what we look at as a first step is really enforcing open container laws that we already have in place to try to minimize the amount of glass that is ending up in community parking lots. Second item on glass, we've also received some community requests for a glass recycling program. We also have studied that. We've looked at some numbers on it. And we're really struggling to get anything that makes economic sense on glass recycling. The nearest recycling centers would all require transportation. When you add in the cost of transporting the glass from Watertown to either Sioux Falls or Fargo or the Twin Cities area, it's really cost prohibitive. In addition to the transportation, we would need to establish a separate collection route or collection points in the community. And at this point in time, unless the council really wants us to explore glass recycling, It would be my recommendation to defer glass recycling until better processes that we might be able to handle locally exist. Another item, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the last week has issued the final integrated feasibility report and environmental assessment on flood control. You might recall we had some meetings almost a year ago on this topic. The report has finally been issued. It does not vary significantly from the recommendations that you previously saw last year when the Corps was here in City Hall. It is recommending flood control in Watertown follow a channel widening and construction of a taller levee on the left bank of the Big Sioux River. The report recommendation has removed the use of the Lake Compesca in any way as a storage reservoir for floodwaters so that we're Weir management that was in a prior report is no longer in the final report. It is in a public comment period right now before it's finalized in August. Upon finalization of the report in August, then the chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will make a recommendation, and if it goes into the recommendation phase, then ultimately it will go forward for congressional authorization at some point in the future. So this is really the long-waited-for first step in what will be a long process to ultimately get to Big Sioux River flood control in Watertown. We will post a link Through our social channels and also on the city website in case any of you want to take a closer look at at the report Great item coming up Wednesday afternoon at 4 o'clock the wolf exhibit will be opened up at the zoo. You can take a look before the wolves are placed in the exhibit. Maybe get yourself photographed inside of the exhibit before we turn the animals loose. And then also at the zoo, we're beginning the planning phases for the next major project, which is a new carnivore exhibit. And between the wolf exhibit and the carnivore exhibit, there's two of the major projects required to regain reaccreditation. Finally, I just note there is a full slate of summer activities planned in our community, not only around the semi-quincentennial, but also just general activities that different organizations have planned. The website visitwatertownsd.com is an excellent source for you to see what's going on in Watertown day by day in our community. That's all I have.

Thank you. Does any city council member have a topic for a future discussion that you would like to mention? Councilman Hoyer.

City Manager Steger touched on it earlier in our discussion tonight, but I do really think there'd be some value in further discussion on surety bonds. As it stands right now, you know, you can have somebody working on developments. They get out to like eight developments. What happens in the event that, you know, God forbid, somebody goes out of business and then you're left with a bunch of developments where sidewalks aren't done and all these other things. I just feel like it would protect our community. So worth considering, worth the discussion. Thank you.

Any other topics from the council? Councilman Mormon?

Just a couple quick questions. Just wondering if there's been any inquiries yet about the water treatment property?

Three serious inquiries. And so the next step is to formalize a request for proposal form that can be filled out. And the three serious inquiries have been a pretty wide range of options for that site.

Okay, thank you. And then one other question, and I don't expect you to know this answer, but is there ever any, have you ever come across grant money for like adding more staff, say, to a park and rec or a sewer department or anything like that? I'm sure it's much more available in the police and fire, but just wondering if there's other grants out there for other departments.

You know, it's a great question. I can look to our CFO who has all of the institutional knowledge.

I would say on operations as far as staffing for park and recreation, it's not common. It's more probably project driven on the park and recreation side.

Okay.

The area that perhaps we should look at as many zoos typically are supported by charitable foundations might be an area we could find something for the zoo.

Okay, thank you.

We'll explore that. If I could, Mayor, I did forget an item. City Manager? A second area of ordinance that a council member has asked for is to look at what type of regulations we could place on data center activities within zoning regulations. And so staff has started to look at what the counties in the area are proposing as well as other cities. We would take those ANY RECOMMENDED CHANGES THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIRST BEFORE WE BRING THEM TO THE COUNCIL. BUT I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE THAT THINKING IT WAS IGNORED OR DROPPED. IT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION.

We do have a reason to go into executive session tonight to discuss contractual issues. We will not be taking any action when we come out, but I will ask for a motion to go into executive session. Made by Councilman Moorman, seconded by Councilman Schutte. Any discussion on that? Hearing none, the motion is to go into executive session. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Motion carries. Good night and God bless you, Watertown.