City Council - Regular Meeting

Call to order for a Watertown City Council meeting for June 15th of 2026. Please rise while Councilman Schutte leads us in prayer.

Heavenly Father, again this beautiful day you've given us, may we honor you Lord with everything we speak on and listen to and just Give us the wisdom to guide us through all the decisions that are being made tonight. We thank you for this community that you've given us, for people to raise families, for businesses to prosper, for the safety that you give us through police department and fire department and many other ways, Lord. So thank you for your protection and your guidance, and we just ask you to guide us tonight in your name. Amen.

OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

FINANCE OFFICER, ACTUALLY, YEAH, FINANCE OFFICER BOB ZEEM, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

OKAY. JURORS?

WHOA, HEY.

SORRY. PETER? HERE. SHUTTY? HERE. ALLEN?

HERE.

HOYER?

HERE.

HOLINE? HERE. MORMAN?

HERE.

THANK YOU.

Quorum is established. Chair will ask if there is any conflict of interest to disclose tonight. Councilman Hoyer?

I'm going to abstain from 12a, 12b, and I think we're good.

Yep.

All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Can I get a motion to approve the agenda for tonight?

So moved.

Motion made by Councilman Allen. Second. Seconded by Councilman Schutte. Any conversation on that? Hearing none, the motion is to approve the agenda. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Motion carries. We're on to open forum. If there is anyone here who would like to address the council on something not on tonight's agenda, please do so now. I'll close open forum. we'll go into item 10 a an approval of a bid award for the calvin park lift station and force main project number two four two eight two halme incorporated in the amount of one million six hundred eleven thousand dollars city engineer justin peterson tell us more thank you mayor uh we received seven bids for the calvin forest main and lift station project um the

lift station, it will be located on the south bypass and 23rd Street and then from there the force manual goal along 20th Avenue to wastewater treatment facility. We got really good bids. The low bid is from homie Inc, or just over 1.7 million. It's below the engineers estimate and we recommend approval. Thank you very much.

Council, can I get a motion to approve the award? Motion made by Councilman Shetty. Second. Seconded by Councilman Hoyer. Council, ask your questions or make your comments now. Councilman Shetty.

This is more of a comment. Just I remember a couple years ago, Mayor and I were sitting at a meeting at WDC and working through the the cobblin park and how to get that rolling with infrastructure and and this was going to be a major hiccup in how to how to get that park moving and so it's everyone who got involved to get this over at tonight appreciate all the work account uh city manager steger uh just a comment for the council on this uh this is below the amount that we submitted to the eda as part of the grant

And so the EDA is not going to overfund the grant, so there will be some savings in the project. However, the three additional parties involved, Watertown Municipal Utilities, Watertown Development Company, and Coddington County will continue to be asked for a contribution to the project, but it will be quite a bit less than it was previously.

Thank you. would also like to echo councilman shetty's comments this has been a long time in the making a long conversation many years i think it actually goes back we'd like to in particular give congratulations and thanks to former wdc director michelle kakacek for leading this charge at one time so if there's no further comments we'll vote on approving the bid award all those in favor will say i oppose nay or councilman Aye and nay. Finance Officer Bob Zien, please call the roll.

Here we go. Jerhans? Aye. Peters? Aye. Shetty? Aye. Allen? Aye. Hoyer?

Aye.

Holleen?

Aye.

Moorman?

Aye.

All in favor?

Motion is unanimous in favor. Motion carries. Item 12A is an application for a transfer of a retail malt beverage and South Dakota farm wine license and video lottery license from Careem Incorporated I-Mart Stores to 727 Incorporated Freedom Watertown. And we'll go to our finance officer, Kristen Bobzien, for more information. And you have my permission to also talk about 12B if you wanted to, because they're connected.

Perfect. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, in front of the council tonight is actually a transfer of ownership and location. It's a little bit of tidying up work on the owner of this license. Everything's in order. All fees have been paid. Notices published this license is inactive. So with this transfer, that motion, then we'll move into the renewal. We didn't want to do the renewal without you approving the transfer first. So if there's any questions, I can answer them. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll open a public hearing on this. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this item? I'll close the public hearing. Council, can I get a motion to approve the transfer? Made by Councilman Peters. I'll second. Seconded by Councilman Allen. Council, any comments, questions? Hearing none, we'll just do a voice vote. All those in favor of approving the application for a transfer, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Motion carries. Item B is very similar. Finance Officer Bob Zien, anything to add? Council, can I get a motion to renew this license? Motion made by Councilman Shetty, seconded by Councilman Moorman. Council, any questions, comments? We'll do a voice vote. All those in favor of approving this renewal, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Motion carries. Item 12C is a second reading of an ordinance 26-14, a zoning text amendment to the chapter 27.79 of swimming pools of the ordinances of the City of Watertown. Community Development Manager Hanton, please tell us more.

Thank you mayor, so this is the second reading of this proposed ordinance amendment and this is related to What will be coming forward for the 2024? international building code additions Going from the 2018 2024 so we thought it was a good time to bring it before council to review if We want to keep our ordinance more strict than the international swimming pool and spa code, or if we want to adhere to what that international code applies. So what we have in front of you is to allow for two options. So right now, ordinance requires a six-foot fence if you have a pool that requires a permit. And what this amendment would provide are the two options which are in line with the ISPC code. So you can either do a four-foot fence if you have an automatic pool cover that also meets code requirements. And then if you do not do an automatic pool cover, then you would still be required to do the six-foot fence for the barrier. barriers is what the code refers to. And then the other thing that this ordinance provides are additional safety measures for locking devices, the self closing self latching and lockable gates. So with that, I will stand by for any questions.

Thank you. I'll open a public hearing on this item. Would anyone like to speak to it? I'll close the public hearing. Council, can I get a motion to approve this zoning text amendment? Motion made by Councilman Peters, seconded by Councilman Shetty. Council, any discussion on swimming pools? Councilman Shetty.

Thank you, Mayor. As mentioned here a couple weeks ago, appreciate your work on this. And I guess one of the challenges will be we still have no added protections for above ground pools. where they don't need to get a permit. So there's, don't need a fence around, let's say the average four foot pool with a ladder going in. So that's a little bit challenging, I suppose, for a community and how we can better improve that. So if that's something to think about for future. However, on this one, on this particular ordinance, the way it's written, so a year ago when it came before the council 12 months ago, it didn't pass. And the reason it didn't pass was because we just felt at the time a year ago, there was an added protection, an added barrier, you know, that extra two feet for maybe a child to crawl over a four foot fence versus a six foot fence. So just an added measure of protection. So I'll vote the same way I did last year on this, but anyway, just wanted to make clarity on why it didn't pass a year ago. So anyway, thanks.

Thank you, Councilman Schutte. Any other councilmen would like to speak on this? Finance Officer Bob Zien, call the roll. If you're in favor of it, vote aye. Opposed, nay.

Okay, Durance?

Aye.

Peters? Aye. Shetty?

Aye. Oops, no.

Allen?

Aye.

Hoyer? Aye. Colleen? Aye. Mormon?

Aye. Motion carries. Sorry, I cut you off there, Chris. Item 12D is a second reading of an ordinance 26-15 amending the zoning map of the city of Watertown. for lots eight through 11, block five of North Lake Drive addition from R1 single-family residential district to RG residential garage district. Manager Hanton, you're up.

Okay, thank you, Mayor. IT, if you want to, please go to page 63 for the vicinity map of this area that's partitioning to rezone. Um, the current zoning is our one single family residential and the request is to be rezone to RG residential garage district. This property meets all of the ordinance requirements for petitioning for this rezone. It's approximately 1.4 acres. And it is also adjacent to property that has already been rezoned to RG. This is in line with the development of this area. And all other property requirements will be reviewed at the time of building permit issuance if this rezone is passed. So with that, I'll stand by for any questions.

Thank you. On this topic, I will open a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak on it? If so, please come forward now. Okay, I will close the public hearing. Council, can I get a motion to approve the amendment? So moved. Moved by Councilman Hoyer, seconded by Councilman Peters. Council? Hearing no comments or questions, I feel comfortable doing a voice vote. All those in favor of approving this amendment to the zoning map please say aye aye aye any opposed say nay motion carries item 12 e is a second reading of an ordinance amending the zoning map of the city of watertown for a portion of watertown equipment company addition from i-1 light industrial district to r2 single family attached residential district manager hanton

thank you mayor so again another rezone request and this is as stated going from the i1 light industrial district to r2 single family attached residential this rezone does provide well it is adjacent to r4 manufactured home district and also about the i1 it is a appropriate transitional zoning and does meet the minimum lot size requirements for

requesting such a rezone so with that i'll stand by for questions thank you would anyone like to speak on this in a public hearing i'll close the public hearing council can get a motion to approve the amendment a motion made by hoyer second by councilman mormon council Hearing no questions or comments, all those in favor of approving the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Motion carries. Item F is an annexation and zoning of the north half of the Northeast quarter less McLaughlin Willow Creek addition and less the lakes of town the lakes of Willow Creek second edition all of section 33 Township 117 north range 52 west of the 5th p.m. In the county of Coddington parcel number two now I am going to make a motion or I'm going to note to council that items F and G are extremely similar we are going to be taking them as one conversation piece. handling them as separate actions, of course. But, so I'm going to read off item G as well, which is an annexation and zoning of the south 1800 of the west half of the southwest quarter of section 27, township 117 north, range 52, west of the 5th PM in the county of Coddington, parcel number 1. So essentially parcel number 2 is first, parcel number 1 is second, but We'll see on a map. We can see right now what it is. We'll go to our city manager, Alan Stager, to speak on this.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I'll make a few comments in general before we get an update from our community development manager and city attorney. So in this case, the petitioner is J&J Land Sales. The two parcels are being brought forward. First of all, parcel number two. is the parcel that is bordering the existing J&J land sales property. There is currently a preliminary plat on file, and the road and utility plans have been created for this particular parcel. The second parcel, referred to as parcel No. 1, is contiguous on the corner with parcel No. 2. It is that second parcel referred to as parcel number one, if that is not confusing, that currently has a mining operation on it. THIS HAS BEEN VETTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND IT MEETS IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OPINION THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANNEXATION. ADDITIONALLY, THIS HAS PASSED THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHO GAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON A 4-3 VOTE IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION OF BOTH OF THESE PARCELS. THE PETITIONERS ARE HERE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER HANTEN. for anything I might have missed or misstated. Manager Hinton.

Thank you, Mayor and Manager Steger. No, he covered it pretty well there. I do think it would be helpful though if we pull up page 80 so you can see the parcel one and parcel two. AS STATED, WE'LL TAKE ACTION ON PARCEL TWO AND THEN PARCEL NUMBER ONE. THEY BOTH MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS TO BE ZONED AS A1 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. AND IT IS THE PINPOINT CONTIGUITY THERE BETWEEN THE TWO PARCELS MAKING THEM ADJACENT. And then the Board of Adjustment will act on the existing use of Parcel 1 on the upcoming meeting on Thursday, if this is approved. And with that, I'll stand by for questions.

And Attorney Carrico.

Thank you, Mayor. I guess I will wait for some questions from the council if there need be. I guess I would just say that there has been some discussion, obviously, before the Planning Commission as to the case law on the issue. The statute itself just talks about contiguous, and the case law deals with different factual patterns. In this particular instance, there are no cases that deal with this type of fact pattern that have been decided by the South Dakota Supreme Court. The elements for an annexation isn't just about the physical. It's also about the community interests and what the long-term development and goal is of the city. So in analyzing this when it first was brought before me, again, reading the cases, they had to do with parcels that were severely far apart by several miles. And the only thing connecting them was a road for that four miles. There was also a competing interest between cities over the land. To my knowledge, I have not received any word from the county or that they would prefer that it stay within county and not be annexed to the city. I haven't heard anything from the town of Kranzburg that somehow this land is sought after by them. I did speak with the one county commissioner, and the concerns were about making sure that the township, you know, the roads were taken care of around this parcel. And I have conveyed that, and Development Manager Hanton already knows this. And if you choose to annex, it will be brought up during the conditional use permit that will have to be brought up. Before the Planning Commission on Thursday, so those issues will be addressed as part of that The other thing I want to the council just to be cautious of is we have done it in the past So I don't want us to start becoming arbitrary by not doing it anymore I mean they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I'm not saying every corner annexation or pinpoint annexation is Should be approved. It's really what you guys feel is the best growth pattern for the city Are we already developing in that direction? But you guys not this particular council obviously, but this has been approved in the past So there's been precedent and there's been no legal challenges to those pinpoint annexations I guess I would just also say that in this particular instance One of the things I also looked at was taking a step back in the photo, right, taking a step back, and you can see that obviously we have Eastwoods is coming this way, we have Dakota Commons coming this way, you have the ice arena coming up from the south. This is a natural progression, which was also one of the reasons why when Development Manager Hanton brought up the petition, my mind it does meet all the elements if you as a council feel that it's in the community's interest it would also give us some regulatory control over the uh the mining operation as to parcel one which could be beneficial to the city in that long-term growth progression that direction So that's something to also consider. So I'm really just throwing out things that you need to consider in making your decision. But yes, it does meet the require the allowances for annexation. And I'll shut up now for and wait for any questions.

Thank you. City Manager Steger, anything to add?

Just to add, as our city attorney pointed out, this is within the growth direction of the community. You might ask yourself the timing. the why annex it now, and we'll let the petitioner talk to the timing. As you know, we're starting to run out of land in the city to develop housing if we're going to be growing at a 3% rate in 2035. It seems like a daunting task to be growing to that level, but if we don't have the land coming into the city, on a timely basis to develop the infrastructure, we will soon run out of land inventory before we know it.

Thank you, City Manager. Council, I'm just going to let you know that my interpretation of this, even though we have two separate, two, we have the approval of the resolution of annexation, and then we have the second reading of the ordinance of the zoning designation. In my mind, they are completely intertwined. I think that their one motion, Robert's Rules of Order, give me that motion. Power to make that permissible. I'm going to I'm going to view this as one motion combined of the of the annexation and the zoning at one time unless there's any Objection to that that's how I'm going to interpret it councilman Hoyer just for clarification Are you still going to treat them as two individual tracts of land you're just combining correct?

Yeah, so it's like 12 F is one item 12 G is one item and

But is let's say with 12 F with parcel two, it doesn't in my mind, it makes no sense to annex it without zoning it. And it definitely doesn't make any sense to zone it without annexing it. So it would all be one on that. But as far as parcel two and parcel one, they're two separate motions.

I mean, ultimately, I don't think it would matter that much. But I don't think it would matter if we just kept them all separate either. Yeah.

Does anyone have an objection?

Councilman Peters?

It seems confusing.

I think we should just keep them all separate.

Okay. Let's keep it easy. All right. Well, then, Councilman Peters, would you make a motion to approve the resolution of annexation? As long as you repeat the land ID number again.

No, I will. Councilman Hoyer, would you second that?

Okay. All right. With that said, so that's the official motion is to approve the resolution of annexation. But I will obviously allow conversation as to the zoning designation as well. This does, I will now open it up for a public hearing, which I should have done before the motion. But anyway, I invite anyone up to speak to the council on this.

Make sure it's on Good evening council Jamie Andrews with J&J land sales I know this come about pretty quick on and we're looking to Annex the pit in along with the northeast corner as we're growing We've we Jeremy and I feel that with how we're growing The relationships that we built with the city That it just seems like a perfect time to bring this all in so we can continue Mining in the What I word this with the city It's more of the convenience the resources that the city has for us to continue mining and and Keep operational as you know, we've developed several lots within the city the last 10 years now The old tree farm Out there with ice arena has and keep things moving forward. We need that material for Lots for different projects. We're doing that provide gravel for People that are doing their own building housing whether it's their commercial stuff that's going on around the ice arena For our streets as we're bringing more infrastructure in throughout the lakes or up at Valley View. And just appreciate the opportunity to keep going with Watertown. I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Andrews. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in public hearing? I'll close the public hearing, open it up for council questions, conversation on both 12F and 12G. But obviously 12F is our focus right now. Council? Councilman Hoyer.

I'll start it off. I think as we go into this discussion, I just want to jump into the comment of when we've done things in the past as a city versus today. remembering that once in a while we do make mistakes. It doesn't necessarily make an old decision a good one, and that we can always pivot and learn from our mistakes. If we don't, we'll just keep repeating them. That's not saying yes or no to anything. But when it comes to, like, flagpole development, because we've done that in the past and we've done kind of weird patterns like that, just bear in mind any of the consequences that have occurred from us doing that previously. Um, I would also like to put to the staff. Is there any other additional information that you would like to give us on background of this site or any of the hearings with it? Or anything that you would like to enlighten us of as if we hadn't read anything.

Councilman Peters?

Just to add on to that, it might be helpful if we could hear from the applicant the timeline of how we got here today, if you don't mind, Jamie, just talking us through your dealings with the county and township and others and what led you to here today versus having staff do it for us.

Would that be all right? I'd be willing to listen to anyone on this one, Mr. Andrews, if you want to take it.

So as far as With the county we had an issue with getting our conditional use Renewed they wanted to delay it a couple months but the main reason I had spoke to develop community develop manager Hatton about Vacating right-of-way Going in there and That's probably the biggest thing that brought me forward the township seemed unwilling to work with us on doing that because the timeline from where we're gonna land with before my conditional use would have been in effect for the Travel operation. I'm only gonna gain probably three weeks so I know Hearing from Outside noise The some of the news outlets that we're trying to go around the county and Trying to see you know steam ahead or do whatever that's We have really nothing to gain by doing that other than I like the relationship that we have with the city the people we deal with up there and I just feel it's a better fit and for communication reasons and to keep our bed operational.

Thank you, Mr. Andrews. Staff, would anyone like to add anything to that? Manager Hinton?

Sure. As far as the vacation goes, that's something that could be contemplated in the future. So the reference there to 31st going north from that intersection of 3rd Avenue and 31st, We do have a memorandum of understanding with the township. And that segment was not a part of that agreement when both parties reviewed and adopted it last year. So it's something that we would be willing to enter into. But we also think that there could be some safety efficiencies gained by looking at vacating that going north and then just holding it in an access easement for future right-of-way dedication if need be when that area is developed or you know residential housing most likely so But for really to be able the vacation would be a positive in the city's perspective But that would be something we look at in the future if this property were annexed and zoned. Same with haul road agreements. We have that drafted for Thursday's meeting that we can get that in place because there should have been one with the county conditional use that was granted 10 years ago. And just all the conditions that are in place to really oversee and enforce the conditions that we're proposing for city administration.

Thank you. Councilman Hoyer, the floor is still yours.

I'm just looking if anyone wants to give any additional background on this so that we have a good full picture of everything.

Attorney Carrico.

Just because I also have, I guess, seen some of the public comments. Just so you know, I did have a conversation with the state's attorney. We are both in agreement that any previous enforcement actions, fines, criminal complaints for conduct before annexation would still be between the county and the landowner. So that will not be absolved just because of the annexation. So I wanted to take that concern out of council's minds. Really, it's more forward thinking. Do you want this land? And do you want it part of your long-term plan? And what's the operations that are going on? But as far as any previous enforcement or remedies for whatnot, that is all being handled and is the decision of the state's attorney and working with the landowner.

thank you councilman hoyer so i guess for me what i'm kind of getting at here is that when you look at the history of the documents with everything that's going on there were and i'd love to hear some perspective on what happened here but from what i've read from all the files within it is that you received a cease and desist at some point and then continue to operate you can yes or no that if that's okay with the mayor i just would like to know more of what happened there um it was just a miscommunication or give you the opportunity to address it. Because if we're going to say that we're going to apply more regulation to it, I don't know that it's a good relationship if regulations get ignored. Because I would like to think that we're going to do it by the book, make sure we're doing everything right. So I just want some assurances, essentially.

Mr. Andrews, you or someone else can take that question if you want. You don't have to. Please introduce yourself again.

Colin Paulson, Director of Operations for J&J Land Sales. Just to speak a little bit on that is there was a misunderstanding, frankly, is what it came down to. There was a 10-year permit that was issued to us. Not to us, sorry. There was actually previous landowners. And when it got conveyed to us after we bought the land, we were not really told what date that was expired. We were never told that our permit did expire. So we never knew we were in violation of anything. Maybe that's partly on us for not knowing that date, but we figured the county would let us know if there was a an issue and We got a permit or a letter a Lot of months later after it was expired saying hey, you're in violation fix it We did fix it pretty much within a month. I think it was 35 days. We had to fix it. We fixed those issues immediately in that meantime We did continue hauling just gravel. We were not mining. We were not crushing anything. We were just hauling out what was in there to operate as a company. That was the only way to continue operations. We were in the middle of construction season because that letter came in August. So this is August, September timeframe. That's all we were trying to do. We weren't trying to skirt anything. We weren't trying to purposely violate We figured that material was already there. And if they were going to find us in violation, you know, from our standpoint, why is this not like someone selling liquor to an underage? They just get a written fine and you move on. You fix the issue, you pay the fine, you move on. And that's kind of how we were looking at this is we were fixing an issue. Currently, we were working with the county zoning officer. That's all we were trying to do is work with them. And then later on, they came out, we were crushing concrete. And this was just recently. And that's just recycling of material. We were not improving that. MSHAW came out and they actually agreed with us that we didn't need to do anything else beyond what we were doing because we were not improving that material at all. Um, so that's all that's I mean, that's a lot of the background as the county then decided that we were again in violation, uh, just for crushing material, even though we were not actively mining or improving that material for use. Um, so we're not here to argue that I just wanted to give you the background because you asked about it. So if you have any other questions, I can answer that. Thank you, Councilman. I'll let some other folks talk for a little bit.

Councilman Allen.

A couple of questions. First, for City Manager Stager, is there any other gravel operation that's a part of the city of Watertown?

There have been other gravel operations as part of the city. I believe all of the other operations are currently inactive.

Okay, but at one point we had active gravel operations that have been annexed into the city.

Yes, we've had gravel operations within the city limits. Okay.

Thank you The other thing that I would I guess ask is that When I look at parcel 2 Unless I'm mistaken and you guys can correct me on this but it's in parcel 2 where you were crushing the concrete, correct

In both we were crushing in both parcel two and one so one is the actual mine location Two is just the stockpile location that we had crushed just concrete. It was never improved. It's just crush crush concrete, right?

I mean that you there there was a lot of concrete that was hauled into that area I think probably from the old well from the new football stadium I think there was a lot of concrete produced there that I think ended up there. I could be wrong about that.

various different projects.

But yeah, yes, that was Yeah, it was. Okay. So. So when I look at that, parcel two, and I know that there's a plot and a plan. And I'm not sure, it's not clear to me when you think you're going to start housing there. But clearly, you're still part of the plan would probably be to continue to crush concrete. I don't know if you're thinking we're going to develop housing there in two years or three years or five years or whatever you think the timeline is. But when I look at parcel one, that's where I think there isn't a plan, there's no plot. I have no idea how long you think you're going to be able to mine there. I assume when you bought the property, the mining operation, that you decided, don't know there's 10 years left or 20 years or it's probably dependent on what exists under the under the ground there i don't know if you know what that is but that's my question so for parcel one you know the question is why now and it seems like why now the answer is so we can continue to do this mining operation um because it's tied to projects that we're involved in and we think that's an advantage for the city. No, that's not true, okay. All right, go ahead.

No, Jamie kind of hit on it before. This has not really given us an advantage on timeline, maybe three weeks before we go back to the county and ask for the same thing. So there's not a lot of mining probably left in parcel one, to be honest. You know, we've mined a lot of it. There's the south half that we'll try to get some out of, but I don't think it'll be as much as the north half of that parcel was. So I do think that in the very near future, that would be preliminary plan for housing going north. And so that's why we just thought it was a logical step just to do it now. And our relationship with the city, I mean, now it makes sense to us. Okay, thank you. Councilman Peters.

Thank you, Mayor. Colin, if you don't mind, I probably have some questions for you too. I'm going to start by asking a question on the road. It was said to me a couple different numbers that if you're annexed, the city might be on the hook to spend money on that road out there. Can somebody walk me through whose responsibility it is to fix the road and build it up if we annex it?

I think I would go to City Manager Steger first on that.

We're really looking at two roads and their different answers. So 31st Street East, north of 3rd Avenue, really isn't a road. It's a driveway access to the pit. It also provides access to the farm field to the west of the pit. So I would hesitate to call that a road. It's an access path into the mining operation. Third Avenue would follow our typical annexation with the landowner on each side of the annexed Third Avenue responsible for improvements to Third Avenue as the area is developed, as we've been doing on the western portion of Third Avenue.

So the city is not responsible initially for paying for any bit of that road. It's the developer as it's developed. And there's no requirement for when they have to put in that.

We can place a requirement on when they need to place their half of the road. If we chose to have a full width street built at the same time, the city would bear that cost. And then when the property to the north would be annexed in, we would assess that on the party annexing the property.

So if approved tonight, the Planning Commission next week or Thursday, whenever the meeting is, could say, yep, we agree with this, but in the conditional use permit, you're going to put in that road first?

We could place that requirement on it.

we could also specify the standard of road required at initial annexation i'm sure the developer doesn't want to do that i'm just throwing i'm throwing this out there as a you're going from one conditional use permit to the next and what risks are associated with that i will say um we have about a half mile of road that we'll be paving already on third avenue uh full width

And there was an agreement with the city. So the city is actually paying for the north half of Third Avenue because that is not in the city yet. But we are responsible for the south half. So our agreement with the city is that it's going to be a full width road instead of the half. We have a couple instances in this town that have half width that have turned into issues because the north half or whatever half was not annexed later on. So to avoid that, that was the agreement with our first development. And I'm assuming that we would continue that to the corner, at least on 3rd Avenue. And that is a, it was considered a collector route, I believe. And there's six inches of asphalt going in on that so It is going to be a sturdy road. There's curb and gutter going to be placed there And we'll just continue that to third two But that will be later agreement with the city as part of our development agreement with you guys Thank you. That's been Peters.

I think I'm nothing councilman Shetty I

Okay, so question on the infrastructure and the plotting that was established I guess my question on that is This has already been it was mentioned by City Manager Steger that this area is already plotted in there's already some infrastructure You know in plans Is that, you mentioned standard of road, so when we talk about this and getting this plotted, is it plotted for a mining operation or is it plotted for residential, would be my one question, as what we were planning for this?

The area that has a preliminary plat is a residential area. I'd need to look at it, but I would assume that 3rd Avenue North has the same requirement as the western portion Mr. Paulson just stated is a six inch asphalt road with curb and gutter Thank you, cuz yeah as I'm looking at this.

I believe our we're all in agreement that this is plotted and getting set for residential however at the I was at the Planning Commission meeting and At the Planning Commission Development wasn't really brought up. It was what was brought up was a the mining operation, which absolutely, you guys are being honest with that, just as tonight. We're talking more tonight about residential, but actually, like I say, when this was brought in front of the Planning Commission, that was... it was just bringing a mining operation into the city. And so I guess that's where my challenge here is, is the timing of this. I had asked at the Planning Commission, I had asked Mr. Paulson, Colin, that, you know, why now? Why parcel two, I guess? Why parcel two? And you had mentioned, and if you want to, answer that again but you had mentioned that well it's kind of the reason you're annexing that partial the parcel two gets tied in with the other one we're trying to get the other one annexed into the city so that's why or that's why you're asking for parcel two it wasn't mentioned at the planning commission that this was for wanting to do housing in the next year or two or three it seemed like it was more about the mining operation which to me is noble not a problem but then as we're making a decision tonight are we making a decision on a residential um

Development or on a mining operation I guess so Thank You councilman if you don't mind I Would have to go back and look at my direct words, but we do have a preliminary plan already for personal too And I think I had mentioned that that that was part of the plan that was our next step anyway So personal to was always coming in that was always our next step and And we've already kind of built the roads. You can kind of see to the edge of where it is now. Those are already being built out to right there. And we actually have pipe pass there because we knew we were going past there. And then parcel 1, I also did mention that. It was the next phase of our development going north because that was all that's the land we have left. We have to start going north because that's what we own. So that is the next step. Just you know it is timing and I mean we were being honest too. It is a mine right now, but it will turn into housing in the short term. I mean it's not going to be a long term plan or anything like that.

I was going to study alright yeah and so yeah that appreciate your your. bring some clarity to that. I'm still personally not quite sold that this is, we're going to see housing in the next two years, three years, four years. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I guess that's what I'm working on here is like, well, do we want to, and yeah, absolutely, if you could. I mean, I guess, yes, are we deciding to include a mining operation in the city limits or not? I appreciate the work as we're talking about. I talked with city manager Steger earlier today about You know, when we have a, when we annex some property into a city, what happens is the other part that's not annexed, the north side, for example, on this one, that creates a challenge. That's, for over the years, previous mayors have seen this as a challenge. And so we got to, as a city, we got to, when we're annexing this in, we're pretty much got to think about budgeting for cities. Taking care of the other half of the road instead of waiting until that other piece of property is going to be so again timing for us as a city are we ready to move forward and and Pave the undeveloped side the unannexed side as a city or not So again again, that's boils down to timing on this even for the city So I just this is what the thoughts I'm working through on this, but if you want to work through that I

Yes, and actually, if you were to drive out there today, we have a lot of the roads on parcel two. They are roughed in, and we haven't added any additional where the concrete was. We're cleaning that up as we speak to get that concrete processed and moved out. Where parcel number one fits in is we bring them roads in. And stuff and and get their infrastructure and we need that material from parcel 1 to gravel. To, I mean, the cost of of inputs on developing now, I've gotten just outrageous and the closer we have access. That material makes it much easier for us to. Keep moving forward, do more development. You know, that's where this really, really fits in together. It's a real huge asset. For us to keep moving forward with future development in the city. I mean, if we got to start trucking our material from. Oh, by Florence or 20 miles out of town, it's just that much more added costs that it brings to us to, you know. It makes it a head scratcher. Is it worth doing? And we want to keep going. And when, excuse me when we say. We're mining parcel one worst agreed to strategically mining that for future development We're definitely not gonna leave ourself a mess like was left over the arena. Um, I think you guys are all well aware of what? Where the ice arena was what that property was useless before we started and I think it's one of the jewels water tone We have out there now moving forward. So I hope you guys can appreciate what we've done out there also. I

Councilman Chetty, if you wouldn't mind, Mr. Andrews, before you sit down, just a follow up question. Because you mentioned the manner in which you're mining. Now, I learned something, but I wanted to verify it. You're mining it in such a way that is going to make it much easier to build houses when that time comes. Did I learn that correctly?

We're doing it, I would call it, strategically, or we're not just going out chasing if the gravel goes down 80 feet. I mean, we're not saying we couldn't potentially... do a plan where maybe we'd look at having a pond or something in the middle if the material does go down, which it's not showing signs of that, but we're just working our way across and making it pretty simple when we go in and develop it in the future for housing or whatever we just choose to do.

So in other words, you're forgoing potential future profits of the mining operation in order to make the site more secure and easier to develop into housing when that time comes. Correct. Thank you. Councilman Schutte.

All right. Thank you. I appreciate Mayor keeping this as two separate items because just in listening to the plan, the game plan here by the developer, parcel two is a natural fit already. Timing-wise, potentially, it's a little more of a natural fit, where parcel one Who knows what year that'll be as far as as far as that goes what's nice to hear though too is It was testified here that there's about a three week difference as far as mining operation working with the county working with the city so Even if where there was let's say if there was a no vote on parcel one on the mining operation Obviously the way it sounds that's not going to hinder you're still gonna be able to haul gravel from from that You're gonna be able to mine there this summer midsummer So I believe the county isn't shutting you guys down the way it sounds. So it's just a matter of we're not really saying no to the mining operation. We're just trying to determine again tonight. Are we the two separate parcels? Which ones are a good fit for current growth? Which one? Yes. Keep in mind for future growth for residential. And that's I guess that's the thought.

And I just want to hit on that. It's a choice that I felt to make that I choose to work with this would like to have the opportunity to choose to work with the city in the mining operation moving forward, just because I feel like we've built a good relationship. I'm not gonna sit here and say everything's real rosy all the time, but we've got, where our communication's good, if there's issues, I get a phone call, I pick up the phone, we address them, and it's just really worked well. I mean, Justin knows I've got the cart in front of the horse a time or two, but we've been around for a substantial amount of time here, and look forward to keeping on moving. We have a lot to do, and we're trying to grow with Watertown, or be a big part of Watertown growing. Thanks.

Councilman Chetty? Councilman Moorman? Can I? Manager Hinton?

If I could provide, if I could pull up the concept plan that's approved for parcel two for better context and then the phasing that is planned for that residential development. So if IT, I am plugged in if you guys can transfer over. So as it was stated, for Third Avenue, So right here, if you guys can see my mouse, that is the intersection or the corner right now of 31st Street and 3rd Avenue. So 3rd Avenue currently is improved to this point going west because that is what is platted and developed. So then this east phase all the way to 31st, that is in phase, I'm going to flip this because the other map is the opposite way. So down here, you can see the next phase will be that middle piece, and that is, it's shown to be 2028, and phase four, 2030, phase five, 2032. So this has followed this phasing. pretty accurately. So that's kind of what to expect. The other thing of the mining operations and the residential development, obviously there will have to be coordination and it's good that it's under the same ownership because to develop the residential properties, you're going to want to phase out your mine anyway. So I do foresee that also developing residentially in the future. One more thing, too, just with 31st. that segment that is the area that's unimproved right now so it's section line right of way and so that area i would i wouldn't see that being improved as far as a condition of the conditional use for for board of adjustment to consider mr paulson i i do want to just point out the phasing um

If we had an updated map, aerial map, it would show we already have a lot of that in place as Jamie had mentioned before. The pond is already pretty much fully built out. A lot of the roads are roughed in so you can kind of see the driving lanes. And we have actually been ahead, maybe not necessarily in the lakes. I think we've met that schedule pretty good. But like Valley View, We are way ahead of schedule where our preliminary plan was in Valley View. Um, and that's where we see this too is, I mean, we've already roughed it in. Um, so I think it's going to happen before 2028 before the first phase starts. So that's. That's something that, you know, like, again, forward thinking is we're already halfway there. So. I mean, yeah, we still have to put some pipes in and actually build the roads. But if you had the updated aerial view or if you drove out there today, you would see, like, it looks actually pretty good out there outside of maybe the gravel or the concrete piles that Councilman Allen mentioned before. But as Jamie said, those are being cleaned up actively as well. Thank you.

Councilman Mormon, thank you for waiting.

First of all, I just want to say thank you to Jamie Andrews and his company, J&J Earthworks, for investing in Watertown. Out of all the places you could choose to go, we appreciate that you've come to Watertown and are helping make our community better. My only concern looking throughout this week as I was looking at what we were going to be voting on and listening to the county commissioners meeting and stuff like that. The only concern I had was just where the two corners meet if we were dealing with literally Two corners the width of a hair meeting or if there was space there to be able to run utilities to that second parcel And I was able to get my question answered by city manager stagger earlier this week and just for the public's information Since we have 3rd Avenue Northeast in the intersection there with 31st Street Northeast that creates a right-of-way where we do have legal Access and the enough room ability to be able to run city utilities to both of these parcels. We're not going to have a Difficult situation where suddenly there's not enough room or land to go from one corner Property to the next so just for the public's information We do have the ability to run all the utilities out to the other parcel. I think gas and water might already be at that intersection. And this city has precedence with annexing in property that does have corners that touch. And I believe wholeheartedly in treating everybody fairly. And if we've done it before, And if we can't say that there's any legal reason not to do it this time, or there's no really strong reasons to say no, then I'll be voting for it to annex this yen.

That's all I have. Thank you, Councilman Mormon. Councilman Jerns, would you like to say something?

I'm going to keep my remarks pretty short. Thanks for answering a lot of the questions that have been presented. I'm a forward thinker, and when it comes to planning, it takes that. And I also need to forward think on, is there a cost to the taxpayer if we don't do this? Is there a cost of residential lots that goes up if we don't have gravel within a close proximity? Hauling is a huge time and money endeavor. So I look at the proximity of where this gravel is coming from and what it's being used for projects right now, but more importantly to the taxpayer, what it could do for the cost of projects here in the next two, three years. Yeah, maybe if it's a three-week delay, but three weeks is big in operations like this. And I'm looking at this happening anyway. So if we're going to annex Why are we delaying? Why are we throwing everybody through the meat grinder if we're going to have it done anyway? So I'm pro-development tonight. That's likely where I'm headed. But what I'm also looking for is what could be possible cost to the taxpayer. Building roads is a real, real important part in building them affordable. I've looked at some estimates and we've all heard estimates. Justin could throw them out here, but I don't think it's real important. It's a big number to build 31st and 3rd Avenue. If we have gravel close, that number will likely go down. And that's a big savings to the taxpayer. And if we get seven bids on those things, like we got seven bids tonight for another thing, the bids will go down if we have gravel this close. And if we are here to not just approve everything that comes through here, but if we want to work and be known as working with developers, I think this is a good start.

Thank you. I'll take my chance to speak. I'd like to thank J&J, Earthworks, Land Sales, all of it, for the investment that you have put into Watertown. But more than that, I would like to thank you for the vision. I like working with people who have a vision for the future of Watertown. Years ago when we were discussing where to put the Prairie Lakes Ice Arena, it was very strategic with where we put it. J&J, Jamie Andrews was one of the few people who really got on that vision very early and figured out what this could mean for Watertown. It wasn't just, oh, we have land here, even though that was a great deal. It was, where can we grow? What can we do for the community that is going to make a tremendous impact 20, 30, 50 years, two generations down in the future? Jamie Andrews was one of those people who saw that, along with many others, and there's a lot of people to thank with that. But that kind of vision is so important for where Watertown needs to go. Development can be a little messy. It doesn't always make sense in the minutia on the day-to-day. So, like, right now, this might not make a lot of sense to, you know, in some ways where you're saying, well, you know, is this the right time? Is this the right time? Look at it 50 years from now. Look at where this was five years ago to where it is now. The impact that this has already had on Watertown, the fact that we're even talking about annexing places that is already adjacent to existing housing, and one of these parcels already has a plan for more housing. This is exactly what we were trying to accomplish in Watertown five years ago, six years ago when we were talking about this area. And this is exactly where we want this to go in the future. That kind of vision is exactly what Watertown needs. The other thing that I'd like to talk about is the communication. We've heard a lot about communication at council meetings in the last couple months, how we need better communication. We have a developer here who wants to work with the city because he has excellent communication with the city. That is a wonderful compliment. We should relish this. Let's jump on it. That's a great opportunity. Someone who can communicate with us, say, let's just make it a, you know, an example for other developers to work with. But this is exactly, I take it as a huge compliment. And I think that that's another example of why we want to move forward because it's the fastest way to get where we need to be for Watertown. Finally, other people have mentioned it. I think we can pretty much all agree. It's extremely likely we would annex all of this area eventually. It makes sense in the short term. It has benefits in the short term. It has tremendous benefits in the long term. I think this, for the future of Watertown, for what this can do to continue to move this community forward, makes a lot of sense. The vision of where we need to be, I'm going to be voting yes on both of them. To limit my comments right now to just 12F, which is parcel two. this obviously makes a lot more sense because it's right next to the city i don't see much reason to deny parcel two but when we're talking parcel two with parcel one they're in connection you know what i'm in favor of both they make sense for the future of watertown where we're going to go doesn't have to make 100 complete sense right now but does it make sense for the future of watertown to me to where i want watertown to go that's exactly what i want So I'm in favor of this, and thank you for bringing this forward. Councilman Mormon.

Just one other thing I wanted to mention, and this is kind of on the lighter side. With parcel one there, you know, we're not 100% sure what the time frame will be when that gets developed. But as you look at it, Willow Creek runs through it. And if there's one thing that people love to live by, it's either water, a lake, or a creek. So at some point when this does get developed, it gets parceled out for home developing, residential, I see it being some very sought after property. Because there'll be a nice green space in people's backyards. There'll be a creek running through. And just for developing a residential area, ultimately in the future,

i definitely see this as a place where people will be wanting to buy lots just for the scenery that would be in their backyards all right and i by the way i just want to mention i can totally understand if someone doesn't doesn't want to vote in favor of either of these things tonight i'm just i was just saying where my thoughts were but with that said councilman hoyer

right i'm gonna take a little different stance but not meant in a negative way or anything either so we were talking about roads as it stands we currently have a ton of roads in our community many of them have been shot out to lots of developments that don't necessarily sit contiguous to our community the more infrastructure we put in without buildings or homes directly next to them yet the more we have to maintain the more we have to plow And as soon as those roads go in and we sign for them, we're responsible for them and we're paying for them. And so I get a little nervous when we're already tight on that budget when we're already struggling to keep up with potholes. And so I just have some concerns with it. You know, I actually drove this today. And so I popped out Third Avenue when you say improved brandy mean improved gravel road, correct?

third avenue correct um so they're working on improving that that section with an asphalt base okay it's gravel today though yes yeah okay um which it's going to asphalt that's what we're gathering correct yes yep they will do asphalt for that sec that segment that i pointed out sure

Then when we got over to the first turn in there where you guys have the three homes that are already in, I didn't see any asphalt there, but I saw four inch lips to get to those homes. You have boards set up so they can get into their driveways right now. Is there a plan right now in place to get that going for roads and stuff? Wednesday? Okay, perfect. The phrase that was put out tonight was cart before the horse or horse before the cart, but cart before the horse. If we say no to this tonight with gravel pit, does the gravel pit magically disappear and we stop having gravel? Like, will you guys just cease all mine on operations if it doesn't come into the city? Or do you just remain in the county and continue to do your operations that gravel is all still available? You don't have to answer it, but I would assume that you're going to keep doing your mining operations. 31st Street Northeast as a primary entrance to the pit. It could be viewed that way, but it's also the road that everyone uses when they leave the Shamrocks games. A lot of them go out the east side there and shoot up that. So it is a pretty trafficked road. I would just bear that in mind. So there is traffic that does use it quite a bit. It's also a pretty quick shortcut to avoid the big windy road with no buildings next to it yet. And so it's a little quicker. What I get nervous about, and this isn't anti-development, this is just making sure we fill things in as we go. And so it's organic development so that as you guys are building out houses, we just organically annex in as we get to it. For me, I go back to the timing issue. you're currently mining in it or you're going to be mining in it we don't have an exact timeline we say 2023 well there's three when you were supposed to start the first segment right if I'm understanding that right the concept plan no not no the one we're currently in though that they're we're actively filling in right now that has three houses and a lot of lots still open is there with it that all takes time right so i guess my concern here is that i would let it take its time get to where we're actually adjacent to where this is with actually like development that has occurred and then it would make sense to me then to annex in residential Um, me personally, I don't love going agricultural with a mining operation right away. I'd rather be doing this when we're actually getting to the residential development. When it's ready to go, because you'll do that anyway, when you're going to get to that point. Um, so I just get, I think we're a little ahead of ourselves and not saying don't have vision. Absolutely have vision, but do these things in the order they come. Just let it organically get there. Um, if you look at the concept plan. Or, I'm sorry, our development master plan. I mean, that's what it is. It's residential. So I don't know why we wouldn't honor that and try and go along with it as it goes. Because this will all go residential. That is where we're growing. We're growing east. It's going to go there. But I just don't see a strong, compelling reason for the city to take it on with all the extra infrastructure costs at this time when it is not going to be residential yet. And that's the use that it's intended to be when we get there. Um, I don't mean that disrespectfully. I 100% respect what you guys are doing. Um, I know it all. There's so many hiccups that come in development. It's just if that's the intended use of where it's going to end up anyway for you guys, I think it just makes more sense at that time to do it function with the partners you currently have. And for the city, and just looking out for the tax dollars of the citizens, I don't think it makes sense to take on a bunch of infrastructure without the development there yet. I'd rather take it on when we're actually actively there with the development. So that's my piece for now. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Peters.

Thank you. Lisa, I've got a question for you. I catch you off guard over there. Sorry, I just jumped you. You mentioned earlier in this discussion that the county, you spoke with the state's attorney at the county, and she had indicated that if we annex it tonight, it would not absolve them of any sins, for lack of a better phrase. Is that correct?

Correct. As you know, I believe there was a statement issued in KXLG that talked about criminal complaints. I'm only guessing here, but just as we do with code enforcement, it would probably be something like a fine for whatever violations occurred. They did correct what they were supposed to correct. So I think that will probably go into the equation. But again, I can't speak for the state's attorney. She hasn't drafted anything yet, I don't think. She's still mulling over the file and figuring out what complaint she will file. As to the board's decision, I'm still waiting for the minutes to be approved so I fully understand what the direction was to J&J and how that coincides with the joint jurisdiction ordinance. As far as the board's decision, I heard different timelines. I heard different things. So I just want to wait to get the minutes to figure out. And they haven't been, as far as I know, notified in writing, like, this is what the board decided. This is what you need to do. It's only been verbal. So that's why I want to wait for the minutes to really comment on that. particular remedy, but as far as the criminal complaint, yeah, she would be able to do that and then they'd have their opportunity to either defend it or pay it or just like we do here at the city.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. Well, I'll keep my remarks short. There's been some great discussion on this tonight and good points on both sides. Councilman Hoyer, I appreciate your comments here recently and then Mayor, yours as well. Um, the biggest thing that I came in here with tonight and I didn't know how I was going to vote. Um, and frankly, I don't know if I still do is I didn't want to play the city versus the county card. And I had a great conversation with Mr. Andrews today. I had a conversation with Manager Hanton, Allen, several council members, and I've really been digging in on this. And I haven't had a whole lot of feedback from the constituents, at least in my ward. So I know that there's not a lot of strong feelings in Ward B, but this is a tough one. And I don't think annexation is ever easy, but certainly it's not easy when we have a mining operation. So we can say this is housing. We can say this is all sorts of different stuff. The reality is we're trying to decide if they should keep mining or not. I mean, we should just call it for what it is. And I appreciate councilman endurance comments about, um, you know, pro development. I get the concerns of infrastructure, which is why my questions were tailored around what happens next. But I'll be honest with you based on what I heard tonight and I applaud the applicant for, for explaining things through. I look at this as simply a, A snapshot in time, what is the best thing for us right now? And annexation isn't easy, but the reality is, I do feel like we're growing that way. I feel like we've got some safeguards with the conditional use permit upcoming. I feel a lot better about this now than I did an hour ago. And I do think that we're heading in the right directions. I would just really challenge the Planning Commission to look at the Conditional Use Permit and know that we're not just announcing this if it's approved tonight willy-nilly. I would advise them to make sure that there's some safeguards in place if it does pass tonight. So I appreciate the discussion, and I appreciate staff's time. I've spent a lot of it on the phone with you guys, so thank you.

City Manager Steger.

There are two points I would like to bring up for the council. First of all, we've talked a lot about the pace of this developer's infrastructure improvements. I want to point out that this developer has done all of their developments without the use of tax increment financing in our community. If we wanted to accelerate things such as full width roads, that is certainly a tool we could look at both from the city standpoint and from the developer's standpoint to ACCELERATE IT. BUT UP TO THIS POINT, THE DEVELOPER HAS REALLY BEEN DEVELOPING AT THE PACE AT WHICH LOTS ARE SOLD. AND AS A RESULT, THEY MAY MOVE A LITTLE BIT SLOWER. THEY MOVE AT THE PACE OF THE MARKET, BUYING THEIR LOTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT DOES DELAY THE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT SOMEWHAT. SECOND THING I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON, AND THIS IS MORE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. coming before the Planning Commission later this week. I'm not a big fan of haul roads. In this case, I do believe we need to do a haul road agreement associated with bringing, potentially bringing this mining operation into the city. What a haul road doesn't do for us is it doesn't give us a tool with teeth to deal with other parties utilizing the exact same roads with mining operations in the same neighborhood. And so I would like to look at addressing the speed limits and weight limits on all of the roads that we have responsibility for, which then would allow us to pursue criminal charges against people violating them, rather than the civil disagreement and civil charges related to a haul road agreement. So short answer to that is we need both. The haul road is the quickest that we can get to through the Conditional use process later this week. I'll stand by for any questions You have a follow-up councilman Peters.

Well, I do but nothing related to that to be honest with you, but thank you for that information the one thing that I forgot to mention in my remarks, I think is important is My wife and I moved to town when they announced that the ice arena was going out there And I kind of scratched my head and I'm like, well, why was it? Why is it going out there? But now that it is out there, I feel like we do have a duty to continue to push that area in the right direction and not let that be on an island right now. Because when you go out there, it's a little distant from anything right now. So I think the more attraction we can push out there, I think the better off we are as a community. Thank you.

Councilman Schutte.

Thank you, Mayor. And I echo many of the councilman's comments tonight, especially when we're talking about working together with developer. I appreciated Mr. Andrews, you're just encouraging us that you're working with staff, and the relationships hopefully are growing and getting better working together, as it should be. So I appreciate that. One point of clarification that I believe Councilman Hoyer was trying to bring out, but just to kind of set the record straight for what gets reported on this meeting tonight, it was said that We won't have gravel in close proximity. I guess, could someone answer that? Is this really a decision tonight on having gravel in close proximity? I just want to make sure that we're clear on that. If the vote's yes or no on parcel one, is that something that is a, does it all of a sudden the gravel operation stops? Is that a true statement or not? I guess if someone could answer that.

Well, in getting back to that, If the council votes yes, then we're dealing with the city and unknown to what the county could possibly do. I mean, we could wait for the county to kick in. They might, I don't know what the county will do. The township, I'm dealing with two entities out there that have caused us a lot of grief. So it, I can't give you a direct answer on that, but I do know that that's a big reason why we're standing here is because I do want to work with the city and the uses in moving forward out there. I just feel like it'll be a much, and I never thought I'd say this, smoother. Who'd asked me this a couple years ago? That is on record, Mr. Andrews.

I am going to have that etched in stone. Councilman Shetty, you still have the floor.

I appreciate it. Again, I am enjoying where we're going moving forward as a city with your company and other developers in the community as well. So tonight on this parcel, too, that's a natural fit for residential. This is, as Councilman Peters said, I've been open and minded on this, and I hate being forced thinking I gotta make a vote on a mining operation or not. I mean, let's say if parcel one did not pass, and then in five years it came in front of this council, let's say if I'm still on the council, and now it's ready to move forward with the residential zoning, as far as I can tell, yes, I'd be voting yes for that. On board completely with your vision and your future. It's just tonight, though, am I on board with currently, basically we're approving a residential plot and a mining operation. It's two separate, that's what we're voting on. There's two separate entities here. And I guess that's where right now I've been separating that out. And yet I'd still like to see the city and developers' relationships get stronger and work together even more. I mean, if I were to vote no on parcel one, which I'm still working through that thought process, I'm not saying no to trying to work together with developers. It's just more what's the timing? What's the right time for it? And so I guess just clarifying why I'm voting the way I'm going to vote tonight.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Just a second. Anyone would like to speak?

Councilman Hoyer. So in that last exchange, we didn't actually get an answer to would parcel two continue mining operations or not. I just, if somebody could give a yes or no, if we didn't approve it.

Parcel two is not a mining operation. Okay. It's just stockpiles. Okay. So we would handle that by getting a grading permit through the city. Okay. Perfect.

And then the only other thing that I'm kind of sitting through, because I don't take this lightly. I know nobody does. I do remember serving with Councilman Buehler, and he made a comment at one point that has stuck with me for a very long time. And it echoes a lot on some of the things that we approve sometimes that didn't work out. And it's just, There's no guarantee. Like, what's the guarantee of anything? And so for me, this not going directly to residential, that's my struggle. There's no guarantee. You know, I get, and guys, we just don't know each other that well, but having trouble with your township and your county and working with them, what's going to be different with us? Are we, like, that's where I'm hung up. And so I'M SURE YOU'LL GET IT THROUGH TONIGHT, BUT FOR ME, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE, BUT I'M PROBABLY STILL SITTING ON A NO.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS BEFORE WE GO INTO VOTING ON 12F1? ITEM 12F1 IS THE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF ATTRACTIVE LAND OF PARCEL 2. into the city of Watertown. If you are in favor of that, you'll vote aye, oppose nay. And keep in mind, you can be voting in favor. 12F is one entity. 12G is a separate entity. But so 12F1, approval of the annexation of parcel two. Finance Officer Bob Zien, please call the roll.

OK. Jones?

Aye.

Peters? Aye. Studdy? Aye. Allen?

Aye.

Hoyer?

Aye.

Pauline? Aye. Orman?

Aye.

All in favor?

Motion carries. Can I get a motion for establishing the zoning designation of A1? Moved by Councilman Peters. Second. Seconded by Councilman Jurns. Council, any discussion on the zoning designation? Hearing none, Finance Office, Bob Zien, please call the roll.

OK. Burns?

Aye.

Peters?

Aye.

Shetty?

No.

Allen?

No.

Boyer?

No.

Moline?

Aye.

Mormon?

Aye.

We've got four yes, three no.

Motion carries. We're on to item 12G, which is the annexation of zoning of parcel one. The first motion is the approval of the resolution initiating the annexation of that tract of land. Can I get a motion for that annexation? Motion made by Councilman Peters. Seconded by Councilman Moorman. Council, again, I will grant leeway to talk about any aspect of 12F, 12G, but we are specifically on 12G1, which is the annexation of Parcel 1. Hearing no further questions or comments, we'll go to a vote if you are in favor of annexing Parcel 1. Sorry, Councilman Hoyer. I'm sorry. Sorry.

Again, I'm just going to make it very clear why I'm voting the way I am. This one I have a lot of qualms with just because it is a kitty-corner attachment. Who owns the land to the west? Who owns the land to the east? Who owns the land to the south? And who owns it to the north? Is that county? Is that city? Who is it?

I could walk you through each parcel. The land to the west is owned by the Orris Trust. And the land to the north and the east is owned by J&J Land Sales.

Councilman Hoyer, are you OK if Councilman Peters asks a question on that?

Yeah, go ahead. Do you say that the land of the south is owned by J&J?

No, the land to the south is the Michael Waddell Living Trust. The land to the east is the James Orris Living Trust, and all other land is owned by J&J Land Sales. Councilman Hoyer?

West is Orris.

Okay, I do know my directions.

Councilman Hoyer. So just to clarify, one of the directions is J&J land?

Two.

Two?

North and east.

North and east. And then the other one to the west and south are county, I take it, or township?

So all of the land is county, if that's the... Yeah, okay, thank you. That's what I'm looking for. Except for the southwest.

correct um the kitty corner touchy touch that one um so here's my here's where i get hung up on this so i was councilman of ward c once upon a time um at large you still look at it too and when you get on lake pelican you get a lot of these weird situations where we've made islands over time and it creates so many headaches um it's snow plow problems who's touching what who's doing what and so just clear delineation of work who's maintaining the roads I get really antsy about it. I really wish you owned the land to the south or the west. I'm sure you do too. That would make this so much easier. Just because there's no guarantee that those will ever necessarily come in unless those farms decide to sell. And so we end up in this goofy shape. Where we may permanently create an island, because actually, fun fact, if you go on GIS and you start looking around our community, we have a couple of these inside city limits where it's just a little tract of county land and it's just right in one spot. And it just gets weird. And so for me, just from clean planning, clean development, I'm probably a no on annexation for this just because if those other two tracks never sell. that's the shape we are. We're going to always have a weird pinch point right there. And then we're always going to have some situations where we got to figure stuff out with the county. I just think unless we are directly adjacent, we're really setting ourselves up for some goofiness down the road. And if you want to play in that gray area, you sure can. For me, I don't. I would much rather get it actually touching, not just a corner, but a full face, and then it'd be much easier. And I would hope maybe those other two tracks would be interested in coming in, especially since eventually they are slated in the comprehensive land use plan to hopefully become residential. But until they're touching like that, I just, there's no guarantee on that. And that's not to be forward thinking. Let's just push for those to start coming in and then we can make it happen.

Thank you. Councilman Jones, did you have something?

My feeling is not to just sit here and counter and create an argument, but it sounds like something that the Planning Commission is more versed at than I am, and that they did vote four to three. for this project. It's very hard for me to not vote the way they have done and the vetting they did and the arguing they did the other night. That's all I had.

Thank you. Council, any other comments? City Manager.

Mr. Mayor, just a quick follow-up. The petitioner did have an option to annex the property without doing the pinpoint annexation. They could have very clearly taken the parcel that they own in Section 28 and annexed it in with the parcel we were talking about in Section 31. They elected not to do that because of the existing development that they've already started on in the residential area. So I just point that out that, yeah, there is an option that you wouldn't have an argument over annexation at all because it meets any definition of permissible annexation. The developer in this case chose the path that's most realistic to transpire because of the work they've already done.

Sorry, I'm getting directionally challenged now. So let's use more specific words. Parcel No. 2, the land to the north of that, J&J owns? No. No. Okay. And then parcel No. 2 to the east of that?

No.

I do have it pulled up on my computer, too, if you want. That would be helpful.

Thank you. Right there is very helpful. Everything outlined in blue is owned by J&J Land Sales. So the parcel, Brandy, if you could highlight parcel 28-117-52. Oh, you were right there.

This one?

Right there. That would have been a clean annexation to bring that parcel in along with parcel 1. Instead, they're bringing in parcel 1 along with parcel 2 because parcel 2 has already had some infrastructure and road development work completed on it.

And the zoning is not extended there. So city limits is here.

The zoning just is not extended, but that is in city limits.

So it would have been... contiguous there but that actually would have created the island that councilman hoyer is our little friend in the middle there yeah councilman peters has a question on this could you just zoom out brandy i just want to see what's on that that east side of the interstate and for city limits nothing nothing's on these okay i don't know if that shaded area was something that sorry when i zoom out it's having issues okay thank you

Councilman Hoyer, back to you.

Oh, sorry, because this is under their ownership as well.

No, it just changes the perspective a lot, knowing that there's other pieces. That's kind of the overall image I'd rather see in that situation. So nope, I see how you can get there then. Thank you. Thank you.

Councilman Allen? Just a couple of points, I guess, because I also have a lot of heartburn about that parcel. And, you know, because I live there on Third Avenue, we've already got kind of a mess. We've got county-owned land that's... south of 3rd Avenue That I believe is owned by a clendenin That's County property the property to the north of 3rd Avenue is County property You know so we and I've complained about this before is that what we have is a situation where? There's a small section of asphalt Coming directly off 19th, and then it becomes gravel And it's gravel all the way down to where J&J is going to put a four inch asphalt road in. And then it's going to become gravel again all the way over to 31st. And when we annex the property there that already is plotted and has roads roughed in and so forth, the city is responsible for paying the north half of that cost of that road. just as we are for the section that's already been annexed that you're working on right now. So the city's on the hook to pay for that road. And the only way that we recoup that is when the land to the north is eventually annexed into the city, and then we can assess whoever buys that for the cost of that road and that infrastructure. That might be 20 years, might be 10 years, might be five years, might be two years, might be one year. The fact is that it could be a very long time before we get that back. In the meantime, we're responsible for maintaining that road. So we're going to be in the winter, we're going to be clearing snow. It's going to be a little bit complicated because the greater is going to be going over gravel and then there's going to be a little asphalt and then there's going to be more gravel. And it does create this appearance that we're doing development in a very haphazard fashion. And my biggest issue with parcel one, I think, that we're discussing now, is that there isn't a plan for residential right now. It's not plotted for residential. Um, there's no road access to it. In fact, we've discussed tonight that what we're going to do is vacate that road. So we're not really going to even, uh, main, you know, we're not committing to maintaining the road in and out of that gravel pit. Um, because it isn't really a road. Apparently it's not a road. Although the township will tell you that it's a township, it's a section line road. Um, and that was why when initially. That road was blocked off. There was a gate put up there to block access to it that the township said, you can't do that. That's a section line road. And they did that because I think they carried liability for that. As far as I know, they still have that liability. So if somebody is going north on 31st and they go too fast and they roll their vehicle down that road, well, that's a township road. a section line there. So I, you know, I find myself in Councilman Hoyer's camp where I think there's nothing that's going to prevent you from successfully mining that property. It might be, I mean, you initially, when I said to you, the purpose is to be able to mine, and you said, no, no, it's only three weeks. It doesn't really make any difference to us. Okay, which is it? It either makes a difference that it's three weeks or it doesn't make a difference that it's three weeks. And Mr. Andrews, you can come up and correct me if I'm misspeaking there. But I don't like being cast as somehow anti-development because I want development to be orderly and to make sense and to not burden the taxpayers of this community unduly. And I'm afraid that's what this does. And so I'm still a hard no on it. You can convince me otherwise, perhaps, but I just want our development to be a little bit more planful. And I don't want to create islands. I don't want to create difficulty. I also appreciate what you're doing for the community. That's great. You know, I think there needs to be a cooperative and collaborative kind of relationship developed, and I'm not sure that I'm there yet. So that's why I'm still a firm no on that parcel. Thank you. Thank you.

Councilman Allen, did you have a question that you wanted answered? Okay. Council, any other comments? Councilman Peters, did you have something?

Councilman Mormon. I was just going to say, looking back in time, and this is really going to date myself, I remember when River Ridge came into Watertown, that development, and that was kind of out on an island of its own. I remember watching my classmate Cody Burns running a scraper up and down Second Street Northwest, building the road out to that development. And now, as time has lapsed, here we are. J&J Earthworks has developed Valley View. and what was once river ridge out there on an island of its own is now a full development from 14th avenue all the way out to them so you know the progress is progress has met to other places that have been out there by themselves thank you councilman hoyer i'll post one more thing just looking at history and looking back what happens in the event

that a developer who's taking on a lot of projects loses their funding or goes bankrupt. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen to you guys. But in the event that something were to happen, what happens to this then? Because we've had it happen in the community before where that does happen, and then we have a lot of buildings sitting vacant and unfinished projects. And so I just get a little nervous about it. just want to make sure that's why like you go for that contiguous touching development because then there aren't big holes left and so i just i'm with councilman allen probably on this i just it seems like a lot to bite off at the moment i'd rather just see it contiguous and going incrementally it can happen but anyway mayor city attorney carrico

Thank you, Mayor. Sorry, I know we've been talking about this quite a bit. I just wanted to point out that the potential for pockets, I guess what you would call it, was not lost on me when this got presented. Like I said, I focused more on the general progression and the other needs and community interests that are into play to present to you, right, so that you guys can make a decision and all of your thoughts and processes are valid. It's your decision to make. One of the reasons also that, you know, when Community Development Manager Hanton brought this to me was I also had to respect the individual property owner's rights. I don't feel in this particular instance with the corners that J&J should be held what I'm going to call hostage to the land in between because they don't want to annex right now. Now, that doesn't mean that I'm approving of pockets everywhere or that we should always do a corner. Everything should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. But just because the landowner in between the city limits and J&J's land is not annexed at this time, I did not feel that this landowner here should be held hostage. They should be able to petition, they should be able to have it reviewed, and all of those other considerations that we talked about should be taken into consideration. Now, where you land is your individual choice, but I felt comfortable enough presenting it to you in this manner, so I just wanted to point that out.

Thank you.

Council? I'm sorry, one more comment. Councilman Allen. I don't think J&J is being held hostage. You know, that language makes it appear that somehow we're holding a gun to J&J's head. They are free to petition. They have petitioned it. They've asked for annexation. All that is well within their rights. We're not holding you hostage or somehow trying to do damage to you. You know that. I just feel that as a council I want to make that clear. None of us are. you know, somehow saying, you know, oh, J&J is this awful thing and we're not going to do any work with you. That's not true.

Councilman Shetty.

Thank you, Mayor. I've got about 20 minutes. I want to talk here.

No, I'm kidding.

No, just a brief thing. You know, tonight, just summing it up, Yes vote is for the future development of this of this land. You know what I got a feeling that what I'm hearing a no vote is also Still though for future development just know on the current timing of it with with the location as far as the mining operation now So it's not a I don't know if there's anyone up here. That's against the development of this. It's just a matter of when and When to annex it, you know, I think nothing wrong with that bringing up the request to annex. I applaud you for doing that. So again, just to kind of clarify this, yeah, we're all, I kind of think we're kind of on the same page. It's just a matter of timing on a yes or no. So.

Thank you, Councilman Schutte. And I'd like to say, I think, speak on behalf of or in defense of any of my colleagues. I want to thank them for the robust, intelligent conversation on this. I Completely respect the stances of everyone and I do want to especially defend as it like what councilman Allen said These these gentlemen if they raise questions, it's just that they're trying to do what is best for Watertown and They're raising very legitimate questions. So it is completely unfair for anyone to picture them as Anyway, anti-development, but with that said I think we are ready to vote and The motion is to approve the resolution annexing parcel one. If you're in favor of that, you'll vote aye. Opposed, nay.

Okay. Endurance?

Aye.

Peters? Aye. Shetty?

No.

Allen?

Nay.

Hoyer?

No.

Helene?

Aye.

Mormon?

Aye.

Four in favor, three against.

Motion carries. Can I get a motion to approve the zoning designation for parcel one? Motion made by Councilman Shetty. Seconded by councilman Peters Any discussion on the zoning designation of parcel one? Hearing none if you're in favor of zoning that in the proper and the way proposed you'll vote aye opposed nay, okay Jaren's hi Peters Shetty Alan Nay wire name Pauline I

Mormon? Aye. Four in favor, three against.

Motion carries. Item 12H is an approval of a resolution vacation of all the portion of the public road right-of-way located between the abandoned railroad right-of-way and lot five, block three of the plat entitled Watertown Development Company addition to the city of Watertown. Community Development Manager Hanton.

Thank you, Mayor. Let me get to it here. So this is a, and actually if I can have IT, please go to the vicinity map on one of these pages here. If you guys can find it. It's like page 98.

Perfect, okay.

Oh, it's getting there. Okay, sorry. So this is a piece of unimproved public right of way that was adjacent to previous railroad property. It is 30 foot in width. It does not have any connectivity. It used to through the property to the west, but that was vacated in 2019. And so now this residual segment is being proposed to be vacated. And the landowner would like to construct a detention pond in that area. There are no utilities, and there's no need for any easements to be retained. And the Planning Commission did recommend approval of this. So with that, I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you, Brandy. Is that it, staff? Anything else? Okay. With that, I would need a motion from the council. Moved by Hoyer. Second. Second by Moorman. Council questions? We still have a quorum, so I guess we can vote.

All right.

I think we'll go ahead and call the vote, Kristen.

Okay. Adjournments?

Oh. Probably just one. How did I notice that he was? Sorry.

I wasn't even paying attention. Peters? Aye. Shetty? Aye. Allen? Aye. Hoyer? Aye. Mormon? Aye. All in favor?

All in favor. Motion passes. We will give our esteemed mayor 30 seconds here.

Item 13A is an approval of a resolution designating the district boundaries and adopting the project plan for tax increment financing district number 24. Community Development Manager, hand.

Thank you, Mayor. So this is Prairie Haven's second phase of their residential development. This is just south of the Derby Downs development where we recognize it as Prairie Haven. Now that has... They have a TIF for their first phase and then now they're ready for their second phase. They are proposing 75 homes and altogether the investments will be 22 to 24 million. And that's just their investment, that's not the request of the TIF for the TIF eligible costs. What that comes to to service the 75 homes is the request for the TIF eligible costs of the $4,412,618. And that will obviously go towards the installation of infrastructure. And what I think is helpful to acknowledge is in the TIF plan, they do show A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT THAT DOES FOR LOT AFFORDABILITY WITH THE TIF BEING UTILIZED. IT, IF YOU CAN GO TO PAGE 23 OF THE 55 TOTAL PAGES. SORRY, IT'S NOT COMING UP THAT CLEAR ON ALL AROUND PAGES. Then you guys, just to show that chart where what a lot costs with infrastructure requirements would be around $58,000 to $60,000 per lot. And what this TIF allows is to promote affordable housing, which is what this TIF is classified as, and bring down the cost per lot. So that definitely helps in efforts of affordable housing. So with that, stand by for any questions. I don't know if City Manager Steiger has anything additional to add.

I would just remind the council you're really looking at three factors as you consider this. First is the district boundary designation. You're asking is this an appropriate place for single family housing as described. Secondly, you're looking at the assumptions around the assessed values of the property. And will enough increment be created post-development to generate the tax revenue to cover the developer's cost? And finally, you're just looking at the general economics. Does it seem reasonable that the infrastructure would cost the amount that's put out there and that the tax levies and the tax increment will be sufficient to liquidate the TIF within 20 years? And answers to all of those items are in the TIF plan as presented.

Thank you. Council, can I get a motion to approve this resolution?

Second.

Motion made by Councilman Shetty, seconded by Councilman Peters. Council? Councilman Shetty?

Is there going to be a mining operation? Okay.

That's contiguous.

Councilman Hoyer?

Oh, I said, and it's contiguous.

Have you guys checked if there's gravel underneath there?

Any other questions, comments on this TIF district? Councilman Hoyer.

If I may, I'm just wondering, so we're going residential and stuff and we're going for affordability. Just kind of wondering if you guys could share some of your concept plan, if that's okay or anything with that, what you're shooting for putting in. Yeah, just house wise, kind of price points and everything else.

Gosh, I've never been in front of the council before. Go ahead and ask me that question again.

And just, Steve, we all know you, but please identify yourself. Oh, Steve Thorson. Yeah, sure.

Steve, just kind of what your guys is playing.

A lot of guys call me XM1.

There you go. Just looking for kind of what your guys' plans are for home styles, house types, your price points you're shooting for.

We've got about six or seven different types of homes out there. We have two-story homes. We have some long ranch-style homes. We have some homes that are more of a... just more of a box type size they all run anywhere from 1200 square feet up to 1300 square feet we do build some small split level homes which are about 1100 square feet so it just really brings it to a point where there's a lot of options for them the cost of the houses have gone up the expense of our contractors have moved up substantially we still have the 410 000 limit for south dakota housing that we need to stay under through this agreement. And most of these homes are running 3, 305, 315, 320, right in that range. Councilman Hoyer, the floor is still yours.

go by it all the time, Derby Downs. It's pretty easy to see everything, but it looks like the Prairie Haven one's been moving along just fine. It has.

In fact, what we're looking at right now with the homes we're building, we have approximately seven lots available for next year. We were advised by our engineers to take a look at the cost, and I think Justin can attest to that, where we went out for the prices, the bids on this infrastructure, where we thought it was going to be 2.4 2.5 million dollars and people are looking for work out there right now so it did come in at 1.8 you know is what we're looking at for the actual infrastructure within it so yeah we're very excited to getting it done and getting it done this year so we can start building next year in that in that second phase all right fantastic thank you so much okay anybody else council anybody else

Motion is to approve the resolution designating the district boundaries of TIF number 24. If you're in favor of that, you'll vote aye. If you're opposed, you'll vote nay.

Okay. Jerns? Aye. Peters? Aye. Shetty? Aye. Allen? Aye. Hoyer? Aye. Helene? Aye. Vorman? Aye. All in favor?

Motion carries. 13B is the authorization for the city manager to sign the development agreement for what we just passed. Manager Hannon, back to you.

So this is, I wonder if City Attorney Carrico wants to talk on it. It's the development agreement that is in conjunction with this TIF that was passed. It's a standard agreement. Typically, we see this come through on the consent agreement because it is standard that we enter into the same language, just laying out what is required for this TIF.

City Manager Steiger, City Attorney Carrico, do you have anything to add?

I can add a comment. This is a fairly standard development agreement that we use with TIFs. One item that is different on this one is due to the South Dakota Housing Program and the cap of $410,000, which is the current cap to utilize the program. There is a sale price reporting requirement in the development agreement. That is unusual compared to what we've seen in other TIF agreements. Otherwise, it's pretty straightforward.

All right. Council, can I get a motion to adopt? Thank you, Councilman Allen. Second. Second by Councilman Hoyer. Any discussion on this, Council? Councilman Allen, did you? Okay. We will go to a voice vote. If you're in favor of authorizing the city manager to sign that development agreement, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Motion carries. Final item is 13C, an approval to purchase lot B2, approximately 2.91 acres along 26th Street Northwest from the South Dakota Department of Transportation for $12,200 and the authorization for the city manager to execute any and all documents required to finalize the land transaction.

City Engineer Peterson. Thank you, Mayor. This is a piece of property in the northwest part of Watertown off 26th Street, kind of northwest of River Ridge. It was a piece of property that was... design or going to be used for the north bypass. The DOT is looking to get rid of it and has offered to sell this parcel to the city. Just kind of a note, we recommend approval of it and the intent would be that we'd end up leasing the property until it's needed for the north bypass at some point in the future. So I guess with that, we'll stand by for questions.

Thank you, Council. Can I get a motion to approve the purchase and authorize the signing of the documents? Motion made by Councilman Allen. Seconded by Councilman Hoyer. We'll open it up to Council deliberation, but I do know that the neighbor of that lot is here. You don't have to say anything. I know that you were here just to listen in on this, but if you would like to address the Council on anything, you sure can.

Just please identify yourself This one so I'm clay Kistler we own the adjoining land up there Some we kind of been following for the last since we purchased property back in 2017 that parcel that the state is Proposing to sell back to the city now is actually close enough to the house that you could never build a road there and without having to vacate the house, which is what they initially bought the entire property. So we've been following up pretty close. Our water source, the well, I think it shows it on that one. They actually had to cut out a section out of this piece that they're proposing to sell back because it feeds our house and it was actually taken away from the house. So it does sit pretty close to our property. It kind of cuts it up into a really goofy So we're just concerned about how long do we continue to maintain our property, knowing that if a road was ever there, we wouldn't be able to. I mean, the house would have to be disposed of like the state initially wanted it to be. So that's the only reason I'm here, just to see what happens with it.

Thank you.

Thanks, guys.

But I wanted to give you that opportunity. You've been waiting patiently, so I thank you for that. But I know that you've just been very concerned about that. City Manager Steger, did you have anything to add on that?

You know, I would add we are certainly looking to work with Mr. Kistler on his property and use of the adjoining property. If at some point, well down the road in the future, we do need the property, he would be paid fair market value for yours if it was required to build a road. So I think there's very little risk in you maintaining and continuing to use your property. And we would enjoy working with you on any portion of the property that we might acquire here that you might want to use as well.

So I would say, City Engineer Peterson. Just one clarity, IT, if you'd scroll down to page three, or page, scroll up to page three. this is uh what mr kessler was talking about there's a little piece that was uh cut out of there it's labeled b1 that's all all right so mr kistler just be sure to

Get in contact with City Manager Steiger. Actually, only if the vote goes in favor of purchasing it. If not, you probably can just be done with us. Council, any deliberations? Motion is to approve this land and authorize the signature of said acquisition. If you're in favor of that, vote aye. Opposed, nay. Officer Bob Zien.

Okay. Jerns?

Aye.

Peters? Aye. Chetty?

Aye.

Allen? Aye. Hoyer?

Aye.

Helene?

Aye.

Vorman?

Aye.

All in favor?

Motion carries. City Manager, anything to report? I have a lot to report.

First of all, we did a great job this past weekend hosting the State Fire School in Watertown, which we will continue to do in future years. We hosted over 500 of South Dakota's best in the professional and volunteer fire departments and firefighters in our city. Secondly, there's the Wolf Habitat ribbon-cutting open house at the zoo at 2.30 on June 24th. Later this week, on Wednesday the 17th, the first legislative summer study on emergency medical services funding in the State will take place in Pierre, and we will have people participating in that. The next item I have, I would like some feedback from the Council. There are two areas I would like to address in not executive sessions, work sessions, where I think there'll be relatively lengthy discussions. And I'd like to do it prior to July 6. So we will get a query out to you guys to see when you're available. The first is we will be going through some code updates on the residential building code, the international fire code, and the commercial code at a future council meeting. Those can be kind of lengthy, and to give you as a council and any members of the public an opportunity to see what is changing I think would be a great topic for a work session. Secondly, at the same work session, Councilman Allen had brought up the assessments and road assessments that take place in the future when we annex in property. We do have quite a few assessments and cost recoveries on the books going back several decades for infrastructure that the city put in place that we have not been able to recover yet. We'd like to go through that detail with you as a council in a work session as well. And also related to that we have several developments that that have been developed by the city with with fire hydrant spacing that currently does not meet the needs of various people that pull building permits today. We've got eight of them currently in process and of course when somebody wants to build in these aged developments and they find out that they need to pay for the cost of a fire hydrant, they're questioning whether or not they had purchased a buildable lot or if the city did our responsibility sometimes decades ago when we put in the infrastructure. So I'd like to inform and give some education on that topic and see if we can determine a direction going forward to deal with some of these past issues. My final topic is pride in our neighborhoods and pride in our property. We have recently been receiving complaints. It's that time of the year when weeds start to grow three feet tall in new developments, in existing developments, and grass doesn't get cut. And we're taking a much harder line in enforcement this year. I do anticipate that we will be coming forward with a requested ordinance change to classify properties by their stage of development because what might be okay in, for instance, the eastern property we just talked about today that has very little development would not be an acceptable standard for property maintenance and mowing and weed abatement in other developments such as Prairie Haven or Valley View as they start to develop and we need is in some ways those requirements change as the neighborhoods fill in Also related to that we did a survey throughout the city Through our community service officers and patrol officers and we've identified over 200 properties that currently could be cited were either junk and debris in the yard or improper mowing or weed control. That's a fairly large number, and we don't really just want to pivot on a dime and become very strict with compliance. And so I put this message out as just asking people to take a look around their properties and do a better job of keeping them clean. At some point, we probably need to reach the compliance stick on some of these nuisance properties. That concludes my report.

Thank you. Does any council member have a topic for a future discussion? Councilman Peters.

Thank you. I've sent a few emails out about this. I got reached out to now that that Seven Brew is up and running, but that intersection by the Tidal Wave, Seven Brew, Trav's Outfitters is a dangerous spot in the community. I can't remember exactly where you said you were at on that, City Manager, but I just wanted to bring that up because it's getting to the point where people are pulling out of that intersection like 50 miles an hour to catch their little window they have to get on the highway.

Thank you. Councilman Peters, it is on the State Transportation Plan, currently scheduled for 2027. I've asked City Engineer Peterson to reach out to the State to set up a meeting with him that we have periodically. to see what we've got for options to accelerate that. But it is, the good news is it is in the plan, but we do recognize we need a solution quicker than it's currently planned. Thank you.

Any other councilmen?

Councilman Hoyer.

This is kind of a classic one, but I thought it was worth bringing up just because we are at that time of the year where people are out walking and accessing things. 10th Avenue Northeast between Highway 81 and 11th Street, so just south of Mount Hope Cemetery there. Um, I've had a couple constituents now reach out about folks walk in on the shoulder of the road because it's 1 of those weird roads. It's a county road inside city limits. And we don't really, it's not actually a county road, but it's built as if it were. But it doesn't have curb and gutter and stuff. But anyway, my point is. could we take a hard look as a council about potentially putting some sidewalk in maybe on the north side of that street because I believe we potentially own some of that land I know when we had um Dollar General go in they put sidewalk in it goes to nowhere it'd be great for it to go somewhere um but also that's where the dog Park's at as well so I imagine there's quite a few people walking their dog to access that so if we could take a hard look at it it's in a school neighborhood too i think it'd be a really good candidate for us to try and find a solution so we can get these kids off the road and get them on a sidewalk walking somewhere a little safer i don't think you'll find any disagreement in looking at it we'll see when we can program uh program in that project i would actually 100 back councilman hoyer on that

My most important constituent is my wife, and she has been on me for over five years as to why we don't have a sidewalk there. Because when you drive it every day like I do, there are so many kids walking on that. It really should be something the city could lead by example on enforcing our own sidewalk requirements. Councilman Allen?

So what you're saying is planning is important?

Yes.

I would agree with that. Along those same lines, the city of Watertown has a strategic plan. It's just about expired. I think it expires in 2027. To my knowledge, we've never looked at it as a council. And I think it's high time that we as a council take our our responsibility for strategic planning seriously. And I would suggest that as we plan work sessions to look at code and road assessments and ordinance changes about property, that we also consider doing some strategic planning for the city of Watertown. I just think, you know, we need to do that work. It's going to be difficult work, I don't doubt that. But let's look back at the plan we had and we can say, It was a terrible plan. We've accomplished very little on it. We can move on, but let's do that work. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other topics for future discussion? Councilman Mormon.

Well, this isn't for future discussion, so I apologize, but I do want to give a quick shout out to a handful of amazing young Watertown athletes. Our U16 girls soccer team, they go by the name of Temple, won the regional tournament in Des Moines. They first won their tournament age group in Sioux Falls, which qualified them for the regional tournament in Des Moines, Iowa. Over the weekend, they won that tournament also in Des Moines, which punched their ticket for the July national tournament in Wichita. So I just want to congratulate Ava Meyer, Olivia Ringenberg, Berkeley Fliege, Riley Bakken, Sophia Gallardo, Lauren Tesh, and Isabel Gerlach. And then there's a couple other girls on the team that travel from out of town to come and play on this team. So wish them good luck at nationals. And having a son that's in soccer, I've had a chance to watch these girls play. And it would not surprise me one bit if we aren't someday watching a handful of these girls play in Division I soccer.

good luck and congratulations to those girls any topics for future conversation there's no reason to go into executive session i'll take a motion to adjourn made by councilman hoyer second by councilman peters all those in favor of adjourning please say aye aye any opposed say nay motion carries good good night and god bless you watertown