[0:00] as well as another parking spot for
everyone else.
[0:04] Um I think that for that one. So, the
property highlights, what will this
[0:09] property have at at What will the
property have? It is a housing project
[0:15] for families, so we are looking at
anyone from one to four bedrooms. A lot
[0:20] of this is dictated by the scoring
criteria and how many bedrooms we can we
[0:25] we included based on the scoring that is
eligible. So, we're trying to max out
[0:30] our points. The more points we get, the
better off our chances [snorts] are to
[0:34] get funded. So, we have seven one
bedrooms, 13 two bedrooms, six three
[0:38] bedrooms, and four four bedroom units.
Uh again, that first level is covered
[0:43] parking. There is an elevator in there.
Interior and exterior community spaces.
[0:48] There's again that parking or the
um dog park and the playground. There's
[0:54] also community garden included. And
interior, there's some community spaces.
[0:59] There's in-unit washers and dryers for
all of the tenants.
[1:02] Um controlled entrances. [clears throat]
No smoking on the property. The Feist
[1:08] energy model is that zero energy
um model, so
[1:13] really insulated building, uh making
sure that the property is built very
[1:17] very well. So, and we're producing
energy
[1:20] um that we're using in the building.
The households that we're looking at are
[1:25] people at 60% of the area median income
and people at 30% of the area median
[1:30] income, and we'll get to that. We have
six units set aside for people with
[1:34] disabilities, and then four units set
aside for people who are homeless.
[1:40] And we do have a service provider that
we'll be working with on providing
[1:43] services to those 10 units.
In addition to that, the project um has
[1:49] housing support committed by Meeker
County. So, all 10 of them will have
[1:53] housing support through Meeker County.
Service provider that we are working
[1:57] with for the people with disabilities
and high priority homeless is UCAP.
[2:04] Okay.
And then,
[2:06] um, we do have a part-time tenant
services coordinator who will be there
[2:10] to coordinate, um, community events or
things along those lines so that, um,
[2:16] tenants feel like this is their home and
they can,
[2:19] um,
connect with each other. And then there
[2:22] is a collaborative ownership and
management partners between uh, the
[2:26] Litchfield HRA who will eventually be
sole owner and Central Minnesota Housing
[2:30] Partnership because of some balance
sheet items and getting investors
[2:34] interested in it. They need someone who
has the expertise and development. So we
[2:38] will partner on this transaction
together until, um, it makes sense for
[2:43] us to exit the partnership and we will
do that at no cost to the to the HRA.
[2:48] » Okay. Very good.
>> The income levels that we're looking at
[2:52] and the proposed rents are right there.
Uh, the one person, that 30% is about
[2:57] $10.29
an hour. The 60% is about $24.02
[3:02] an hour. And that goes all the way up to
four. That 30% income for four people is
[3:07] $14.69
and then that 60% income is $34.29.
[3:14] So as you can see it's a really, um, a
big range of households that we're
[3:19] looking at.
And then the bedroom the rents are there
[3:23] for the bedroom sizes. Those 30% are the
housing support units and those are
[3:27] dictated by the county and how much we
can charge for rent. Otherwise, those
[3:32] are the rents that we're anticipating.
Um, and these proposed rents do meet the
[3:38] Meeker County Housing and Redevelopment
Authority payment standards. So
[3:43] Okay.
The proposed sources of sources and uses
[3:48] of funds. The sources we're applying for
is a first mortgage of about 661,000,
[3:54] tax credit equity and equity from an
investor of about $9 million,
[3:59] Minnesota housing deferred financing, so
it's a 0% deferred loan of about 3.5,
[4:05] almost 3.6 million. We have a sales tax
and energy rebate of about 325,000,
[4:11] and then a deferred developer fee of
about $96,000. So, that gives us our
[4:15] total source of 13.7 million.
The uses for those are our land
[4:20] acquisition [clears throat]
of a dollar with the with the Housing
[4:23] and Redevelopment Authority.
And then construction costs of about
[4:27] $10.2 million,
construction contingency, so if anything
[4:32] goes wrong, bad soil borings, things
like that, about $410,000,
[4:36] and soft costs, which include architect,
legal fees, development fees,
[4:41] um
engineering fees, things like that, of
[4:44] about $3 million. And so, our total
sources and uses do balance out. The
[4:50] pay-as-you-go tax increment financing
that we are requesting tonight is part
[4:54] of that $661,000.
We will leverage that pay-as-you-go to
[4:59] increase our first mortgage amount for
the project.
[5:03] » Okay.
>> And then the scoring criteria, just to
[5:07] kind of give you an idea that the higher
you score, the better your chances are
[5:11] of getting funded. So,
um
[5:14] we're trying to get the most amount of
points so that we have the best
[5:19] opportunity to get this project so we
are looking at large families, so that's
[5:24] why we have that that breakdown of one
to four bedroom, we get 15 points for
[5:28] that. That's supportive housing, the
people with disabilities, the high
[5:32] priority homeless, that gives us an
additional 17 points. The rental
[5:36] assistance or that housing support we're
getting from Meeker County gives us an
[5:39] additional 14 No, 18 points.
Serves the lowest income, that two-tier,
[5:45] the 60% incomes and those 30% incomes
gives us an additional 14 points.
[5:50] Long-term affordability, we are
committing to 50 years of affordability.
[5:54] That gives us nine points. Accessible
access to affordable housing, this is a
[5:59] Minnesota housing criteria. They do some
data research and you just you either
[6:03] get the points or you don't. So, the
next couple are just their criteria. So,
[6:08] there's four points there. Workforce
Housing Community, uh Litchfield gets
[6:11] six points. Transit and walkability,
Litchfield gets eight points. Community
[6:16] Development Initiative, uh we looked
through your comp plan that you
[6:20] currently have and have to answer
questions and hopefully we can answer
[6:23] all of those questions. Uh I reviewed
the comp plan uh this past week and we
[6:28] were able to answer all of those
questions. So, we took an additional
[6:31] three points uh because this project
does align with the comp plan that you
[6:35] have already established.
Qualified Stakeholders Group, uh
[6:40] Jenny and our a group of people from our
office had met with a few people who
[6:45] would qualify to live at this property
and asked them what they liked and
[6:48] didn't like about the project and we
were able to make some tweaks to the
[6:52] project or adjust things here and there
that makes it a little better for them
[6:57] to live at the project. So, we're we're
getting their kind of feedback on that.
[7:02] Rural Tribal is another Minnesota
Housing Criteria, so that's five points.
[7:06] Multifamily Housing Award, so there
hasn't been an award in Litchfield for
[7:10] the last five years. So, there's four
points there.
[7:13] Uh People of Color or Women Owned
Businesses, we get an additional eight
[7:16] points there.
Local access to supportive housing, um
[7:21] the city certified to this. So, there
was two additional points there.
[7:25] Financial readiness to proceed. So, this
is where if we could get deferred loans
[7:29] or deferred developer fees, donations,
actual cash to the project, you can
[7:34] score higher. Right now, we're looking
at about six points for that. Other
[7:39] contributions, this is where that tax
increment financing comes in, any
[7:43] donated land, things that are not actual
hard cash, but contributions to the
[7:47] project. That is other contributions and
we're getting about four points there.
[7:51] Intermediary costs, keeping our
developer fees down, our soil borings
[7:56] and things like that down. We get three
points there. Universal design means
[8:01] that the property is designed in a way
that if they were a senior or
[8:06] they want to age in place, there still
is areas, especially those one-bedrooms,
[8:10] where they can age in place. The doors
are wider, things are lowered,
[8:16] so they're easily accessible.
And then the enhanced sustainability,
[8:21] what kinds of things are we going to add
to that project, which is the FIAS
[8:24] model, which gives us an additional 12
points. So, we are looking at about 144
[8:29] points as it stands right now. Without
the TIF that we're talking about
[8:34] tonight, we will lose two points
[snorts] on that. So, it is very
[8:38] It is very crucial to get those those
tax increment financing.
[8:42] In 2025, the Greater Minnesota housing
projects that received funding scored
[8:46] anywhere between 136 to 155 and
approximately [laughter] one in five
[8:52] applications receives funding. So, at
144, we're looking at a really good
[8:57] scoring project. The applications are
due July 9th and we will not find out
[9:02] about funding awards until December of
this year.
[9:06] And then I just put up a sample project
of something that we've done before.
[9:10] This is a family project we're building
in Little Falls right now, but it kind
[9:13] of gives you an idea of
of kind of what we would propose for a
[9:17] project.
[9:20] And with that, I'm open to questions.
Yeah.
[9:24] » You said it's a
Is it Is it three stories above the
[9:28] parking level? So, there's three more
>> Correct, but I believe
[9:33] » So, it's like four stories tall.
>> Yes.
[9:37] » It'd be similar in to the law.
>> Yeah.
[9:41] » Do you know if
I have a question on the point system?
[9:45] » Yes.
>> we we you calculated 144. Will the
[9:49] the ones that are doing the the scoring
grade it the same?
[9:54] » It all depends. So, for everything that
we are claiming points for, we have to
[9:58] document.
>> Okay.
[10:00] » to provide third-party documentation.
>> these points?
[10:03] » We are asking for 144.
Whether we get them or not, pretty
[10:07] typically we get what we ask for unless
there's something that they've
[10:11] identified as not providing enough
documentation, but
[10:14] » Okay, very good.
Any other questions? [snorts]
[10:17] » This point system that you have, is that
out of how many?
[10:21] If if we get 10 points, is that 10 out
of 100 or is that 10
[10:25] » it's really hard to to say how many
total points there are because you can
[10:29] get points for
family housing, and then you can get
[10:32] points for senior housing, but you can't
get points for both. So, there isn't
[10:36] really a an actual full total
of how many points that you can actually
[10:42] get if you did everything.
Um but I would say you're close to about
[10:47] 220.
All together, if you did a family
[10:52] project that had everything in it and
you maxed out all of your points, it'd
[10:56] probably close to just over 200 points.
>> No, that's I was just asking if, you
[10:59] know, where you had five points for a
certain thing, five out of what?
[11:03] » Oh, if I have it on here, the the max
points on there, the only ones we're not
[11:08] receiving the max points on right now
are um financial readiness to proceed
[11:12] and other contributions. Otherwise, for
the most part, we're requesting the max
[11:17] contribution the max points.
>> Okay.
[11:20] » [clears throat]
>> Very good.
[11:22] » John?
>> Um you were part of the planning
[11:25] commission meeting that that I was
unable to attend, and some of the the
[11:30] questions they had have been answered a
little bit tonight. Is that correct?
[11:35] Parking and uh
playground for kids.
[11:39] » Mhm. Yep, we adjusted some of those
items.
[11:42] » Right. Can Can you think of other things
that were
[11:45] » Parking was a street parking was a big
big concern.
[11:50] Um
excess parking in addition to the
[11:55] to the designated parking for people
that visit or stop by being on the
[11:58] street. That's a busy street. Was that
Was that addressed at all?
[12:02] » we added a couple more parking spots and
I know that we meet the parking
[12:05] requirements for the city.
>> We do. And we also have those two extra
[12:09] lots that we could convert to to added
parking too if we need to.
[12:14] » Yes, I believe Jenny was talking.
>> Yeah, and the other piece to that too is
[12:18] I've had some preliminary conversations
with our property management about
[12:21] possibly
in that back parking lot.
[12:24] They have a garage.
So I
[12:27] if there's concerns for street parking,
I think there's definitely room for
[12:31] movement.
>> Okay.
[12:32] Very good.
Very good.
[12:35] Any other questions?
>> The The underground parking that you
[12:39] have available, would that
with the amount of apartments, would
[12:44] each apartment get like two stalls?
>> The underground parking, well, everyone
[12:48] will get one stall.
>> So if they have two cars, that's going
[12:52] to take up
>> to go outside in the parking lot. Mhm.
[12:57] » Okay.
Any other questions?
[13:00] Dave, if you want to take
Darlene, do you have a question?
[13:03] » Well, I had a question about it the
Ehlers.
[13:05] » Okay, you want Dave to go You're going
to be discussing Ehlers first, Dave.
[13:11] » Yeah.
[13:14] Jason and I didn't go through this
uh in
[13:17] entire thing
um in detail.
[13:20] Uh
couple of main points that Jason wanted
[13:24] to
um
[13:26] make sure that the council understood is
um,
[13:29] again you've got a resolution tonight
you're supporting TIF and that this
[13:33] project meets the but for test with TIF
so that the council is safe tonight to
[13:38] pass that resolution in support of TIF.
The other conversation that Jason wanted
[13:43] to have with you guys is this is not the
final
[13:47] approval process for the TIF
um, application, right? There's a public
[13:51] hearing and other things that are
involved later on should this get the
[13:55] funding
um, from the state of Minnesota.
[13:59] And Jason just wanted to throw out to
the council just
[14:02] there'll be some future conversations
about
[14:05] maybe value and whether there's
potentially a different way of
[14:09] accomplishing the same sort of task
without going through the TIF process.
[14:14] Um, again there's a
you know, we got a
[14:19] in comparison to Midtown Lofts, right?
That's a different tax bracket, it's a
[14:23] different project, it's got a different
dollar amount. There's a ton of value to
[14:28] that TIF
agreement. There's a lot less value to
[14:32] this TIF than we typically would see on
a TIF project. So,
[14:37] it's a future conversation that we'll be
having with the council. What we're
[14:40] committed to is the city match and and
the dollar amount, right? And so, there
[14:45] might be a different way to pull off the
same
[14:49] magic if you will, right? So, he'll be
having a conversation with you guys in
[14:53] the future should funding come
>> shouldn't change the point system for
[14:58] our idea on this team. Okay. Darlene.
I just the big chart, what page is this?
[15:05] Uh, 103, 104.
Where does it say how much each year
[15:13] they get
it's the from Elders is up the very last
[15:18] one maybe.
How much overall are we talking about
[15:22] taxes in the 26-year [clears throat]
TIF?
[15:25] I don't know.
See if that's
[15:29] » Uh you would have to do math there. So,
I would
[15:33] » Which column is it?
>> I would direct you back to the
[15:40] uh
front page.
[15:44] » Okay. The page that's blue, printed in
blue?
[15:48] Okay.
[15:52] What number is Oh, okay.
[15:56] So, we don't know in a 26-year period of
how much
[16:00] » Right.
>> going to be 84,000?
[16:02] » Yeah.
That's what we're putting in our
[16:05] workbook is the 84,000 at net present
value of the semi-annual net tax
[16:09] increment.
>> But semi-annual 84,000, so annually
[16:14] 168,000?
>> Nope. 84,000 is semi- We'll get two
[16:19] payments each year, so semi-annually
we'll get two payments. The total for
[16:23] the 26 years is 80
>> Oh, okay. Thank you.
[16:26] » Yeah.
>> I just couldn't see it.
[16:29] I had no idea where it was.
[16:33] Any other questions of Dave for TIF or
Diana for the project?
[16:39] » [clears throat]
[16:41] » If not, a resolution is in order to
authorize the use of tax increment
[16:46] financing and to waive certain city
and ditch bill fees and expenses for the
[16:51] Prousing project.
A couple things that the total amount
[16:55] committed is 84,567
dollars for the pay as as you go TIF for
[17:01] 26 years plus approximately 20,000 for
the L errors uh
[17:08] uh doing the TIF program. Correct, Dave?
>> Yep.
[17:11] » Yep. And an additional 5,000 dollars for
uh
[17:15] uh hookup for
water meter hook up. So, that's the
[17:19] combination of this. So, resolution
number
[17:22] uh
What is the resolution, David? It says
[17:25] 26. So, it's
>> No resolution number on
[17:34] You don't have the
Oh, we don't the bottom section where we
[17:38] don't have we don't have the
market value land thing right now,
[17:42] right? So,
that'll get filled in in the next
[17:48] » Can we resolve this first?
>> week or so. Yep. The rest of the You're
[17:51] We're resolving to the
resolution, that bottom section will
[17:55] have to get filled out.
>> Yeah, very good. Would anybody like to
[17:58] resolve?
Or else should I make that resolution?
[18:01] » Carlson resolves. Do we have a second?
>> Larson seconds.
[18:04] » Larson seconds
to authorize
[18:08] resolution to authorize the use of tax
increment financing and waving certain
[18:12] City of Litchfield fees
uh for the the Haven on Hubbard
[18:17] broadcast.
>> Any further discussion?
[18:23] Hearing none, roll call.
>> Councilor Larson.
[18:25] » Aye.
>> Mayor Dingmann.
[18:26] » Aye.
>> Councilor Bullard.
[18:27] » Aye.
>> Councilor Eken.
[18:28] » Aye.
>> Councilor Carlson.
[18:29] » Aye.
>> Councilor Powers.
[18:30] » Aye.
>> Mayor Dingmann.
[18:31] » Aye.
Thank you. Thank you, Deanna.
[18:35] » Thanks.
>> Thank you.
[18:38] » Thank you.
>> The uh
[18:41] next item is uh the Planning Commission
and
[18:45] uh
Since I will be abstaining from
[18:47] participating in council discussion and
voting on this issue, Council Member
[18:52] Larson will fill in as acting mayor for
this portion of the council meeting. So,
[18:57] » All right.
[19:04] So, we're going to go to
as soon as Ron goes. Thanks, Ron.
[19:11] John, I'm going to turn the time over to
you for presenting for us the Planning
[19:15] Commission meeting and then we'll go
forward with that resolution.
[19:19] » Latest Planning Commission meeting um
808 South Marshall Avenue Avenue asked
[19:24] for a variance. The property contains an
existing 8-ft fence along 85 ft of the
[19:30] rear south property line.
The fence was permitted with a building
[19:34] permit in 2005.
The current zoning ordinance limits
[19:39] property line fences to 6 ft residential
districts.
[19:42] There was previously a tree located in
the southeast corner of the lot. The
[19:46] tree has been removed recently.
The applicant would like to extend the
[19:50] fence 24 more feet completing the
fencing along the rear property line.
[19:55] If the tree had not been present, the
fence would have been constructed in
[19:58] this area in 2005.
Property owners are to the west are
[20:02] supportive. Fence is fully blocked from
view to the south by neighboring garage.
[20:07] No comments in opposition to the
variance were received.
[20:10] Planning Commission found all variance
criteria to be met and was supportive of
[20:13] the request. They recommended approval
as submitted.
[20:18] » Awesome. So, we'll just need someone to
make a resolution.
[20:21] » we want questions first? Is there any
questions on what's being asked?
[20:28] » [cough]
[20:32] » All right, then we take a resolution to
accept these um changes for the 6-ft to
[20:38] 8-ft fence on that on the side.
>> I'd like to make a resolution number
[20:42] 26-6-102
to grant a variance to Ronald and Mary
[20:46] Ann Dingman for property located at 808
South Marshall Avenue.
[20:50] » Thanks, John. I'll second.
>> Mathwig, second.
[20:54] » Mathwig.
Is there any discussion before we go
[20:57] forward?
All right, roll call.
[21:01] » Larson Mathwig.
>> Hi.
[21:02] » Mathwig.
>> Hi.
[21:04] » Allen.
>> Hi.
[21:05] » Larson.
>> Hi.
[21:06] » Powers.
>> Hi.
[21:07] » Larson Mathwig.
>> Hi.
[21:09] » Thanks, all.
[21:14] Thanks, Mario, for grabbing me.
[21:20] » [cough]
>> We said no.
[21:24] » [laughter]
[21:32] [cough and clears throat]
[21:35] » Thanks, Ron.
Thank you, Loretta.
[21:42] The
next item is the liquor store
[21:46] part-time wages. Dave, do you want to
take this one?
[21:51] Yeah, the council's aware of this one.
We dealt with the rest of part-time
[21:55] staff
sometime ago. This one's been
[21:58] on our list.
After discussions with
[22:03] um
Lori um and making sure that this was
[22:07] the direction that we wanted to go.
We've got a recommendation before you
[22:12] tonight.
That is to change the part-time wages,
[22:15] which are currently starting at 13 and
1/2
[22:19] dollars per [clears throat] hour, to
move those to $15 per hour.
[22:23] Um additionally,
there's a
[22:27] um
supplemental 50-cent increase for those
[22:32] that are key holders. Key holders are
people who can open and close the
[22:36] facility without uh direct supervision.
Um and then there's a one employee with
[22:42] um that has I'll call it special duties
um in addition to every all the other
[22:47] clerk duties that are there.
Um and that's a $2 $2 increase for um
[22:53] that employee.
Um
[22:55] if if the council will remember years
ago, we did have
[22:59] um a full-time uh liquor store clerk,
um and having some discussion over the
[23:06] last year and a half or so,
uh the idea here is to not carry that
[23:11] position forward,
um and to just use the part-time
[23:16] um wages, specifically that special
duties, uh for one employee uh to
[23:20] accomplish the same duties that the
full-time clerk was doing previously.
[23:25] » Okay.
>> Uh with that, I think we'd stand for
[23:28] questions the council may have.
>> Questions.
[23:34] I have a couple. Arlene.
>> Um
[23:37] » [clears throat]
>> This isn't organized labor. They're not
[23:40] a union.
>> Correct.
[23:42] » Okay.
And then when did the You said sometime
[23:46] ago other part-timers, when was that
that other part-timers got their raises?
[23:51] » About this time last year.
[23:55] » So that they've been worked the liquor
store people have worked a whole year
[23:58] without
When did we give the other city
[24:03] employees who are part-time their 2026
raise?
[24:08] January, February? Their
>> 26 wait well, so everyone's based on
[24:15] » [clears throat]
>> um
[24:18] their anniversary dates, right? So as
their anniversary date comes, that's
[24:21] when they got their raise.
[24:25] » Okay. So well, my question is do they
get back pay?
[24:30] This has been going on for quite a long
time and they've waited.
[24:35] » Yeah, so
>> give them back pay?
[24:37] » A couple things.
Um
[24:40] This isn't something that we've been
[24:45] There was a period of time here where we
also thought we might go down the
[24:49] full-time liquor clerk bit, right? So
it's not like this was the only
[24:53] direction that we were headed in.
Um
[24:58] A
This is a
[25:00] This is a change.
Um
[25:03] I
It's going to be really difficult to go
[25:06] back because staff does change here
more often than they do
[25:12] as our full-time staff does, right? So,
going back and doing
[25:16] um
>> [clears throat]
[25:18] » back pay is going to be much more
difficult, um
[25:22] which includes para calculations and
other things as well.
[25:26] Um
I think
[25:28] » Okay.
>> city hall staff would
[25:30] like to see this as an action taken
tonight and carried forward.
[25:36] » Any other comments?
>> Are the employees okay with doing it
[25:40] like this, not a full-time clerk?
[25:46] » Yes.
[25:52] » If everybody's in agreement, a
resolution is in order to increase the
[25:55] starting wage to $15 an hour,
a 40-cent annual raise per year of
[26:00] service, 50-cent increase for key
stakeholders, and a $2 increase for one
[26:05] employee that accomplishes extra duties
previously done by the full-time clerk.
[26:11] So,
would anybody like to resolve?
[26:14] » Larson would resolve.
>> Larson resolves. Do we have a second?
[26:17] » Mathwig'll second.
>> Mathwig seconds.
[26:21] Discussion.
>> I have a question, Ron.
[26:24] » Go ahead.
>> Okay, we're talking part-time wages for
[26:28] the employees at the liquor store.
Is that
[26:32] $15 an hour? Is that what part-timers
get in all the departments?
[26:36] » No.
[26:39] No, I don't have that schedule in front
of me, but
[26:42] um
>> 13 or 14?
[26:45] » $14 is where
uh other departments start.
[26:50] Um
and again, if they're 18 plus I think
[26:53] they start at 15 maybe so
That that was the schedule that was in
[27:00] front of the council a year ago. Like I
could bring that resolution
[27:03] » [clears throat]
>> back but that was
[27:06] that was in front of you guys a year ago
today. I don't I didn't bring that with
[27:10] me.
[27:15] » Any further discussion?
[27:19] » There are there are there are part-time
employees at the liquor store right now
[27:23] that were working for the old wage that
are going to get brought up to the new
[27:26] wage, right?
>> Correct. Yes.
[27:28] » But we're not we're not going to owe
them money being that this should have
[27:32] been done a while ago.
>> [clears throat]
[27:36] » I
I'm not sure that
[27:40] I'm in the
should have been done a while ago
[27:44] boat.
[27:48] Yeah, we've had this conversation for a
while but
[27:52] we've been going through a process to
identify kind of what we wanted to see
[27:55] happen and there's a lot of factors that
go into these things. It's where the
[28:00] market's paying, right? It's
where this department is in relation to
[28:05] other departments is a factor that goes
into this and again the overall
[28:09] department direction took some time
with
[28:14] new management to figure out exactly
where we were comfortable and
[28:18] how we wanted to move this forward and
happy to report as of the last week
[28:23] we're all comfortable
and on the same page now.
[28:31] » No other discussion. Roll call.
>> Ms. McColl, Nikki.
[28:36] » Aye.
>> Allen.
[28:38] » Aye.
>> Carlson.
[28:39] » Aye.
>> Powers.
[28:40] » Aye.
>> Mayor Diamond.
[28:41] » Aye.
>> Ms. Larson.
[28:42] » Aye.
>> Chapman.
[28:43] » Aye.
>> Resolved. Thank you, Dave.
[28:48] Thank you, Laurie.
[28:51] The next item is the uh Civic Arena
lease from the Department of Public
[28:57] Safety. If you remember last year, we uh
took out a lease uh for
[29:02] with a 9 months, I think it was or
something like that.
[29:05] And uh this is extending it for 2 more
years.
[29:09] Um
for a 2-year period commencing 10 1 of
[29:13] '26 to 9 30 of '28 for $600 a month. For
a total for this term would be $14,000.
[29:22] Um
it's all written out here. We also have
[29:24] a daily rate of $150 that's in here. So,
uh
[29:29] 664 square feet of community room B
that's is used. And uh
[29:34] any other questions? Dave, did I miss
anything?
[29:38] Nope.
[29:40] What's your wish?
[29:45] » Mathwig would resolve to renew the
contract.
[29:49] » Mathwig resolves to renew this contract
for a 2-year period. Do we have a
[29:52] second?
>> Larson I'll second.
[29:54] » Larson seconds.
Any further discussion?
[30:02] Roll call.
>> Councilmember Allen?
[30:03] » Aye.
>> Carlson?
[30:04] » Aye.
>> Powers?
[30:05] » Aye.
>> Councilmember Dingmann?
[30:06] » Aye.
>> Councilmember Larson?
[30:07] » Aye.
>> Mathwig?
[30:08] » Aye.
>> Councilmember Welickey?
[30:09] » Aye.
>> Thank you. Resolved. Next item is the uh
[30:13] 1002
South Armstrong Avenue offer of uh
[30:19] $30,000. Dave, do you want to enlighten
us on this, please?
[30:23] » Yeah, I kind of hinted to the council at
our last work session that this one
[30:26] would be back in front of you guys. Um
we have another party, different party
[30:30] interested in purchasing um this lot.
If the council will remember, um we did
[30:37] provide the council with kind of a table
last time around with options in terms
[30:41] of uh how you might proceed and move
forward with the sale of a lot like
[30:46] this.
[30:48] Couple of the things have changed with
this offer.
[30:51] One being that it does add an additional
parcel. [clears throat]
[30:58] Two and it doesn't add, sorry, it keeps
the same amount of parcels that we had
[31:02] before whereas the other offer would
have combined two parcels.
[31:06] So the I
change of
[31:10] potential reduction in
taxable value is not an issue with this
[31:15] particular request. The other item that
is different from the other request is
[31:20] we have an actual dollar amount
in in the offer.
[31:25] Moving forward,
we have a resolution on in hand to
[31:32] um
get a survey done for the parcel to cut
[31:35] out a section for turnaround for staff.
For snow plowing efforts,
[31:40] that is still in effect and we'll
proceed with that.
[31:46] The item that we really need some
direction from the council on
[31:50] is whether or not
you want to process this as a
[31:55] essentially a private sale. Again, we're
going to have to go through the public
[31:57] hearing process. We got to do this via
ordinance, right? So it's going to take
[32:01] some time. There would be an opportunity
for public feedback, but
[32:05] there's no quote listing, there's no
public offer here and if that's the
[32:10] council's wishes, we need to know prior
to kind of moving forward with that
[32:15] public hearing.
[32:18] » So Dave, if we would go ahead with with
a public hearing on this and we would
[32:23] have some
interest at that at the public hearing.
[32:29] Would it be appropriate at that point to
open it up or what what would would be
[32:33] our next step? Do you follow my
question.
[32:36] » Uh
[32:39] yes.
I
[32:42] Can they prove
sale
[32:50] not to a specific party?
[33:02] » And then once it's able to
sale for
[33:06] When you say
offers of sale.
[33:12] » Yeah, so my question um was whether or
not if we
[33:15] again, we go through the public hearing
and we adopt the ordinance, does the
[33:19] ordinance doesn't identify who the buyer
is necessarily, right? So you
[33:24] theoretically you could go through
approve the sale of land with the
[33:28] ordinance
and figure out later
[33:32] » There's any more interest.
>> If there's more interest, how you would
[33:36] handle it at that stage?
Um
[33:43] Again,
[33:46] because we're not up front leading this
one, right? We react to and every one of
[33:51] these property sales has been this way.
I will say this is kind of one of the
[33:55] last ones that's on a list. We don't
have a We don't have eight more of these
[33:59] um that are there.
But we've entertained these as you know,
[34:06] quote unquote private sales here for
quite for quite some time. This isn't
[34:10] This isn't new. We did Crescent Park
this way with a smaller lot. We did this
[34:14] with the golf course this this way. So
again, there is a public process. Um
[34:20] but you're kind of proceeding that
you're going to accept this offer in
[34:23] this situation.
>> Comments how we'd like to move forward.
[34:30] » One of my gut thoughts is just that I
think it's nice just to have it be open
[34:34] to knowing who would have interest in it
before we were to accept it. Just so
[34:39] that it doesn't feel like in the past
ones that we've done there's just been
[34:43] some feedback of, you know, did we
did we have be you know, how did we get
[34:49] that buyer, right? And I think when you
just open it up to see if there's any
[34:52] others who want to buy, it just becomes
very transparent. Doesn't mean to say
[34:56] that we wouldn't keep this I don't know
who it is actually [clears throat]
[34:59] the person wouldn't get it for what
they've asked but at least we would open
[35:04] it up know who else wants to buy it.
Also, I think we had done the survey so
[35:08] that we would know what to charge. Our
last offer didn't know what we would
[35:13] want and that was why we didn't have an
answer for it for [clears throat] that
[35:17] buyer. And so now after a survey we
would have a better number to say
[35:21] actually we would we want 40,000 or
whatever, right? I think that's what
[35:25] delayed us in the last one. So, I would
feel like it would just be more
[35:28] transparent if it was open and we
allowed it that way.
[35:34] » What are they going to use it for?
>> Uh they want to
[35:38] bring in a manufactured home onto the
site.
[35:41] » So, it'd be an additional tax property.
>> Yep.
[35:45] » Yep.
>> Is there water and sewer into that area
[35:48] that already?
>> Sewer, yes. Water, no.
[35:51] » Yes.
No electricity, right?
[35:56] Electricity is the same thing.
>> Is that that far far far back in?
[36:00] » Yep.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[36:01] » Yep, it's a dead end.
>> No water in that block.
[36:06] » [clears throat]
>> None.
[36:09] But there's sewer there.
>> Yes.
[36:11] » So, all you need is you need to run a
line who would would that be our
[36:14] responsibility?
>> Typically, no.
[36:17] » They would have
>> be this person that wants to buy the
[36:19] lot.
>> Yep.
[36:21] The neighbor right now is
putting in the new water line to that to
[36:26] their location.
>> So it's run part way back already.
[36:31] » Well,
I think there'd be some discussion about
[36:34] how to coordinate that. Yeah.
>> [cough]
[36:37] » Sorry.
So it seems to me that every time we
[36:43] have this situation we're using a
different
[36:47] process or not consistent.
And we've had people come and offer
[36:52] verbally a price and we had
>> go through the public bid. We told them
[36:56] no, we got to follow it. Then we have
someone gives us a sealed envelope with
[37:00] the price at a meeting. And now we have
an email with the price.
[37:04] Um I agree with Melinda. We just
advertise it, get it surveyed and
[37:10] because
somebody will come later. Probably
[37:13] there's nobody interested. But just
because, you know, we sold it to one
[37:16] person, somebody's going to come and say
I would want that for $5,000 more.
[37:21] And so let's just open it to the public
and then we're fair.
[37:25] But that's how I feel.
>> Any other comments?
[37:28] » I agree.
Yeah, open it up.
[37:31] » So if that's the consensus, would
anybody want to make a resolution to
[37:34] that effect?
>> I'd make a resolution that we would open
[37:39] this land up for
sale
[37:44] after we have our
I mean, do we need to have a price on
[37:48] that or
that we just open it up for open it up
[37:51] for sale.
>> Yeah.
[37:54] » For public bid.
>> After it's been surveyed.
[37:58] » Everybody understand the resolution?
[38:02] Do we have a second?
>> Alan will second.
[38:05] » Alan seconds.
For opening up the land at 1002 South
[38:11] Armstrong property, opening it up for
public bid
[38:14] uh
process, [snorts] correct?
[38:17] » Yeah. Can I ask a question now?
>> Yeah.
[38:20] » Is this [clears throat] ad? is this I
mean is one of those that we just added
[38:23] stuff on?
Do you know what I mean? Like
[38:27] I know. I didn't want to do that.
>> So, what stuff what did you ask?
[38:32] » Like, you know how we're we're talking
about our priorities and then something
[38:35] comes to us.
And now this is putting something up at
[38:39] the top of the list where this wasn't
one of our priorities, right?
[38:44] So
>> Well, we said we were working on it that
[38:46] it was going to be discussed tonight.
>> Yeah.
[38:49] » I I mean, I don't want to be glued to
that list.
[38:52] » If we can sell this and it becomes
tax They said that
[38:56] » Any further discussion?
[38:59] Roll call.
>> Council member Larson
[39:01] » Aye.
>> Powers
[39:04] » Aye.
>> Mayor Dingman
[39:05] » Aye.
>> Council member Larson
[39:06] » Aye.
>> Mathwig
[39:07] » Aye.
>> Wollniky
[39:09] » Aye.
>> Gallon
[39:09] » Aye.
>> Resolved. Thank you.
[39:13] Um
next item is the
[39:16] um
electronic or the the
[39:20] financials, Darlene.
>> Oh, I just had a question about the
[39:27] Lark being closed for electrical
upgrades and the expenses associated
[39:32] with that. I didn't Is it on there?
And how much? I And why was it closed
[39:36] for electrical upgrade? I mean, I I
don't know.
[39:40] » Uh it was
plan It was a planned outage, right, for
[39:48] steps that needed to take place for
final
[39:54] electrical system. I'll put it that way.
[39:58] Uh some temporary stuff was put in place
to get the Lark up and running.
[40:02] » Okay.
>> And this is the final step to make sure
[40:04] that everything was done and completed
as designed.
[40:08] » So, then there were change orders. Is I
mean, what did it cost to do that or did
[40:13] we already pay for it?
Was that like included in the electrical
[40:16] bill?
>> What's that?
[40:19] Yeah, they're at they're at their 100%
now of they've been paid all of their
[40:25] the electrician's been paid all of their
money now. Yeah.
[40:27] » Okay.
And then
[40:30] if we haven't gotten money from the
state yet, where is that money coming
[40:33] when we authorize these bills? Where
does it come from?
[40:37] » Uh yes.
It's a good question, right? Um as
[40:41] Justin alluded to at our last meeting
and
[40:44] majority of those are coming from
uh temporarily from our wastewater
[40:49] infrastructure fund. It'll get
reimbursed when those funds come back
[40:52] from state of Minnesota.
[40:58] » That's all. I just wondered because we
didn't hear [clears throat] anything
[41:01] about it and it was closed and then I
saw bills.
[41:05] » Do you want to resolve to
approve the financial report, uh
[41:08] darling?
>> Uh so moved.
[41:10] » Moved by
Councilman Kolodziejski to approve the
[41:14] financial reports. Do we have a second?
>> Mathwig, I'll second.
[41:18] » Mathwig seconds. Any further discussion?
Roll call.
[41:23] » Councilmember Powers.
>> All right.
[41:24] » Councilmember Dingmann.
>> Aye.
[41:25] » Councilmember Larson.
>> Aye.
[41:27] » Councilmember Mathwig.
>> Aye.
[41:28] » Councilmember Kolodziejski.
>> Aye.
[41:29] » Councilmember Allen.
>> Aye.
[41:30] » Councilmember Carlson.
>> Aye.
[41:31] » Very good. We've reached the end.
>> Good.
[41:34] » Adjournment is in order.
>> Councilmember Allen, move to adjourn.
[41:38] » We're adjourned.
>> Thank you.