[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.

06.15.2026 City Council Meeting

Transcript