![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi_webp/ijIgxykDLmg/mqdefault.webp)
►
From YouTube: City Council Meeting 12 04 2017
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Let
us
pray
holy
God.
We
thank
you
for
the
many
blessings
that
our
local
community
has.
We
pray
for
those
who
are
in
the
offices
that
govern
us.
We
pray
for
our
mayor,
our
our
city
council,
their
staff
that
they
will
make
wise
decisions
and
decisions
that
honor
you
that
are
in
the
best
interest
of
our
community.
We
thank
you
for
our
freedom,
our
freedom
to
agree
and
disagree
with
one
another,
and
we
ask
that
you
would
show
us
how
to
exercise
this
freedom,
especially
tonight
with
grace
and
respect
for
one
another.
B
D
E
F
C
F
C
A
E
G
A
H
I
J
I
A
A
D
A
K
A
Appreciate
that
light
on
passing,
which
will
help
a
smooth
transition.
Okay
item
number:
five
is
application
for
a
new
retail
on
sale,
sunday,
liquor
license
for
brougt
enterprises,
inc,
doing
business
as
Duffy's
bar
22,
North,
Broadway
Street,
their
motion
and
second
mumbai
Buehler.
Second,
by
Albertson,
a
new
discussion,
oh
I'll,.
A
A
G
I
A
A
C
D
I
N
C
Understanding
is
we
kind
of
spoke
with
the
state
a
little
bit
on
this,
not
fully
for
sure
on
exact
time
frames.
But
my
understanding
is
that
that
changed
with
the
state
and
at
the
time
it
changed
with
the
state.
Then
it
changed
for
us
too,
and
that
was
the
time
that
we
then
enacted
the
sunday
liquor
sales
I.
N
I
K
D
I
C
This
one
right
now
that
you're
approving
right
now
is
for
2017
and
he
or
I
should
say
he.
The
establishment
could
come
forward
and
renew
for
eighteen
as
well
and
in
that
I
believe
it
was
the
first
meeting
of
November.
There
was
a
list
of
sunday
liquor
licenses
that
were
approved
and
they've
been
approved
each
year
on
a
renewal
basis.
I
think
the
one
that
we
are
thinking
of
that
had
the
50
seating
restaurant
was
the
wine
at
one
time
the
state
had
a
requirement
for
their
wine.
C
It
was
a
retail
wine
license
that
there
had
to
be
a
certain
amount
of
seating.
Now
liquor.
You
could
sell
wine
anything
under
a
liquor
license,
but
at
a
time
they
did
have
the
requirement
of
the
50
seating
to
sell
wine
I
believe.
I
I
C
I
N
G
K
I
Can
ask
a
question
on
this:
can
we
move
this
to
the
back
of
the
agenda
to
defer
it
right
now,
and
maybe
if
somebody
could
go
look
at
ordinance
language
on
this,
so
we
know
exactly
what
we're
dealing
with
and
then
we
could
bring
it
back
a
little
bit
later
in
the
meeting
so
that
we
it
you
know,
I
Jason,
look
at
the
lane.
I'm
I
mean
I'm,
not
I'm.
Talking
about
ordinance
language,
I.
I
G
M
M
C
C
M
L
A
M
O
State
statute
prohibits
this
sale
of
alcohol
on
Sundays,
but
allows
municipalities
to
approve
it
through
city
ordinance
and
that's
what
happened
years
ago.
The
city
approved
it
so
that
organizations
or
businesses
can
have
a
Sunday
liquor
license.
So
they
have
to
it's
an
annual
renewal
every
year
they
have
to
come
up
in
and
renew
it
for
a
small
fee.
So
yes,.
A
D
F
A
Too
many
Sundays
left
in
2017,
but
he's
probably
paying
the
full
year
price.
Yes,
okay,
any
further
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
Those
opposed
signify
by
saying
nay
motion
carries
item
number.
Six
is
ordinance
number
1745
amending
section.
Twenty
one
point:
eight
zero
to
six
of
the
revised
ordinances
of
the
city
of
Watertown
regarding
zoning
procedures
signed
code.
Okay.
This
is
the
section
that
we
were
just
discussing
in
the
work
session
and
I'm
going
to
ask
for
a
motion
and
second
for
approval
just
for
discussion
purposes
and.
A
Then
we'll
move
on
to
discussion
and
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
and
last
meeting
was
not
a
public
hearing,
but
I
did
allow.
Since
there
were
so
many
people
here,
I
didn't
want
them
to
go
home
feeling,
like
they
weren't
heard
and
I
did
allow
quite
a
few
people
to
come
forward.
Tonight,
though,
is
the
night
for
the
public
hearing.
So
everyone
who
has
come
to
weigh
in
on
the
sine
code
issues
is
welcome
to
come
forward
when
I
open
the
public
hearing.
So
is
there
a
motion
so.
M
Like
to
make
a
statement,
if
possible,
I
have
us
actually
the
one
that
brought
this
ordinance
forward.
The
reason
for
it
was
when
we
talked
about
changing
the
sign
ordinance
as
it
currently
sits
in
the
work
session.
One
of
the
things
that
was
brought
up
was
about
real
estate
science,
with
the
exemption.
That
was
the
reasoning
behind
this
to
go
through
the
board
of
adjustments
and
as
well
as
a
first
reading
and
we're
putting
it
to
the
second
reading
and
a
decision
at
this
point.
M
I
A
A
If
we
would
do
this
exemption,
that
would
allow
special
privileges
to
certain
types
of
signs
based
upon
their
content
or,
what's
written
on
the
sign
and
so
I
think
that's
a
pretty
serious
thing
for
us
to
consider.
As
should
we
be
regulating
based
upon
what
the
sign
says
and
the
Supreme
Court
says.
No,
we
should
not.
We
can
regulate
how
many
signs
you
can
have
in
the
right-of-way
how
long
they
can
be
there,
what
size
they
are
everything,
but
what
it
says
unless
it's
obscene,
which,
of
course
we
can
prohibit
that.
A
But
we
we
can't
look
at
the
sign
and
determine
what
the
rules
are
based
on.
What
the
message
is
on
the
sign,
because
that
interferes
with
free
speech.
So
with
that
explanation,
I
would
like
to
open
the
public
hearing,
and
anyone
who
is
here
to
talk
about
this
issue
is
welcome
to
come
forward.
Please
state
your
name
at
the
microphone
and
tell
us
what
you
have
to
say.
P
Thank
You,
mayor
and
city
council,
my
name
is
Kyle
alum
I'm
here
tonight
at
the
realtor
on
behalf
of
the
Northeast
South
Dakota
Association
of
Realtors
and
I'm.
Here,
to
respectfully
ask
that
you
allow
signage
to
be
placed
in
the
right-of-way.
I
was
here
for
the
presentation,
with
Luke
Muller
from
first
district,
and
if
I
can
take
this
over,
you
know
there
was
comment
made
about
about
being
able
to
decipher
or
make
it
very
easy
to
identify
where
that
public
right-of-way
is,
and
as
an
example,
here's
a
property
that
is
at
360
North
Lake
Drive.
P
So
this
is
the
first
districts
website
which
Luke
referenced,
but
by
no
means
is
this
a
plat,
or
is
this
a
survey?
This
is
a
rough
guesstimate
overlay.
So
if
you
were
to
look
at
this,
if
you
were
to
pull
and
find
out
what
the
right-of-way
was
in
this
particular
section
of
town,
this
line
doesn't
necessarily
indicate
that
this
is
outside
of
the
setback.
You
would
have
to
actually
pull
the
plat
and
find
the
survey
or
pins
to
identify
that.
P
We
also
listened
to
the
his
explanation
on
the
ruling
of
the
reed
versus
the
town
of
Gilbert.
I
can
tell
you
that
the
city
of
Gilbert
does
allow
real
estate
signs
and
they
and
the
state
of
Arizona
actually
protects
real
estate
signs
in
their
state
legislature.
But
that's
not
what
we're
here
to
talk
about
today
in
business.
You
strive
to
find
the
most
effective
and
efficient
way
to
do
your
business
and
to
accomplish
your
goals.
Our
goal
as
a
real
tour
is
to
sell
our
clients
property
as
quickly
as
possible.
P
Personal
motivation
to
sell
is
different
for
everyone.
Some
motivating
factors
include
job
transfer,
divorce,
death
or
the
more
traditional
step
up.
Buyer,
however,
regardless
of
their
motivation,
when
someone
hires
a
realtor,
ultimately
they
just
want
their
property
sold.
Real
estate
is
oftentimes
an
individual's
greatest
opportunity.
Build
wealth.
Homeownership
is
also
directly
tied
to
safer
neighborhoods.
Any
impacts
that
sense
of
pride
for
community
there's,
also
a
sense
of
ownership
or
rights
to
the
sidewalks
and
boulevards
homeowners.
Typically,
don't
understand
that
they
don't
own
the
sidewalk,
but
they
got
a
shovel
the
snow.
P
They
also
have
to
mold
the
boulevards,
but
the
city,
the
city
owns
that
so
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
disconnect
there
when
it
comes
to
what
they,
what
is
indeed
theirs,
and
what
is
indeed,
this
city
city
is
public
right
away.
So
there
is
a
little
bit
of
ownership
in
that
as
well.
The
real
estate
business
is
not
a
one.
Size
fits
all
either.
Each
community
has
its
own
unique
advantages
and
challenges.
Each
community's
consumers
act
or
react
differently
locally.
Twenty
five
to
thirty
percent
of
the
initial
activity
begins.
P
P
Organized
real
estate
is
one
of
the
only
businesses
where
we
as
Realtors
take
all
the
risk
of
when
you
guys
go
to
work.
You
expected
the
job
that
you
do
you're
going
to
get
paid
as
a
Realtor
when
we're
hired
by
a
client,
we
agreed
to
market
their
property
by
all
means
legally
possible.
We
give
our
time
or
money
and
our
resources
and
we
don't
get
to
charge
a
fee
unless
that
property
closes
and
they
go
to
the
closing
table.
P
So
we
don't
get
paid
unless
the
seller
gets
paid
and
one
of
the
major
differences
between
the
realtor
signs
and
other
temporary
signs
is
roofers
landscapers
painters.
All
of
their
signs
are
advertising
their
business
by
means
of
getting
future
business
where
and
they
have
already
been
paid
for
those
services
or
realtor
signs.
We
put
our
realtor
signs
up
on
behalf
of
the
owners
that
have
hired
us
to
represent
them
as
clients.
P
So
if
you
want
to
talk
about
timing
on
that,
or
something
like
that,
if
you're
going
to
give
an
exemption
to
signage,
whether
it's
in
the
boulevard
or
whatever,
one
of
those
things
that
we
would
request
would
be
a
contractual
obligation
because
our
contract
starts,
our
sign
goes
in
when
they
sign
that
listing
agreement
for
our
rules
and
regs,
and
we
have
X
amount
of
days
after
that
listing
has
either
consummated
or
has
expired.
To
remove
those
signs
from
wherever
the
location
is.
P
Our
signs
also
do
not
guarantee
that
we
will
get
both
buyer
and
seller.
Our
signs
do
guarantee
that
we
will
have
exposure
for
the
clients
by
the
best
means
that
the
consumers
have
been
conditioned
to
look
for
those.
So
let's
look
at
two
of
the
other
driving
factors
behind
this
new
interest
in
the
temporary
signage
ordinance
other
than
the
mayor's
push
to
enforce
the
rules
which,
as
Realtors
I
mean
we
are
in
favor
of
that.
First,
we
had
a
one
in
a
hundred
year,
flood
or
hail
event
that
caused
damage
to
thousands
of
homes.
P
Roofing
companies
had
signs
riddled
all
over
our
boulevards
and
all
over.
Our
community
made
it
look
cluttered
and
busy,
but
it
also
had
a
huge
economic
impact
on
this
community
in
driving
watertown
sales
tax
receipts
from
one
month's,
it
was
an
excess
of
10%
from
the
previous
year,
the
same
month.
It
also
increased
our
increased
our
BB
and
B
tax
receipts,
in
addition
to
filling
up
many
rental
properties
around
our
community
for
the
short
term
and
again
we're
talking
about
a
products
only
200
real
estate
signs.
P
If
you
go
back
to
the
ruling,
our
request
is
is
to
to
not
exclude
real
estate
signs,
but
to
look
at
that
timing
and
look
at
those
things
so
that
there
can
be
an
even
keeled
set
and
established
set
of
rules
that
everybody
can
follow.
Secondly,
in
regards
to
the
signage
piece,
the
h2o
20
survey
indicated
the
need
for
ria
dressing
our
signage.
However,
in
regards
to
this,
a
survey
indicated
that,
most
notably,
they
attributed
that
to
our
highway
212
gateway
area.
P
Now,
I've
served
on
both
the
steering
committee
and
implementation
Committee
for
the
h2o
20,
and
my
recommendation
during
the
last
administration
was
for
the
city
to
look
at
that
sign
ordinance
during
that
d-o-t
to
12
constructions.
That's
the
other
piece
that
has
Bri
brought
this
heightened
awareness
back
to
the
city
sign
ordinance.
The
issue
before
us
today
is
not
about
for
us
having
to
work
harder.
It's
not
about
us
having
to
spend
more
time.
It's
about
utilizing
the
best
practices
in
an
effort
to
meet
the
goals
established
by
our
buyers
and
sellers
or
our
clients.
P
As
I
said
before,
while
home
still
sell,
yes,
they
will
will
buyers
still
be
able
to
find
homes.
Yes,
they
will,
but
depending
upon
where
you're
at
and
what
area
of
town
you're
in
they
may
not
be
able
to
do
it
via
a
sign
in
some
areas.
15
to
20
feet
will
adversely
impact
the
ability
for
buyers
to
find
that
first
point
of
contact
and
that
will
become
a
hardship
on
the
sellers
in
those
certain
areas
and
like
a
reference
specifically
or
especially
around
lakum
Pesce,
or
some
of
them
have
a
65
foot
setback.
P
Imagine
your
business
if
you
were
forced
to
change
a
business
model
that
your
customers
have
become
accustomed
to
and
conditioned
to
how
much
hardship
would
you
endure
and
again
this
isn't
a
realtor
hardship.
This
is
a
hardship
on
your
constituents
on
the
Watertown
homeowners
and
on
our
clients
who
were
hired
to
represent
and
that's
what
we're
asking
for
today
is
a
piece
of
our
ordinance
that
can
be
fair
for
everybody,
so
that
we
can
utilize
early,
represent
our
clients
and
the
best
means
possible,
and
let's
also
talk
about
that
safety
aspect
in
Luke's
presentation.
P
One
of
the
city
of
Gilbert's
rules
that
they
have
in
their
signage
ordinances,
that
say
Dean
aesthetics.
So
let
me
take
tonight,
for
instance,
I
mean
we're
in
November
and
probably
through
part
of
March.
It's
almost
completely
dark
out
by
5:30.
How
easy
is
that
for
people,
especially
those
that
are
unfamiliar
with
our
community?
How
easy
will
it
be
for
them
to
find
that
location
without
that
signage,
close
to
the
back
of
the
curb
or
inside
that
Boulevard
inside
that
public
right
away?
Where
will
their
concentration,
be?
P
We
also
maintain
the
snows
when,
though
I'm
you
know,
we
have
been
a
Realtors
when
we've
had
90
to
100
inches
of
snow
accumulation
over
the
course
of
the
winter,
and
we
maintain
those
signs.
We
shovel
those
out
we'd
bring
the
snowblowers
by
so
that
our
clients
still
have
that
representation
and
people
can
easily
see
them
in
making
your
decision
this
evening.
We
request
that
you
look
through
the
eyes
of
the
seller
and
again
not
as
a
realtor
issue,
but
as
a
consumer
issue.
Our
signs
do
serve
a
public
purpose.
P
So
when
you
look
at
the
other
11
communities
within
the
state
that
were
surveyed
that
had
either
yes,
exemptions
for
real
estate
signs
or
no,
they
all
are
in
violation
of
that
of
that
supreme
court
justice
ruling,
but
the
city
has
chosen
to
give
them
the
exceptions
that
they
need
because
it
fits
their
community
and
while
the
ordinance
is
in
place,
you
know
some
of
them
enforce
a
complaint
unilaterally,
some
of
them,
of
course,
that
enforce
the
code.
All
of
these
exceptions
need
to
be
unilateral
for
us
as
well,
so
this
ordinance
exception.
P
If
it
is
appropriate
for
our
community,
we
would
request
because
Luke
attend
I
mean
it's
not
as
easy
as
Luke
made
it
sound
or
is
that
it's
been
made
to
sound
I
mean
we
confirm
that
with
Luke.
You
look
at
this
property
in
particular,
it
takes
a
lot
more
research
than
just
pull
the
tape
and
if
it's
eight
feet
from
the
back
of
the
curb
or
eight
from
from
the
edge
of
the
road,
that's
a
lot
easier
for
us
to
do.
P
It's
a
lot
easier
for
your
enforcement
people
to
enforce
as
well,
because
it's
easy
to
pull
that
tape
to
have
it
be
outside
the
public
right
away,
depending
upon
whatever
your
community
airs
where
the
file
plat
is.
If
they've
got
a
survey
in
hand,
it's
not
as
easy
as
a
click
on
the
mouse
to
identify
that.
P
So
in
closing,
we
would
just
request
that
instead
of
passing
this
this
evening,
that
you
would
revisit
your
maximum
height
and
size
in
addition
to
revising
the
minimum
setback
from
the
curb
or
roads
edge
in
cases
where
there
is
no
curb-
or
there
is
no
Boulevard,
because
that
is
easily
more
easy
to
enforce.
We're
not
asking
it
for
just
to
be
real
estate.
P
Signs
I
mean
based
on
what
we've
heard
this
evening,
but
we
are
trying
to
do
our
best
efforts
to
represent
our
clients,
because
if
you
take
a
drive
around
portions
of
this
town,
if
you
pass
it
the
way
that
it
is,
they
will
be
at
an
extreme
disadvantage.
So
in
the
words
of
mayor
Karen,
let's
grow
and
change
the
society
have
the
rules
be
appropriate
for
our
community.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
and
for
your
support.
I
think.
I
P
I
D
I
P
P
If
we
pull
a
tape
from
the
edge
of
the
road
which
everybody
can
easily
identify
and
it's
10
feet
sign
can
go
there,
but
when
you're
talking,
you
know
an
overlay
or
this
mapping
system
through
first
District,
which
isn't
true
and
accurate
all
the
time
and
then
you're
looking
you
have
to
pull
the
plants
to
find
out
where
the
setbacks
actually
are
that
are
in
there
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
back-and-forth
I
mean
you
could
be
six
inches,
you
could
be
18
inches
off.
I
would.
I
I
Can't
vote
for
something
that
I
highly
suspect
is
is
illegal,
okay,
meaning
I
can't
vote
in
favor
of
it.
I
just
I
would
be
wrong
in
my
position
or
ethically
doing
that,
so,
but
what
assuming
that
we
go
through
this
and
I
think
that's
going
to
be
the
suggestion
Kamala.
This
is
that
we
we
take
a
look
at
a
number
of
things
here,
just
to
make
sure
we're
we're
all
out
as
a
council
discuss
some
issues.
But
what
would
your
recommendation
be
from
a
realtor
standpoint,
the
distance
from
the
edge
of
a
road
I?
I
P
Right,
typically,
your
boulevard
and
your
sand
from
the
back
of
the
curb
to
the
back
of
your
sidewalk.
If
there
is
a
sidewalk
is
what
tend
for
you?
So
you
know
the
challenge
is:
is
that
at
that
ten
foot
mark,
if
you
are
indeed
in
town
and
that's
the
rule,
you're
inside
private
property
line?
So
if
there's
no
allowance
for
signage
temporary,
it
doesn't
matter
what
the
signage
is.
P
The
blank
sign
like
Luke
presented
in
his
in
his
talking
points
today
that
open
house
sign
would
then
in
essence,
need
to
be
put
on
private
property
to
advertise.
An
open
house
sign
it
at
a
different
location,
because
it's
my
understanding
based
on
that
ruling,
that
it's
either
a
number
of
signs
or
but
it's
just
blank,
so
you
know,
doesn't
need
to
be
five
feet
off,
doesn't
need
to
be
six
feet
off.
I
mean
I
think
that
a
Boulevard
is
what
36,
40
42
inches
wide,
so
anything
inside
that
ten
feet.
P
I
O
I
I
G
Think
I'll
hang
on
so
if
I
heard
you're
right,
I
I'm
with
Mike
I
I
can't
I
can't
vote
in
favor
of
what
we've
got
in
front
of
us
tonight,
because
it
looks
like
it's
it's
kind
of
an
all-or-nothing
sort
of
thing.
But
what
I'm
hearing
you
say,
though,
is
that
if
we
can
come
back
with
some
kind
of
compromise
of
well
there's
eight
foot
or
ten
foot
or
something
that
that
is
something
that
you
or
your
your
profession
would
be
okay
with.
If
we,
both
us
down
tonight,
revisit
and
then
come
back.
P
I
would
say
that
you
know
in
regards
to
that
Reed
versus
the
town
of
Gilbert
and
the
explanation
that
was
given
this
evening
and
the
research
that
I've
done.
I
mean
it's
not
our
position
to
to
force
you
to
do
something
that
would
be
illegal
because
we
do
the
same
thing
in
our
business.
I
mean
we're
governed
by
rules
and
regs
as
well,
so
we're
all
for
that.
A
Q
Q
Very
soon
because
we
we
know
that
there's
a
pretty
strong
desire
to
make
some
changes
to,
especially
in
the
real
estate
side
of
this
thing,
to
allow
different
means
of
advertising
that
way,
but
I,
just
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
how
we
can
vote
for
this
tonight
because
we
have
it's
a
1-1
or
it's
got
to
be
everybody.
It's
got
to
be
rummage
sales.
It's
got
to
be
rougher
signs.
It's
got
to
be
construction
signs
we
got
to.
Q
If
we
say
that
it's
got
to
be
any
and
all
of
those,
then
we
got
to
look
at
numbers.
Then
you
got
to
look
at
timeframes
and
so
I
think
it
is
I
think
we
need
to
have
some
time
to
revisit
this
and
come
up.
Hopefully
we
come
up
with
a
compromise,
some
language
that
will
work
in
everybody's
best
interest
in.
M
K
K
G
K
M
K
Can
do
both
of
those
the
well
here's?
Here's
the
the
problem
with
your
tabling
suggestion,
if
you
table
it
with
the
idea
that
you
are
going
to
amend
it,
you
still
run
into
that
substantial
rule
and
that's
that's.
If
that's
your
ultimate
goal,
the
table
might
not
serve
the
purpose
that
you're
looking
for
okay.
Did
that
answer
your
questions?
Yes,.
M
M
L
I
Mayor
I
would
just
like
to
say
as
well:
I've
had
a
number
of
emails
and
a
couple
of
calls
from
community
members
that
are
adamant
that
we
don't
make
this.
It's
not
all
about
changing
it,
but
I've
also
had
a
number
of
them
that
have
said
do
not
change
it,
as
is
requested.
So
there's
both
sides
of
this
issue
that
I
think
we
we
need
to
take
a
look
at
I.
Think
it's
worthy
of
our
time.
I
I,
don't
think
it's
going
to
take
in
a
huge
amount
of
time
it
shouldn't
have
to,
but
I
think
that
I
think
we
do
need
to
devote
down
I'm
going
to
vote
to
to
deny
this
request
that
the
ordinance
change
and
would
really
encourage
us
to
take
a
look
at
what
the
issues
are
to
see.
If
we
can
come
up
with
some
common
ground
that
would
work
for
everybody,
I
think.
M
D
M
I'm
in
favor
of
making
this
work
for
everybody,
including
the
realtors,
you
know
I,
just
let's
do
it
the
right
way
right
now,
if
we're,
if
we
already
have
a
precedent
that
it
can't
be
done
that
way,
let's
follow
it.
Let's
get
it
done
correctly,
bring
it
forward
so
that
it's
an
easy
transition
for
everybody.
You.
F
D
A
All
right,
thank
you
for
coming.
Everyone
I
appreciate
that
I
know
this
was
an
emotional
issue,
but
I
think
doing
it
right
will
be
better
for
our
community
in
the
long
run.
The
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
ordinance
number
1745,
a
amending
section.
Twenty
one
point:
eight
zero
to
eight
of
the
revised
ordinances
of
the
city
of
Watertown
regarding
zoning
procedures
sign
code,
and
this
is
the
other
change
which
has
to
do
with
large
buildings
needing
larger
signs
or
having
a
little
more
freedom
from
the
size
restrictions.
A
S
This
basically
come
up
from
like
the
new
Stanford
hospital
stuff.
That's
coming
up
there.
So
whenever
we
get
into
these
bigger
buildings
and
they're
wanting
to
put
signs
under
stuff
there,
we're
limiting
them
to
like
800
square
feet,
1,200
square
feet.
Well,
once
they
get
five
or
more
stories
and
they're
starting
to
put
signs
way
up
at
the
top
of
the
structure,
we
don't
feel
they
should
be
limited
by
our
ground
signs
that
we're
looking
for,
and
they
should
be
able
to
approach
those
signs
on
the
top.
So
this
ordinance
has
proposed.
S
A
A
G
S
A
A
I
A
G
D
G
A
Number
9
ordinance
number
17
43
amending
district
boundaries
by
rezoning
airport
industrial,
2nd
edition
from
I
heavy
industrial
district,
I
1
light
industrial
district.
There.
A
motion
to
approve
move
by
down
for
the
second
bylaw
is
there:
I
will
open
the
public
hearing.
Is
there
anyone
here?
They
would
like
to
speak
about
this.
H
For
the
record,
I'm
Gary
Steinmetz
I
own
the
property
out
there.
Basically,
what
I
have
is
surplus
property
to
the
south
of
my
business.
That's
zone
I
right
now,
I
wish
to
market
that
property,
but
it
doesn't
meet
the
square
footage.
I,
wouldn't
even
be
able
to
do
that.
So
what
I
want
to
do
is
zone
an
i1
and
possibly
break
it
into
four
individual
Lots
and
market
it
that
way.
I
A
A
A
Item
number
10
ordinance,
number
17,
42
amending
district
boundaries
by
rezoning
block,
75
third
way
away
addition:
I
1
light
industrial
district,
2,
R,
3,
multi-family
residential
district.
Look
for
a
motion
to
approve
move
by
Albertsons.
Second,
by
bill,
hower
I
will
open
the
public
hearing.
Is
there
anyone
here
that
would
like
to
speak
about
this.
T
T
T
The
original
petitioner
was
the
corner
house
at
the
intersection
of
2nd
Avenue,
Northeast
and
3rd
Street
northeast.
They
wish
to
pull
a
building
permit
for
the
this
property
to
build
a
garage.
It
is
a
it
is
a
rental
property,
but
because
of
the
way
it
was
owned.
I
we
couldn't
allow
that
permit
to
be
issued.
So
we
we
discussed
it
in
the
only
way
they
could
get
that
as
if
they
reasoned
and
then
it
became
desirable
through
the
discussion
of
the
process
that
all
four
of
these
properties
would
be
in
the
same
predicament.
T
A
D
A
C
G
C
M
D
A
C
Yeah
I
can
just
say
a
few
words
and
if
you
guys
have
some
questions,
this
is
done
each
year
to
supplement
the
budget
for
2017.
There
is
one
thing
that
came
in
late
today
that
did
not
make
it
on
here,
so
I
do
need
to
add
it.
We
were
notified
that
there
was
a
discrepancy
with
the
water
charges
at
the
new
premier,
Softball
Complex,
so
I
do
want
to
state
that
this
ordinance
will
be
changing
to
reflect
fun.
C
That
budget
will
need
to
be
supplemented,
27,000
I
received
from
Adam
at
utilities.
The
I
will
try
to
explain
it.
The
best
I
can
explain
meters.
He
stated
that
the
multiplier
of
the
register
on
the
water
meter
was
inaccurately
programmed,
so
it
was
short
about
eight
point,
five
million
gallons,
which
account-
and
this
had
been
going
on
for
about
15
months.
So
that's
why
it's
that
much.
D
A
O
Thank
you,
mayor
City
Council,
for
hearing
me
tonight
we're
asking
for
to
extend
officer,
Jess
Johnson's,
a
temporary
full-time
status
for
another
six
months
into
18.
As
you
can
recall,
she
was
hired
to
backfill
the
officer
that
was
deployed.
That
officer
has
come
back
from
deployment
and
we
have
the
very
good
thing
that
we
don't
have
turnover
at
the
police
department.
Typically,
we
use
a
over
a
25
year
period.
We
lose
about
3.5
officers
per
year,
but
in
the
last
few
years
that
number
has
gone
way
down.
O
We
do
think
this
is
a
wise
investment
because
of
the
cost
that
takes
to
train
an
officer
she's
fully
certified
she
state
certified.
She
came
to
us
from
Madison,
so
she's
doing
a
good
job
for
us.
So
we
take
a
loser.
So
we're
asking
to
supplement
six
more
months.
Her
salary
for
that
period
would
be
twenty-two
thousand
nine
hundred
nine
dollars
and
sixty
eight
cents
we're
hoping
to
absorb
that
into
our
budget.
But
if
we
can't,
we
would
have
to
approach
the
City
Council
for
a
supplement.
I
O
O
O
M
Tim,
would
we
be
looking
to
fill
that
position
on
a
part-time
basis,
something
down
the
road?
If
that
person
does
leave,
I
mean
I
know
we
have
one
that
we're
looking
at
backfill
it.
If
someone
does
leave,
but
would
we
take
on
like
another
part-time
person
try
to
get
them
up
to
speed
or
just
when
they're
gone,
here's
our
person
we
go
not.
M
O
I
O
A
I
A
O
Has
been
with
our
department
for
over
a
year
now,
I
just
gave
her
her
evaluation
and
you
know
she's
a
temporary
employee,
so
she
doesn't
get
all
the
benefits
that
a
full-time
employee
does,
but
she
came
to
us
from
a
full-time
job
with
the
hope
to
work
in
Watertown.
That's
her
has
been
her
dream
and-
and
she
has
her
dream-
dream
job
right
now,
so
Tim.
M
O
S
A
This
is
to
bolster
our
numbers
at
the
airport,
which
are
looking
really
good
and
we're.
The
council
did
authorize
the
first
1,000
people
to
turn
in
boarding
passes
for
that
period
from
November
1st
to
November.
27Th
would
get
25
Watertown
bucks
and
we
did
not
have
a
thousand
people
boarding
in
that
time
period.
So
we
will
not
fully
spend
the
$25,000,
we
had
922
people,
and
so
that
leaves
$1,950
on
the
table.
A
A
and
the
cost
per
passenger
would
be
a
little
over
a
hundred
dollars,
and
we
would
expect
that
people
would
pay
the
city
back
for
that
and
if
we
charge
the
full
amount,
then
the
city
spends
nothing
on
this
promotion,
but
I'm,
suggesting
that
we
could
take
50
of
those
78
that
we
left
on
the
table
and
possibly
offer
them.
25
Watertown
bucks,
just
like
the
other
boarding
passes.
A
I'm
sorry,
the
the
festival
of
the
trees
at
the
capital.
There
would
be
a
the
Chamber
of
Commerce
and
the
visitor
and
conventions.
Bureau
are
pointing
together
a
package
which
we
don't
have
the
details
on
yet
bus
to
pick
up.
The
people
at
the
airport
take
them
to
the
capital
building
and
then
take
people
to
lunch
and
spend
a
little
bit
of
time
in
Pier
and
then
come
back.
G
A
G
A
True,
and
so
you
could
give
some
more
money
toward
reducing
the
cost
of
that
trip
of
the
Charter.
If
you
wanted
to,
or
you
could
extend
the
flights
that
would
be
eligible
for
Watertown,
Bucks
out
and
I
mean
if
you
want
to
take
a
little
bit
of
a
chance,
we
don't
know
how
many
people
are
going
to
turn
in
their
boarding
passes.
I
S
I
A
D
M
My
opinion
I'd
I'd,
rather
get
the
cost
of
the
flight
down.
So
you
more
incentive
sighs.
You
know
someone
to
go,
I
mean
if
it's
40
bucks
to
fly
the
pier
roundtrip
I
mean.
That
would
be
my
opinion.
If
I
could
go
to
Pier,
have
lunch
and
go
see
the
best
of
all
of
the
trees
and
come
back.
I
mean
want
that.
Want
that
make
it
yes
Brad.
A
A
F
Like
to
see
the
promotion
extend
all
the
way
to
the
end
of
the
year,
the
$25
and
I.
Like
this
other
idea
too,
we
could
add
that
on
top
of
it,
but
I
had
a
call
from
a
lady
this
morning
that,
when
they
initially
when
this
came
out,
they
misunderstood
it.
They
booked
their
tickets
for
December,
December
16th
are
flying
out
to
Colorado
and
they're
because
of
this
promotion,
they're
going
out
there,
otherwise
they
would
not
go
out
there.
F
They're
gonna
do
a
tour,
they're
gonna
come
back
and
she
was
kind
of
bummed
that
she
was
gonna
miss
out
on
that
deal.
She
said:
I'm
excited
we're
flying
out
of
Watertown.
We've
never
done
this
before.
The
only
reason
we're
going
is
to
take
advantage
of
this
promotion,
and
now
she
heard
that
the
promotion
was
over
so
I'd
like
to
extend
that
promotion.
F
If
we've
got
the
money
there,
the,
if
we're
not
getting
everyone
to
turn
in
their
slips,
obviously
there's
some
room
to
extend
that
out
and
give
people
that
opportunity
people
are
excited
about
it.
Obviously,
because
she
said
hey,
the
three
of
us
are
going
out
there.
We
never
did
this
if
I
want
to
bend
for
that
promotion
and
I'd
like
to
see
that
promotion
go
to
the
end
of
the
year.
Otherwise,
that's
gonna
leave
a
bad
taste
in
her
mouth
and
maybe
others
too
well.
I
You
know
we're
trying
to
reach
10,000,
but
by
getting
people
to
experience
the
Watertown
flight
might
bring
them
back
next
year,
so
I
think
we
got
to
do
it.
We
got
it
I
like
the
idea
of
the
Charter
scenario.
I,
don't
you
know
Adam
I,
don't
care
whether
we
one
way
or
the
other
on
it
I
think
give
them
back
the
25
when
it's
less
than
a
hundred
bucks
in
the
first
place,
either
way.
I
I
think
you're,
probably
gonna,
feel
that
but
I'm
with
I'm
with
Josh
I
would
like
to
go
to
the
air
whatever
it
is.
It
is,
and
I
wouldn't
personally
I
I
know
we
got
to
have
some
limit
on
it,
but
I
don't
think
we're
gonna
be
too
far.
Over
I
would
like
to
give
the
mayor
the
latitude
to
whatever
number
when
we
get
turned
in.
We
know
that.
F
I
A
A
E
D
F
A
F
I
A
That's
all
right
so
I'm.
If
you
wanted
to
max
it
out
at
the
first
right
now
we
were
saying
the
first
1000
we
could
say
the
first
up
to
1350
and
then
there's
50
on
the
airplane
for
a
total
of
fourteen
hundred.
Then
we
wouldn't
exceed
the
25,000
plus
the
extra
ten
thousand
that
we
have
in
a
special
council
project
fund.
If
we
had
to
and
in
all
likelihood
everyone
won't
turn
in
their
boarding
passes.
So.
I
C
F
P
C
L
You
guys
know
how
pro
I
am
on
this
Airport
thing,
I
just
as
devil's
advocate
for
this.
The
reason
we
did
the
promotion
was
to
increase
boardings.
The
Charter
is
a
no-brainer
because
they're
going
to
break
the
break
even
on
that
one.
So
to
me,
that's
a
good
deal.
I
just
would
ask
the
question:
we
need
to
allocate
more
money
to
the
Watertown
Bucks
going
forward
and
if
we
do
we
do,
is
it
gonna
drive
more
seats?
That's
you
know.
What's
the
objective.
D
R
R
L
Being
made,
the
question
is:
should
we
just
stick
to
the
thousand
passengers
and
until
the
first
thousand
are
done
until
the
first
thousand
are
turned
in
that's
my
point,
because
it's
unlikely
all
of
them
will
get
turned
in
and
again
I
am
such
a
proponent
of
the
plans
and
promotions
we've
done.
My
question
is,
though,
are
we
going
to
achieve
our
objective?
We
done
what
we
set
out
to
do.
Are
we
just
going
maybe
a
little
further
and
we
need
to.
I
Well,
the
problem
is
Donna,
we
don't
know
how
many
nights
like
tonight
we're
gonna
have
between
now
and
the
end
of
the
year,
and
at
that
you
sound.
Like
me,
yeah
I
mean
it
does
that's
the
one
thing
I
doubt
a
flight
came
in
tonight.
You
know
so
I
gosh
I
would
hate
to
be
on
the
short
end,
but
I
just
really
would
I'd
rather
spend
a
few
extra
bucks,
because
I
do
think
no
matter
what
I'll
go
back
to
it.
I
also
think
that
it
it
helps
us
for
next
year's
numbers.
A
G
C
A
H
A
L
Just
want
to
add
one
comment
to
that:
Monday,
the
11th,
Larry
and
Sandy
caves
are
getting
a
group
together
to
go
out
the
pier
for
the
day
to
go.
Do
the
trees
thing
on
Monday
11th?
So
if
that's
a
good
day
for
somebody
they're
taking
the
early
afternoon
flight
out
and
coming
back
that
evening,
so
just
as
an
FYI,
if
you're
interested
again
on
Monday
the
11th
book
your
flight
and
look
for
Larry
guys
thanks
mayor.
G
G
J
J
The
biggest
thing
that
it
helps
the
city
with
is
right:
now
you
get
150,000
a
year,
so
for
a
large
project
a
lot
of
times,
the
FAA
will
make
you
save
up
entitlements
for
two
three.
You
can
save
up
to
a
maximum
of
four
years
or
six
hundred
thousand.
Now
you,
if
you
make
the
mark
in
fiscal
year
2019,
you
would
have
a
million
dollars
worth
of
entitlements
which
enables
you
to
get
some
of
your
bigger
projects
completed
in
a
shorter
amount
of
time.
J
You're,
not
the
only
thing
that
you
would
probably
lose
a
state
apportionment
money
which
is
state
gets
I.
Think
it's
just
shy
a
three
million
a
year
that
they
divvy
out
to
the
entire
state.
Typically,
that
goes
to
the
smaller
GA
s.
However,
Watertown
has
received
a
lot
of
state
apportionment
the
last
few
years,
just
because
of
your
needs
and
and
the
size
of
projects
that
you've
had
so
you're
still
always
going
to
have
your
five
percent.
You
won't
be
able
to
leverage
it,
but
you're.
J
J
J
D
D
A
Item
number
15:
consideration
of
change
order,
number
1,
the
contract
with
Reedy
Construction
Inc
for
the
runway,
12,
30
construction,
reconstruction
project,
increasing
the
contract,
60,000
500
$74.98
for
a
total
contract
amount
of
eight
thousand
two
hundred
nine
thousand
six
hundred
ninety
one
dollars,
fifty
three
cents
now
is
there
a
motion
to
approve
this
move
by
Wilk,
our
second
by
Bueller,
okay,
Mike
is
here
to
answer
any
questions
that
we
have
about
this.
You
want
to
tell.
J
Us
about
it
absolutely
thank
you,
mayor,
City,
Council
tonight,
I'd,
actually,
most
likely
be
coming
to
you
with
a
deduct
change
order
of
fifty
thousand
dollars
the
majority.
The
bulk
of
this
change
order
is:
is
we
square
up
all
of
our
quantities
to
match
the
as
constructed
conditions
so
you'll
see
on
page
four
there's
a
slew
of
quantity
changes
whether
they're
increases
or
decreases
majority
like
in
the
taxiways
and
stuff
like
that
where
the
sections
were
unknown.
So
you
know
in
order
to
build
it
for
the
plans.
J
In
addition
to
that,
there
was
approximately
sixteen
signs
associated
with
the
runway
when
we
initially
bid
this
we're
always
working
on
a
budget
and
not
known
how
much
we
have
so.
Some
of
those
signs
that
have
recently
had
panels
replaced,
but
are
coming
up
within
about
a
year
needing
to
be
replaced
again
and
they're
old
signs.
They're
hard
to
get
parts
for
the
FAA
did
allow
us
to
put
that
in
the
project
as
an
eligible
expense.
J
The
the
fortunate
thing
with
this
change
order
is
it's
an
increase
of
sixty
thousand
dollars,
but
a
hundred
and
ten
thousand
dollars
of
it
was
all
electrical
items.
The
computer
system
alone
is
about
a
forty
thousand
dollar
item
that
controls
all
of
your
lighting
out
there.
So
the
meat
potatoes
of
this
change
orders
is
fixing
a
lot
of
the
electrical
issues
that
if
we
weren't
allowed
to
put
them
in
the
budget
or
in
the
project,
it
would
be
a
hundred
and
ten
thousand
dollars,
plus
of
straight
city
costs
versus
just
a
five
percent
match.
Yeah.
J
Biggest
thing,
absolutely
so,
I
think
the
FA.
It
was
very,
very
gracious
and
giving
giving
us
the
okay
to
do
that
to
incorporate
under
the
project.
Otherwise
you're
looking
at
I
think
about
a
hundred
and
five
thousand,
no
a
difference
in
cost
versus.
If
the
city
had
to
bore
that
costs
themselves
versus
putting
it
in
their
current
project
and
only
paying
five
percent
right.
A
Opposed
signify
by
saying,
nay,
motion
carries
item
number
16
consideration
of
change
order,
number
one
to
the
contract
with
J&J
earthworks
Inc
for
the
hangar
taxi
lien
expansion
project
decreasing
the
contract,
seventeen
thousand
nine
hundred
twelve
dollars
42
cents
for
a
total
contract
amount
of
seven
hundred
nine
thousand
five
hundred
ninety
dollars.
Eight
cents.
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve
move
by
Albertsons?
Second
Bilaam
discussion?
You
want
to
tell
us
about
that.
Might
absolutely.
J
J
So
we
we
expect
to
save
more
money
on
this
project.
Yet
J&J
earthworks
did
a
very,
very
good
job
of
getting
in
there
and
moving
a
lot
of
dirt
getting
the
aggregates
in
there
the
under
drain
in
a
timely
manner.
The
problem
was,
is,
if
you
remember,
we
kind
of
filled
a
really
late
time
slot,
with
getting
this
project
going.
J
We
still
saw
some
delays
and
getting
the
federal
grant
from
the
FAA
no-fault
I
mean
not
bashing
the
FAA
one
bit
because
I
think
Watertown
cashed
in
on
a
on
a
late
grant
with
really
no
penalty,
no,
no
use
of
any
entitlement
funds.
Anything
like
that,
but
once
we
got
up
to
getting
things
ready
for
paving,
if
you
remember
the
first
part
of
November,
it
got
cold
awful
quick.
J
There's
no
hangars
sitting
out
there
waiting
for
you
know,
there's
not
an
aircraft
owner
that
has
a
hangar
on
there
that
now
can't
get
out
or
anything
like
that.
There's
there's!
No
other
infrastructure
out
there,
so
it's
not
detrimental
to
anybody
out
at
the
airport
if
we
don't
pay
him
until
next
year.
That
was
the
biggest
reason
being
behind
getting
this
paving
push
forward
to
next
year.
Instead
of
trying
to
get
I,
don't
want
to
say
a
subpar
product,
but
the
fa
specs
on
asphalt
paving
are
pretty
stringent
compared
to
that
alike.
J
The
d-o-t,
so
the
paving
subcontractor
was
probably
up
against
some
hefty
penalties
on
D
ducts,
for
you
know,
densities
and
air
void,
and
not
so
much
air
voids,
but
mainly
densities,
because
of
the
temperature.
If
they
were
to
pave
that-
and
you
know
the
first
part
of
November,
so
we're
looking
at
a
completion
date
of
June
1
for
the
paving
and
July
4th.
For
the
final,
the
reason
there's
such
a
time
difference
is:
we
have
to
wait
30
days
before
we
put
any
marking
stone
on
new
asphalt.
So
that's
the
reason.
J
O
A
You
item
number
17
consideration
of
amendment
of
an
engineering
services
final
with
agreement
with
Houston
engineering
for
the
landfill
cell
six
construction
project;
number
1605,
increasing
the
contract
by
twenty
nine
thousand
six
hundred
ninety
two
dollars:
13
cents
for
a
total
contract
amount
of
one
hundred
fifty
three
dollars.
One
hundred
fifty
three
thousand
eight
hundred
dollars:
thirteen
cents
I'd
like
a
motion
to
approve
that.
I
T
Unfortunately,
I
don't
present
to
change
order
for
a
deduct
like
my
predecessor
here,
but
there
was
a
very
valid
reason
than
this
increase
in
that
is
that
last
year,
when
we
awarded
the
contract
to
Bates
construction,
they
fell
into
a
scheduling,
problem
right
away
and
the
project
went
beyond
the
completion
date
and
we
warned
them
early
on
in
the
project
that
we
would
enforce
our
liquidated
damages
and
we
did
so.
But,
however,
when
we
got
to
the
finish
line
last
fall.
T
We
also
noted
that
there
was
a
deficiency
in
the
work
that
they
completed
on
getting
the
liner
of
cell
six
done.
That,
consequently
put
us
in
a
situation
where
we
had
to
suspend
the
project
and
resume
it
in
the
spring,
and
so
we
did
that
late
in
the
year.
I
think
it
was
just
before
Thanksgiving.
If
I
remember
right,
like
November
17th,
we
suspended
the
project
in
the
spring
we
reopened.
The
project
continued
to
collect
liquidated
damages.
However,
we
recommended
a
higher
level
of
inspection
or
enforcement
when
the
work
resumed.
T
So
we
had
full
time
inspection
on
the
project.
The
work
by
Bates
was
projected
to
take
four
weeks
in
the
spring
and
it
took
8
weeks.
Consequently,
the
amount
of
engineering,
inspection
effort
and
project
management
increased
as
well
so
bottom
line.
Is
this
change
order
would
square
up
the
engineering
contract
with
the
amount
of
effort
spent
getting
the
job
completed,
we
did
collect
$45,000
and
liquidated
damages
that
we
deducted
off
of
the
final
payment
from
Bates,
so
it's
not
completely
absorbed
by
the
city.
T
I
A
Those
opposed
signify
by
saying,
nay,
motion
carries
okay
item
number,
18
is
old
business
and
its
consideration
of
funding
for
improvements
on
the
800
block
of
26th
Street,
South,
East
and
I've
had
a
lot
of
questions
about
this
from
the
public
and
I
suspect
that
there
are
people
watching
and
I
would
like
to
give
just
a
real
brief
discussion
about
our
process.
So
could
you
open
up
that
little
visual
that
I
put
on
there?
A
It
says
process,
okay,
the
development
process
in
water
tone,
as
established
in
our
ordinances,
there's
a
three-step
process
for
the
planning
part.
If
you
have
bare
ground
and
you
want
to
put
a
building
up,
you
first
need
to
plat
that
property
and
plaiting
goes
through
three
phases.
The
first
phase
is
a
sketch
plan
where
the
property
owner
meets
with
the
staff
and
basically
sketches
out
our
ordinance
describes.
What
a
sketch
plan
is.
It's
brief
and
just
to
get
the
the
big
picture
items
out
of
the
way.
What
are
the?
A
What
does
the
developer
want
to
do
with
the
property
and
the
that's
completely
done
with
staff
once
their
sketch
plan
part
is
completed?
There's
a
development
review
committee
that
advises
the
developer
about
what
things
to
identify
in
the
preliminary
plan.
The
preliminary
plan
is
the
second
step,
and
that
is
the
meat
and
potatoes
of
any
development
project
in
our
city.
The
preliminary
plan
goes
thoroughly
through
all
aspects
of
development.
A
Looking
at
the
drainage,
the
road
layout,
the
zoning,
the
phasing
everything
that
would
be
involved
in
plat
goes
through
the
preliminary
plan
and
with
a
thorough
analysis
and
approval
by
the
plan
Commission.
It
does
not
go
beyond
the
plan
Commission.
It
stops
at
the
Planning
Commission,
but
is
approved
after
a
public
hearing
and
pri's.
You
know
if
you
follow
our
rules
properly
and
you
have
a
complete
preliminary
plan.
Platting
is
very
fast
and
easy
and
can
actually
be
done
administratively.
A
The
third
and
final
step
of
the
development
part
is
the
plat
and
our
ordinance
requires
that
a
plat
be
compliant
with
the
preliminary
plan.
A
plat
is
a
map,
and
the
map
shows
how
the
Lots
are
laid
out
and
it
has
property
ownership.
It
dedicates
land
for
public
right-of-way
accompanying.
The
plat
is
a
development
agreement
which
has
assurances
for
what
needs
to
be
built:
the
road
requirements,
the
drainage
requirements,
other
utilities,
all
of
that
is
covered
in
a
development
agreement.
A
Our
ordinances
say
that
the
developer
of
land
is
responsible
to
pay
for
all
of
the
required
improvements
to
make
that
development
happen,
and
those
things
are
either
built
before
the
plats
approved,
which
almost
never
happens
in
water
town
or
a
development
agreement
in
which
the
developer
promises
to
pay
for
the
improvements
within
a
set
amount
of
time,
and
that
is
approved
by
the
council.
The
plat
is
approved
by
the
Council
and
the
plat
and
development
agreement
are
recorded
together
at
the
courthouse
that
gives
a
approved.
A
Plat
gives
a
building
right
so,
but
before
the
building
right
before
you
can
actually
build
a
house
or
a
building,
you
have
to
get
construction
plans
for
the
required
improvements
for
the
plat
approved
by
the
staff.
The
city
engineer
approves
the
construction
plans
and
they
should
be
compliant
with
the
preliminary
plan
and
the
plat
and
the
construction
goes
on
and
once
the
roads
are
built
and
all
the
utilities
are
done
and
the
grading
is
done,
the
staff
reviews
it
inspects
it
and
accepts
it
once
the
improvements
are
accepted.
A
They
are
owned
by
the
city
forever
and
ever
and
there
the
city's
responsibility
to
maintain.
After
that
point,
someone
can
come
forward
and
get
a
building
permit,
and
we
in
the
city
have
had
some
changes
to
the
standard
process
which
have
been
approved,
but
they
can't
be
approved
by
the
staff.
They
must
be
approved
by
the
council.
So
that's
those
kind
of
agreements
are
done
at
that
at
this
point
in
front
of
the
council,
and
it's
something
that
we're
looking
at
tonight
for
a
particular
site
is
a
development
agreement.
A
If
we
could
have
changing
of
GIS,
could
you
open
up
to
the
whole
East
Park
area,
but
do
they'll
show
the
whole
area
between
Willow
Creek,
Drive,
Willow,
Creek
and
South
of
Walmart
I'll
show
that
whole
area?
Okay?
This
is
all
zoned
commercial.
This
is
one
of
the
few
commercial
areas
which
has
developed
recently
as
opposed
to
downtown,
which
developed
very
early
in
water,
town's
history
and
then
the
mall
area.
A
These
are
subdivisions
that
occurred
around
Walmart
and
East
Park
Willow
Creek,
Village
Morris.
Addition
in
in
that
area
where
the
Hobby
Lobby
is
and
where
Walmart
is
the
the
first
development
in
that
area
was
Walmart,
which
came.
The
construction
was
around
the
year
2006,
but
the
agreements
for
the
improvements
were
approved
and
filed
recorded
around
2004
2005
Walmart
platted.
That
area,
which
includes
10th
Avenue
South,
the
29th
Street,
was
improved.
A
The
signal
was
installed
at
the
intersection
of
Highway
212
and
29th
Street
and
Walmart
was
responsible,
just
like
our
ordinance
says
for
all
of
those
required
improvements.
They
actually
built
them
all,
except
for
29th
Street,
which
the
city
built
and
Walmart
paid
the
city
back
and
the
signal
part
wasn't
completely
paid
for
by
Walmart,
but
they
paid
their
pro
rata
share
of
the
signal.
The
next
thing
to
develop
out.
A
There
was
Willow
Creek
Drive,
which
was
constructed
in
2007
and
the
city
built
that
road
and
got
development
agreements
from
all
of
the
property
owners
and
the
property
owners
agreed
to
pay
their
pro
rata
share
of
a
two-lane
road.
The
city
actually
built
a
five
lane
road
and
paid
for
the
cost
difference
between
a
five
lane
road
and
a
two
lane.
A
Both
I've
got
that.
If
anybody
wants
to
know
the
numbers,
I
looked
him
up
before
the
meeting
and
it's
it's
in
a
file
there.
But
there
it.
Those
agreements
were
all
signed
and
there
there
was
a
time
period
in
which
the
developers
of
the
Jason
land,
where
to
pay
the
city
back
for
their
pro
rata
share
and
about
2010.
A
The
city
council
forgave
the
debt
on
all
of
those,
and
is
that
the
right
time,
John
I,
think
John's
the
the
only
councilman
who
was
on
the
council
at
that
time,
and
that
was
after
a
period
of
recession
in
our
town,
where
developers
were
struggling
to
sell
their
land
and
and
this
the
city
was
told,
they'd,
be
able
to
sell
their
property
for
less.
If
they
didn't
have
these
big
million
dollars
assessments
hanging
over
them.
So
assessments
were
forgiven
for
numerous
developers
in
this
area.
A
After
that,
the
next
development
was
23rd
Street,
which
is
the
little
curved
road
and
going
north
of
highway
212
the
developer
of
that
land
paid
for
everything,
except
for
the
improvements
in
the
u.s.
highway.
212
right-of-way,
the
city
paid
for
the
culvert
and
road
improvements
in
the
u.s.
212
highway
right
away,
because
it
was
felt
that
that
was
a
regional
benefit
and
it
would
encourage
economic
development
in
the
area.
But
that
was
a
little
aberration
from
our
ordinances.
A
Again,
the
staff
can't
approve
that
only
the
council
can
approve
that
our
ordinance
says
the
developers
pay
for
all
of
the
required
improvements
necessary
for
their
development
to
occur
and
the
the
next
plat
to
occur
was
actually
where
Travis
Outfitters
I.
Don't
remember
the
name
of
that
one.
What
is
it?
East,
Park
first
edition,
Shane,
okay,
so
each
part
first
edition
came
next.
A
But
none
of
the
west
side
of
26th
Street
north
of
the
highway
212
right
away.
I
know
that
sounds
really
confusing,
but
it
was.
There
was
a
concern
that
the
d-o-t
would
not
authorize
a
change
from
a
driveway
to
a
road
for
1/2
Road
in
the
212
right-of-way,
so
that
was
going
to
be
built
all
at
once.
The
whole
Road
26th
in
the
212
right-of-way
at
one
time
and
the
developer
signed
the
agreement
on
the
developer
on
the
east
side
signed
that
agreement,
but
the
developer
on
the
west
side
did
not.
A
Okay,
that's
where
we
are
today.
The
development
agreement
that
is
on
the
agenda
is
for
the
west
side
of
26th
street,
from
where
the
pavement
and
curb
and
gutter
and
down
to
highway
212,
and
we
already
have
a
recorded
development
agreement
for
the
east
half
we
just
don't
want
to
build
a
half
road
and
we've
been
working
with
the
property
owner,
which
is
glacial
lakes,
capital,
Don,
Andrews
and
Joel.
A
Quinn
is
here
to
represent
glacial
lakes
capital
in
the
consideration
and
if
you
have
any
questions
of
him,
I
put
a
proposed
development
agreement
on
the
agenda,
which
mirrors
the
development
agreement
which
Koho
signed
for
the
east,
half
of
26th
Street,
that's
on
the
agenda
and
was
published
so
the
way
that
that's
written
mirrors
what
Koho
agreed
to
do.
So
that's
a
starting
point.
A
A
The
morris
edition
was
also
plaited
in
this
area
and
there
is
no
morris
land
which
is
adjacent
to
this
piece
of
road,
so
they
weren't
assigned
any
of
the
costs
associated
with
26th
Street
between
us,
highway
212
and
8th
Avenue.
We'll
cars
drive
on
that
section
of
road
to
get
to
their
property
prop,
probably,
but
those
development
agreements
have
already
been
signed,
I
think
right,
chained
and
recorded.
A
Bordered
by
US,
highway,
212,
Willow,
Creek,
Drive
and
Willow
Creek
they're,
essentially,
three
property
owners
and
Shane
did
these
numbers,
but
Andrews
has
eight
point:
five,
seven
acres
or
sixteen
point:
three
percent
of
the
land
coho
has
twenty
two
point:
O
four
acres
about
forty
two
percent
and
Morris
has
22
acres
as
well.
Forty
two
percent,
so.
A
We
could
entertain
a
different
method
of
assigning
who's
responsible
pay
for
that
road
if
the
council
desires
to
do
that.
This
is
not
the
standard
way
of
doing
things,
but
that's
not
to
say
that
we
can't
do
it
that
way.
It's
basically
up
to
the
council
how
they
want
to
proceed
I've,
given
you
an
option
in
the
agenda
and
Andrews
has
had
a
chance
to
look
at
that
and
they
would
like
to
see
a
different
method
they're,
essentially
asking
that
the
city
pay
for
most
or
all
of
it
and
that's
up
to
the
council.
A
The
the
reason
that
is
given
for
the
city,
paying
their
part
would
be
that
the
city
didn't
include
them
in
the
construction
process.
They
went
on
Andrey's
property
without
permission
and
installed
sewer
and
water
services
on
Andrews
property,
without
entries
permission
and
left
a
pile
of
dirt,
put
up
some
silt
fence
and
and
in
exchange
for
these
damages,
maybe
the
city
would
pay
their
share.
So
if
you
break
this
out,
I
I've
passed
out
the
cost
broken
down
for
right-of-way
for
26th
Street,
outside
of
the
US
highway,
212
right-of-way,
and
inside
and
I.
Don't
I.
I
When
we
talk
about
this
development
agreement
and
when
we
talk
about
the
cost
of
26,
are
we
at
that
point
always
referring
to
the
right
away?
Reconstruction,
as
well
as
the
cost
of
the
road
from
the
right
away
line
north?
Is
that
when
we
talk
about
this
and
say,
for
example,
coho
has
signed
this
and
they're
obligated
to
from
the
edge
of
highway
2
8
to
12
through
the
right
away?
Is
that
your
interpretation
of
what
this
is
saying?
I
S
A
The
ordinance
says
that
all
of
the
required
improvements
necessary
for
the
subdivision
to
occur
are
the
responsibility
of
the
developer,
and
so
that's
how
I
wrote
it
because
I'm
not
authorized
to
waive
those
requirements.
The
council,
you
know.
Hopefully
you
would
have
a
good
reason
to
waive
those
requirements,
but
you
wrote
those
rules.
You
can
waive
those
requirements
in
a
development
agreement.
The.
I
Only
reason
why
I
bring
that
up
is
from
conversations
that
I
have
had
right
wrong,
or
rather
my
interpretation
from
conversations
is.
That
is
not
the
interpretation
of
what
they
have
committed
to
here
and
in
the
area
of
at
this
point.
Yes,
okay,
that'd
be
the
right
of
way.
Is
there
something
here
from
coal
that
represents
coho?
I
E
E
L
Don't
own
the
right
away.
I
just
made
a
comment
while
we're
looking
that
up
just
some
a
general
comment:
I,
listen
to
that
narrative,
we
just
we
just
heard
and
I,
don't
think
anybody
up
theirs
anti-development!
That's
not
the
issue,
but
I
have
somebody
that
one
of
us
has
to
ask
the
question:
why
is
it
every
time
there's
any
kind
of
a
discrepancy
the
city
has
to
pay
for
it?
Why
is
that
is
that
they
are
the
agreements
written
that
the
city's
responsible
for
any
dispute,
or
are
we
not
following
our
ordinances?
I
This
was
laid
out
as
as
Sara's
interpretation
of
this
was
from
highway
212,
which
included
the
right
away
through
the
actual
street
of
23rd
Street
on
their
property.
Okay,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
all
understand,
because
this
is
a
tough
situation
that
we
understand.
That
is
not
the
position
that
they're
taking
I'm,
not
saying
how
it's
going
to
end
up
I'm,
just
saying:
that's,
not
what
the
interpretation
is.
As
far
as
I
have
been
told,
my.
L
Comments
are
up
to
this
point.
If
you
look
at
the
narrative
up
to
this
point
and
we'll
discuss
this
and
I'm
very
happy
to
discuss
this,
the
city
is
always
left
holding
the
bag.
That's
the
way,
unless
I
misunderstood
that
history
incorrectly
I
just
I
have
to
ask
that
question.
Why
has
it
always
been
that
way?
Independent
of
this
issuer
that's
in
facing
us.
It.
A
Wasn't
true
for
Walmart
Walmart
paid
for
a
hundred
percent
of
the
required
improvements
to
develop
that
plant,
the
Walmart
area
they
built
all
those
roads
internally
they
paid
for
the
improvements
adjacent
to
Walmart.
Then
what
changed
I
think
the
recession
came
and
the
developers
you
know
we
were
building
and
they
will
come.
The
road
was
built
by
the
city,
nobody
came,
there
was
no
development
for
several
years.
I
have.
E
E
The
city
won't
build
26th
Street
in
the
right
away,
and
then
they
have
another
letter
later
on
telling
him
that
no
under
this
agreement-
you're
not
going
to
you
know
it's
an
interpretation,
no
you're
not
paying
for
26
feet,
or
at
least
two
culverts,
and
then
they
signed
the
agreement
and
the
agreement
is.
Life
certainly
seems
to
me:
it's
open
to
the
interpretation
that
they
don't
have
to
pay
in
the
right
away.
They
don't
own
the
right
away.
It
says
from
highway.
212
where's,
where
is
fine,
wait
to
12
to
12,
is
where
the.
A
Was
I
would
do
to
I
wrote
that
development
agreement
and
I
could
show
the
council
the
train
of
communications
that
went
on,
see
number
three
their
city
subdivision
regulations
require
that
all
infrastructure
improvements,
essential
to
the
proper
development
of
any
subdivision
or
portion
thereof,
be
completed
by
the
developer.
That's
a
basic
tenant
of
our
ordinances
that
the
developer
pays
for
all
the
costs
to
make
the
development
happen.
Now
the
city
can
offer
to
pay
for
part
of
those,
but
that
that's
taxpayer
dollars.
That
needs
to
be.
E
D
E
A
A
A
Mayor
Thorson,
former
mayor
Thorson,
wrote
a
message
saying
we
were
under
the
understanding
that
all
of
the
improvements
in
of
26th
Street
in
the
highway
212
right-of-way
would
total
$20,000
or
less
Austin
engineering
rod.
Deyoung
told
the
council
that
that
was
our
understanding.
Now
we
understand-
and
this
was
written
in
February
of
2015
now
we
understand
that
it
will
be
upwards
of
$150,000
there's
no
way.
The
council
will
approve
that
that
was
the
next
communication
and,
according
to
Austin
Engineering's
most
recent
estimates.
A
The
cost
of
improvements
in
the
public
right-of-way
are,
you
know,
$120,000,
so
that's
not
small
change.
$20,000
was
no
problem
for
the
council
and,
and
there
was
a
general
consensus
that
they
would
pay
that
when
they
found
out
exactly
what
it
would
be.
They'd
write
the
agreements
and
everything
would
be
good.
Meanwhile,
the
d-o-t
came
in
and
added
a
bunch
more
requirements,
it's
their
right-of-way,
it's
their
prerogative
to
set
the
standard
so
that
wasn't
acted
upon
by
the
council
and.
A
It
isn't
that's
already
recorded
and
I
know
what
it
says,
because
I
wrote
it
and
I
wrote
it
after
communicating
with
you
know,
and
I
can
share
that
with
everyone
with
the
city
engineer
and
the
city
attorney
at
the
time,
I
wrote
it
to
say
that
Koho
is
responsible
for
all
of
the
improvements
in
the
u.s.
212
right
of
way
for
26th,
Street
and
I
said
in
my
message.
I
didn't
think
that
was
fair.
A
Right
and-
and
you
can,
you
can
know
it-
Koho
agreed
to
pay
for
it's
unclear
who's
paying
for
the
pavement,
but
it's
very
clear
who's
paying
for
the
culvert,
it's
coho
and
right
or
wrong.
I.
Don't
think!
That's
fair!
That
coho
pay
for
a
hundred
percent
of
the
culvert,
but
that
is
what
the
council
approved,
but.
A
Everybody
wants
the
street
built
it's
just.
How
do
we
say
what's
fair,
what's
a
fair
share
for
the
taxpayers?
What's
a
fair
share
for
entries?
What's
a
fair
share
for
coho?
What's
a
fair
share
for
Morris
they're,
not
even
in
the
room,
should
they
pay
for
part
of
it,
I
mean
there
there's
all
kinds
of
arguments
all
over
the
table.
A
If
you
do
it
the
traditional
way,
coho
and
entry
split
the
cost
50/50,
that's
how
our
ordinances
are
written
because
coho
owns
half
of
the
road
and
to
the
east
and
and
Rees
owns
the
other
half
of
the
road
and
to
the
west,
and
we
haven't
ever
done
a
cost-sharing
agreement
based
on
acres.
We've
done
it
based
on
frontage.
So,
okay.
I
D
Q
D
I
D
I
A
I
A
Who
should
be
responsible
for
the
portion
of
26th
Street,
which
abuts
and
Rees
property?
That's
part
of
the
reason
we're
here
to
answer
that
question
tonight
and
also
who
should
be
responsible
for
the
part
of
26th
Street,
which
lies
in
the
highway
212,
right-of-way
and
so
you're.
Breaking
that
into
two
questions
which
may.
I
Be
so,
can
it
where's
Joe
at
so
I
got
a
question
for
you.
My
understanding
is:
is
that
Don
injuries
is
willing
to
pay
for
his
share
of
the
road
I
know,
there's
a
dispute
on
what
31
or
32
or
33
feet.
That's
your
guys's
issue,
but
my
understanding
Joe,
is
that
Don
is
willing
to
pay
for
his
share
of
the
road,
but
we're
talking
about
the
road
north
of
the
right
away.
Is
that
true?
I
V
I
V
V
Please
December
of
2014.
We
have
a
letter
from
the
city
stating
that
the
City
Council
has
agreed
to
pay
for
approach
improvements
at
the
26th
Street
intersection
in
accordance
with
design
documents
by
Austin
engineering.
Okay,
we
didn't
you
know,
act
on
that,
but
that
was
signed
by
Stanton
Fox
and
in
I
know
that
in
all
our
conversations
with
with
Stanton
and.
V
U
V
V
V
Sorry
I'm
not
familiar
with
this
process,
so
I
apologize.
Okay,
since
then,
we've
always
been
told
by
the
city
officials
that
the
city
would
be
paying
for
the
access
that
they
had
already
budgeted
money
for
it,
and
it
was
just
a
matter
of
getting
the
paper
getting
clearance
when
Donna
Andrews
was
working
on
the
sherwin-williams
project.
Back
in
whatever
day
that
was
2015,
we
signed
over
to
right
away
on
our
half
of
the
street,
so
they
could
make
that
project
work.
V
The
city
came
to
us
requesting
that
we
do
that.
Apparently
they
didn't
get
the
right
away
signed
over
from
injuries.
So
that's
what's
been
sitting
here
since
that
time
and
we've
been
anxious
to
go
ahead
with
with
26th
Street
at
any
point
in
time.
The
Morrises
have
always
been
on
board
with
it
and
we
would
have
had
it
built,
but
we
until
we
had
that
cleaned
up
with
entries.
We
couldn't
do
that,
but
in
many
conversations
with
with
Mayor
Steve
toilet
Thorsen,
we
were
repeatedly
told
that
the
money
was
there.
V
It
was
budgeted,
they
had
a
total
of
I
think
budgeted
$200,000
for
the
access.
Now
it
was
probably
I,
don't
know
what.
In
addition,
we
didn't
ever
think
that
the
access
itself
was
that
expensive,
but
it
we
were
told
it
was,
it
was
covered
and
they
were.
You
know
plenty
of
money
budgeted
so
that
brought
us
to,
and
we
had
a
letter
of
April
27
to
2017
a
letter
of
insurance
that
we
were
issued
by
the
city.
V
Know
it
isn't
and
a
development
agreement.
It
stated
there
that
you
know
that
we
would
be
responsible
for
the
culvert.
It
was
very
vague
wording,
but
when
we,
you
know,
but
because
that
we've
been
told
that
we
would
not
responsible
for
for
to
access
and
extending
the
culvert
etc,
anything
in
there
right
away.
So
they
gave
us
this
letter
of
assurance
that
that
was
not
the
intention
of
the
city
to
have
us
pay.
For
that.
Will
you
end
a
letter
of
assurance?
V
It
also
made
reference
to
what
we
were
working
for
on
was
a
regional
retention
pond
and
in
that
same
letter
in
the
development
agreement,
we
also
wanted.
It
stated
that
the
city
at
some
point
when
we
built
the
retention
pond,
a
regional
retention
pond
and
our
expense,
that
the
city
would
assume
ownership
of
it,
which
I
understand,
is
pretty
much
a
standard
practice.
V
Okay
and-
and
that's
that's
our
basis
where
we've
always
felt
we
were
at
with
the
city
and
that's
always
been
our
plan
to
move
forward
under
those
conditions,
and
that
was
more
than
agreeable
with
us.
We've
never
disputed
the
fact
that
we
would
be
building
the
Russell
Street
from
the
highway
right
away
north
to
Willow
Creek
Drive.
We
had
agreement
with
more
assists
that
they
would
be
ready
to
construct
that
Street.
Also
there
half
of
it
and
we've
got
a
short
stub
that
goes
west
off
of
26th
Street.
V
That
would
be
going
into
the
morris
property.
So
we
you
know,
we've
always
had
an
agreement
that
we
would
pay
our
halves
of
the
of
that
street
and
do
the
construction.
So
that's
you
know,
that's
where
we
that's
where
we
are
at
that's
where
we
were
always
said,
and
that's
where
we
thought
that
the
city
in
agreements-
and
you
know
if
we
need
to
I
guess
we
feel
that
maybe
we
need
to
have
you
know.
Steve
Thorson
confirmed
that
that
was
our
conversations.
Many
many
times
the.
A
Thing
is,
though,
John
the
Steve
Thorson
did
not
have
the
authority
nor
do
I
to
obligate
taxpayer
dollars
to
be
spent
on
your
project.
The
if
you
read
just
move
your
hand,
a
little
bit
developer
shall
construct
or
cause
to
be
constructed
to
city
and
state
standards.
The
extension
of
the
existing
box
culvert
under
26
Street
East
within
the
US
highway
212
right-of-way
as
necessary
to
safely
accommodate
the
construction
of
the
roadway
and
sidewalks
above
it
I
wrote
that
provision
into
the
contract,
which
was
directed
to
me
by
the
city
engineer
the
city
attorney.
A
P
V
We
requested
it
specific
if
you
go
on
from
what
you
read
specifically
your
expressed
concerns
that
the
city
would
require
that
coal-hole
pays
some
or
all
of
the
apportion
of
the
box,
culvert
extension
when
that
extension
had
already
been
constructed
and
had
been
excluded
from
negotiations
entirely.
The
city
noted
that
the
only
Costco
whole
would
be
responsible
for
were
those
estimated
costs
listening,
Exhibit
B
and
that
firm
cost
would
then
be
established
at
a
later
date.
V
They
were
asking
us
in
a
development
agreement
that
we
just
caught
a
construct
or
cause
to
be
constructed,
and
that's
what
we
were
told
that
meant
as
long
as
you
know,
we
caused
it
to
be
constructed
that
you
know
we
didn't
have
any
liability
as
far
as
the
cost
we
were
told
over
and
over
by
city
officials
that
that's
and
that's
why
we
that's
why.
When
we
received
this
letter,
we
went
ahead
and
signed
a
development
agreement.
V
E
A
Guys
know
that
that
an
agreement
isn't
official,
a
document
isn't
executed
until
it's
signed
that
council
can
authorize
taxpayer
dollars
to
be
spent
on
improvements.
The
mayor
cannot,
the
City
Engineer
cannot
no
individual
can
only
the
City
Council
can
do
that,
and
these
were
negotiations
in
process
I'm
saying:
let's
bring
it
out.
Let's
let
the
council
decide
in
a
public
setting
how
much
taxpayer
money
should
be
spent
on
improvements
in
this
development.
A
Everyone
wants
it
to
happen.
Everyone
agrees
that
that
road
is
necessary
for
economic
development
to
occur
and
the
city
will
benefit
from.
That
is
the
benefit
that
the
city
receives
from
your
development
in
excess
or
worth
$120,000.
That's
what
the
council
has
to
ask
themselves
in
order
to
vote
on
this
or
not
it's.
It's
not
official.
Until
the
council
acts
I.
I
T
T
I
V
V
I
John
in
town,
I'm
asked
question
again
and
I'll
go
back
to
the
original,
the
the
development
agreement
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
or
the
one
that
you
I'm,
sorry,
the
one
that
you
signed:
okay
and
Sarah.
Somebody
help
me
out
on
this
one
is
this
I'll
go
back
to
that
question?
Is
this
specifically
relinquishing
your
responsibility
for
costs
of
the
box
culvert?
Does
this
state
that
specifically,
does
this
amend?
Is
it
a
proposal
to
amend
the
development
agreement
that
takes
away
your
responsibility
for
the
cost
of
the
box.
V
I
I
So
why
are
we
it
would
appear
to
me
then
again,
I,
don't
know
where
we're
at
I've
asked
Kristen.
Please
go
check
our
previous
budget
books,
because
if
there
were
dollars
budgeted,
it
should
show
up
in
there
as
a
line-item.
Even
if
it's
going
to
be,
there
were
dollars.
Yes,
okay,
so
that
meant
this
council
approved
that.
I
A
I
I
There
way
I
will
tell
you.
There
was
no
discussion
of
us
paying
for
anything
north
of
highway
212
right
away,
no
discussion
and
I
the
council
member
ever
had
separate
issues.
Erik
stay
on
task
here.
We
have
never
have
any
of
you
that
we're
here
at
the
time
ever
had
discussion
about
paying
for
23rd
north
of
the
right
away.
26
I'm,
sorry
I
have
never.
A
A
My
thing
is
those
agreements
need
to
find
daylight
with
the
curtains
drawn
and
the
council
fully
acknowledging
the
responsibility
of
the
city
to
take
on
the
burden
of
those
improvements
which
would,
by
ordinance,
be
yours
and
there's
some
reluctance
to
do
that,
because
those
are
taxpayer
dollars
and
if
they
cause
economic
development
to
occur.
That's
a
good
thing
and
the
economic
development
might,
in
the
long
run,
make
a
lot
of
money
for
the
city,
so
I
see
there's
incentive
for
doing
that.
A
But
what
what
I'm
saying
is
all
of
these
agreements
unsigned
letters
unsigned
contracts,
promises
made
where,
incidentally,
that
promise
about
the
city
is
going
to
pay?
It
does
say
in
that
letter
from
Stanton
Fox
that
the
council
must
authorize
this.
That's
a
given.
The
council
has
to
authorize
this
in
a
public
setting,
and
so
it
doesn't
happen
any
other
way.
I
I.
V
E
E
Doing
two
different
things:
I've
seen
this
letter
that
was
never
signed,
he's
saying
that
was
given
to
them
and
the
negotiation
as
to
in
it's
an
interpretation
of
what
the
development
agreement
was.
It
wasn't
changing
it
seen
we're
not
saying
that
you
have
to
do
that
box
called
for
during
the
development
agreement
that.
A
I
mean
that's
kind
of
far
fetched
as
far
as
I'm
concerned.
Our
standard
development
agreements
say
the
developer
shall
cause
to
be
constructed.
That
means
that
it's
the
developer's
responsibility,
and
maybe
we
should
be
more
explicit
in
the
future
and
say
the
developer-
must
pay
every
penny
of
the
cost
and
the
city
will
pay
none.
Then
it
would
be
clear.
You.
V
Was
in
that
agreement
was
for
$82,000
that
covered
everything
from
the
right
away
to
the
north
to
Willow
Creek
Drive
are
half
of
the
street.
The
Stubbs
street
going
west
are
half
of
that
street,
and
that
was
the
estimate
was
included
in
our
development
agreement
that
we
did
sign.
So
therefore,
we
were
also
basing
it
basing
our
signature
on
that
estimate,
which
did
not.
It
have
anything
to
do
with
the
access,
but.
A
The
development
agreement
itself
says
that
the
developer
is
responsible
for
all
of
the
improvements
necessary
for
this
development
to
occur,
and
then
it
says
in
there
further
rod.
Deyoung
did
the
car
we
didn't
have
his
spreadsheet.
He
didn't
include
the
212
right
of
way
costs,
and
so
it
says
right
in
the
development
agreement.
All
of
the
costs
except
those
for
26th
Street
in
the
u.s.
212
right-of-way,
are
included
in
Exhibit
B.
A
The
cost
of
the
improvements
in
the
212
right-of-way
will
be
determined
at
a
later
date
because
we
didn't
have
them
and
for
some
reason
there
was
a
rush
on
that
development
agreement
going
on
the
council
agenda
before
we
had
an
estimate
back
from
rod,
but
it's
I
wrote
that
and
I
remember,
I
mean
I
ran
that
by
Shane
and
I
ran
it
by
the
city
attorney
and
I
said.
How
do
we
write
this
one?
We
don't
have
these
numbers,
here's.
What
I
propose
and
I
said.
I
will
add
this
language.
E
A
A
I
V
I
V
M
V
I
When
this
development
first
came
to
us,
we
really
didn't
really
thought
that
the
current
existing
structure,
meaning
the
culvert,
would
would
work
and
I
believe
then,
eventually,
the
d-o-t
came
back
and
said
no
correct,
and
it
was
because
of
the
width
scenario.
So
I
asked
you
know
really
I've
got
two
questions.
Number
one
is:
is
it
really
is
this
access
really
needed
because
we're
fighting
over
something
that
I'm
not
sure
how
it
will
end
up
but
real
question?
My
first
question
is:
is
this
access
really
needed.
V
I
Does
it
need
to
be
a
two-way
street?
Could
it
be
a
entrance
only
into
that
area
a
one
way,
in
which
case
you
could
use
assuming
there's
no
other
structural
issues,
use
it
as
a
an
entrance
point
and
not
an
exit
point,
because
we
have
I'll
tell
you
guys
try
to
get
on
to
12
without
a
stoplight.
It's
it
sucks.
I
mean
it's.
It's
bad
I'd.
V
Like
to
address
that,
to
that
point
you
know
you
know
we
look
at
it
in
comparison
to
the
south
side
of
the
highway,
between
29th
at
Walmart
and
23rd
at
Tractor,
Supply,
there's
nine
entrances.
We
had
fight
tooth
and
nail
to
get
one
entrance,
which
has
been
an
existing
entrance
for
ever
and
oh
we're.
We
were
always
under
the
impression
and
told
that
that's
26th
Street,
that's
why
they
built
26th
Street
going
south
to
match
up
with
that.
V
When
Walmart
project
went
in,
it's
been
planted,
I
mean
to
look
back
now
and
say
you
know:
do
we
need
it?
Yes,
I
mean
we
have
Trav's
building
there
and
we've
got
other
tenants
that
are
talking
to
us
about
development.
Some
pretty
good-sized
developments
that
they're
assuming
that
26th
Street
is
there
and
will
be
in
place.
It's
taking.
D
V
D
V
A
Definitely
an
important
part
of
the
whole
development
that
the
problem
is
three
different
property
owners
involved
and
who
pays
for
what
and
a
city
that
was
led
to
believe
twenty
thousand
dollars,
what
it
was
going
to
cost
and
they
had
no
problem
agreeing
to
that
in
concept
when
that
tripled
or
no
six
times
over,
then
then
it's
a
different,
then
you
have
to
really
you
know:
how
do
you
explain
that
to
the
taxpayers?
I'm
not
saying
I'm
against
it?
A
V
Their
justification,
I
would
think,
would
you
know
for
us?
It's
it's
a
one-time
deal
to
make
this
work
and
you
know
make
it
work
as
well
as
we
can,
but
the
city
is
set
to
benefit
from
any
any
development
out
there
forever
with
tax
dollars
and
I.
Think
that
I
guess
my
my
thought
has
always
been
that
you
know.
There's
two
purposes
for
government
is
safety
and
infrastructure,
and
you
know
and
a
word
and
we
were
led
to
believe
I
mean
it's
not
something
we're
just
asking
now.
V
A
I
We
shouldn't
have
to
follow
up
on
those
things
we
shouldn't
have
to
follow
up
that
something
that
we
agreed
to
is
documented,
with
an
agreement
that
we
have
to
babysit
it
should
it
should
come
back
to
us
and
it
would
peer
to
me
my
opinion
and
I
have
said
this
before
that
I
am
familiar
with
or
recall,
discussions
on
that
right
away
area
in
regards
to
the
city
covering
those
costs.
Okay,
that's
my
recollection,
there's
a
number
of
you
that
were
none
Council
at
that
time,
but
those
of
you
that
were
I
would
ask.
I
The
26th
Street
north
of
the
right
away
was
always
about
the
right
way,
so
then
the
city
budgets,
$200,000
for
this
project
and
there's
one
hundred
eighty
four
thousand
dollars
that
got
carried
over
for
the
26th
Street
improvements
now
26th
Street
improvements,
but
my
recollection
of
that
is
that
those
funds
were
committed
to
intended
to
and
I
think
by
nature
of
our
budget
documents
that
the
city
was
obligated
to
pay
for
the
construction
of
that
like
it
or
not,
signed
document
or
not.
That's
what
I
believe
it
is
that's
my
recollection.
Okay,.
A
I
will
agree
having
it
in
the
budget
enables
you
to
take
action
to
pay
for
those
improvements
which
would
normally
be
the
developer's
responsibility.
They
give
you
the
freedom,
the
money's
in
the
budget.
If
you
would
act
tonight
to
authorize
the
staff
to
build
that
with
that
budget,
it
can
happen,
but
that's
not
transparent,
to
put
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
the
budget
and
with
ten
thousand.
I
This
is
not
a
transparency
issue.
I,
don't
want
to
hear
that
this
is.
This
was
done
on
the
up
and
up
there's
nothing
in
the
backroom,
that's
related
to
this,
or
it
would
not
have
gotten
into
the
budget
Sarah.
This
is
not
a
transparency
issue.
It
is
an
error
issue
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
Watertown.
In
my
opinion,
this
is
not
a
transparency
issue.
It's
not
a
backroom
deal
issue.
There
was
a
it's
in
the
budget.
It
goes
through
the
budget
process
and
goes
through
a
discussion.
We.
A
Don't
talk
about
every
line
item
when
you
go
through
the
budget,
we
don't
well
there's
zillions
of
lines.
In
there
I
mean
there
there's
probably
a
hundred
different
projects
in
that
list.
They
are
not.
It
wasn't
said.
Normally,
these
are
the
developers
responsibility,
but
we're
gonna
put
this
in
the
budget
and
everybody
that's
in
favor
of
the
taxpayers
paying
in
for
26th
Street.
There's
no
legal
description,
there's
no
limit.
Where
does
it
start?
Where
does
it
end
under
what
circumstances?
What
are
the
conditions?
That's
not
the
same
thing.
Do.
L
Here's
a
comment
just
it
regardless
and
first
of
all,
thanks
for
coming
down
tonight
appreciate
you
I,
didn't
know
your
side.
The
story
very
well
so
I
appreciate
the
time
and
effort,
regardless
of
where
this
ends
up.
What's
in
the
back
of
my
mind,
is
when
a
deal
is
struck,
however,
that's
struck
and
I
don't
get
to
vote
on
it.
It's
not
a
power
thing.
It's
it's
a
responsibility.
L
It's
an
authority
thing!
It's
a
process
thing
you
effectively
new
to
the
council,
because
we
don't
get
to
vote.
The
deal
gets
made
and
we
don't
vote
that
is
our
absolute
responsibility
and
number-one
priority,
and
that's
just
just
so
just
as
we're
discussing
this
I
want
everybody
to
think
about
that.
That's!
What's
really
bothering
me
right
now,
I.
Q
Just
want
to
get
one
thing
clarified
it:
where
are
we?
Is
this
dispute
really
over
$120,000
for
the
right
away?
Is
that
what
this
kind
of
comes
down
to,
because
you
both
agreed
that
you'd
pay
for
your
frontage
on
26th
correct,
so
that's
kind
of
what
it
comes
down
to
and
a
lot
of
this
I
do
recall
conversations,
because
we
had
the
discussion
about
the
need
to
widen
that
box
culvert
because
of
d-o-t
with
truck
entrance.
I
do
remember
us
having
that
discussion.
I
agree
with
Mike.
Q
We
never
had
a
discussion
about
development
north
of
the
right
away,
but
what
it
comes
down
to
I
see
is
120,000
bucks
to
do
something
with
that
that
culvert
and
I'm
gonna
ask
both
you.
Would
you
be
willing
to
negotiate
some
of
the
cost
of
that?
Yes
or
no
I
mean,
or
is
it
no
we're
not
doing
it?
Or
would
you
be
willing
to
negotiate
some
of
the
cost
to
that
box?
Color
the
the
right
away
portion
of
this
and
I'm,
not
saying
you
have
to
I'm
just
asking
the
question
and.
G
I'd
like
to
throw
into
that
too,
because
we've
left
them
out
I
realized
that
they
weren't
a
party
to
this,
but
I'm,
not
so
sure
that
we
shouldn't
be
contact
the
Mars
as
well
and
see
if
the
three
of
you
can
work
something
out
as
120,000,
because
there's
no
doubt
they're
gonna
benefit
from
this
as
well.
They.
Q
Will
Glen
I
agree
with
you
they
will,
but
but
the
intention
is
to
go
north
with
26th,
which
would
be
a
fair
of
a
fairly
good
chunk
of
frontage.
That
Morris
would
be
responsible
for,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
moving
forward
correct,
that's
because
because
right
now,
it's
it
basically,
it's
just
a
dead
end
is
coming
to
that.
T
V
D
V
D
V
U
Know
what
I
said
last
week
that
we
felt
that
a
pro-rata
portion
would
be
fair
after
additional
conversations
and
document
review,
along
with
our
attorney.
We
have
several
documents
that
mirror
what
John
has
discussed
here
executed
or
lack
thereof
in
similar
ways,
and
so
tonight
I've
been
instructed
to
say
that
we
are
not
willing
to
pay
for
that
box.
Culvert.
Based
on
the
information
that
we've
received
and
the
information
that
we're.
H
U
Today
that
there's
actually
we've
always
been
told
that
there
were
dollars
set
aside
for
this.
We
never
had
any
documentation
of
that
and
still
I
don't
know
if
John
does
either
other
than
what
mr.
Danforth
just
said.
But
we've
been
proceeding
along
this
route.
This
whole
way
with
the
understanding
that
the
the
212
right
away
was
never
going
to
be
the
expense
that
was
going
to
be
borne
by
the
developers.
I
E
U
We
don't
have
a
finalized
executed
development
agreement.
That's
true,
however,
just
for
the
record
we've
received
at
two
and
a
half
weeks
ago
and
have
reviewed
it
and
submitted
a
revision
that
what
we
expect
will
be
negotiated
upon
in
some
way
shape
or
form.
A
lot
of
our
revision
is
technicalities
for
tax
purposes,
and
a
few
semantics
like
that.
H
I
Snowballs
throw
away
from
right
being
together,
okay,
so
the
only
issue
from
your
standpoint
they're
also,
then,
is
there
is
the
right-of-way
trust,
okay,
I,
wanna,
I,
think
Dan
and
John
Don
Len.
Were
you
on
Council
at
that
point?
No,
so
I
have
not
heard
anything
as
far
as
recollections
from
you,
three
I.
N
The
only
thing
I
can
rec
like
the
26th
Street,
nothing
I
would
assume
that
that
would
have
been
the
developers.
I
do
recall
conversations
on
the
right
away,
the
box
culvert
everything
was
fine
with
box
culvert,
then
we
had
to
widen
it.
Do
T
was
involved.
There
was
plenty
of
discussion
on
that,
but
that's
it
I,
don't
recall
on
who
was
gonna
pay
for
it
or
who
wasn't
but
I
know.
There
was
plenty
of
discussion
on
that.
R
I
T
Okay,
the
way
this
track
was
on
was
that
the
city
hired
Asin
to
prepare
the
plants
for
26th
Street
in
this
connection,
there's
a
couple
of
different
agreements
that
were
done
really
early
in
this
process.
For
that
the
track
it
was
I
on
was
that
plans
got
revised
when
the
d-o-t
said
that
no
this
needs
to
be
wider
so
that
they
redid
those
plans
they
were
submitted
to
the
d-o-t
and
the
d-o-t
has
approved
those.
So
this
project
is
sitting
on
a
shelf.
T
T
I
Granted.
There's
no
document
I'm
just
telling
you
that
I
believe
the
intent
was
exactly
that
and
the
fact
that
you
have
a
draft
letter,
albeit
not
signed
to
me
if
it
says
I,
haven't,
read
it,
but
if
it
says
what
I'm
being
told
it
says
we're
clarifying
that
you
have
no
cost
with
that.
Why
would
we
ever
draft
that
letter?
It
makes
absolutely
no
sense
if
it
wasn't
explaining
what
our
true
intentions
were
now
some.
It
can
help
me
with
that.
I'll.
H
L
Who
does
that
include,
okay
and
and
by
the
way,
your
points
well-taken
I
understand
what,
with
the
information
presented,
I
don't
disagree
with.
You
said
the
question
I
have,
though,
is
you
know
initially
we're
talking
twenty
thousand
dollars,
then
we're
talking
about
a
call
getting
widened
and
such
so
when
the
cost
start
going
up.
L
It's
never
agreed
upon
till
it
gets
vote.
It's
got
to
get
voted
on.
That
was
the
point
I
was
making
earlier
I,
don't
recall,
saying
we'll
spend
200
grand
in
a
culvert
now
I
recall
the
idea
of
the
culvert
being
expanded
and
all
that
but
I
don't
know
if
I
ever
recall
us
committing
two
hundred
thousand
dollars.
R
I
A
I
Intent,
in
my
opinion,
was
without
question.
Was
that
I
recall
that
the
it
was
going
to
it
started
off
as
a
an
improvement
to
that
right
away
using
the
existing
box
culvert
and
then
they
came
back
said
no,
it's
got
to
be
whiter.
Okay.
This
is
all
predates
this
agreement.
It
predates
this
April
27th
through
17th
secondary
document.
They
have
and
I
remember
going
well.
Why
can't?
We
just
add
on
to
that
thing
versus
taking
it
all
out.
I
They
said
well
what
cost
as
much
just
to
simply
widen
it
as
it
would
just
take
it
out
and
replace
the
whole
thing.
You
remember
those
discussions.
Okay
and
we
talked
about
it.
Approximately
180
to
$200,000
and
$200,000
got
put
into
the
budget
for
us
to
do
that.
What
didn't
happen
is
there
wasn't
a
follow-through
now
we
can
use
that.
In
my
opinion,
we
can
use
that
as
an
excuse
to
say
you
guys
figure
it
out
or
we
can
look
at
it
and
be
men
and
women
of
our
word
with
what
our
intent
is.
L
L
L
R
R
Someplace,
but
bottom
line
is
we
all
talked
about
it
and
we
would
have
said
nope
that
widening
of
that
box
culvert
that
all
that
addition
we're
not
going
to
do
it
if
we
believed
it
and
I
think
we
believed
we
were
going
to
do
it
and
we
just
didn't
do
what
Don
says.
Then
the
mayor
says
we
should
have
done
in.
I
Ceremony,
I
want
you
to
understanding.
Is
there
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
saying
this?
Just
for
the
sake
of
saying
it,
I'm
saying
it
because
I
honestly
believe
number
one
I
agree
with
you
that
documents
they
they
they
need
to
be
done.
They
need
to
be
done
publicly.
This
is
I'm
assuming
this
is
done
in
air,
because
it's
a
it's
a
it's
the
dot,
your
I's
and
cross,
your
T's
scenario
that
had
to
occur,
but
we
had
given
the
go-ahead
for
this
to
occur.
Thus
those
dollars
went
into
the
budget.
I
E
D
A
This
is
an
open
discussion,
everybody
can
partake
and
if,
if
you,
the
council
believe
that
it's
worth
it
for
a
hundred
and
twenty
taxpayer
dollar
hundred
twenty
thousand
to
be
spent
to
get
this
going
and
again,
that's
an
estimate
could
be
a
lot
higher
could
be
lower.
We
don't
know
it's
an
estimate,
but
the
principle
of
the
matter
that
the
city
should
taxpayers
should
pay
for
this
approach
of
26th
Street
in
the
u.s.
highway.
212
right-of-way
then
vote
for
it.
I
Think
in
going
back
on
it,
if
you
look
at
a
normal
right-of-way
cost,
it's
significantly
less
than
what
this
is
because
of
the
Box
covered,
I.
Think
sarah.
That
was
that
was
the
reasoning
behind
that
here's.
What
I
would
I'm
gonna
ask
Vince?
Are
you
writing
valentine's
over
there
realistic,
okay,
dear-dear
Mike
Vincent?
I
Here's!
What
I
would
like
to
do
I'd
like
to
get
this
off
our
plate
tonight,
I
would
like
to
pull
it
all
the
developers
together
with
the
city
and
see
if
we
can
get
this
thing
worked
out.
Okay,
one
last
chance
at
getting
that
done.
Do
we
table
it?
Do
we
reject
it?
If
that's
the
case
and
bring
it
back?
What's
the
what's
the
best
opportunity
for
us
to
get
that
accomplished?
Well,.
K
K
Hasn't
been
able
to
participate
but
they're
both
Irish
names,
I,
think
the
best
thing,
in
my
opinion,
to
resolve
this
issue,
unfortunately
being
involved
in
so
many
of
them,
is
that
we
pull
you
table
what
is
agendized
and
move
towards
a
roundtable
discussion
for
a
lack
of
a
better
term,
a
universal
settlement.
Okay,
do
we
have
to
re.
K
A
A
A
K
Q
I
make
guys
wanna
make
one
quick
point
again
and
outside
of
what
Mike
has
mentioned
about
the
budget.
I
think
that
letter
obviously
came
from
us
I
mean
it
came
from
us.
You've
agreed
that
we
wrote
that
letter
of
April
or
whatever
the
date
was
and
I
can
certainly
see
where
that
would
would
cause
confusion
for
for
ko-hoh
no
question
about
it.
You
know
so
I
just
think
we
had
to
keep
that
in
the
back
of
our
mind
before
we
have
this
roundtable
and
discuss
what
direction
we're
going
to
go
with
this.
V
We
do
have
a
couple
of
projects
that
are
hanging
and
they
are
gonna
hinge
on
this
thing
we
can't
put
ourselves
in
liability
by
saying
you
know
something
will
be
done
in
a
certain
time.
Specific,
but
we'd
hate
to
you
know,
lose
a
development,
because
you
know
time
restraints
and
that's
that's
why
we're
been
pushing
pretty
hard
in
recent
weeks
months
to
try
to
get
this
move
in.
I
John,
as
I've
expressed
to
I've,
been
mostly
communicating
with
joy
on
your
behalf.
That
is
our
intention,
no
guarantees
what
the
outcomes
going
to
be,
but
the
press
forward
to
try
to
get
the
issues
resolved
in
the
same
commitment
to
mr.
Andrews
as
well.
So
you
know
again:
I,
don't
know
what
the
outcomes
going
to
be.
I
You
know
facts
I'm,
a
detail
guy,
so
facts
are
important
to
me,
but
I
think,
in
my
opinion,
it's
kind
of
where
Don
was
going
with
this
thing
is
I
would
like
to
see
us
table
this
and
get
together
as
a
group
now,
whether
we'd
all
together,
we
do
it
individually,
I,
don't
know
how
the
best
way
to
do
that.
We'll
figure
that
out
but
and
then
have
you
know,
staff
and
the
mayor
and
some
council
members
be
a
part
of
this
discussion,
see
where
we
can
get.
I
I
It
came
well
in
the
agreement
for
tonight.
How
do
I
do
that?
Just
moves
to
table
it
I'd
like
to
set
a
date
or
anything
or
you
don't
need
to
okay,
I'd,
like
I,
wouldn't
make
a
move
to
table.
What
is
it
item
number
eighteen,
and
with
that,
then
we
would
have
communications
establish
to
see
how
we
can
resolve
this
and
come
back
for
approval.