►
From YouTube: Watertown City Council Meeting 08 22 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).
C
D
D
B
D
B
A
F
D
A
F
G
Of
federal
regulations
that
are
a
little
over
five
years
old,
these
regulations
modified
and
instituted
a
more
aggressive
what
they
call
in
the
industry,
shot
clock
for
approving
requests
to
site
facilities,
wireless
facilities
on
existing
wireless
telecommunications
towers,
as
well
as
for
putting
up
new
standalone
wireless
towers.
So
what
this
ordinance
attempts
to
do
is
to
make
sure
that
our
process,
which
needs
to
be
accountable
to
federal
law,
fully
comports
with
federal
law
and
that's
what
a
good
chunk
of
this
ordinance
does.
G
Other
provisions
within
this
ordinance
relate
to
ensuring
that
the
themes
in
our
zoning
ordinance
are
carried
out
in
this
particular
ordinance.
Regarding
wireless
telecommunications
towers,
specifically,
there
are
modifications
made
to
denote
that
stealth
design
needs
to
be
a
part
of
the
facilities
that
are
to
be
attached
to
structures
or
to
wireless
towers
themselves.
G
The
idea
behind
stealth
design
is
that
designers
of
these
facilities
need
to
put
some
thought
into
making
these
facilities
aesthetically,
if
not
pleasing,
then
certainly
at
least
not
gaudy
and
an
eyesore
that
they
at
least
attempt
to
blend
into
the
surrounding
surrounding
development.
Moreover,
there
is
a
concern,
obviously
about
these
types
of
facilities.
Being
located
in
certain
zoning
districts
that
are
sensitive
to
this
kind
of
development,
namely
your
residential
areas
as
well,
as
you
know,
some
of
the
exceptions
that
are
denoted
here.
G
If
you
look
on
the
first
section,
21
7701
sub
5,
you
have
the
zoning
districts
where
the
these
facilities
would
not
be
able
to
be
placed.
The
idea
here
is
not
to
put
put
inordinate
restrictions
on
wireless
telecommunications
facilities.
They
are
an
important
component
of
modern
living.
The
objective
here
is
to
merely
ensure
that
you
know
our
sensitive
zoning
districts
are
respected,
that
there
be
an
additional
you
know,
consideration
put
out
there
for
adjacent
landowners
and
that
otherwise
we
fully
comport
with
federal
law.
A
Go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
and
entertain
a
motion
for
approval,
so
move
move
by
Danforth
and
second
by
Thorsen.
Is
there
any
further
discussion?
I
would
like
to
point
out
that,
although
the
Board
of
Adjustment
and
the
administrative
official
won't
be
able
to
approve
any
application
in
the
residential
zoning
districts
that
are
listed
or
PUD
or
the
Gateway
or
the
Business
Park
c1
RG
all
those
districts,
they
can't
approve
it,
but
they
could
always.
Someone
could
come
to
the
council
and
directly
request
your
permission.
A
A
The
plan
commission
considered
this
and
did
not
approve
the
change.
It
was
a
tie
vote
which
failed
so
for
the
council
to
approve
this
would
require
two-thirds
majority
instead
of
a
simple
majority
Rob.
Did
you
want
to
talk
about
this
a
little
bit
we're
going
to
have
this
item
on
a
work
session,
so
we
can
dig
in
and
and
look
at
the
meat
of
it,
but
Rob
Peterson
is
here
to
talk
about
it.
H
Thank
You
mayor
Rob,
Petersen,
glacier
Lakes,
Reverend
Plastics.
Many
of
you
know
that
I
started
a
manufacturing
company
here
a
few
years
ago
to
help
offset
the
jobs
that
were
lost
from
the
Minnesota
rubber
plant
being
removed
from
the
city.
You
know,
I
view
this
as
an
important
building
block
for
the
city
to
help
businesses
grow
and
expand.
We've
expanded
our
business
once
already
moving
into
a
much
larger
building
that
building
needs
to
be
expanded
again
and
help
us
continue
to
grow
and
be
efficient.
H
But
you
know
I,
think
it's
important
for
the
city
well
to
help
those
businesses
grow
and
expand
and
continue
to
build
in
the
right
direction.
To
have
this.
This
ability
to
use
a
dock
in
the
right
way
in
the
right
zones,
so
I
completely
understand
where
the
ordinance
came
from.
Why
it's
there
not
wanting
to
have
you
know
big
trucks,
blackened
streets
and
things
like
that,
but
I
mean
in
an
industrial
park
where
that's
the
type
of
business
that
is
being
conducted.
I,
don't
see
that
this
really
needs
to
be
in
effect
anymore.
H
I
At
the
meeting,
the
Board
of
Adjustment
meeting
for
this
I
agree
with
you.
You
should
probably
have
one
the
problem
they
had
was
the
fact
that
there
is
a
lot
of
i1.
If
you
could
bring
that
up
that
this
joining
residential
problem
is,
as
we
didn't
want
to
make.
They
didn't
want
to
make
a
broad
sweep
that
could
have
a
loading
dock
face
in
someone's
house,
so
they
were
more
apt
to
leave
it
the
way
it
was
one
on
one
basis,
type
thing.
H
Well,
maybe
there's
an
opportunity
to
modify
it
so
that
industrial
parks
in
specific
areas
are
taken
out
of
or
exempted
from
it
or
something
like
that.
I,
don't
know
what
the
answer
there
is,
but
you
know
the
city
of
Watertown
as
a
community.
We
have
touted
for
years
that
we
want
to
be
business
friendly
and
work
with.
You
know,
businesses
to
grow
and
expand.
Our
community
I
think
this
isn't
going
to
be
an
important
one,
as
we
do
that
Sarah.
E
A
E
So
the
lack
of
support
from
the
from
the
current
plan
Commission
isn't
that
they
can't
is
that
these
concerns
that
Brad
had
mentioned
correct.
So
my
question,
for
you
is:
can
we
change
our
ordinance
language
to
allow
variances
under
certain
conditions
here,
or
why
is
this
particular
one
item
not
able
to
have
a
variance
granted
for
when
we
have
a
whole
host
of
other
things?
Does
they.
A
So
I
think
it's
a
good
opportunity.
The
an
applicant
such
as
Rob
always
has
the
ability
to
come
before
the
council
to
ask
for
relief
from
an
ordinance
requirement,
but
that's
cumbersome
and
time-consuming.
If
we
could
rewrite
it
to
be
clear
and
still
satisfy
the
goals
of
our
zoning
ordinance,
then
people
would
know
up
front
and
it
would
be
easier
to
just
do
a
development
with
a
building.
Permit
you
come
in.
You
comply.
You
get
your
building!
Permit
you
build
instead
of
having
to
go
through
a
timely
process.
A
So
that's
what
I'm
hoping
to
do
if
this
takes
us
too
long
and
Rob
ends
up
ready
to
apply
for
his
building
permit.
He
can
come
straight
to
you
and
and
ask
for
relief
from
the
ordinance
requirement.
Meanwhile,
I
would
like
to
rewrite
this
in
a
way
that
is
more
facilitating
of
our
industrial
developments,
because
the
last
thing
we
want
to
do
is
just
hassle
developers
and
make
it
hard
for
them
to
do
what
they
need
to
do
to
expand
in
our
community
mayor.
D
A
couple
questions
you
and
I
had
the
conversation
before,
but
during
the
brief
break,
I
guess
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understand.
Okay,
this
is
the
first
reading
you're
suggesting
we
take
it
back
to
a
work
session
in
two
weeks.
I'm
not
opposed
to
that
I
mean
that
proceeded
my
work,
we're
getting
things
out
of
normal
normal
chain
of
events.
Here
we
can
do
that.
We
can
go
for
a
first
reading
to
a
work
session.
We.
C
C
D
A
D
Next
question
is:
I:
can
forward
treat
to
you
rob?
Okay,
that's
gonna!
Take
us
two
weeks,
four
weeks
down
the
road
and
assuming
we
override
the
Planning
Commission's
vote,
which
would
take
a
two-thirds
vote
as
I
understand
it
in
our
part
that
correct
what?
What
does
that
do
would
do
to
you
in
the
meantime,
with
your
schedule
Rob
or
do
you
need
to
come
back
to
us
from
sooner
than
that,
with
a
specific
request
to
move
forward
with
your
poems
I'll.
H
Probably
have
to
come
back
to
you
with
a
specific
request
for
my
plans.
I
was
more
concerned
about
the
future
development
of
the
city
and
why
that
ordinance
still
exists
the
way
it
does,
because
you
know
maybe
there's
somebody
else
that
wants
to
do
the
same
thing.
Maybe
I
have
another
business
down
the
road
and
need
to
do
it
again.
I
don't
want
to
have
to
keep
coming
back
and
and
begging
for
forgiveness.
H
You
know,
it'd
be
better
for
the
community,
I
think
the
business
community,
as
well
as
the
whole
community,
to
have
something
that
just
makes
sense
for
everybody,
so
I
will
probably
have
to
come
back
to
you
because
you
know
if
I
want
to
break
ground.
You
got
this
fall
I'm
running
a
calendar
issue
here,
so
so.
D
A
I,
in
my
experience
in
working
for
the
city,
this
issue
comes
up
over
and
over
again,
and
people
have
things
they
want
to
do
that.
They
can't
do
the
way
our
ordinance
is
written
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
it's
a
appropriate
requirement
that
we
have
that's.
Why
I'm
bringing
it
back
to
the
decision
makers
for
you
to
decide
if
this
is
something
that
we
still
want
to
have
in
our
ordinance
and
I
had
put
it.
You
know
that
the
process
was,
it
would
go
to
plan
commission.
A
Then
it
would
go
to
council
for
first
reading
and
then
it
would
go
second
reading
and
action.
Meanwhile,
the
Planning
Commission
didn't
pass
it
the
way
it
was
written,
which
I
thought
they
would
so
I
thought
well
I'll
throw
in
a
work
session,
and
if
the
council
would
approve
it
exactly
how
it's
written,
we
could
move
forward.
That
way,
if
there's
no
substantial
change
but
now
in
hearing
that
the
what
the
Planning
Commission
had
to
say
about
it,
we
might
have
some
substantial
changes
so
in.
G
Mayor
if
I
couldn't
point,
you
know
a
point
of
privilege.
I
feel
like
I.
Didn't
do
enough
at
the
plan
commission
level
to
kind
of
explain
things,
maybe
a
bit
further
to
clarify
a
bit.
Obviously,
there's
going
to
be
a
concern
whenever
you're
talking
about
the
perception
of
relaxing
zoning
regulations
adjacent
to
residential
areas,
but
you
know
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
what
it
is
section
21
6303
does.
Currently
it
doesn't
prohibit
loading
docks
in
commercial
or
industrial,
except
an
eye
to
rather
sub-1.
G
Just
simply
says
that
no
open,
exterior
loading
facility
shall
be
located
on
a
street
frontage
except
in
i2.
So
really
I
mean
that's
a
very
limited
restriction
that
we're
talking
about
here
can't
be
located
on
a
street
frontage
except
in
i2,
okay
and
then
sub
three,
which,
as
proposed,
would
require
that
the
loading
areas
be
buffered
by
be
screened
by
plant
material
walls,
earth,
berms
or
fences
that
would
be
replacing
language
as
it
currently
exists.
G
That
provides
that
all
births
shall
be
screened
from
view
from
the
street
by
plant
materials,
walls,
earth,
berms
or
fences,
except
in
I
two.
In
other
words,
the
births
which
is
presumably
where
the
trucks
park
to
down
in
to
load
into
the
dock,
the
dock
being
where
the
door
is
and
the
you
know,
the
loading
area
proper
needs
to
be
screened
from
view
from
the
street.
I
G
Now
the
way
that
this
ordinance
reads
as
proposed,
it
would
expand
that
definition
to
how
loading
facility
is
defined
up
above
so
the
view
of
the
loading
facility,
meaning
the
dock,
birth
and
maneuvering
area,
would
need
to
be
screened,
but
only
screened
for
adjacent
residential,
so
this
limits
and
expands
at
the
same
time
it
would
limit
the
screening
requirement
to
if
the
loading
area
is
adjacent
to
residential
areas.
Those
areas
need
to
be
screened
off,
but
then
it
expands
it
by
not
saying
just
births,
but
the
entire
loading
area,
including
manoeuvring
area.
E
Well,
I,
can
you
say
from
my
own
personal
experience
on
the
plan
Commission
and
Board
of
adjustments.
There's
with
this
current
ordinance
languages
is
there
were
times
when
the
current
ordinance
language
worked
well
for
us
and
made
sense,
but
there
were
a
number
of
times
that
it
didn't
make
sense
and
our
hands
were
tied.
Couldn't
do
anything
about
it
and
you
know
I
think
it's
something
that
needs
to
get
looked
at,
I
think
it's
probably
long
overdue.
E
We
want
to
be
able
to
accommodate.
We
want
to
be
able
to
make
things
as
cost-effective
for
our
businesses,
but
knowing
why
we
need
these
things
and
when
to
apply
that
it's
going
to
be
critical,
so
taking
a
look
at
those
things
and
I'm
not
sure
how
you're
going
to
go
through
the
review
of
it
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
for
us
to
do
that,
and
it
just
see
where
we
can
get
with
it.
It.
F
Really
comes
down
to
like
it's
how
much
space
they
have
I
mean
that
should
be
the
bigger
deterrent.
If
it's,
you
know
typical
semi-trucks
52
feet
long.
The
trailer
is
plus
additional
25
feet
roughly.
So
if
they're
300
feet
off
the
road,
they
should
be
able
to
turn
around
and
still
have
a
whole
semi
load
in
front
of
it
where
they
can
get
out
so
I
mean.
Are
you
talking
of
building
perhaps
to
the
South
Korea
facility.
H
F
E
F
G
I
would
just
only
point
out
to
you
know:
the
concern
about
residential
properties.
I
would
argue
that
in
many
cases
this
strengthens
the
protections
of
properties
adjacent
to
industrial
development,
because
here
again,
looking
at
the
entire
loading
area,
anything
adjacent
to
a
residential
area
under
the
proposed
language
would
receive
this
buffering,
whereas
as
it
sets
right
now,
the
berths
shall
be
screened
from
view
from
the
street.
G
H
G
Thank
You
mayor
well,
this
has
come
at
the
end
of
a
rather
long
and
laborious
process
and
it
may
not
be
the
end.
It's
certainly
the
council's
prerogative
to
make
additional
changes.
The
plan
Commission
had
this
before
them
here
on
August
10th
and
with
the
exception
of
a
few
revisions,
did
recommend
it
unanimously.
G
I'll
get
to
those
revisions
here,
the
specific
ones
that
the
plan
Commission
called
out,
but
I
will
try
as
quickly
as
possible
to
go
through
some
of
the
higher
points
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
feel
free
to
stop
me.
The
is
we
scroll
down
here.
One
of
the
first
changes
you'll
see
21
8004
sub
1.
We
expanded
out
and
revised
there.
The
graphic
illustrations
clean
them
up
a
bit,
but
mostly
did
two
things.
G
We
we
have
the
stringer
of
penance
they're
defined,
which
is
important
I'll
stuck
on
that
below,
but
we
added
feather
signs
or
feather
Flags,
because
those
are
going
to
be
added
to
the
list
of
prohibited
signs,
and
so
we
wanted
to
make
sure
there
was
a
graphic
illustration
of
that,
as
proposed
scrolling
down
further
sub
six
of
section.
21
8004
depicts
the
Clearview
triangle
and
the
substance
of
the
Clearview
triangle
is
more
more
granularly
dealt
with
further
on.
G
G
Section
21,
8005
and
8006
have
effectively
been
combined
here
in
the
proposal.
One
of
the
key
themes
as
I
noted
in
the
memo
is
that
there
is
a
need
to
streamline
the
administrative
provisions
cut
down
on
size.
There
is
some
redundancy
there
in
these
administrative
provisions
and
really
when
it
comes
to
the
administrative
official
being
that
this
is
in
title
21.
The
administrative
officials,
responsibilities
and
role
are
already
greatly
defined
earlier
on
in
title
21,
as
can
the
can
view
holes
our
building
officials
responsibilities.
G
Moving
on
to
21
8007,
the
sign
permits
provision
still
dealing
with
an
administrative
concern
here,
but
this
is
where
we
start
getting
into
the
meat
of
the
changes
to
our
substance.
Specifically,
if
you
go
to
sub
seven
sub
a
sub
part
two,
which
would
be
sort
of
at
the
top
of
the
page
there
do
we
have
that?
Yes,
so
the
language
defining
when
a
permitted
sign
permit
would
cease
or
would
elapse
currently
in
ordinance.
G
It
reads
that
it
would
lapse
at
the
end
of
a
hundred
and
eighty
days
from
the
point
at
which
the
business
activity
was
ceased
on
that
premises.
Now
the
thought
here
of
expanding
it
to
365
days
is
to
essentially
ensure
that
our
sign
code
regulations
comport
to
our
non-conforming
use
provisions
in
ordinance,
basically
viewing
them
as
one
in
the
same.
If
you
continue
using
your
non-conforming
use,
you
know.
Obviously
you
can
be
grandfathered,
even
though
ordinance
changes
in
perpetuity
as
long
as
you
use
that
particular
non-conforming
use.
G
G
Under
removal
of
signs
subpart
9,
we
have
a
key
point
that
was
brought
up
by
our
building
official
and
that
there
didn't
seem
to
be
any
kind
of
issue
with
the
public
meetings
that
we
had.
The
thought
there
is
that
the
administrative
official
would
have
the
ability
to
go
out
and
basically
seize
temporary
non-portable
signs
that
are
unlawfully
placed,
so
they
are
prohibited
signs
say
out
in
the
boulevard
shouldn't
be
there.
G
The
thought
there
is
that
that
summary,
summary
abatement
is
permissible
in
this
context,
because
we
aren't
denying
these
these
individuals
a
due
process
right,
we
are
destroying
property,
we
are
simply
taking
it
for
safekeeping,
which
they
can
then
obtain
when
when
when
they
have
the
time,
the
thought
is
that
this
is
going
to
allow
for
the
administrative
official
to
aggressively
deal
with
truly
prohibited
signs,
and
that
summary
removal
won't
offend
due
process
again,
because
the
sign
isn't
being
destroyed,
it
isn't
being
taken.
It
can
be
obtained
by
the
landowner.
G
E
G
That's
true
I
mean
you
know
the
flip
side
of
it.
As
I
noted,
you
know
the
due
process.
Concern
is
in
taking
and
possessing,
and
the
ultimate
form
of
possession
is
destruction.
So
you
know
if
that
enters
into
the
mix
and
and
I
see
it
your
way
to
councilmen
that
I
mean
obviously,
if
we
get
aggressive
enough,
City
Hall
could
be
stuck
chock-full
with
signs
potentially,
but
you
know
that
that
sort
of
begs
the
question
of
how
much
time
do
we
then
give
those
individuals
to
come
here
and
obtain
their
signs
again?
E
C
E
G
G
That
has
a
sign
area
of
32
square
feet
or
less,
and
that
has
a
flat
face
that
that's
a
basic
enough
sign
that
doesn't
require
a
sign
installer,
because
you
don't
have
structural
concerns,
you
don't
have
electrical
concerns
and
that's
kind
of
the
thinking
there
under
designing
construction.
That
was
clerical.
Changes
just
meant
to
consolidate
all
of
those
provisions
down
below
into
sub
1
they're.
G
Basically,
all
derivatives
of
separate
building
codes
and
they're
just
all
reference
there,
instead
of
elaborated
down
below
under
21
a
t12
sub
5,
the
thought
there
is
again
getting
to
when
should
a
a
sign
be
considered
lapse
to
the
point
where
you
had.
You
no
longer
have
a
permit,
or
in
this
case
you
have
an
honor
off
from
a
sign
and
the
business
or
activity
is
terminated.
G
The
thought
there
is,
if
you
are
using
the
sign,
to
sell
or
lease
or
rent
the
property,
as
long
as
the
sign
isn't
an
accurate
meaning
that
it's
still
advertising
the
old
business
that
no
longer
exists.
The
sign
is
still
considered
to
be
a
valid
sign
advertising
something
on
the
premises
and
therefore
the
sign
should
not
lapse.
The
permit
should
not
lapse
making
it
a
prohibited
sign
and
I
guess
we
could
almost
be
here
all
night
if
we
to
go
through
some
of
these,
but
you
know
exempt
signs.
G
Given
these
provisions
before
there
was
some
some
conflict
well
and
there
exists
some
conflict
when
you
have
private
denoted,
but
not
you
know,
nonprofit
potentially
commercial
interests
could
simply
put
up
a
plethora
of
temporary
signs
in
there
in
in
their
business
area
and
fall
under
this
provision.
So
prohibited
signs
haven't
been
expanded
too
much,
except
to
include
feather
signs
and.
G
There
have
been
some
additional
regulations
placed
upon
vehicle
trailers
or
vehicles
that
are
essentially
parked
in
driveways
and,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
are
used
as
signs,
not,
as
you
know,
daily
use
vehicles.
So
the
thought
is
to
you
know,
get
those
under
there
either
prohibited
signs
or
they're
going
to
be
viewed
as
temporary
signs,
depending
upon
the
nature
of
their
display.
Parasitic
signs
are
an
important
prohibited
sign
that
has
been
added
here,
that's
defined
further
in
2190,
and
we
can
get
to
that
here.
G
At
the
very
end,
I'm
gonna
try
to
get
through
as
fast
as
possible.
21.
Eighty
twenty
two
added
the
regulation,
electronic
message:
centers
those
are
signs
that
move
essentially
electronic
signs
that
show
motion.
You
know
various
colors
are
lighted.
That's
what
we're
getting
at
their
regulation
of
portable
signs.
There
have
been
a
number
of
increases
in
regulation
and
there's
a
notable
relaxing
of
regulations.
Here,
sub-2
gets
rid
of
the
portable
sign,
off-premise
advertising
ban
and
allows
for
off-premise
portable
signs.
However,
there
are
a
slate
of
regulations.
G
Additional
regulations,
such
as
being
prohibited
from
being
located
within
the
right-of-way
and
within
10
feet
of
a
curb,
must
be
at
least
20
feet
from
any
abutting
property
line
unless
that
abutting
property
owner
consents
in
writing
to
its
placement
there,
the
requirement
that
portable
signs
must
be
separated
by
another
portable
sign,
not
less
than
200
feet,
and
failure
to
obtain
a
portable
sign
permit
results
in
a
double
fine
or
double
permit
fee.
The
regulation
of
all
premise
signs
you'll
note
that
there
haven't
been
too
many
suggested
revisions
here.
G
The
one
change
is
in
the
double
billboards
the
conditional
use
provision
here
in
sub-3
as
it
stands
right
now,
you
would
be
allowed
by
conditional
use
to
have
off-premise
signs
up
to
672
square
feet,
which
is
essentially
double
of
what
is
allowed
otherwise
under
ordinance.
So
this
makes
it
into
a
variance
and
it
keep
in
mind
all
these
provisions
can
be
variants
by
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
and
this
ordinance
change
would
get
rid
of
the
sign
Code
Board
of
Appeals
as
being
viewed
as
something
of
a
separate
body.
G
The
thought
there
is
is
that
this
is
considered
decision.
All
the
enforcement
provisions
here
are
the
decision
of
a
building
official,
the
Ken's
decision.
Effectively
Ergo
appeals
of
his
decisions
would
go
before
the
the
Board
of
Adjustment,
so
these
appeals
are
all
to
a
Board
of
Adjustment
not
to
the
sign
code
Board
of
Appeals,
because
as
it
stands
right
now,
the
saenko
Board
of
Appeals
is
just
the
Board
of
Adjustment.
So
we
clarify
that
one
thing
I
wanted
to
know
here
and
ask
you
know
your
consideration
of
is
2180
26.
E
G
There's
nothing
in
terms
of
differences.
What
I
bring
this
up
for
is
the
fact
that
there
appear
to
be
a
number
of
temporary
signs
that
exists
on
boulevards
in
rights-of-way
within
the
city
that
wouldn't
fall
under
any
of
these
four
categories.
And
the
question
is,
you
know:
does
the
city
need
to
go
after
those
signs
or
do
we
need
to
provide
exemptions
for
them
within
20:26
and
getting
that.
E
E
They
had
the
farmers
market
and
now
you've
gotten
melons
for
sale.
You
got
corn
for
sale,
you
got
good,
Lord
knows
what
you've
got
for
sale.
You've
got
four
or
five
or
six
Pizza
signs
on
Marcos
on
there.
That
are
just.
This
seems
like
the
same
sign
on
their
Boulevard.
It
just
goes
on
and
on
and
on
and
on
and
on,
and
the
the
roughing
signs
are
all
over
in
the
community.
Now
sighting
signs
are
all
over
that
whole
bunch
are
those
permitted
today
or
are
these
things
that
it
looked
terrible?
No.
I
J
Gotta,
go
all
the
way
back
to
political
and
and
real
estate
signs
that
have
always
been
allowed
there
and
that's
the
if
they're
forcement.
That's
what
he's
asking
you!
We
want
to
take
political
and
retail
signs
out
or
we're
going
to
keep
everything
out
of
the
boulevard
and
just
start
enforcing
it,
and.
G
C
J
E
I
think
those
are
the
ones
I
have
problems
with
is
I'm?
Okay,
with
a
for
sale
sign
on
a
real
estate
sign
in
a
boulevard.
I,
don't
have
a
problem
with
that,
but
when
it's
sold
I
don't
want
to
see
it
there
for
60
days
with
a
sole
little
banner
across
the
side
of
it
or
a
cell
pending.
If
it's
sold
now
it
now,
we've
shifted
from
being
its
purpose
of
identifying
that
item
for
sale.
E
Now
we're
advertising
and
that's
not
what
it
intent
is
and
the
same
thing
is
with
roofing
and
siding
if
you're
working
on
my
roof-
and
you
want
to
put
a
little
sign
out,
there,
I
don't
care,
but
as
soon
as
you're
done
with
my
roof.
For
my
siding,
it
goes
away
because
now
I'm
advertising
beyond
I
mean
that
it
just
seems
I'm,
ok
with
them
for
their
actual
and
real
intent.
But.
J
J
C
J
E
Cringe
wouldn't
start
to
hail
this
morning,
yeah,
but
well,
you
know
I
think
it's
one
thing
to
go
around
and
pick
up
signs
it's
another
to
have
a
penalty
behind
it,
because
if
I've
got
a
roofing
company
you
come
tell
me.
I
got
to
have
my
sign
out
there
when
my
job's
done
and
I'm
putting
them
back
then
I
better
know
that
there's
a
in
effect
that
could
take
place
with
that,
but.
E
E
J
G
The
reason
why
this
is
being
suggested
here
is,
you
know,
with
both
ordinances
tonight,
we're
dealing
with
ordinances
that
came
before
the
plan
Commission
and
so
they're,
going
from
the
Planning
Commission
to
the
City
Council,
without
having
a
work
session
in
between
that's
generally
been
the
practice
in
the
past.
To
my
understanding,
so
you
know
that
that's
kind
of
why
we
have
this
issue.
G
In
terms
of
the
other
provisions
here,
the
rest
is
pretty
straightforward.
Its
clarification
table
one
includes
the
art
to
A&R
G
district.
They
hadn't
been
denoted
in
that
table
before
Table.
Two
has
been
clarified.
To
show
that
you
know,
if
you
go
over
500
feet
of
frontage
or
200
feet
of
frontage,
depending
upon
the
zoning
district,
you
get
an
additional
sign
that
hadn't
been
clarified
prior
and
then.
Finally,
the
definitions,
we
clarify
the
definition
of
abandoned
sign
as
excluding
a
blank
sign
that
otherwise
shows
no
reasonable
indication
of
a
lack
of
maintenance.
G
That
is
to
provide
for
signs
that
folks
don't
want
to
use
to
advertise
the
sale.
The
lease
or
you
know,
a
sign
that
they
don't
want
to
have
inaccurately
depict
a
business
that
no
longer
exists,
but
they
still
maintain
it,
the
thought
being
that
an
abandoned
sign
needs
to
be
removed.
But
if
it's
maintained
and
if
it
still
keeps
its
aesthetics,
there
isn't
as
much
of
a
justification
for
removing
it
and
electronic
message.
Centers
key
terms
are
defined,
they're
incidental
sign,
like
I
mentioned
above,
is
defined.
G
E
D
G
G
Is
dine
and
sign
companies
were
represented,
John
wise
mantle
went
with
the
portable
signs.
We
had
a
few
individuals
from
the
community
come
in
one-off
times.
There
was
an
individual
from
the
roofing
industry
came
in
concerned
about
the
roofing,
sign,
construction,
sign,
issue
and
I.
Think
Bob
Fox
was
it
from
the
count
yeah.
J
G
He
was
there
for
a
few
of
the
meetings,
so
we
got
a.
We
got
a
decent
amount
of
representation,
but
I
think
it's
also
fair
to
say
that
besides
City
Council
personnel,
our
city
countess
it
E
personnel
and
city
political
and
appointed
officials
that
you
know
there
was
a
good
amount
of
sign
industry.
Folks-
and
you
know
there
were
some
other
public
folks
involved,
but
you
know
that
that's
kind
of
the
breakdown
do.
D
G
D
A
G
K
I'm
Dan
Roger
shot
and
I'm
the
owner
of
loose
fireworks
here
in
Watertown,
and
let
me
start
off
first
with
I
promised
the
mayor
when
I
spoke
with
her
today.
That
I
would
be
very
brief,
because
I
know
you
guys
had
a
long
day
can
I
pass
out.
I've
got
I
should
have
had
copies
for
all
of
you.
I
got
two
extra
copies
here,
but
it's
just
gonna
be
what
I'm
going
to
go
over
and
you
guys
can
keep
it
pass
it
around.
K
K
C
K
K
I
thought
it
would
be
important
now
that
I
try
to
bring
at
least
what
we
understand
from
the
industry
side
what
these
laws
actually
mean
and
please
understand
the
South
Dakota
codified
law
compared
to
their
relating
to
fireworks.
The
3437
has
kind
of
been
like
my
Bible
further
the
fireworks
industry.
The
last
50
years
granted
started
with
my
dad,
but
this
is
kind
of
the
law
that
we've
had
to
know
fairly
well,
because
I
mean
it
dictates
and
rules
everything
that
we
do.
K
So
if
everybody's
got
a
copy,
I'm
just
going
to
breeze
through
this
first
part
and
like
I
say
if
at
any
time
anybody
would
have
any
questions
for
me
at
any
time.
They
can
call
me
at
the
store,
but
I
wanted
to
have
this
in
front
of
you.
So
you
know
a
little
bit
where
our
our
concerns
are.
First
off
a
private
display
and
I
saw
some
of
this
in
the
last
council
meeting
that
was
addressed.
K
Fireworks
are
the
quality
that
you
can
put
on
a
pretty
decent
consumer
show.
So
for
that
reason,
that's
why
the
law
has
not
really
kept
up
to
eight
or
it
does
not
address
it
clearly
today
and
for
the
most
part
only
public
displays
1.3
G
were
performed.
Let
me
just
give
you
just
a
real
little
summary
here.
K
First,
consumer
fireworks
are
1.4
G,
that's
how
they're
classified
now
since
the
early
1990s,
they
don't
go
by
consumer
or
by
a
Class
C
fireworks,
that's
what
they
used
to
be
called
so
1.4
G
and
usually
the
the
use
of
them.
The
terminology
that's
used
in
the
codified
law
is
discharge
not
display
when
you
get
to
a
city,
show
like
what
we
would
shoot
at
the
reson
Arts
Center,
or
something
like
that.
K
K
Fourth
of
July
hits
on
a
Wednesday,
my
mom
and
dad
have
a
lake
cabin
out,
Lake,
Camp
Eska,
you
know,
I
might
not
be
able
to
make
it
home
the
fourth
of
July
to
celebrate
with
them,
and
so
the
reason
the
state
changed
this
law
now.
This
is
not
local,
but
this
is
state.
They
changed
it
to
go
to
the
following
Sunday
after
the
fourth
of
July,
so
4th
of
July
hits
on
a
Wednesday.
C
K
Today,
it
isn't
today:
okay
yeah,
in
my
opinion
and
I'll
kind
of
Mike,
I'll
kind
of
summarize
this
at
the
end.
But
right
now
it
is
not.
It's
not
required
that
the
the
South
Dakota
display
permit
the
other
time
in
the
year
that
you
can
shoot.
Fireworks,
of
course,
is
the
new
winter
season
that
started
a
few
years
ago.
December
28th,
through
the
January
1st
and
in
response
to
you,
know
marathons
change,
an
adjustment
last
year
for
the
lake
competi
situation.
K
So
what
mayor
Thorson
didn't
excuse
me
was
the
fourth
of
July
hits
on
a
Wednesday,
but
he
thought
okay,
let's
make
it
so
at
least
that
weekend
before
the
fourth
of
July,
the
Saturday
Sunday,
they
had
the
opportunity
to
discharge
fireworks.
So
you
know,
since
it
kind
of
mirrored
what
the
state
saw
as
an
important
thing
and
and
Mayor
Thorson
I
never
had
that
discussion.
I
didn't
know
that
was
even
coming
and
but
I
thought
it
made
good
sense,
because
I
thought
it
did
follow.
K
You
know
what
the
state
did
for
for
discharge
of
fireworks,
water
town
now
water
towns
a
little
unique
in
this
way,
but
they
have
developed
their
own.
Sorry
get
my
hands
worked
off
of
it.
They've
developed
their
own
permit
based
off
of
what
is
the
South
Dakota
display
permit
now
right
now,
I
work
with
two
different
permits
in
South
in
Watertown,
I
have
a
County
permit
and
I
have
a
city
permit
and
I
guess.
With
your
permission
from
the
council
mayor
I
would
like
to
take
right
now.
K
I've
got
three
forms
here:
I've
got
a
state,
permit,
I've
got
a
County,
permit,
I've
got
a
city
permit
and
where
I
think
we
have
some
real
problems,
as
the
language
is
all
a
little
different
and
I
would
like
to
put
something
together
that
would
communicate
clearly
on
one
permit.
You
know
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
to
allow
the
use
of
fireworks
and
I'm,
also
working
with
the
state
on
their
permit
when
currently
I
will
be
on
that
issues.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
the
language
is
clear.
K
So
when
everybody
sees
a
when
you
see
a
permit
in
front
of
you,
you
know
was
going
forward
if
the
City
Council
is
going
to
make
a
decision
on
this
I
just
want
to
be
very
clear.
You
know,
is
this
in
a
public
as
a
private
setting,
which
is
it
a
consumer
firework
show
or
a
1.4
G?
Is
it
a
1.3,
G
or
display
fireworks
show?
Should
insurance
be
required?
K
You
know,
there's
a
lot
of
things
and
I
think
if
he
would
allow
me
just
to
maybe
spend
some
time
with
the
fire
department
and
the
police
department.
I
would
like
to
sit.
I
have
done
a
little
work
with
the
chip
at
the
fire
department,
but
I'd
like
to
sit
down
with
two
of
them,
maybe
in
a
meeting
and
come
up
with
one
permit
that
we
could
use
for
County
or
City
going
forward
so
on
the
South
Dakota
T's
display.
K
Permit
the
one
that
I
have
up
here,
the
one
we
use
for
many
years
before
Watertown
designed
their
own
here
a
few
years
back,
but
my
understanding
is,
it
was
probably
created
in
1949
and
I'm
sure
I
know
the
party
that
did
that
they
were
in
the
display
business,
but
so
it's
at
least
for
my
understanding
of
over
40
years.
It's
been
around
for
a
long
time
and
when
written.
If
you
look
at
the
South
Dakota
34
37
13,
when
it's
written,
here's
a
couple
things
you'll
notice
that
will
help
clarify
its
original
intent.
K
Only
one
3G
fireworks,
there's
really
a
dress
in
there.
Yes,
there,
which
are
known
as
display
fireworks
in
support
of
this
understanding,
you'll
see
in
that
that
law
that
it
mentions
that
the
display
must
conform
to
the
NFPA,
11,
23
and
I.
Don't
have
any
fire
department
people
here
tonight,
but
the
NFPA
11
23
only
deals
with
display
fireworks
or
the
kind
of
fireworks.
The
high-powered
fireworks
that
you
see
out
it
like
this,
the
red
line,
Center,
and
so
it's
a
that
piece.
That's
inserted
in.
K
There
is
a
clear
understanding
to
me
that
it
only
pertains
to
that
and
that's
its
original
intent
and
all
that
to
say
Justin
I
know
you
not
being
in
the
industry.
A
lot
of
this
is
probably
a
little
bit
Greek
because
you
don't
deal
with
it
every
day,
but
in
fairness
to
your
understanding
on
that
you
know,
unfortunately,
what's
happened.
Is
the
South
Dakota
codified
law
here
hasn't
kept
up.
The
terminology
hasn't
changed.
K
What
the
industry
as
it's
gone
so
I,
wouldn't
expect
anybody
to
understand
that
unless
they've
been
doing
this
all
their
life,
so
we
need
to
get
the
South
Dakota
law
up
to
speed
and
I.
Think
right
now,
I've
got
about
five
or
six
different
changes
that
I'm
gonna
be
meeting
with
the
State
Department
on
just
to
bring
it
up
to
today's
time.
So
a
correct
understanding
of
the
34:37
thick
16
would
be
this
that
this
does
not
address
displays
or
1-3
G
fireworks.
K
K
Thank
you.
The
bottom
line
would
be
this,
and
my
only
purpose
for
being
here
really
not
only
to
comment
on
Aleichem
pesky
issue,
but
it's
just
to
help.
You
folks
be
able
to
make
the
best
decisions
you
can
by
understanding
what
is
the
actual
law?
That's
on
the
books
now
and
if
whether
anything
needs
to
be
come
home,
better
communicated,
but
some
terminology
in
the
South
Dakota
codified
law
is
outdated
and
we
have
already
addressed
this
with
some
of
our
state
legislators.
K
Brock
and
Lana
Greenfield
are
retailers
of
ours
out
in
the
Clark
area
and
so
they've.
You
know
different
times:
I've
worked
with
them
out
in
Pierre,
and
one
different
fireworks
issues
have
come
up
and
we're
gonna
help
them
that
we're
going
to
ask
them
to
kind
of
help.
Us
clarify
this
on
a
statewide
basis,
so
the
state
firm
that
will
be
correct
and
then,
hopefully,
next
year,
when
you
see
this
South
Dakota
codified
law
in
front
of
you
well
they're
all
talking
the
same
thing
and
it'll
be
very
clear.
K
That
would
be
my
desire
so
and
I
just
put
on
here
that
I
felt
this
clarification
is
needed
now
in
order
to
have
clearly
written
standards
going
forward
and
I
recognize
this.
At
the
last
meetings
there
was
an
item
on
the
agenda
that
we
believe
was
explained
incorrectly
on
whether
a
display
was
public
or
not,
and
that
if
it
was
a
public
permission
would
be
granted,
and
this
is
something
we
would
believe
our
law
does
not
does
not
or
mean
to
address.
So
bottom
line
would
be
this.
K
Our
understanding
would
be
if
a
display,
okay,
the
the
big
stuff,
we're
a
discharge.
The
consumer
stuff
is
desired
by
any
of
our
local
residents
that
a
current
display
or
discharge
permit
from
the
city,
the
county
or
the
state
would
suffice.
Consumer
or
display
public
or
private
and
so
I.
Think
I
could
do
it
really
simply
on
a
phone.
K
Don't
know
that
it's
it's
an
issue,
so
so
the
last
thing
the
late
compasscare
residents
I
know.
This
is
something
that
you
guys
had
to
wrestle
through.
A
few
different
probably
comments
from
some
of
our
constituents,
but
here's
here's.
What
I
think
would
be
important
and-
and
you
can
consider
this
but
I-
believe
the
residents-
a
complete
compress
code
would
be
best
served
when
the
no.
C
K
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
yeah.
Well
it
hit
on
that
yep,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
think
of
it.
If
the
fourth
hits
on
a
Friday,
of
course,
they
can
actually
already
is
it's
something
to
be
considered,
I
mean
statewide.
You
can
discharge
fireworks
on
Saturday
still.
Well,
actually
you
can
shoot
through
the
following
Sunday,
but
even
if
the
fourth
hits
on
a
Friday,
yeah,
I
guess.
M
I
K
Something
that
could
be
considered
so,
but
so
mostly
when
it
hits
in
the
middle
of
the
week,
and
but
what
this
would
do
is
put
a
good
parameter
around
the
discharge
time
as
well
as
I
mentioned,
it
parallel
the
intent
of
the
the
state
law
right
now
and
it's
mainly
to
accommodate
the
working
public,
though,
and
one
good
thing
I
don't
have
the
while
yuccas
Scott
is
here
Scott
still
here.
One
thing:
I
think
this
would
do.
K
Would
it
would
reduce
some
of
the
fireworks
being
shot
in
town
I,
really
believe
that
would
happen
if
you
just
have
it
the
fourth
of
July,
the
way
it
all
law
was
where
they
could.
Just
fourth
of
July
hits
on
a
Wednesday
and
they
can
only
shoot
it
on
Wednesday
I,
don't
know
I
just
I
feel
like
it
would
eliminate
some
of
the
discharge
going
on
in
town
and
I.
Think
that
would
be
a
good
thing.
We'd,
never
agreed
with
that.
K
You
know
we
don't
like
that
either,
because
any
roof
fire
is
a
bad
reflection
on
our
business.
So
we're
not
for
that
either.
But
I
know
what
happens.
You
know
it's
sometimes
hard
to
enforce,
but
if
they
did
have
that
opportunity
to
do
that,
maybe
on
the
Saturday,
Sunday
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
thing
so
so
that
I
guess
bottom
line
would
be
that
if
you
guys
would
be
ok
with
this,
I
would
like
to
sit
down
with
our
fire
department
and
our
police
department
and
summarize
and
put
together
one
permit.
K
That
would
be
very
simple
and
clear
and
one
that
we're
also
going
to
try
and
make
sure
the
terminology
matches
with
our
state
law
as
we
go
to
the
legislation
this
next
year,
and
but
we
put
it
back
in
front
of
you
and
let
you
look
at
it
and
see
what
you
think
so
so
I'm
open
for.
If
there's
answered
questions
so.
D
K
I
think
I
could
really
simplify
your
life
if
you
just
I,
really
do
if
you
had.
Let
me
just
put
this
together
with
with
a
couple:
the
fire
department,
Polly,
Storm,
I,
think
I
could
really
simplify
it
and
also
for
the
county
commissioners.
You
know
when
I
get
a
permit
for
something
outside
the
city
limits.
You
know,
it'd
be
nice,
that
they've
kind
of
got
the
same
permit
process
that
we
have
right
now
for
the
city
so
on,
and
also
a
sudden.
K
G
Thing
if
I
could
council
to
add
you
know,
as
I
pointed
out
in
the
margin
there.
The
way
that
this
ordinance
currently
reads
is
there
would
effectively
be
no
reason
if
this
were
to
pass
to
have
a
discharge
or
consumer
side
to
a
permit,
because
either
the
display
portion,
the
1.3
G,
would
come
before
the
council
at
any
time
during
the
year
for
a
permit
or
the
non
display,
your
consumer,
your
discharge
to
utilize,
the
terminology
brought
up
by
mr.
G
But
beyond
you
know
some
of
the
comments
that
mr.
Roger
shot
made.
I.
Think
that
absolutely
you
know
what
he's
saying
it
makes
some
sense
with
regard
to
how
the
language
and
statute
does
not
comport
with.
What's
provided
in.
In
you
know,
national
standards
be
at
the
the
national
fire
code,
11:23
or
what-have-you.
There
seems
to
be
that
similarity
and
language
display
you
know,
but
I
I
guess
I
would
I
would
really
like
to
see
some
clarification
in
law.
G
Before
advising
you
to,
you
know
to
really
change
course,
but
I
think
it
is
important
to
point
out
that,
yes,
as
it
sets
right
now,
if
this
were
to
be
adopted,
there
wouldn't
be
a
permitting
process
for
consumer
discharge
of
fireworks.
It
would
just
be
allowed
around
camp
Eska
for
those
select
days.
A
G
A
I
I
think
what
what
I'm
hearing
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
you'd
like
to
revise
our
permit,
so
that
it's
consistent
with
the
state
and
County
permit
and
I
fully
support
that,
and
that's
not
what
we're
doing
tonight.
We're
not
talking
about
the
permit,
we're
talking
about
our
ordinance
and
the
nothing
that
we've
written
needs
to
change,
because
we're
only
talking
about
those
public
displays
the
big
display.
That's
the
only
thing
that
we
would
permit
at
any
time
other
than
the
allowable
times
that
we
already
established
so
correct.
K
G
To
clarify
and
I
think
this
gets
to
mr.
Radha
Schatz
point
is
state
law
isn't
specifically
clear
on
that
point.
We
have
the
phrase
public
display
in
law
and
while
there
are
some
language
similarities
between
the
framework
in
like
NFPA
and
in
the
the
the
1.3
g
vs
1.4
G
display
utilize
throughout.
It's
not
specified
in
statute
that
there
is
this
qualitative
difference
between
display
fireworks
and
consumer
fireworks,
with
one
applying
to
34,
37
13
and
the
other
one
applying
to
34,
37,
16
and
16.1.
So
a
is
that
I
think
that's
that's!
G
The
issue
is
state
law
isn't
to
the
level
of
specificity
the
mr.
rotter
shot
is
speaking
of
so
at
this
point,
while
there
there
may
be
some
truth
to
what
mr.
Otto
Schott
says.
You
know
in
terms
of
whether
we
can
say
state
law
prohibited
that
approval
I,
don't
think
we
can
I
mean
what
is
a
public
display.
I
I
think
the
City
Council
agonized
over
that
at
the
last
last
session
and
came
to
a
common,
reasonable
understanding
of
what
a
public
display
is.
What
mr.
G
K
K
Okay,
let's
say
it
like:
let's
say
next
week:
I
want
to
shoot
a
show
out
at
Lake,
come
Pasco
right
now.
There
is
nothing
in
the
state
codified
law
that
says
you
know
that
you
can,
or
you
can't
and
locally
what
this
permit
does.
If
you
just
put
public
display
on
here,
it's
just
kind
of
addressing
the
one
point
three,
my
recommendation
would
be
I,
don't
care
if
it's
one
4G
or
one
3G
I,
think
you
should
have
a
permanent
process
in
place
for
it.
K
A
G
K
K
Yeah
not
at
all
the
NFPA
11:23
does
address,
you
know,
setback
standards
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff,
but
there
are
no
and
like
I
can
I'm
we
trained
about
forty
shooters
every
two
years.
We
have
a
display
training
class
for
this,
but
there
are
currently
are
no
requirements
in
the
state
of
South
Dakota
to
have
display
operators
certified
sure
and.
K
Know-
and
it
is
something
that
I
think
we're
gonna
see
in
time
and
we're
sure
not
opposed
to
that,
because
we're
already
training
our
people
and
doing
that,
but
I
think
in
time.
You
might
see
that
Justin
I
do
so
just
once
again.
I
want
to
keep
it
really
simple
and
I
understand.
There's
a
lot
of
fireworks
terminology
I'm
thrown
at
you
right
now,
but
my
recommendation
will
be.
K
And
then
we
have
the
the
fire
department,
which
is
usually
our
first
level
of
you
know,
enforcement
code
that
we
pass
this
to
and
if
they
approve
it
and
the
police
department
and
then
going
forward,
it
will
probably
be
the
City
Council
that
will
then
sign
on
the
permit
in
order
that
doesn't
all
rest
on
your
shoulders.
Sarah.
E
Might
be
I
and
I
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
language
Susan
is,
but
I
think
the
issue
of
when
the
fourth
falls
during
the
we
go
out,
yeah
actually
anytime,
but
then
I
think
we
do
need
to
probably
have
a
conversation
as
to
when
fireworks
are
allowed.
You
know
if
the
fourth
is
on
a
Saturday.
Can
I
shoot
them
on
Sunday.
E
K
K
G
E
Have
the
ability
to
go
tight
or
not?
Looser,
yes,
and
so
my
question
is
I,
don't
know
exactly
what
the
language
is
in
here
per
some
of
your
discussion
that
probably
we
should
have
some
discussion
on
what
we
think
it
should
be
I,
look
at
it,
I
think
if
it,
if
it's
on
a
Friday
or
Saturday
or
Sunday,
let
them
shoot
them
if
it's
on
Friday,
they're,
gonna
shoot
them
Saturday
and
Sunday
anyway,
at
the
lake
they're
going
to
so.
E
If
it's
on
a
when's
I,
don't
like
the
idea
of
having
them,
do
it
and
then
not
doing
it
and
then
okay
on
the
4th,
because
they're
gonna
do
it
anyway
in
between
that
time,
so
I
think
the
the
time
frames
within
our
ordinance
probably
merits
some
discussion
on
all
our
part,
I
think
otherwise
we're
gonna
fight
a
battle
anyway.
My.
K
Goal
long
term
would
be
that
there
wouldn't
be
no
fireworks
shot
in
the
city
other
than
the
ground,
Valen
or
something.
You
know
a
little
kid
item
and
I
think
if
you
relax
that
fourth-of-july
thing
just
a
little
bit
at
the
lake
I
think
you
would
eliminate
some
of
that
that's
happening
in
the
city,
but
only
you
know,
Mike
I
agree
with
you.
It
could
be
a
little
bit
of
a
foresman
issue.
A
closing
down
Monday
and
Tuesday
I
do
understand
that.
K
But
if
you
know,
if
the
once
again,
if
the
residents
were
allowed
to
do
that-
and
that's
a
you
know-
maybe
you
do
it
on
a
one-year
test
time
a
test
frame
and
see
how
it
goes
see
how
the
law
enforcement
you
know
handles
it
or
how
the
response
is.
But
if
we
gave
them
a
little
bit
of
freedom
and
say
it
again,
you
can
do
it
here
because
of
we
realize
some
people
can't
make
it
home.
Well
hits
the
middle
of
the
week.
K
E
C
C
D
K
I
think
Glen
I
think
there
was
some
wisdom
on
how
that
dates
were
picked
actually,
as
at
least
including
the
weekend
before
the
4th
I'd
rather
see
it
before
the
4th.
Then
after
personally,
but
I
do
hear
what
you're
saying
you
know,
but
once
again,
if
you
it's
only
going
to
be
in
those
years
when
the
4th
hits
in
the
middle
of
the
week,
but
I
think
you
know
you
give
the
residents
an
opportunity
to
prove
themself
and
see
what
happens.
You
know.
K
A
C
A
D
G
G
K
I
want
to
simplify
it
mayor
that
it'd
be
real
easy
for
you
to
look
at
whether
it's
you
or
the
county
commissioners,
you
know,
and
what
the
city
or
county
permit
and
then
also
I
wanted
to
align
real
clearly
with
what
our
state
and
codify
law
is
going
forward.
So
so
that
way,
we're
all
speaking
the
same
language
going
forward
right.
A
K
K
K
D
K
K
K
Yes,
let's,
let's
say
if
it
hits
on
them:
okay,
if
it
hits
on
a
Monday,
you
know
I
think
actually
a
Monday
through
Friday
Glen,
technically,
because
if
it
hits
on
Monday
they're
gonna
be
able
to
shoot
them
on
the
4th
anyway.
But
would
some
people
have
to
be
back
to
work
on
the
4th,
possibly
maybe
not,
but
especially
the
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday.
You
know,
especially
those
are
the
ones
that
would
be
most
important
and
then
just
to
allow
them
those
that
weekend
preceding
one
that
4th
hits
in
the
middle
of
the
week
like
that.
K
K
You
know
the
rest
of
the
state
is
shooting
fireworks
from
June
27th
to
the
5th
of
July
and
then
whenever
it
hits
in
the
middle
of
the
week
till
actually
in
some
years,
a
9th.
This
year's
I
think
at
the
9th
of
July
but
whatever
so,
but
so
that
leniency
a
little
bit
that
the
state
decided
was
important.
K
A
K
D
I
M
A
K
I've
got
I
think
six
different
issues
I'm
going
to
address
on
the
state
level
this
year,
just
just
to
bring
air
all
that
everything
up
to
the
current.
You
know
restrictions
whether
it's
in
FP,
11,
23,
1124,
there's
a
lot
of
different
regulatory
agencies
that
control
our
industry,
but
I
want
to
bring
all
those
up
the
the
most
current
copies
or
standards
that
are
there.
So
so
we're
not
dealing
with
the
standards
are
40
years
old,
okay,.
H
K
A
G
You
mayor
this
was
dealt
with
in
great
length
at
the
prior
work
session,
so
I
won't
belabor.
This
three
changes
really
all
told
the
first
minor
clerical,
changing
references
to
aldermen
and
making
it
consistent.
All
references
are
now
council
members,
not
just
older
persons,
aldermen
all
those
derivations.
G
G
So
the
third
change
was
adoption
of
our
the
addition
of
7.0
303,
as
proposed
would
list
all
of
the
boards
upon
which
the
City
Council
member
once
selected,
would
serve
as
a
full
voting
member
that
would
eliminate
in
the
prior
iteration
had
liaison
listings,
and
that
has
been
eliminated
from
this
draft.
So.
D
G
Think
at
this
point,
councilman,
generally
speaking,
if
the
mayor
is
not
involved
in
the
discussion
I,
you
know,
I
would
say
that
this
has
been
put
together
consistently
by
email,
and
so
there
will
always
be
some
sort
of
paper
trail.
If
you
will
so,
there
will
be
a
record.
A
ssin
of
any
kind
of
approval
at
some
point
there
would
need
to
be.
Is.
G
Generally
speaking,
councilman
by
virtue
of
the
mayor
being
the
chair
of
the
proceeding
of
the
City
Council,
proceeding,
as
is
often
the
case
or
sometimes
the
case
at
the
beginning
of
the
City
Council
session,
the
mayor
will
motion
to
have
an
item
removed
from
an
agenda.
I,
don't
know
if
it's
been
the
practice
in
the
past
to
revise
an
agenda
to
remove
something
prior
to
the
meeting,
the
thought
being
that
you're
in
a
public
setting
there
isn't
any
harm
in
having
it
be
announced
publicly
in
session
to
remove
an
agenda
item
I.
A
A
E
You
know
we
don't
want
to
let's,
let's
make
this
reasonable
with
what
we
need
to
me.
I
think
approval
as
approval
I,
don't
care
if
it's
verbal,
if
it's
email,
if
it's
I,
don't
care,
you
know
it'll,
it
stands
up
to
itself.
It'll
it'll
be
fine.
The
only
thing,
the
only
thing
that
I
don't
agree
with
on
rule
28,
though,
is
there
is
an
assumption
within
that,
based
on
a
lot
of
our
discussion
that
that
the
mayor
is
responsible
for
this,
it
does
not
state
it
and
I.
E
A
E
A
E
F
E
A
G
Guess
councilman
the
only
point
I
would
say
just
from
a
structural
standpoint,
legal
structural
standpoint.
If
there
is
a
mechanism
by
which
council
members
can
place
items
on
an
agenda,
then
it
would
appear
that
there
wouldn't
necessarily
be
someone
who
is
I.
Don't
know
if
the
thought
is
that
the
mayor
is
responsible
always
for
putting
items
on
the
agenda
I.
G
E
E
Notice,
if
you
go
to
our
home
row
charter,
it
says
that
the
finance
officer
is
there
to
notice
the
agenda.
Notice
has
that's
a
completely
different
responsibility
than
making
sure
that
we
have
an
agenda
for
this
meeting.
I,
don't
know
I,
look
at
it,
I!
Think
of
all
the
conversation
that
we
have
had
and
we
talked
about
the
mayor
being
responsible
for
the
agenda,
but
we
still
don't
write
it
in
our
document.
E
It's
still
not
written
in
here.
So
when
we're
all
dead
and
gone
or
whatever
we
are
somebody's
gonna
pull
this
up
and
say:
well,
I,
don't
know
what
it
really
says.
Maybe
it
does
some
people
are
gonna
interpret
it
as
being
responsible
and
some
probably
aren't
they're
gonna
say
no,
it's
the
finance
officer,
I!
Don't
understand!
Why
we're
it's
so
difficult
for
us
to
say
what
we
want
to
say.
Well,.
A
The
the
physical
act
of
putting
together
and
publishing
and
posting
agenda
is
not
a
duty
that
the
mayor
would
normally
conduct.
It's
I
mean
I,
don't
even
know
how
to
post
anything
on
the
website.
That's
something
that
the
staff
does
and
for
the
council
agenda.
It's
the
finance
officer
for
the
Planning
Commission
agenda.
It's
the
engineering
department,
it's
various
staff
members
actually
do
the
physical
and.
E
I'm
not
asking
that
the
mayor
do
those
things
I'm,
asking
that
the
mayor
is
responsible
for
making
sure
those
things
happen
that
an
agenda
gets
done.
We
shouldn't
be
having
the
discussion
that
we
had
over
the
last
six
weeks
as
to
who's
responsible.
When
we
can
write
one
simple
little
thing
in
here
and
we
all
know,
I
mean,
am
I
being
too
anal
on
this
thing
or
or
what
because
I
don't
know
why?
That's
so
hard
I.
D
Guess
when
I
look
at
this,
I
mean
since
the
last
since
a
work
session,
the
words
and
approved
I
can
see
were
added
to
this
verbiage.
I
mean
to
me
I'm
perfectly.
Okay,
with
that,
when
we
say
the
the
the
mayor
has
has
to
approve
the
budget,
I
guess
I'm,
not
sure
what
more
any
additional
language
is
going
to
accomplish
in
this
money.
I.
L
A
L
A
C
B
A
Been
in
a
time
crunch
that
I'm
aware
of
I,
don't
I
don't
want
to
make
this
more
commerce,
I
I.
Think
a
verbal
looks
good
to
me
is
fine
and
I.
Don't
think
we
need
to
say
that
I
don't
know
that
we've
ever
had
a
problem,
that
there
wasn't
an
agenda
created.
That's
not
the
issue,
and
so
I
don't
understand
what
you're
saying
that
if,
if
there
is
an
agenda,
it
was
created
by
the
finance
officer
and
it
was
approved
by
the
mayor
or
the
council
and
I.
A
A
E
A
E
Very
clear
if
it
states
that
the
mayor
is
responsible
for
ensuring
that
an
agenda
is
established,
you
are
the
owner
of
it.
There's
no
questions.
Okay
and
I.
Don't
want
to
have
to
go
through
what
we
went
through
four
or
five
weeks
ago
as
to
interpretation
of
what
our
language
is
saying,
when
we
can
clearly
identify
what
we
want
it
to
say.
Are
we
saying
today
that
the
mayor
is,
though,
ultimately,
when
the
buck
stops
who's
responsible,
making
sure
that
an
agenda
is
established?
If
that's
going
to
be
the
finance
officer,
then
put
it
there.
A
This
says
that
the
mayor
approves
it
so
if
it
gets
published
without
the
mayor's
approval,
there's
still
an
agenda,
but
it
wasn't
approved
in
and
I
think
we're
arguing
about
semantics.
If
that
would
satisfy
you
I
think
it
says
the
same
thing:
I,
don't
think
we
need
those
extra
words,
but
if,
if
that's,
why
you
all
think
needs
to
be
in
there
go
for
it,
I
I,
don't
approve
it.
You
you're
going
to
approve
the
language,
not
me
I,
don't
know
that
that's
necessary,
but
if
you
think
it
is
that's
fine.
A
If
between
there's
no
action
to
be
taken,
if
some,
you
guys
think
about
it,
and
if,
if
you
think
a
change
to
what's
proposed
is
important
and
necessary,
we
can
add
that
and
then
we'll
decide
if
if
it
requires
another
first
reading,
otherwise,
if
you
think
it's
okay,
as
is
we'll
just
move
forward
next
time
with
the
second
reading
and
public
hearing.
So
that's
how
we'll
leave
this
one
and
and
I
don't
mean
to
become
bad
of
Mike
I,
just
I'm
kind
of
confused
what
you
meant,
who.
E
G
So
this
year
the
debt
obligation
the
expense
of
the
public
improvements
under
that
tax,
incremental
district
was
paid
off,
and
so
this
resolution
will
start
the
process
once
approved
the
amount
that's
in
the
TIF
number-3
fund
will
be
sent
to
the
county
for
proper
distribution
per
state
statute
to
the
parties
are
the
the
governmental
institutions
that
would
otherwise
receive
these
tax
receipts.
So.
F
A
Those
opposed
signify
by
saying,
nay,
motion
carries
item
number
nine
consideration
of
pyrotechnics
or
open
flame
permit
application
for
fireworks
display
at
the
casino
Speedway
on
August
27
2017
during
the
races
okay.
So
this
is
a
permit
on
our
confusing
permit
form,
but
appears
to
be
a
public
display
that
would
require
approval
according
to
our
ordinance.
I
could
approve
it,
but
I'm
asking
for
your
authorization
to
issue
this
permit.
Is
there
a
motion.
D
I
A
So
that
his
responsibility
is
to
attend
the
meetings,
they'd
be
attending,
not
just
council
meetings
but
also
Board
of
Adjustment
meetings
and
planned
Commission
meetings,
which
he
didn't
mention
the
Planning
Commission
meetings
before
and
he
had
the
Justin's
last
day
wrong
in
the
council
packet,
but
he's
still
going
to
start
on
the
same
day.
So
I
think
it's
pretty
wonderful.
That
Judge
Foley
has
agreed
to
provide
these
services
and
so
I'd
like
to
entertain
a
motion
authorized.
A
G
E
G
So
the
previous
interim
City
Attorney
obtained
a
flat
rate
of
I
believe
it
was
8000.
Let
me
make
sure
of
that,
and
so
this
interim
City
Attorney
would
obviously
be
a
thousand
above
that
I'm
not
aware
as
to
any
amount
of
required
hours
in
that
prior
agreement
here,
you're
getting
60
hours
of
guaranteed
in-person
legal
advice,
which,
if
you
break
that
down
you
divide
9,000
by
60.
That
amounts
to
about
a
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
an
hour
which
you
know.
G
D
D
B
Basically,
this
project
went
over
budget
and
when
we
realized
that
we
requested
the
FAA
to
make
an
amendment
to
the
grant,
they
granted
that
and
went
ahead
and
paid
us
out
and
closed
off
the
grant
but
I'm
guessing
that
the
state
just
kind
of
forgot
this
administrative
piece
of
it.
So
even
though
the
grants
been
done,
we've
been
paid,
the
funds
have
been
dispersed.
We
do
need
to
have
the
mayor
sign
this,
and
then
we
do
need
to
have
minutes
showing
that
you
have
authorized
the
mayor
to
sign
this
amendment.
C
F
M
A
L
Thank
You
mayor
just
a
brief
note
for
the
public.
The
twenty
ninth
Street
project
entails
the
work
between
highway
212
on
the
north
and
is
bounded
by
roughly
13th
Avenue
to
the
south
and
the
property
adjoining
that
is
Walmart
and
their
surrounding
commercial
district.
The
discussion
came.
This
is
a
project
that
was
awarded
to
Timmons
construction
for
concrete,
paving
and
subsequently
we
had
some
discussions
about
potential
issues
that
may
occur:
random,
cracking
where
we
have
load
transfers
from
you
know.
L
So
we
came
up
with
a
estimate
of
16
hundred
and
thirty-three
square
yards
where
we
would
increase
the
pay
thickness
from
the
designed
seven-inch
thick
pavement
to
increase
that
by
two
inches
to
a
nine
inch
thick
pavement.
We
did
review
that
it
doesn't
require
any
changes
in
our
dowel
basket
pattern
or
sizing,
or
anything
like
that.
So
this
is
just
simply
increasing
the
thickness
of
the
pavement.
In
those
like
isolated
areas,
the
increased
cost
is
ten
dollars
and
seventy
five
cents
per
square
yard
and
well.
The
way
we
set
this
up
was.
L
We
would
actually
just
introduce
a
new
bid
item
and
measure
all
the
9-inch
stuff
and
have
it
fall
through
its
own
bid
item,
rather
than
do
a
cost
plus
thing
which
gets
kind
of
ugly.
But
so
anyway,
staff
agrees
with
this
proposal.
We
think
that
it'll
help
the
longevity
of
the
road
and
functionality
of
it
for
a
increased
amount
of
time
into
the
future.
So
it's
well
worth
the
$17,000
five
hundred
and
fifty
four
dollar
investment
to
complete
this
project.
A
A
L
Try
not
to
break
the
bank
on
this
one.
Actually,
what
this
is
is
our
reconciling
change
order
and
it's
basically,
we
we
got
lucky
on
our
estimated
quantities
and
the
contractor
managed
to
hit
those
almost
exactly
so.
This
$32
94
cents
is
just
a
slight
change
in
quantity
and
there's
a
semantical
change
to
the
contract.
L
I
A
Okay,
I
would
like
to
say
this
we're
going
to
go
into
executive
session,
but
this
is
Justin's.
Last
council
meeting
and
I
want
to
thank
Justin
for
his
dedication
and
excellent
work
that
he's
done
for
the
city
of
Watertown.
In
the
time
here,
I
really
appreciate
it.
I
know
the
council
appreciates
it.
The
staff
appreciates
it
and
we're
all
going
to
miss
you.
So
thank
you
for
your
service
and
we
all
wish
you
good
luck.