![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi_webp/q08d4iJZHMs/mqdefault.webp)
►
From YouTube: City Council Meeting 03 20 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).
A
C
A
A
E
F
G
G
H
H
B
A
I
A
Motion
carries
number
three
application
for
a
temporary
location
transfer
and
return.
A
retail
on
sale,
liquor
license
owned
by
cloud
nine
Golf
Course
incorporated
doing
business
is
cloud.
Nine
golf
course
as
follows:
a
from
the
period
of
4:00
p.m.
March
24th
of
2017
to
12:00
a.m.
March,
25th
of
2017
from
625
20th
Avenue
southeast
to
19:10
West
Kim.
At
this
time,
I
will
open
the
public
hearing.
If
there's
anybody
that
wants
to
speak
in
favor
of
or
against
this.
This
is
your
opportunity.
I.
J
A
K
L
A
A
Year
there
they're
gonna
get
it
again
yeah
any
others
that
want
to
speak
in
favor
of
or
against
this
hearing.
None
I
will
close.
The
public
hearing.
I
would
look
for
a
motion
in
a
second
for
discussion
motion
by
best,
second,
by
Glen
any
questions.
Hearing
none
I'll,
look
for
council
action,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye.
A
A
Okay,
good
here
we
go.
Let's
get
this
woman
hearing
hearing
none
I
will
close
the
public
hearing.
I
will
look
for
a
motion,
a
second
for
for
discussion
motion
by
Bruce
second,
by
Brad
any
questions
concerns
hearing.
None
I
will
look
for
counsel
action.
All
those
in
favor,
say
aye
Hey
opposed
motion
carries
number
four
application
for
a
new
retailer
on
off
sale.
Malt
beverage
license
to
optimal
success,
Incorporated
doing
business
as
1000°
pizzeria
of
Watertown
at
2631,
10th
Avenue
southeast.
At
this
time,
I
will
open
the
public
hearing.
M
Hello,
I'm
Carl,
Larson,
I'm,
the
owner
of
thousand
degrees,
pizza,
I'm
sure
some
of
you
have
heard
about
it
through
our
grand
opening.
We
had
four
free
pizza
a
couple
Thursday's
ago,
which
was
a
huge
success,
so
yeah
I
just
hope
we
get
the
opportunity
if
we
wanted
to
sell
beer
there
as
well.
It
just
kind
of
adds
on
to
our
whole
thing.
We
got
pizza
wings
salads
and
we
want
to
add
beer
to
that
collection
as
well.
So
yeah
it's
been
going
great
so
far.
M
M
M
M
M
A
F
A
Opposed
hearing,
none
I'm,
sorry
Don!
You
threw
me
off
on
that
one
again:
okay,
it
is
approved
here
we
go.
Let's
move
on
Thanks!
Thank
you
very
much
and
it's
gonna
be
a
great
place
for
water
tone,
appreciate
it.
Alright
get
my
bearings
squared
away
here
again
number
five.
Second
reading
of
ordinance
number
17
11a
men
needs
owning
district
boundaries
by
rezoning,
Gilberts
addition
from
an
hour
for
manufactured
homes,
residential
district,
an
r3
multi-family
residential
district.
At
this
time,
I
will
open
a
public
hearing.
A
N
Thank
You
mayor,
the
proposed
rezoning
is
for
the
proposed
expansion
of
the
lati
facility.
They
want
to
build
a
robotics
unit
within
this
hatch
area
that
I
have
on
the
screen,
and
so
they're
gonna
build
a
parking
lot
and
a
new
building
for
the
robotics
program.
And
previously
this
area
existed
as
part
of
the
mobile
home
park,
which
is
no
longer
there,
and
so
it's
actually
owned
by
three
different
entities,
but
they
all
went
together
with
the
petition
and
and
our
rezoning
this
with
the
anticipation
of
the
building
of
the
robotics
and
related
parking
area.
N
A
Any
questions
for
Shane
on
this
hearing,
none
I'll,
look
for
council
action,
all
those
in
favor,
say
aye,
aye,
aye
opposed
motion
carries
you
know,
I'm
just
going
to
throw
this
little
bit
in
right
now.
The
robotics
are
in
a
small
garage
over
there
on
the
very
north
end
of
the
lake
area
school
and
that's
an
amazing
program.
There
they're
building
things
pulling
things.
It's
it's
just
really
something.
Okay,
we
will
move
on
you.
A
Okay,
number
six
second
reading
of
ordinance
number
17,
one
I
think
I'm
losing
everybody
here
today.
Aren't
I
am
there's
just
no
authority
figure
here
today.
It's
spring
fever,
I'm,
just
thinking
so,
okay,
so
second
reading
ordinance,
number
17
one
amending
section.
Twenty
one
point:
two:
three:
zero:
three
in
chapter
twenty
one
point:
nine
zero
other
revised
ordinance
of
the
city
of
Watertown
regarding
our
G
residential
garage
district
I
will
open
a
public
hearing.
If
there's
anybody
here
that
wants
to
speak
in
favor
of
or
against.
This
is
your
opportunity.
Okay,.
N
It
and
I
want
this
just
to
be
part
of
the
official
public
hearings.
So
from
the
first
reading
to
this
reading,
we
did
include
one
new
item
which
amended
the
maximum
structure
height
to
30
feet.
The
previous
structure
height
max,
was
24
feet,
but
since
we're
allowing
the
long,
larger
side
walls,
we
also
needed
to
add
to
the
maximum
structure
height
right.
A
So
we
are
not
going
to
do
council
action
on
this.
We'll
move
that
forward
to
the
next
council
meeting
just
to
be
in
the
requirements
of
New,
South,
Dakota
or
municipal
laws
that
are
taking
place.
So
I
will
leave
the
public
hearing
open.
If
there's
anybody
else
that
wants
to
speak
in
favor
over
against
the
opportunity,
every
night
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
Shane
I
think
you
should
maybe
go
over
it
again,
just
kind
of
go
through
the
whole
spiel.
Okay,.
N
Okay,
so
the
proposed
ordinance
amendment
was
initiated
by
through
discussion
with
the
Planning
Commission,
and
the
idea
of
it
was
that
we've
as
a
community
move
towards
cleaning
up
our
residential
districts.
In
other
words,
we
we've
set
specific
locations
for
campers
and
fish
houses
and
other
accessory
vehicles
or
whatever
we
want
to
call
them.
But
you
know
and
part
of
this,
our
G
district
is
if
we
allow
this
larger
garage,
and
it's
only
in
the
RG
district
that
we're
proposing
this,
but
the
maximum
height
of
an
RV,
for
instance,
is
fourteen
and
a
half
feet.
N
That's
the
largest
RV
they
make,
but
a
standard
garage
at
ten
foot
is
what
normal
garage
height
was
previous
to.
This
would
not
allow
those
vehicles
to
be
parked
inside,
so
that
was
recognized
by
members
of
the
Planning
Commission,
and
so
this
was
an
idea
on
how
to
maybe
get
a
few
more
of
those
vehicles
inside
rather
than
having
them
parked
outside
cluttering
up
our
community,
so
that
that's
how
it
was
initiated
and
then
so
we
did
revise
a
few
other
items.
N
As
long
as
we
were
revisiting
that
one
of
the
previous
requirements
was
that
a
it
had
to
have
a
hundred
percent
of
the
surrounding
property
owners,
also
in
favor
of
it,
we
reduce
that
to
fifty
five
percent,
which
is
more
along
lines
with
our
assessment
procedures.
So
that
way,
it
just
takes
a
simple
majority
to
allow
it
not
the
100%
participation.
N
Then
we
let's,
we
also
gave
the
building
official
the
discretionary
right
to
make
sure
that
the
buildings
look
appropriate
to
the
neighborhood
that
they're
being
constructed
in.
We
didn't
want
them
to
look
like
a
machine
shed
or
something
gaudy
either.
So
so
we
do
have
some
oversight
on
on
the
finishes.
N
We
did
talk
about
what
size
of
structure
could
be
there,
and
we
settled
on
30%
of
a
lot
size
rather
than
you
know,
a
square
footage.
We
kind
of
felt
that
on
a
larger
lot,
maybe
a
larger
building
would
be
allowed
rather
than
just
go.
Our
previous
language
just
had
a
standard
size
that
was
allowed
and
we
thought
that
that
needed
to
be
a
little
bit
more
flexible
as
well.
So
with
that,
is
there
anything
you
want
to
add
Pat
can't.
J
J
C
That
hood-
and
we
can
talk
about
here-
that
was
something
I
talked
to
Shane
about
today-
that
we
didn't
discuss.
We
talked
about
it,
but
we
didn't
put
it
in
here.
What
we
found
is:
oh,
it's
been
five
six
years
ago,
when
mike
bruce
myself
we're
on
there.
Together,
we
put
the
RG
garage
district
together,
the
idea
the
concept
was,
it
would
sit
on
the
outside
of
a
development
where
people
can
buy
and
buy
a
lot
put
a
garage.
C
We
had
to
limit
a
2184
square
footage
so
we're
just
short
a
2200
square
foot
with
a
10-foot
side
wall
as
big
as
it
could
be.
It
has
that
the
building
material
has
to
meet
the
same
materials
as
the
r-1
single-family
residential
district.
What
we
found
is
it
wasn't
being
used
and
the
people
that
were
coming
to
us
weren't
really
on
the
fringes
of
these.
Did
these
developments
and
those
developments
haven't
added
those
in.
C
So
what
we're
doing
is
we're
retrofitting
other
areas
of
town
where
there
were
lots
put
together
that
we're
sold
as
r1
Lots
that
don't
have
sewer,
don't
have
water,
don't
have
improve
roads.
These
guys
generally
have
fifteen
to
twenty
thousand
square
foot
Lots
our
minimum.
Our
minimum
lot
size
is
7,500
square
feet
and
the
maximum
building
is
twenty
one.
Eighty
square
feet.
C
What
we
found
is,
if
you
had
a
twenty
thousand
square
foot
lot
and
you're,
putting
a
2,000
square
foot
building
has
got
10-foot
sidewalls,
it's
a
little-bitty
building
on
a
big
and
it
doesn't
serve
the
purpose
that
we
intended
it
to
do.
So.
What
we
did
is
we
came
back
and
said:
let's
allow
we
went
between
14
and
16
foot
sidewalls
and
what
it
came
to
was
in
order
to
use
a
14
foot
sidewall
and
put
these
bigger
rigs
in
there.
C
You
have
to
come
in
from
the
end,
not
from
the
sides
and
they're,
not
aesthetically
as
pleasing,
or
you
got
to
put
dormers
on
them.
What's
your
about
four
grand,
a
dormer
so
that
pushes
the
costs
up,
so
we
settled
back
and
said:
let's
go
with
the
16-foot
sidewall.
The
one
thing
that
we
did
is
we
said
we
they
still
have
to
use
the
same
building
materials
as
a
conventional
home.
We
said
we
want
two
foot
overhangs,
so
it
can't
be
a
box.
C
So
someone
doesn't
build
a
50
foot
building,
that's
just
150
by
16-foot
wall
to
try
to
make
him
aesthetically
pleasing
the
question
was
we
didn't
change
the
setbacks
and
when
I
talked
to
Shane
today,
I
said
you
know,
I
wouldn't
be
opposed
to
saying
your
setback
has
to
be
9
feet
or
your
sidewall
height,
whichever
is
greater,
which
means,
if
you
have
a
16
foot
building,
you
got
a
16
foot
setback.
If,
if
it's
a
larger
building,
that's
going
to
have
to
be
in
a
larger
lot,
we
looked
at
a
20%
lot
coverage.
C
First
now,
if
you're
building
a
home
in
the
same
r1
district,
you
can
have
a
hundred
percent
lot
coverage
inside
your
setbacks.
We're
saying
you
can
only
have
a
30%
lot
coverage
that
way,
we're
still
not
putting
a
huge
building
on
a
small
lot.
We
looked
at
20%,
but
we
found
lots
between
seventy
five
hundred
and
twelve
five.
We
weren't
giving
them
anything.
They
were
still
stuck
with
a
2100
square
foot
building,
so
that's
kind
of
where
we've
come
around.
C
We
found
that
the
people
that
we've
asked
them
to
take
these
large
pontoon
boat,
just
a
22
foot
pontoon
with
a
with
a
top
can't
fit
in
it
in
a
10-foot
sidewall.
It
can't
fit
in
a
nine-foot
garage
door.
So
that's
what
they've
come
back
to
us
and
we,
the
garage
district,
really
hasn't
been
used.
Much
since
we
put
it
in
I.
Think.
J
J
C
I
do
think
if,
if
I
had
a
lot,
you
don't
like
somebody
building
something
really
tall
now
on
the
other
side
of
the
coin,
is
I
can
build
a
two-story
house
with
a
32
foot
peak
nine
feet
from
the
lot
line,
but
bees
are
storage
structures
morally
and
some
people
have
said
well,
then
they're
not
a
garage
if
they're
that
big,
that's
true,
but
it's
in
a
garage.
We
call
it
a
garage
district,
but
it's
really
aesthetically.
C
G
The
key
is,
if
you
develop
the
area
with
areas
like
this
there,
then
you
know:
what's
there
going
into
it,
it's
not
something
that
comes
later
and
so
being
proactive
versus
reactive
and
dealing
with
it.
But
here's
a
question
I
have
in
regards
what
what's
going
to
be
asked
of
us
tonight,
I
agree
with
Bruce
and,
and
your
suggestion
seems
at
least
at
face
value
seems
reasonable
Pat.
But
so
what
do
we
do
with
what
we
have
before
us
in
regards
to
that
requirement?
C
You
know
I
think
you
guys
can
add
that
in
and
I
don't
I've
talked
to
a
few
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
said
you
know
we
we
could
have.
If
anyone
was
apprehensive
of
that
tall
sidewall,
we
are
setting
that
building
further
back
I.
Think
Justin
would
probably
be
the
person
to
answer.
Can
they
add
that
in
because
the
Planning
Commission,
it's
just
a
recommendation
that.
O
That's
my
understanding
as
well.
It
doesn't
you
know,
every
change
doesn't
require
an
immediate
sort
of
fall
back
into
the
hands
of
the
plan
Commission.
The
particular
ordinance
we're
dealing
with
in
terms
of
whether
another
reading
is
needed
for
or
another
meeting
for
action
is
SDC
all
nine
19
7.1,
and
what
we
have
here
is
a
requirement
that
the
body
cannot
act
upon
and
revised
ordinance
proposed
ordinance.
O
J
C
C
Is
we
hadn't
run
into
any
problems
with
the
85
55
percent?
We
just
said
you
know
when
we
started
it,
we
didn't
know
it
was
a
new
ordinance
and
we
were
just
kind
of
tweak
it
as
we
went,
and
this
is
just
a
tweak
we
haven't
had
anyone
applied
that
couldn't
get
a
certain
number.
We
just
felt
55
is
more
consistent
with
the
restaurant
pad.
F
So
that
you
might
discuss
this
one
of
my
questions,
I
got
and
you
can
build
a
two-story
house.
That's
9
foot
setback,
so
you
could
have
a
20
foot
wall.
So
I
just
you
know,
I,
don't
know
what
impact
that
might
have
or
not.
I,
don't
necessarily
disagree
with
part
of
the
concept.
But
if
you're
saying
16
feet,
that
would
be
seven
more
feet.
Setback.
C
F
N
Okay,
so
we
as
I
understand
and
Justin
have
I
have
talked
about
this
thing.
Correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
if
we
make
substantive
changes
all
it
requires
is
that
we
bring
it
back
for
the
first
and
second
readings
and
we
would
do
another
public
hearing
at
whatever
the
second.
The
second
reading
would
be.
You
know
so
I
think.
If
we
just
step
back
perfect
the
language
at
the
staff
level,
we
can
have
a
discussion
at
the
Board
of
Adjustment
with
those
folks.
I
have
no
problem
with
that.
N
That's
this
Thursday
we'll
have
a
discussion
about
it,
but
it's
now
in
staff's
hands
and
we
can
amend
it.
However,
the
council
wishes
and
then
we'll
just
restart
the
first
and
second
readings
for
for
the
April
meetings
and
I.
Think
that
will
will
bring
this
to
a
conclusion.
So
I'll
bring
it
up
as
an
old
business
item
at
the
Board
of
Adjustment
meeting
on
Thursday
and
will
fine-tune
the
language
and
and
bring
it
back
to
you.
You
know.
A
One
of
the
things
I'd
like
you
to
look
at
and
I'm
struggling
with
this
point
on
this
whole
thing,
because
you
were
taking
a
look
at
a
garage.
That's
going
to
be
16
foot
high
on
the
sides
and
to
make
it
look
nice.
We
need
to
articulate
something
on
the
sides,
but
yeah
we
allow
apartment
complexes
to
go
in
that
are
three
stories
tall
and
it's
just
a
block.
A
box
look
I!
Think.
E
A
J
J
A
Variance
to
give
us
a
more
not
on
the
height
I'm,
talking
about
the
articulation
of
the
building,
what
it
looks
like
from
the
outside.
So
when
you
have
the
20
feet,
if
it's
20
foot
you
need
to
have
something
that
is
out
in
or
out
you
know.
I
would
like
to
see
us
at
least
as
a
body
look
at
that,
and
maybe
you
guys,
as
as
the
Planning
Commission.
N
G
You
agree
that
it's
there
is
a
difference
for
a
house
that's
built
in
is
that
maybe
the
same
height
or
taller,
but
the
features
of
a
home
typically
are
different
than
this
and
I
I
know
where
Steve
is
coming
from.
With
this
deal
and
I
would
hate
to
see
us
be
able
to
take
some
long
building
and
just
say
okay
plunk
window
in
there,
and
that
looks
okay,
I
think
the
articulation
that
is
within
the
ordinance
now
I
think
is
a
good
idea.
A
A
N
I'll
bring
back
some
language
for
a
first
reading
and
we
can
all
hopefully
agree
with
that.
The
only
other
clarification
I
want
to
point
out
in
here
that
I
haven't
discussed
is.
We
did
allow
sewers
to
be
installed
these
now,
because
there
was
a
desire
if,
if
people
are
using
these
facilities
to
clean
fish
or
or
work
on
a
car
or
a
boat
or
something
like
that
and
they're
gonna
be
all
messy
and
dirty.
N
The
ability
to
clean
up
before
they
come
home
was
was
the
desired
thing.
So
we
did
make
that
minor,
tweak
in
here
as
well.
Now
it
can't
be
a
dwelling.
I
mean
there
are
limitations.
We
you
can't
set
up
shop
and
have
a
kitchen
and
a
living
room
and
that
kind
of
living
quarters
in
there
at
all.
So
just
for
that
clarification,
so
I'll
bring
some
language
back,
we'll
visit
with
them
at
the
Board
of
Adjustment
and
you'll,
see
a
first
reading
on
the
next
until.
A
A
O
Mayor
absolutely,
the
rationale
for
this
change
is
in
state
statute.
When
we
had
the
Watertown
recreational
center,
it
existed
within
this
joint
use
facility,
effectively
with
a
portion
of
that
facility
being
utilized
by
housing.
The
services
provided
by
another
local
governmental
body
that
being
the
school
district
as
a
result
of
that
unique
arrangement
between
two
governmental
entities,
the
the
Civic
and
Recreation
Board,
was
created.
O
Utilizing
unique
state
law
designed
for
that
purpose
to
create
a
board
that
incorporates
both
governing
bodies
represe
they're
of
in
making
decisions
for
that
joint.
You
structure
as
a
result
of
the
creation
of
the
prairie
lakes,
Wellness
Center
and
the
transplanting
of
the
recreation
centers
facilities
to
the
Wellness
Center.
There
is
no
longer
than
going
to
be
a
need
for
the
city
to
utilize
the
space.
O
As
a
result,
there
is
no
longer
going
to
be
a
joint
jurisdictional
sharing
of
that
space,
and
so
there
is
no
need,
legally
speaking
for
a
civic
and
Recreation
board
that
has
authority
over
some
city
function.
In
this
case,
the
Wellness
Center,
the
Prairie
lakes,
Wellness
Center,
is
a
purely
City
facility,
and
so
it
should
be
per
state
law
placed
under
the
auspices
of
the
Recreation
Board,
which
is
our
Parks
and
Recreation
Board,
and
that
is
what
this
ordinance
is
designed
to
do.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Justin
I
appreciate
it
moving
on
number
eight
authorization
for
the
finance
office
to
issue
a
special
check
to
the
Watertown
area
transit
in
the
amount
of
eight
thousand
nine
hundred
seventy
dollars
to
be
paid
from
contingency
funds.
This
actually
was
on
our
agenda
last
year
and
we
had
approved
I
believe
ten
thousand
dollars
for
a
new
transit
bus.
They
did
go
ahead
and
and
got
the
bus
this
year.
So
last
year's
action
that
you
guys
approved
could
not
carry
forwards
because
it
is
on
contingency
funds.
We
can't
carry
anything
forward
on
that.
E
L
A
N
Thank
You
mayor
the
engineering
department
is
assisting
the
wastewater
facility
folks
in
opening
and
awarding
these
bids.
The
consultant
is
Howard
our
green
incorporated.
Well,
they
were
hired
in
December
of
2015
to
provide
engineering
services
to
evaluate
the
dire
digesters
out
at
the
wastewater
facilities,
and
the
route
that
was
chosen
was
to
do
a
rehabilitation
which
essentially
means
they're
gonna
want
to
take
these
out
of
service
one
at
a
time,
they'll
empty.
N
The
structures
of
the
digester
sludge,
evaluate
the
insides
inspect
them,
and
the
idea
is
that
we're
going
to
repaint
or
repair
whatever's
needs
attention.
And,
however,
if
if
for
some
reason,
the
inspection
process
would
lead
us
to
a
deeper
larger
project,
then
we
would
probably
come
back
to
you
and
request
that
we'll
find
a
way
to
end
this.
This
bid
and
then
relaunch
into
a
new
bid
a
new
direction
so
forth.
N
N
We
did
receive
several
bids
on
the
project,
as
shown
by
the
bid
tab.
The
bid
submitted
by
industrial
process
tech
was
rejected
because
they
had
some
irregularities
in
it
and
what
those
irregularities
were,
as
they
actually
had
a
couple
of
bid
bid
items
that
they
put
no
value
in
there
and
the
scope
of
that
worked
with
where
they
put
no
value
in
was
such
that
there's
no
way
that
they
could
possibly
approach
a
project
was
zero
costs
to
recover
their
expenses
in
that,
so
it
was
identified
that
that
wasn't
a
valid
bid.
N
N
G
A
Sure,
no
okay,
let's
start
over
I,
have
a
motion
by
Bruce
a
second
by
Glen
any
questions.
Hearing
none
I'll,
look
for
council
action,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
aye
opposed
motion
carried
okay
number,
ten
old
business.
Anybody
got
any
old
business;
they
want
to
throw
out
there.
I
would
like
to
throw
one
little
thing
report
a
pothole.
We
did
get
report
a
pothole
on
the
city's
website.
So
if
anybody
sees
one
you
know,
we
can't
see
him
all
the
time.
Our
guy,
don't
notice
them
all
the
time.
A
A
Care
of
it
and
what
happens
now
just
so
you
understand,
when
you
report
a
pothole,
it
does
go
directly
to
the
street
department.
I
expect
they've
had
a
lot
of
notification
about
potholes,
so
they'll
get
back
to
you
and
they'll
try
to
get
these
things
fixed,
but
please
just
let
them
know
what
what's
going
on
and
what
you're
seeing
anything
else.
Any
other
old
business.
A
F
H
F
J
A
An
interesting
vote,
you
know,
as
you
know,
ordinance
65
actually
took
care
of
all
the
ordinances
through
ordinance,
30
I,
believe
and
what's
happened
here
is
that
there
were.
There
was
an
issue
that
came
about
about
Capo's
and
and
I'm
just
going
to
give
a
little
history
on
this,
so
the
organizations
that
wanted
to
get
rid
of
the
the
sites
you.
E
A
Is
that
if
you
vote
no,
the
county
needs
to
then
go
back
in
and
go
through
each
and
every
ordinance
to
try
to
bring
it
back
onto
the
books,
and
it's
going
to
take
an
extremely
long
time
for
them,
because
99.9%
of
the
ordinances
are
our
good
ordinances.
The
one
that
is
being
looked
at
is
the
kaif
ordinance
and,
frankly,
by
by
this
vote
would
not
change
it
in
in
all
reality.
If
you
vote
no
on
this,
it
will
allow
Caples
to
become
closer
to
your
residents
than
it
is
right.
A
Now
the
ordinance
back
in
2001
had
a
lesser
set
back
then
what
what
the
county
has
installed.
So
my
recommendation
began
and
because
this
is
this
is
a
far
reaching
this
reaches
out
to
the
floodplain
the
where
people
have
their
houses
in
the
floodplain.
They
have
to
have
FEMA
flood
insurance.
If
this
goes
away,
the
county
has
has
no
flood
insurance
for
you.
So
if
we
have
an
act
of
god,
a
storm
that
comes
through
a
tornado
or
something
like
that
that
could
cost
easily
millions
of
dollars
the
county
will
have
no
insurance.
A
A
This
is
not
affecting
that
the
city
of
Watertown
proper,
because
we
have
this
now
you
know
we
did
of
course
go
through
our
three
mile.
We
have
a
working
of
agreement
with
the
county
and
everything
is
good
through
that,
but
it
will
not
help
the
people
that
would
be
affected
by
by
flood
insurance
or
a
catastrophic
catastrophic
event.
My
recommendation
would:
what
I'm
gonna
do
and
I'm
just
gonna,
throw
it
out
there
I'm
gonna
go
vote
YES
on
ordinance
65,
so
that
the
county
will
have
the
ability
to
go
in
and
work
on
these
ordinances.
A
L
D
H
L
A
Taken
care
of
so
so
it's
far-reaching,
so
we
need
to
be
aware
of
that
and
I
would
just
I
would
just
recommend
that
we
vote
YES
on
ordinance.
65,
allow
your
County
commissioners
to
do
their
job
I,
truly,
don't
think
they
want
to
put
a
cable
in
your
backyard
and
and
I
think
they
probably
will
be
looking
at
that
ordinance.
Anyhow,
Steve.
A
L
Just
got
one
being:
we
were
talking
about
the
transit
earlier
first
of
April,
the
you
Watertown
area,
transit,
we'll
go
back
to
Saturday
service,
we're
going
to
give
it
another
shot,
and
we
feel
that
our
ridership
has
grown
enough
over
the
past
years.
That
we've
tried
it
in
the
past.
There
wasn't
enough
participation,
but
we
feel
with
doing
some
surveys
throughout
the
community
that
there
is
going
to
be
enough
participation.
So
hopefully
it
works
out
for
so
good.
A
I
did
want
to
bring
it
up.
I
mentioned
it
in
the
work
session
about
allowing
corporations
companies
to
move
forward
with
gifts
that
they
want
to
give
to
the
city
of
Watertown,
specifically
on
this
particular
one
they're.
Looking
at
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
gift
to
the
city
of
Watertown
over
a
five
year
period,
it
would
be
twenty
thousand
dollars
a
year.
They
need
to
get
there,
they're
stickers
made
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
them.
A
A
I
Just
before
you
end
here,
I
have
made
a
decision
to
run
for
Ward
II
seat
again
this
next
year
and
so
I'll
be
taking
out
a
petition.
I'm
really
excited
about
the
fact
that
the
city
is
looking
really
hard
at
the
lake
right
now.
I
think
the
we're
when
I
went
when
I
was
canvassing
earlier.
The
lake
was
a
real
concern
and
I
think
it's
a
lot
more
of
a
concern
today
than
it
was
four
years
ago,
and
so
that
really
is
going
to
be
my
top
priority.