View the meeting (click to open)
Current Events
- If you or people in your area want to meet and discuss current/future topics related to the city, reach out to me to set up a time to visit. (email, phone call, or in person)
- As you're driving on the river road by Stephens' park, you'll notice construction on the south side of the road. That's the new central water system treatment facility in progress.
- Many of you are familiar with the phrase "rural look and feel" or "rural character." Dayton residents have said this is important to them and I agree. It's even in our mission statement. We've had a couple work sessions on the topic and I believe it'll result in a list of ideas we will be prioritizing for the future. If you have ideas, please let me know.
Item F (Stephens Park Stage Cover)
Late in 2025 the council made it clear that we didn’t want to “lump” all of the phase 3 items for Stephens Park into 1 bid item. The reasoning is, it limits who is able to bid on these to larger companies that typically bid on government projects and, at least in my opinion, increases the cost of these projects. One of these items we talked about back in the fall was getting a roof over the stage area by this spring for the concerts this summer. We went over a couple of options and selected one. At the time some of the council felt we should wait until we needed to act (in case there was new information forthcoming). I think that was a mistake and given what’s happened since then, it obviously was. At the start of the year, we received 2 bids to engineer the changes around the stage (mainly due to the foundation and ADA requirements on the sidewalk). Both of those bids were almost identical in cost and project cost estimation. I have a hard time believing they weren’t communicating but... we agreed to the bid and that little bit of engineering was over $30k. In going over some of the requirements, the design team wanted more clarification on the size and material to use for the roof. With all the delays it’s become obvious that any roof over the stage won’t happen until late in the fall.
Item G (Territorial Concept Plan)
This is a concept plan for medium density residential (townhomes) on the west end of Territorial. The issue with anything there is the county road 81 access. For this plan the county will allow a right in and right out access on the north side of the development. Right in means going into the development is only allowed from the north bound traffic on 81 and right out means you must turn right when leaving the development. There is also a possibility of a road on the very north side going up to the Parkway. It also might require a roundabout where it connects to Territorial, which the development would have to significantly help pay for.
Item H (Engineering Design Guidelines)
Occasionally we see where city ordinances conflict with each other. They also can conflict with the engineering guidelines. This was a discussion on changing city ordinances to refer to the guidelines. My only concern here is... we’ve seen where federal / state statutes refer agencies to manage something, which then allows the agency to effectively create law, which I have a big problem with. Elected officials should create law, not a bureaucrat. What the council agreed to was our ordinances would refer to the guidelines but any guideline changes would need to be approved by the council. That was approved 5-0.
Item I (Community Survey)
A couple years ago the city hired a firm to call a large number of households in Dayton with a set of questions. We plan on doing that again and this was to finalize those questions. If you’re curious about the survey / questions, take a look at the agenda. It was approved 5-0.
Item K (Large Assemble Application)
This item was pulled from the agenda.
Item L (Parkway Neighborhood Agreement)
Last year the council approved a final plat for this development, but it’s dependent on getting the right of way for the road to it from the neighboring property owner. That property owner initially told us we’d get the right of way with his final plat (which was approved) but after the final plat on the Parkway development was approved, he changed his mind, which meant we no longer had the access. This agenda item was to contractually assure the Parkway development that we would get them that right of way. None of us understood why we’d approve such a thing, since we may not get it, so it never got a motion to approve it.
Item M (Closed Session Property Purchase)
This was to discuss negotiations for right of way on the north side of 113th to connect it to the roundabout on the Parkway
Item N (Closed Session Ladder Truck)
This was to discuss negotiations regarding purchase of a ladder truck.
Item O (Closed Session Property Purchase)
This was to discuss negotiations regarding the right of way discussed in item L.
Contact me with any questions or comments you have.