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 H (Event Specialist)
Our event specialist quit and this item was a discussion on if we wanted to update the job description and post the opening. I have a few problems with the position. For one, before the person quit, staff was talking about hiring a firm to help this person plan events. That struck me as odd since that is the main task the person should have been hired for. Secondly, in my opinion there’s no way this person is staying busy 32 hours a week. Unfortunately, 3 others on the council felt otherwise. We did decide to clarify the job qualifications which might help with getting someone familiar with planning events.
Item M (Personnel Policy)
This was to update a section in the policy to add a requirement that anybody out on medical leave for mental health be required to take a “fit for duty” exam. A couple of us were curious as to why this was just being applied to mental health instead of any health reason. There was agreement that leaving it up to staff as to who must take the exam was a problem given some of the arbitrary decisions we’ve been seeing. The item was sent back to get the update better defined.
Item N (Stenslie Concept Plan)
This was tabled due to a request by the applicant)
Item O (Dubay Lake Preserve Concept plan)
This is a plan for 257 acres on the north side of 117th for 450 homes. Given it’s a concept plan, there aren't any specifics. There were a few things that came out of the discussion:
- Much of this land is currently scheduled for the 2030+ time frame.
- The development density is very low for a sewered development, which I like given we’re ahead of our Metropolitan Council density mandate.
- It'll dump even more cars on 117th, which I’m not happy with until we get more control on Fernbrook.
While it was clear the council likes the plans, it was just as clear we’re in no rush to get more houses into the area. The 2030 portion of the development would not likely go forward for now.
Staff is also now claiming the Met Council considers any land in the 2020-2030 area is considered developable (what we call current) without our specifically “moving” it to current. That's news to me and will need to be wrung out since it makes no sense that our entire inventory of 2020-2030 land can be developed in one year.
Item P (Graco World Headquarters)
Graco has decided to move their world headquarters to Dayton. For those familiar with the current site, this building will sit between the 2 current buildings. I have no issues with their plans. It passed 5-0.
Item Q (Legacy Woods Final Plat)
This and the next item have to do with creating large, unsewered lots again in Dayton. I have been pushing for these since I got onto council. What it boils down to is, these lots stay in our comp plan as guided for sewered density, but in the meantime the land can be broken up into 10 acre average lots for houses. Any land north of South Diamond and roughly west of Zanzibar (continuing it north to the river road) is eligible. Contact the city for specific details. This is the first development to take advantage of this new A3 zoning. This specific development is due north of Diamond Lake Wrapped around Laura Lake and lots range from 3 acres to 23 acres. It was approved 5-0. The road going through will connect between North Diamond and Thicket Lane.
Item R (Reserve at Vineyard Meadow Preliminary Plat)
This one was a little more complicated than the previous item in that it required some variances and the averaging was done differently. This one has 12 lots that are fairly close to 1.5 acres each with an outlot consisting of about 100 acres. The road going through will connect to Brockton and Shadyview Lane. It was approved 4-1. The 1 wanted the lots to be larger even though they comply with the ordinance.
Item S (DCM Final Plat)
While I voted against the preliminary plat since I believe there was no public benefit to their PUD, it was passed and they have complied with the requirements in the preliminary. Legally we are bound at that point to approve it, so I voted for it. It passed 4-1.
Item U (Stephens Park Phase 3)
As usual with government planning, the cost of this stuff is ridiculous, and it always seems to take forever to get going. This item was to discuss a small portion of phase 3; putting a roof over the stage and adding a cement dance floor in front of the stage. We've been talking about it for close to a year. Just the design of these 2 items is priced at $37.5K, and the estimate for the work is $450k. It continually drives me nuts... Given we have little choice, it was approved 4-1 and I voted for it.
Item V (Closed Session to Discuss Ladder Truck Offer)
When we cancelled our ladder truck order (see previous discussions on that) we did agree to have the chief look for used trucks. He found one but it’s being put on auction. Due to the way government works, an auction doesn’t play well since the council has to authorize the amount to pay publicly. We were able to discuss specifics in the closed meeting, but the authorization has to be done by vote, which must be public. The number we voted (5-0) on was $420k but it was to include all of the equipment we would need to purchase if we won the bid.
Item W (Discuss Employee Discipline)
This was messy. It was intended to be closed but the subject of the discussion decided to open the meeting which is their right. The issue is our fire chief sent him for a “fit for duty” exam which we’ve never done, and the chief didn’t notify our administrator until after the fact. What’s messy is we can’t discuss the results for HIPAA reasons, nor can we discuss anything else in his record. Our HR firm was there and recommended we terminate the individual... but couldn’t really tell us what “duty” he wasn’t fit for. What’s more confusing is our HR firm apparently sent him to a different firm for therapy (though I couldn’t tell what it was for) but that therapist did say he could return to work but apparently they don't qualify to give an opinion on “fit for duty”. There were also other opinions as to whether one “fit for duty” exam is definitive.
Item X (Termination of Employee)
The decision (5-0) was to keep the individual on leave until another “fit for duty” exam was given.
As usual contact me if you have any questions or concerns.