View the meeting (click to open)
Current Events
- Election Results:
- Mayor: Dennis Fisher
- For those of you that voted for me... Thank You!
- For those that didn't... feel free to tell me where I lost you!
- Council: Stephanie Henderson and Sara Van Asten.
- Mayor: Dennis Fisher
- 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. It is scheduled to open sometime this summer!
- 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.
Budget Work Session
This was to complete work on the 2025 budget.
To determine the amount of taxes you’ll pay on your property, the state uses the tax rate and your property value. The tax rate is calculated by the amount of tax levy the city sets divided by a number called the tax capacity. When the council decided the preliminary levy back in September, we were not given the correct capacity value.
In the past few weeks, the city received the final capacity number and it was significantly less than what we were told in September which meant in order to keep the tax rate the same we would need to spend $375,000 less than planned in September. That meant increasing taxes by $865,000 instead of the $1,240,000 approved in September (which I voted against, it passed 3-2).
Even though the $865,000 results in the tax rate staying the same, your taxes will go up because your value went up.
I had 2 reasons I voted against this; a significant jump in the equipment fund and the fact it was a tax increase.
The other thing this budget did was to make a significant jump in hourly pay for the paid on call fire fighters and 2 additional full time fire fighters. The original intent of the increase to $30/hour was to compensate for the dissolving of the pension fund. Unfortunately, that wasn’t researched very well and we found out later that by law they have to have a pension.
The hourly rate discussion devolved into a member claiming we did it because the $17 per hour wasn’t enough. While it may be true that the hourly rate should go up, that had nothing to do with why we went that way and I’d be fine having that discussion... but facts are facts.
While I think it’s premature for a city of our size to have 4 full time fire fighters (we already have 2), it is getting harder and harder to get coverage during the day. The 2 additional full time fire fighters and the $30 per hour wage is in the final version of this budget. If these were the only problems in this budget I would probably be ok with it... but they're not.
Just for informational purposes: in spite of the claims that I don't support our fire department simply because I challenge them... doesn't mean I don't appreciate and support them. I have the upmost respect for our police force and fire department. That doesn't mean that we will agree on everything; in fact, over the past few years the only thing I can remember that I voted against was the fire study. It was approved anyway and funny enough, the fire department requested the study results not be used. I of course want the department to be well staffed and have the equipment needed to serve the community.
The final agreement was to set the levy at $8,775,000. Last year it was $7,960,000. That’s an increase of $815,000. That also means it was brought down another $50k in addition to the $375k. I still think the capital equipment jump needed to be reduced. My reasons for voting against the original budget are still there though so I suspect at this point I’m a no. The official vote for this will be Dec 10th.
Item K (IUP)
This was an amendment to a previously issued Interim Use Permit for Fisher Farms. The amendment is to allow a permanent building for the event center. The building will need to be compliant with the state fire code and there was some discussion about the storm water ponds on site. I had some questions about the subjective language in the item but overall, there wasn’t much concern over the item and it was approved 5-0.
Item L (Master Plan Acceptance)
The master plan was started June of last year. Unfortunately, in my opinion it went in the ditch not long after. I have pushed for a few years that the city should plan out large areas (around 300 acres) to optimize the overall design instead of allowing developers to plan out 100 acres at a time. Not only does this improve amenities in the area but it’ll let us control the development rate significantly better.
At some point staff decided to:
- make the area 600 acres
- not include the area closest to where the new development is going
- design in a new “city center”
- add in a regional park.
Since then, I’ve voiced my concerns with this and other problems in the area in every work session we’ve had on it. One of those problems is the routing of the Dayton Parkway. The routing selected runs it through 5 homes (very expensive homes). Which means either condemnation happens or that road is effectively blocked until a council is elected that will condemn. Three of the current council (including me) won’t condemn residential property. Even if it’s condemned (or willingly sold), the money needed would be a significant amount.
A week back the planning commission was asked to recommend this to the council. Due to many of the reasons I’ve stated, they rejected it 4-0.
We rejected it 5-0.
Item M (Variance for sign)
The Quick Trip going in on the freeway has asked that they be allowed to go higher and larger than our sign ordinance allows. That ordinance went in a couple years ago and since then we’ve had to make exceptions a few times. Even though the ordinance is ridiculously long, it still doesn’t work for all uses. A previous case was the first Graco building. They like to put a large “G” on their buildings. That ran against our ordinance in a couple of spots and we allowed it. The elevation limit assumes you have flat ground all around it and many times you don’t. In Kwik Trip's case the sign base is about 20 feet below the immediate area and about 60 feet below the interchange. The ordinance limit is 25 feet. That clearly doesn’t cut it. They asked to allow an 80-foot sign and even that elevation will just barely put it above the traffic on the bridge if you’re coming from the west. And given its height, the size of the sign being limited to 64 sq. ft will not be very visible. They were requesting 225 sq. Ft.
The variance was approved 4-1 (I voted for it).
Item N (Preliminary Plat Parkway Neighborhood)
This development has come in with concept plans a couple of times. The development is on the far side of the freeway and is an apartment complex. Given this had been before us and the Planning Commission a few times there weren’t a lot of questions.
Parking doesn’t meet our minimums. For a long time, we’ve known our parking requirements are way too tight. In my opinion companies know what parking they’ll need and if they don’t have enough their customers will let them know. Everyone was ok with this.
Landscaping doesn’t meet our minimums. Once again this comes up often with these developments. They are proposing putting in 4 times the number of large trees we require (143 vs. 39) but with the shrubs they are putting in 1/3 what we require (426 vs. 1182). I’m not a fan of shrubs. They die and I would prefer trees anyway. Everyone was ok with this.
EV chargers: Our fire chief doesn’t want them in the garages due to fire hazards. I’ve looked at this and while chargers seem to be involved in about 1/3 of EV fires, the majority are the EVs themselves. I’m pretty sure the residents would be ok with the risk when it’s January or February. Most of us were ok with this.
This item was approved 5-0.
Item O (Pulte addition)
This is a residential development at Territorial and East French Lake. It completes that development. There were a few issues with it:
Staff didn’t want a road connecting the development to East French Lake. They felt the traffic should go through the existing development. The council disagreed and didn’t have a problem with the road.
Staff wanted the legacy home to reroute their driveway to a cul-de-sac in the development. In order to do that the development would have lost a number of homes, it would have needed a bridge over a water swale, and effectively lengthens the property’s driveway from 100 to 1,500 feet. The council disagreed.
The fire chief didn’t want the island in the cul-de-sac due to concerns about parking. 4 of us didn’t have a problem with the island. It works better for snow and is much more attractive.
We also agreed to reduce the trail fees for the developer in exchange for him running a trail from the north east side on East French Lake south and then west along the property to Territorial Trail which allows a nice walking loop for the residents.
This passed 5-0.
As always feel free to contact me with opinions, concerns, or disagreements 🙂