View the meeting (click to open)
Current Events
- Election Updates: There are 4 council candidates and 2 mayor candidates. General election is Nov 5th. Click here for list of local candidates.
- 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 G (Adopt a Park)
This item was to adopt a program that allows groups to “adopt” a park. This entails the group periodically going through the park looking for any issues and cleaning it up.
It was passed 5-0.
Item H (Cannabis Zoning Ordinance)
This was the result the state legalizing cannabis. While I have no problem with it, cities are going to struggle with aspects of it. The council decided to direct staff to treat this similarly to off sale liquor.
Item I (Code Enforcement Issue)
A few months ago, we were made aware of a zoning code issue between a resident (multiple properties) and the city. The issue seemed to be escalating and was looking like it could end up in court. The primary issue (there were a few) was the resident applied for a building permit to convert the garage to an additional bathroom and kitchen. That permit was not looked at by city staff for zoning violations and given directly to Metro West, the company that handles building permits. What got missed was the city requires homes to have a garage. That isn’t a building code issue, it’s a zoning code issue. Had that permit request been looked at by our planning staff, it would have been caught. In addition, there was some incorrect information (via emails) given to the resident by 2 city planners that no longer work for the city.
At that point our attorney suggested a meeting between the city, our attorney, the resident, and their attorney. The city attorney also wanted 2 members of the council to be present (any more would have been a violation of the Open Meeting Law). The intent of the meeting was to find a solution that brought the properties back into compliance without going to court. Given some of the bad information given by the city to the resident, I wasn’t convinced the city would come out on top for all the issues, additionally both sides would end up spending 10’s of thousands of dollars on attorney and court costs.
During that meeting we made it clear that any resolution would ultimately have to be voted on by the full council. This agenda item was that resolution.
Almost ALL zoning enforcement issues / resolutions are handled out of court with some form of negotiation between staff and the resident. This case was no different.
Unfortunately, it’s election season and Matt decided to imply something dirty happened here. Up until this issue showed up, I didn’t even know this resident.
It was approved 5-0.
Item J (2025 budget)
For the past 4 or so months the council has been giving feedback to staff to slowly shape the budget for 2025. That budget goes hand in hand with the amount of money residents and businesses have to pay in taxes to cover those costs (the levy). This agenda item was to set the preliminary budget/levy.
By the end of September, the council has to decide the preliminary levy and report it to the state. A final decision for the levy has to be submitted in December and that number can not be higher than the preliminary levy. In other words, the September decision sets the upper limit for the levy.
One of the areas of contention was the costs associated with adding 2 more full time employees to the fire department. In our last discussion staff told us it would cost an additional $100,000. During this discussion staff indicated that number may be close to 0 due to how pension / retirement costs work. At this point, staff is going to get us more solid answers prior to the December decision. If that IS the case, then we could adjust that by December since it won’t result in an increase in the levy.
As I’ve previously explained I wanted to see more effort aimed at reducing the 50% capital equipment increase and a few other items. Additionally, while our taxes are on par with Rogers and Champlin, we still have far fewer amenities and this budget will raise taxes for a median house by about $50 per year. For those reasons I am not in favor of it.
I called for a vote and the item failed with myself, Scott, and Travis voting against it. Travis wanted to see language in it adding the additional full time fire fighters. When it was explained to him there is still the ability to adjust that by December, he changed his mind. I explained he could make a motion to essentially redo the vote (since he was on the winning side). He did and it was passed 3-2 with myself and Scott voting against it.