The most issue revolved around the Borberg Planned Unit Development (PUD) and its implications for Third Street. A District 4 County Commissioner advocated for the Borberg project, emphasizing its potential to address the local housing shortage by providing a mix of affordable units, with 25% designated as affordable. The commissioner underscored the project’s importance in attracting essential workers, contributing to the community’s economic stability.

However, opposition arose from another speaker who questioned the affordability of the remaining 75% of the housing units. This individual suggested that many local workers might struggle to afford these homes, potentially exacerbating the housing issue by turning them into second homes for outsiders. John Hay, a nearby property owner, raised concerns about the necessity of Third Street improvements for the project and questioned whether the city would be obligated to fund these improvements, which he felt primarily benefitted the developer.

The council’s discussion highlighted a significant divide within the community. Some members considered the development essential for addressing housing shortages, while others raised concerns about affordability and potential negative impacts on existing residents. One council member pointed out that the term “affordable” can be misleading and suggested focusing on “attainable housing” instead. They outlined three potential paths for the project: selling five homes to income-qualified households, conveying lots to the Housing Authority if funding was unavailable, or repaying public assistance if the project did not proceed.

The discussion also touched upon the Hamilton Habitat lots, another ongoing housing project aimed at addressing the local housing crisis. The city is awaiting a decision on a Minnesota Housing Fund application, with significant costs associated with the application process. The conversation revealed that funding sources include grants for price reduction on housing units and infrastructure support, with additional funds from the American Rescue Plan.

Infrastructure concerns were a recurring theme. The council discussed the construction of roads necessary for water and sewer services, with clarifications that these roads would not extend into residential lots. Parking arrangements were also debated, with an average of one and a half parking spots allocated per unit. The elimination of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) from the plan resulted in an increase in parking spots, overseen by the Homeowners Association (HOA).

The council also addressed broader infrastructure issues, particularly the state of Third Street. Increased traffic due to the Highway 61 project has led more individuals to use Eighth and Third Streets. Concerns were raised about Third Street’s current state, with suggestions that it cannot effectively accommodate two-way traffic. The council discussed widening Third Street to match adjacent driveways and the need for a plan for its improvement. The implications of limited access to the proposed development from Third Street were also considered, with concerns about potential bottlenecks and the adequacy of existing infrastructure.

Financial aspects of the development were scrutinized. One council member expressed doubts about the project’s ability to provide affordable housing options for local residents, raising concerns that it might cater to a limited clientele rather than a broad audience. The discussion also touched upon the developer’s responsibilities for infrastructure improvements and the city’s potential risks if the development did not proceed as planned.

In addition to housing and infrastructure, the council discussed other topics. The potential relocation of a fuel dock in the marina to facilitate easier access for boats was considered, with the council expressing interest in obtaining estimates for this change. Preparations for the 2025 budget for the recreation clerk position were initiated, and a detailed design concept for artwork in Boulder Park was requested before granting full approval.

The topic of cannabis licensing generated substantial discussion, particularly around the number of licenses to be issued and the criteria for selecting applicants. A draft ordinance proposed limiting cannabis licenses to two within the city limits, with the possibility of expanding that number based on future assessments. The council acknowledged the need to establish its own ordinance to manage cannabis operations effectively, including conducting annual inspections and charging related fees.

The meeting also addressed the relocation of Earhead Animal Rescue to a temporary building and the associated financial commitments. The council supported reimbursing the rescue organization for expenses incurred during the move.

Recognition of two local legislators as Legislators of Distinction for 2024 by the League of Minnesota Cities was acknowledged, and the council discussed promoting this recognition within the community. Updates on the marketing plan for the new liquor store and the law enforcement joint agreement refresh were also requested.