The special meeting saw debate regarding the proposal from K Anderson for managing the roofing and repair project at Voyager National Park. Concerns were raised due to ongoing litigation involving K Anderson and previous work performed at the airport. One commissioner voiced, “I just have an issue with K Anderson being involved with another project when we’re in litigation with him over there yet.” Despite this, another commissioner defended K Anderson, highlighting their satisfactory performance on other city projects, stating, “I have been very impressed with the work that K Anderson has done for the city on my end.”

The original contract for the roofing project was set at $163,000, with an additional fee of $16,728 for K Anderson’s management services. This fee raised further concerns about the optics of continuing to work with a company currently involved in legal disputes. After a thorough debate and clarifications from Ted regarding the timing of the proposal submission, a vote was conducted, resulting in the approval of the motion to engage K Anderson for the project.

Housing infrastructure was another topic. Ted introduced the discussion by emphasizing the ongoing housing crisis and its impact on the community. He shared insights from the Minnesota Cities conference. Potential housing types discussed included low-income, workforce, and market-rate housing.

Ted outlined three scenarios for potential housing development, referencing discussions with Bolton and Mink. These scenarios included interest from a private developer in expanding homes on their property and the possibility of using tax-forfeited land for manufactured homes. Infrastructure improvements in conjunction with ongoing road reconstruction projects, particularly along Ninth Street, were also highlighted as opportunities for new housing.

Bolton and Mink representatives presented their assessment of the housing situation, emphasizing customized solutions based on the unique conditions of the community. They introduced the concept of factory-assembled homes as a viable option, noting the cost savings and suitability for lower-income households. Three main sites for potential development were identified: Fifth Avenue East for factory-assembled homes, Shorewood for privately owned land requiring collaboration, and Ninth Street for infill development among existing homes.

The session concluded with a focus on conducting a comprehensive market analysis to inform future development plans. This analysis would help developers understand community preferences regarding housing products and guide the creation of conceptual designs for grant applications.

The meeting also covered the need for a communications plan to engage the public and stakeholders in housing development efforts. A proprietary input ID tool was introduced, allowing residents to provide feedback online about specific sites. This tool enables users to share experiences related to transportation issues or other community aspects, fostering a community dialogue about housing needs.

Funding for housing projects was another significant topic, with discussions highlighting new programs introduced by Minnesota Housing in the 2023 legislative session. The Ninth Street project was mentioned as a pilot initiative that would inform future infrastructure projects and housing developments. Concerns were raised about the competitive nature of funding applications, emphasizing the need for communities to prepare and position themselves to submit competitive grant applications.

The meeting participants discussed the importance of the city taking a more active role in putting in infrastructure, noting that developers are increasingly reluctant to invest in this area. One participant remarked, “the way normally development in the city has went is a developer puts the infrastructure in and turns it over to the city. We can’t do that anymore.”

The budget discussions included allocations for local initiatives such as the Fourth of July celebrations and potential funding for the museum. A proposal to allocate $20,000 for the museum was mentioned, with a split funding plan from the EDA and the general fund. There were also discussions about funding for community events like Ice Box Days and Crazy Days, with mixed responses regarding the latter.

The status of the budget was examined, noting expenditures and revenue projections. Discussions about the potential purchase of the Kutasa building and the authority of the EDA regarding the 208 fund were also covered. The board needed to finalize their budget before the city’s preliminary budget approval in September.