One of the most discussions centered on the issuance of a competitive cable franchise to Midcontinent Communications. City Attorney Bob Voss provided an overview, detailing the regulatory framework and the application process. He emphasized that while the city regulates cable television services, it does not oversee telephone or internet services. Midcontinent, having expressed interest in providing video cable service and meeting all necessary qualifications, had applied for the franchise.

Andrew Curley, Senior Director of Government Relations at Midcontinent, expanded on their plans, stating that construction was already underway and aimed to be completed within three years. He assured the council of continuous communication with residents throughout the construction phase, highlighting their shift to an all-fiber network, distinct from traditional coaxial networks. Curley emphasized the company’s efforts to keep residents informed through various communication methods.

The council’s discussion included questions about potential hurdles in franchise agreement negotiations, particularly concerning the technical differences between MediaCom and Midcontinent’s franchises. Voss explained that while certain aspects must remain consistent, such as franchise fees and service areas, there could be room for negotiation on operational aspects. The council members underscored the importance of ensuring all residents have access to high-speed internet and video services, viewing it as essential. The dialogue highlighted a collaborative effort to facilitate service expansion while recognizing the need for a detailed and fair franchise agreement.

Another agenda item was the approval of the 2025 preliminary tax levy. The proposed gross levy of $7,138,867, reflecting a 99.4% increase from the previous year, was discussed in depth. The council referenced an earlier work session as the basis for this levy. One council member suggested an urgent discussion about hiring a new engineering technician, proposing that road levy funds be utilized for the position.

The council debated the timeline for hiring, acknowledging the competitive job market and the necessity of offering competitive salaries. There was a consensus to maintain the preliminary budget intact, with the possibility of reassessing and potentially lowering the levy before the final decision in December. The discussion also included maneuvering funding from the road levy and the implications of altering the current budget.

The council then passed resolutions approving the 2025 preliminary tax levy and the debt levy at 100% of the bond payments for 2025. Public comment dates for the 2025 levy and budget were set for December 2nd at 7 PM during a regular city council meeting.

Following this, the council discussed a pre-sale report and the issuance of general obligation bonds totaling approximately $4.33 million. Details about the financing were presented, with $2.5 million allocated for wells and water management projects and the remaining funds designated for various equipment and preliminary expenses for a larger water treatment plant anticipated next year. The city’s double-A plus bond rating was noted as advantageous for future bond sales.

The council also addressed ordinance number 491 concerning park dedication fees and interim uses. Proposed changes included increasing the maximum park dedication fee from $25,000 to $37,000 and updating internal language for clarity. Significant discussions focused on modifying conditional use to interim use, particularly expanding the notice radius for public hearings in agricultural zoning districts. Additionally, the council debated the maximum fence height adjustment from six feet to seven feet, aligning with changes in the Minnesota Municipal Building Code.

A notable point of contention was the regulation of hedges versus fences. One council member questioned the rationale behind allowing hedges to grow beyond a 75-foot setback from the lake without height restrictions, while fences had strict height limits. This discussion highlighted concerns about property rights, views obstruction, and the difficulty in enforcing hedge height regulations.

Finally, the council discussed non-domestic animals within the community, emphasizing the necessity of defining which animals could be kept in residences. This stemmed from a past incident involving a resident who had to remove tigers from their property. The council suggested strict prohibitions on carnivorous animals while allowing for petting zoos.