The meeting’s most contentious topic was the public hearing on the proposed 2025 street improvements, where residents expressed significant concern over the fairness and financial impact of the proposed assessments. Nancy Notch, a resident of 8th Avenue Northeast, questioned the justification for her $4,000 assessment, citing previous poor construction and patchy repairs on her street. Highlighting her financial constraints, Notch stated, “I can’t afford that. I’m 84 years old.” The council explained that assessments were capped based on market analysis, with the city absorbing the majority of costs.

Ron Ike, another resident, raised concerns about repeated assessments since living on 134th Avenue Northwest. He questioned whether neighboring institutions like St. Ben’s would share in the assessments and queried the county’s role in future maintenance. The council clarified that local jurisdiction now manages Minnesota Street, transferring maintenance responsibilities to the city. Additionally, Ike expressed frustration with recurring street lighting costs on his water bill, especially with potential increases due to a roundabout project. The council explained that these costs, previously covered by the general levy, now come from an enterprise fund to ensure system upkeep.

Concerns about the project budget were also addressed. A resident inquired whether the assessment amounts were fixed or adjustable based on project costs. The council noted that while they monitor budgets, significant refunds are rare, citing only one such instance since 2006. The project includes a $39,000 contingency for a nearly million-dollar budget.

Another focal point of the meeting was the Keepers development proposal, which sought to amend the comprehensive plan and rezone an area for a 42-unit market-rate apartment complex. The proposal included changing land use designations from corridor commercial to high-density residential and rezoning from B2 highway business to R3 multiple-family residential. The project aims to address housing needs while providing public benefits, such as recreational opportunities.

Public input during previous hearings raised concerns about pedestrian and vehicle conflicts, safety, and traffic implications. The planning commission recommended approval with conditions like additional trees and sidewalks. The council debated the delayed construction of sidewalks, with one member emphasizing immediate safety measures’ importance, stating, “I think that’s my most important part.”

The council discussed zoning implications, noting that a hotel could be built without a council vote, potentially impacting traffic and safety if the area remained commercial. Economic projections were clarified, with multifamily housing taxed at higher rates than single-family homes. The development had not requested subsidies, allowing the city to benefit from increased property tax revenue.

After extensive discussion, motions to approve the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning changes were put forth. Despite opposition from some members, the motions passed with a supermajority vote, enabling the development to proceed with conditions. Suggestions for the PUD plan included completing the stormwater retention pond upon construction and installing sidewalks with the building. The council also recommended additional trees for shade and maintaining an emergency access point for fire services.