Plan Commission (Meets 2nd Tuesday of each month at 5:00 p.m.)

PLAN COMMISSION Agenda Amended WEDNESDAY, February 21, 2024–4:00 p.m. Government Center Room 270 Microsoft Teams Meeting ID: 223 069 663 551 Passcode: 6oWwZY Direct Link: LINK TO MEETING Or call in (audio only) 1-872-242-8028 Phone Conference ID: 472 210 618# MISSION STATEMENT: To guide and coordinate development including harbor related issues in accordance with existing and future needs. City Code 98-2. COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Jim Paine (chair), Brent Fennessey (vice-chair), Lindsey Graskey, Brian Finstad, Garner Moffat, Anne Porter 1 ROLL CALL 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.1 Plan Commission Minutes (January 17, 2024) 3 OLD BUSINESS 4 NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Presentation by Starry Skies North Todd Burlet 4.2 Proposed regulations for tobacco, cannabis, hemp or e-cigarette retailers 4.3 Landscape Grant Program Discussion & Program Updates 4.4 Land Trust Discussion 5 ADJOURNMENT Notice is hereby given that a majority of the members of the Common Council may be present at the meeting, and although this may constitute a quorum of the Common Council, the Council will not take any action at this meeting. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you are in need of an accommodation to participate in the public meeting process, please call (715) 395-7200 by 4:30 p.m. on the day prior to the scheduled meeting date (OR dial 711 for Telecommunications Relay Service). The City will attempt to accommodate any request depending on the amount of notice received. In compliance with Wisconsin Open Meetings Law, this agenda was posted on 2/16/2024 at the following locations: Superior Government Center, Douglas County Courthouse, Superior Public Library, and online at https://www.ci.superior.wi.us/agendacenter. It was also emailed the Superior Telegram. PLAN COMMISSION AGENDA – 2/21/2024 Mtg (Meets monthly on 3RD Wednesday at 4:00pm.) Page 1 of 1 PLAN COMMISSION Minutes January 17, 2024 Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order by Chair Paine at 4:01 pm on January 17, 2024 in Government Center Room 201. 1 ROLL CALL PRESENT: Jim Paine, Brent Fennessey, Brian Finstad, Garner Moffat, Lindsey Graskey VIRTUAL: Tyler Vandenberghe, Mike Bull, Erin Dukart, Pamela Guthman, Sarah Mooradian, Lindsey Conley, Jared, Casey Werner (MP), Hudson Kingston, Brittany Keyes, Geoff Tolley, Chris Rankila, Nate Boettcher, Taylor Pedersen, Lynn, Matt Ehrman, Becky Kern, Councilors: Jenny Van Sickle, Nick Ledin, Mark Johnson ABSENT: Anne Porter CITY STAFF PRESENT: Director Jason Serck, Tech Stephanie Becken, Chief of Staff Rebecca Scherf OTHERS PRESENT: Jacob Ahrens Baldwin, Josh Skelton, Chris Tarpey, Dan McCourtney, Mary McConnell, Mrk McConnell, Barb Hendrick, Brett Korte, Kevin Norbie, Ron Franz, Gavin McCollam, William Volkman-Lien, Julie Pierce, Dan Olson, Brian Hubbard, Kirk Ilenda, Pattie Soleday, Jennifer Kuklenski, Kyle Bukovich, Christine Martin, Taylor Pedersen, Valeree Hubble for Bruce Doyle, Lisa Fitzpatrick, Lee Sandok Baker, Mark Liebert, Councilors: Jack Sweeney, Tylor Elm, Ruth Ludwig, Mike Herrick 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.1 Plan Commission Minutes from December 20, 2023 MOTION to approve December 20, 2023, minutes by Commissioner Fennessey, seconded by Commissioner Graskey. Carried. 3 OLD BUSINESS 4 NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Public Hearing for Special Use Permit Krisak Director Serck explained the special use permit is rather standard for ice machines of this type already in existence in Superior and recommended the Plan Commission recommend the application for approval by Council. MOTION to close public hearing and recommend the special use permit for approval by Commissioner Fennessey, seconded by Commissioner Moffat. Carried. 4.2 CSM 24-01 for Bruce Doyle Director Serck explained the CSM presented is meant to combine two side by side parcels that are on two plat maps in order to unify the parcel for future residential building and noted it was straightforward, easy to number, and recommended approval. MOTION to approve the proposed CSM by Commissioner Graskey, seconded by Commissioner Moffat. Carried. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - 1/17/24 Mtg (Meets monthly on 3RD Wednesday of each month) Page 1 of 5 4.3 Nemadji Trail Energy Center Informational Presentation by Jennifer Cady: Vice President of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs ALLETE/Minnesota Power Chair Paine offered up an option for protocol for the meeting. Paine recommended the Plan Commission listen to both presentations, and then public comment for 3 minutes each where questions would be noted for when the commissioners were engaging directly with the presenters at a later time in the meeting. Paine also noted City Councilors in attendance and recommended they be able to offer questions and input after the public comment time, as they customarily have some special privileges in commission meetings. Then, after all outside comments, the Plan Commissioners would engage in discussion and would ask their own questions and share their own thoughts while also asking the questions that were brought up during public comment and Councilor comment. Chair Paine reminded commissioners they could change the format at any time. Plan Commissioners did not have alternative ideas on how the meeting should progress. Jennifer Cady introduced staff members working on the Nemadji Trail Energy Center Project (NTEC) and shared the timeline of the project from purchase of land, initial vacating and rezoning of part of the property, State and Federal level approvals, to current time as approvals continue to finalize and more vacations and a rezone request will be made soon. (Handouts from this presentation are included as exhibit 1 in minutes). 4.4. Clean Wisconsin Nemadji Trail Energy Center Presentation by Brett Korte: Staff Attorney for Clean Wisconsin Brett Korte shared a presentation on Clean Wisconsin’s concerns on building the proposed NTEC plant in Superior along the Nemadji River. Korte shared different aspects of the possible environmental impacts including local issues, water quality, air quality, and climate. He also shared the places within the regulatory process that Clean Wisconsin is currently challenging in the court systems. (Presentation is included as exhibit 2 in minutes). Chair Paine opened public comment with a 3 minute limit to each speaker. He encouraged speakers to share any questions they wanted the Plan Commission to ask during discussion. 18 citizens shared during public comment, including 2 online. City Councilors were invited to ask questions. Online, Councilor Van Sickle shared her concerns and questions concerning the project. Attending councilors were invited to share any other questions. Councilor Ludwig asked about Superior residents existing need for power and would power generated at NTEC go to Superior residents. Chair Paine opened discussion for Plan Commissioners. Commissioner Fennessey asked for clarification from Clean Wisconsin on the progress and results of their environmental challenges. Korte shared that so far they are still working through some challenges and don’t have the end result, and that some of the final documents from permitting entities are not complete. There are cases, specifically for the air quality, actively in appellate court. Commissioner Graskey asked if the potential vacations would block public access to the water. Director Serck shared the streets are undeveloped and any vacations in this area would not block PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - 1/17/24 Mtg (Meets monthly on 3RD Wednesday of each month) Page 2 of 5  existing public access. Commissioner Graskey continued, asking who pays for the additional wastewater infrastructure that will need to be added to accommodate the systems. Chair Paine shared the City was responsible. Commissioner Graskey asked if households and other consumers would be part of the line. Dan McCourtney, Manager of Strategic Environmental Initiatives with Minnesota Power answered that yes, others would be part of the wastewater flow, but that MN Power was working closely with the City to understand what quality the water will first need to be before it can access the pipes. Commissioner Graskey asked why the plant was changed from water cooling to air cooling. McCourtney shared there was a concern on water and water use and the move to air cooling has been positive. Graskey asked for MN Power’s experience building in clay. McCourtney said they’ve built in many different land quality situations and are prepared for the uniqueness of the clay and mentioned the substantial retaining wall. Commissioner Graskey asked how close the facility would be to the cemetery and what sort of lighting was planned. McCourtney shared they were about 100-250 feet away from the property line and planned to use lighting that would not be intrusive. Graskey asked about what sort of community engagement had been pursued. McCourtney mentioned open houses in the past and named others coming in the future. Graskey asked for clarification if vulnerable populations who may not be able to leave their homes were consulted. McCourtney shared they had not and didn’t normally do door knocking, but thought the previous and future opportunities brought many populations to the table for input. Graskey asked for a very simple definition of hydrogen power. McCourtney shared it was an immature technology that splits water into parts, including hydrogen that can be burned for power. Graskey asked how close the nearest resident lived. McCourtney answered a quarter mile away. Graskey followed up about how emissions impact the community. McCourtney shared that many variables go into emissions impact including weather and the type of emission. Commissioner Finstad asked about property use. Director Serck shared that if the rezone to M2 is allowed, the changed area then is allowed to be used for any prescribed purpose as noted in the code. Commissioner Finstad followed up about what sort of buffer would be required. Director Serck noted that the abutting Suburban zone would make the new M2 area have to follow all buffering rules that exist in code for manufacturing properties that are next to residential. Chair Paine asked about the process for consulting with the different tribal entities. Jennifer Cady noted the Federal Government was the entity that did the consultation, as was appropriate when working with a Sovereign Nation. Chair Paine asked Councilor Van Sickle’s question about if the Union representative, who claimed the exhaust was the equivalent of filtered steam was correct. Dan McCourtney answered that the claim is incorrect and not the claim of Minnesota Power. Chair Paine asked if the Union representative who claimed the tribes are only angry due to input from Councilor Van Sickle was speaking on behalf of the NTEC project. Dan McCourtney offered no comment. Commissioner Fennessey noted the stormwater issues and the washed out burial grounds just downstream of the site and asked if NTEC is worried about erosion. Dan McCourtney shared they were working closely with the DNR to ensure they were following all guidelines to avoid and prevent erosion in the future. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - 1/17/24 Mtg (Meets monthly on 3RD Wednesday of each month) Page 3 of 5  Commissioner Graskey asked about different plants around the state that might be similar and what sort of health plans were in place due to emissions. Jennifer Cady shared that each community has a Community Advisory Panel, and she would anticipate doing the same in Superior. Graskey asked about the newspaper article about a potential sale. Jennifer Cady said the rumors are very common in their field and would not impact this project. Chair Paine asked Councilor Ludwig’s question about if the power made at the plant will stay in Superior. Julie Pierce, Vice President of Strategy and Planning for Minnesota Power shared the power made at the NTEC plant would go into the power supply for the region that is used by Superior Water Light and Power as well as other areas in Wisconsin and Northern Minnesota. Chair Paine asked for clarification on what a merchant plant is. Pierce shared it meant in the state of Wisconsin that the power goes directly to customers. Chair Paine asked for clarification on the ‘wholesale’ aspect. Pierce shared that some power generating plants generate power only to sell to other providers, but the NTEC one will serve locals as well. Jennifer Cady clarified some differences in Minesota and Wisconsin statutes on how power is sold so the classifications can be confusing. MN Power has to have merchant classification because MN Power doesn’t have direct Wisconsin customers—Superior Water Light and Power does and for Superior Water Light and Power to buy the power from MN Power, the classification has to be there. Chair Paine asked about Burns and McDonnell. Pierce shared they are national engineering, design, and planning firm that often works with large utility projects. Chair Paine asked about how the relationship with the DNR, Burns and McDonnell, and NTEC staff works. Dan McCourtney stated in house staff works first with the DNR and brings in Burns and McDonnell for consulting as needed. Chair Paine asked for clarification on the aquifer and well permit. Dan McCourtney shared there was a difference in opinion with the DNR when that original plan was made, but the pivot to air cooling is a positive one. Chair Paine asked for clarification on the FONSI process, as it looked like the report was largely put together by the applicants and their consultants. McCourtney shared the process did include the applicant doing a significant part of the work on the application and then turning over their information to the RUS (Rural Utilities Service) at which point the RUS digs in, challenges what they see fit, and finalizes it. Chair Paine noted the public process portion seems limited and that the applicant and regulator relationship seems close. McCourtney disagreed about closeness between applicant and regulator, but noted there are cases where, to be in compliance in things like erosion control, they work closely with bodies like the DNR to make sure they’re doing things correctly. Chair Paine expressed that the current regulatory process in the Wisconsin is far from rigorous, siting City disagreement with findings and lack of communications from the DNR and other regulatory agencies when the City requested the findings reports. Chair Paine asked for clarification on the economic development and jobs claims. Pierce noted the project has evolved over 7 years and the design and needs have changed some as well as the technology. Chair Paine asked what else the City could expect to evolve. Pierce shared that any significant changes would require a new process for approval—so they won’t be making any significant changes. Chair Paine asked if it could be expected that the jobs will be local. Pierce shared that effort will be made to use local workers where practical. Chair Paine noted that a lot of money leaves the city when transient workers are brought in and rental prices increase. Pierce replied that the trend is concerning and one that local governments and broader regional planning may need to undertake seriously. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - 1/17/24 Mtg (Meets monthly on 3RD Wednesday of each month) Page 4 of 5  Chair Paine mentioned the EPA’s findings that show a potential 2 billion dollar negative community impact on these types of projects. Paine asked if there’s a community that has shown a measurable positive impact after a power plant like this was built. Pierce would like to know how the commission looks at other industries with questions like that, so future discussion can include the things the commission is considering. Chair Paine noted tax talk, and made it clear Utility Aid is calculated by megawattage and is a fixed amount that most likely doesn’t change. This is different than the local taxes that adjust based on value changes. Chair Paine asked if the plant would burn diesel. Pierce said no, burning diesel is not the plan. Dan McCourtney shared a 2-part answer. The plant will have diesel for backup generators, like most large facilities of this nature. Burning diesel, while it is part of the application they submitted, is not the active plan. Before the plant would move from natural gas to diesel, it would need to be refitted and be up to the standard of whatever the regulations of that future might require. Pierce noted historically, burning diesel has only been used in a state of emergency. Chair Paine noted the neighborhood could be argued as walkable and asked NTEC to relabel the site on their website correctly, as they have it labeled industrial. Chair Paine shared his thoughts on the lack of input from local indigenous populations and the factual errors that were found in the permits that weren’t corrected, even after tribal input was offered. The errors and lack of local band member input, especially the input of those who have a burial so close, is egregious. Commissioner Fennessey noted there’s reasonable argument that the area, while near some residential, is markedly industrial in nature. Chair Paine agreed that’s a fair argument that could be made and will come up in the future. Chair Paine invited any other questions or comments from the Plan Commission and thanked those in attendance. 5 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:41 Please find Exhibit 1 & 2 attached A recording of the meeting can be found on the City of Superior Agenda Center Respectfully submitted by Stephanie Becken. PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - 1/17/24 Mtg (Meets monthly on 3RD Wednesday of each month) Page 5 of 5 Exhibit 1  Exhibit 2 Nemadji Energy Trail Center: A Bad Deal for Superior City of Superior Planning Commission January 17, 2024 Brett Korte, Staff Attorney Clean Wisconsin About Clean Wisconsin • Founded in 1970 • Our mission is to combat climate change and pollution in our air, water, and land, and ensure a healthy future for every Wisconsin community. • Over 30,000 members and supports across the state • Scientific, policy, and legal expertise v informs our advocacy Overview of the Nemadji Trail Energy Center • Proposed methane gas power plant • Up to 625 megawatts • To be built in Superior • Along the Nemadji River • Off 31st Ave. E • Directly adjacent (SW) of the St. Francis Cemetery • Proposed by Dairyland, ALLETE, and Basin Electric • Anticipated to start operating in 2028 NTEC Proposed Location Environmental Impacts: Local • Located on a steep, 46-foot slope leading to the Nemadji River • Heavy rains and highly erodible slop risk catastrophic failure leading to severe water quality impacts to river • Requires a large sheet pile retaining wall across 80% of the site, requiring 26,000 cubic yards of soil to be excavated for installation of, and another 80,000 cubic yards of backfill • Are prone to large, intense rainfalls—expected to continue in the future under current climate predictions. • Stormwater pond at the top of the slope Environmental Impacts: Local • Neighbors exposed to safety hazards associated with truck traffic and construction, dust, and noise • Use of 31st Avenue E. as the access haul road, with an increase of 200-260 vehicles per day • After construction, increased air emissions, fog/ice/condensation, visual impacts, employee traffic, lights, possible stormwater changes • an increased safety hazard in a neighborhood that already suffered a major industrial accident at the Husky refinery Environmental Impacts: Water • At least 4.36 acres of permanent wetland fill and 14.8 acres of temporary impact on the staging area that may last up to 3.5 years • Incorrect characterization of the wetlands leading to undervaluing the ecosystem services provided and the amount of mitigation required • Wetland impacts likely to reduce water retention ability • Many of the wetlands contain diverse native plants, and likely large numbers of rare plants species Environmental Impacts: Air Environmental Impacts: Air • DNR found the total impact from NTEC plus background pollution would cause air pollution concentrations equaling: • 97.4 % of the ambient air standard for NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) • 80.9% of the ambient standard for PM2.5 (particulate matter) • Ozone cause headaches, coughing, dry throat, shortness of breath, a heavy feeling in chest, and fluid in the lungs • Chronic exposure can cause asthma • PM exposure can have cardiovascular effects (ardiac arrhythmias and heart attacks) and respiratory effects (asthma and bronchitis) • Risk compounds for at-risk individuals Environmental Impacts: Climate • Would add over 2.7 million tons of CO2e per year • 4% of Wisconsin’s total GHG emission (2021) • Projected lifespan of 40 years • 109 million tons of CO2e total • Not counting emissions from extracting methane, including leakage • Inconsistent with Gov. Evers’ 100% carbon-free electricity standard, national climate commitments, and limiting warming to 1.5° C by 2050 Regulatory Process • Public Service Commission of Wisconsin • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources • Wetland/waterway permits • Air pollution permits • Local permits • Army Corps of Engineers Wetland permit • USDA Rural Utilities Service Loan A Changing Landscape • Subsidizing gas inconsistent with current state and federal priority of transitioning to renewable energy • New opportunities through the federal Inflation Reduction Act • tax credits • $9.7 billion in funding for rural electric cooperatives to transition to renewable generation • New proposed EPA regulations that would require NTEC to achieve 30% hydrogen co-firing just 4 years after it begins operation. • Costs of renewables continue to drop • Availability of battery storage Questions? ORDINANCE #O24- AN ORDINANCE INTRODUCED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 122, ZONING, ARTICLE V. SPECIAL USES. The Common Council of the City of Superior, Wisconsin, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Chapter 122, Zoning, Article V. Special Uses, of the City Code of Ordinances of the City of Superior, Wisconsin, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 122-614. Enumerated. (4X) Tobacco, E-Cigarette, Vape, Cannabis, Hemp businesses--as defined as an establishment in which 10 percent or more of the gross public floor area is devoted to, or 10 percent or more of the stock in trade of the following: cigarettes, tobacco products, cannabis products, hemp products, e-cigarette products such as propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, flavorings , personal vaporizers, electronic nicotine delivery systems, or any device used to ingest tobacco, cannabis or hemp shall be limited to M1 & M2 districts and cannot be located within 2,500 feet of any other Tobacco, E-Cigarette, Vape, Cannabis, Hemp business. The following requirements must be met: a. Per Capita, one business per 5,000 residents in the city as reported by the most recent decennial census. b. Business cannot be located within 300 feet of any residential district. c. Business cannot be located within 1,000 feet of an elementary or secondary school, library, childcare center, park, or playground d. Business must be licensed under section XXXX e. Signage limited to XXXX f. Business cannot be located within 500 feet of any premises holding a cigarette and tobacco license. SECTION 2: All ordinances and parts of ordinance in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by reason of any decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of any other section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or portion thereof. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and publication, as provided by law. ORDINANCE #024- AN ORDINANCE INTRODUCED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND BY CREATING THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 122 – ZONING , ARTICLES I & V -- ZONING REGULATIONS FOR TOBACCO, CANNABIS, HEMP, OR E-CIGARETTE RETAILERS This ordinance provides that, in the zoning code, the term “tobacco, cannabis, hemp, or e-cigarette retailer” shall mean an establishment in which 10 percent or more of the gross public floor area or 10 percent of stock in trade consists of cigarettes, tobacco products, cannabis, hemp or e-cigarette products. This ordinance also provides that, for zoning purposes, the use classification of a tobacco, cannabis, hemp, or e-cigarette retailer shall be as follows: 1. Limited use – M1 & M2 industrial districts. 2. Prohibited use – all other districts. The Mayor and Common Council of the City of Superior do ordain as follows: Part 1. Section 122-1 of the code is amended to read: 122-1. Definitions. RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT, GENERAL means an establishment providing retail sale of new products to the public and rendering services incidental to the sale of such products, including, but not limited to, sale of: art supplies and picture frames, art works, auto parts, baked goods, bicycles, books, newspapers and magazines, collectibles, dry goods, notions and novelties, flowers and plants, food and beverages, furniture and floor coverings, hardware, hobbies, toys and games, household goods, jewelry, luggage, major appliances, music, records, compact discs and tapes, paint and wallpaper, pets, pharmaceutical products, photo equipment and processing, sewing apparatus, sporting goods, stationery[[, tobacco products]] and wearing apparel. This term includes, but is not limited to, a grocery store, specialty food store, antique store, liquor store, butcher shop, delicatessen, portrait studio, furniture or appliance rental establishment or video rental or sales business. This term does not include an adult retail establishment, tobacco or e-cigarette retailer, lumber yard, building supply or home improvement center, garden center or secondhand store. Part 2. Section 122-1 of the code is amended to read: Definitions. TOBACCO, CANNABIS, HEMP, OR E-CIGARETTE RETAILER means an establishment in which 10 percent or more of the gross public floor area is devoted to, or 10 percent or more of the stock in trade consists of, the following: cigarettes, tobacco products, cannabis, hemp, e- cigarette products such as propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, flavorings, or other products for use in electronic cigarettes, personal vaporizers, or electronic nicotine delivery system, or any device used to ingest cigarettes, tobacco products, or e-cigarette products. This term does not include a tobacco bar as defined in s. 101.123, Wis Stats. Part 3. Article V – Special Uses - Section 122-614 (41) is created to read: (41) Tobacco, Cannabis, Hemp or E-Cigarette retailers limited to M1 & M2 zoning districts and cannot be located within 2,500 feet of any other tobacco, cannabis, hemp, or e-cigarette retail location. The following requirement must be met: a. Per capita, one business per 5,000 residents in the city as reported by the most recent decennial census. b. The tobacco, cannabis, hemp, or e-cigarette retailer shall not be within 1,000 feet of an elementary or secondary school, library, day care center, park or playground. c. The tobacco, cannabis, hemp, or e-cigarette retailer shall not be within 500 feet of a premises holding a cigarette and tobacco license. Date: July 27, 2023 City Council: August 1, 2023 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor Paine and Members of the Common Council FROM: Jason Serck, Economic Development, Planning & Port Director RE: Scenery & Home Landscape Grant Pilot—Year 1 INTRODUCTION- The City of Superior has received 350 applications for the 2023 Scenery and Home Landscape Grant cycle. A team of judges including staff from multiple departments has reviewed the applications through the preferred criteria lens provided by the Plan Commission. Factors such as location on a corner lot and location on a busy corridor of the City were two main criteria considered. The team of judges, in addition to the landscaper who will be working on the project, have recommended 4 yards for consideration for this pilot grant project. The total proposed for the four yards would total $13,300 in year 1 and $1,700 in year 2. BACKGROUND–Scenery and Home Landscaping Grant. This pilot grant program was approved at the December 21, 2022 Plan Commission and by City Council January 3, 2023. The program allows for 2 full grant cycles—one starting in 2023 and the other in 2024. Each ‘cycle’ includes an introductory package from Missinne Greenhouse & Landscape the first year and a follow up maintenance visit the second year. The budget for each cycle (initial landscape and follow up maintenance visit) is not to exceed $15,000. At least 3 yards must be completed each cycle. Missinne Landscape has put together initial concept sketches that compliment the quotes. The sketches are subject to change and evolve as consultations happen between the landscaper and property owner. RECOMMENDATION – Please approve this Scenery & Home landscape grant applications and development agreement. Recommended: _______________________________ Mayor Jim Paine