Monday, March 23, 2026
One-line summary
Council approved the agenda, held a 2026 goal-setting discussion, continued the performance-measurement resolution for more survey work, and adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
5 items as recorded in the agenda, packet, and minutes, each with a plain-English summary of what was at issue.
1Call to Order
Call to order, Pledge of Allegiance, roll call, and approval of the agenda.
The meeting opened at 6:00 p.m., the pledge was recited, roll call showed all council members present, and the agenda was approved as presented. The public forum was opened and closed without comment because no one was signed up to speak.
The agenda was approved as presented.
2Public Forum
Public forum.
The meeting opened at 6:00 p.m., the pledge was recited, roll call showed all council members present, and the agenda was approved as presented. The public forum was opened and closed without comment because no one was signed up to speak.
No one was signed up to speak.
3Goal Setting for the Remainder of 2026
Goal setting for the remainder of 2026.
Council used the goal-setting session to sort through staff tasks and council priorities for the rest of 2026. The consensus priority list centered on improving the zoning and lot-splitting process, LED lighting quotes, the employee step program, accessory dwelling unit policy, the ATV ordinance, security quotes, long-term road assessment planning, and public works safety and shop organization.
Council members described resident frustration with the current lot-splitting and zoning process, especially the time, cost, and lack of transparency for simple splits. They discussed whether parts of the process could move forward in parallel with the zoning ordinance update, whether flat fees could make costs clearer, and whether past property-record issues are driving staff and consultant time.
Council discussed trail connectivity, the Sugar Hill Trail concept, maintenance responsibilities, basketball and pickleball court fencing, and possible ice rink asphalt improvements that could make the rink a multi-use recreation area. No formal project was approved, but several ideas were folded into the goal-setting discussion.
Council reviewed operational goals including payroll efficiency, capital improvement planning, security system upgrades, OSHA training, public works shop organization, road assessment planning, fire department well options, emergency sirens, and long-term building maintenance. The discussion emphasized better planning, fewer budget surprises, and understanding life-cycle costs before decisions are made.
Council reached consensus on priorities, but the minutes do not record a formal motion.
4Approval of Resolution 2026-XX Declaring the City of Nowthen's Participation in the State Council on Local Results and Innovation - Performance Measurement Program
Approval of Resolution 2026-XX declaring participation in the State Council on Local Results and Innovation performance measurement program.
Council discussed joining the State Council on Local Results and Innovation performance measurement program and using a resident survey to collect the required measures and other useful feedback. Members questioned whether the small reimbursement justified the staff time and whether the state program is still active, so they asked staff to gather more information and bring survey questions back instead of adopting the resolution that night.
Council did not adopt the resolution at this meeting; it agreed to develop survey questions and bring the matter back.
5Adjourn
Adjournment.
Council Member Glaser moved to adjourn, Council Member Swenson seconded, and the meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
2 motions on the record. Split votes are highlighted.
M1MOTION BY MAYOR HYBBEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BREYEN, TO APPROVE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
moved by Hybben, seconded by Breyen
M2MOTION TO ADJOURN.
MOTION TO ADJOURN
moved by Glaser, seconded by Swenson
When someone referred back to earlier business, we found the matching prior discussion and tied it in here.
The Mayor noted that in 2025, the council had identified their top 10 priorities and worked through them, with most completed at some level.
— Mayor Hybben
What this is about
Prior 2025 council priority-setting process and unfinished carryover goals.
The records show a partial match. At the March 23, 2026 goal-setting session, City Clerk Johnson said the goal-setting document was “a continuation from last year’s goals with additional items added,” and Mayor Hybben stated that in 2025 the council had identified its top 10 priorities and worked through them, with most completed at some level. The same language appears again in the April 14, 2026 meeting packet. The records provided here do not include the original 2025 priority-setting meeting, the actual top-10 list, or a recorded vote adopting those priorities. The March 23, 2026 minutes do show the council discussing carryover or ongoing goal areas, including facility planning related to possible County Road 5 impacts, possible administrative/fire station needs, and development of a longer-term road assessment and maintenance plan.
Council Member Rainville provided historical context about the Sugar Hill Trail plan, dating back to 2010-2015, with an estimated cost of $1 million per mile.
— Council Member Rainville
What this is about
Earlier county Sugar Hill Trail planning and the old estimated cost per mile.
The records show a partial match. At the March 23, 2026 meeting, Council Member Rainville stated that the Sugar Hill Trail plan dated back to roughly 2010–2015 and that the earlier estimated cost was about $1 million per mile. She also said her research indicated only 4 miles of the planned 14 miles had been completed, and she raised concerns about getting realistic current cost estimates and clarifying maintenance responsibilities between Anoka County and the city. That same March 23, 2026 discussion also included Council Member Swenson’s comments about a possible Anoka County Sugar Hill Trail extension from Saint Francis through the north side of Nowthen to Highway 5 and 22, along with possible DNR grant opportunities if trails connect existing trail systems. The records provided do not include the original 2010–2015 county planning documents or a prior city vote adopting the $1 million-per-mile estimate; they only show the 2026 council discussion referencing that history.
Council Member Rainville noted that recent ordinance changes moved from major to minor subdivisions for single lot splits, which was "a step in the right direction" but doesn't fix the overall process concerns.
— Council Member Rainville
What this is about
Recent ordinance changes affecting single lot splits.
The records I searched do not contain a prior ordinance decision matching Council Member Rainville’s recollection about single lot splits being moved from the major subdivision process to the minor subdivision process. The search results returned unrelated items from 2026 meetings, including Planning and Zoning Commission appointments, discussion of the Minnesota state flag, consent agenda actions, and a plaque expense. None of the provided results reference subdivision ordinance amendments, single lot splits, or a vote changing how those applications are classified.
Council Member Breyen recalled a previous concept of administrative simple lot splits that could be handled more efficiently, though he couldn't locate the specific ordinance or procedure in current documents.
— Council Member Breyen
What this is about
A past administrative simple lot split concept or procedure that may have been discussed or adopted earlier.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision matching Council Member Breyen’s recollection of an administrative “simple lot split” ordinance or procedure. The search results returned unrelated items, including a November 18, 2025 discussion about the Minnesota State flag, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission appointments, and other general council business. Based on these results, there is no recorded ordinance, procedure, or formal vote in the provided records showing that the city previously adopted an administrative process for simple lot splits.
didn't we have at one point in time a couple years ago >> I believe >> this verse came up that it was that there was information by council member
What this is about
Earlier ATV ordinance discussion or draft information from a prior council effort.
The records I searched do not contain a prior ATV ordinance discussion, draft, or council-member-provided information matching this recollection. The search results returned unrelated ordinance and packet materials, including cannabis regulation language in the 2023 ordinances, fee schedule amendments, personnel policy materials, and court data agreements. Based on these results, there is no documented prior council decision or recorded vote in the searched materials that matches the remembered earlier ATV ordinance effort.
Council Member Rainville praised the existing 2040 plan as "a good, solid plan" that could be updated by current staff without reinventing the process.
— Council Member Rainville
What this is about
Use of the existing 2040 comprehensive plan as the basis for the 2050 plan update.
The records show this point was discussed at the March 23, 2026 regular City Council meeting during “Long-term Strategic Planning.” City Clerk Johnson said the 2050 comprehensive plan update should not require major changes if the city maintains its current character. Council Member Rainville then praised the existing 2040 plan as “a good, solid plan” that current staff could update without reinventing the process. The same language also appears in the April 14, 2026 meeting packet, apparently as part of the prior meeting materials/minutes. No formal vote or direction on using the 2040 plan as the basis for the 2050 update was recorded in the excerpts provided.
the initial building was just the maintenance the public works building. The last minute the town board decided to add to the um building and take the city offices which used to be in the basement of the old town hall and bring them over there
— Council Member Rainville
What this is about
Prior decisions on the city office and public works building construction and relocation from the old town hall basement.
The records I searched do not contain a prior decision matching this recollection about constructing the public works building, adding city offices, or relocating city offices from the basement of the old town hall. The search results returned recent planning, subdivision, and cannabis-related packet materials from 2025–2026, but they do not appear to address the city office/public works building project or any Town Board/City Council vote on expanding that building for city office use.
### A RESOLUTION MAKING ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS WHEREAS, The Nowthen City Council makes its annual appointments to fill certain positions within city government and makes designations for the Official Dep
DECISION: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the Minor Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1\.
## 2. Public Forum Mayor Hybben opened the Public Forum, however there was no one signed up and the public forum was promptly closed. ## 3. Goal Setting for the Remainder of 2026. EN City Clerk Johnso
## 2. Public Forum Mayor Hybben opened the Public Forum, however there was no one signed up and the public forum was promptly closed. ## 3. Goal Setting for the Remainder of 2026. City Clerk Johnson i
that County Road 5 widening could potentially affect the current town hall through eminent domain. She suggested planning for potential administrative office expansion and fire station requireme
Documents and recordings archived for this meeting, when available.
March 23, 2026 Meeting Minutes
Minutes · Monday, March 23, 2026
6 pages
March 23, 2026 Meeting
Agenda · Monday, March 23, 2026
1 pages
March 23, 2026 Packet
Packet · Monday, March 23, 2026
13 pages
Meeting recording
YouTube
Transcript · 879 segments · 2:11:25
The structured brief on this page is auto-generated and may need correction. The PDFs and the meeting recording remain the official record. What do the trust labels mean?