All right, it is 7 o'clock. I'll call the meeting to order. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Uh, council, tonight we've got a new just reminder, uh, to ensure clear audio during meetings, council members should keep their microphones on at all times, please, and speak directly into the microphone. Again, this is for the benefit of the tens and tens of people that are watching us at home so that they can hear back clearly. Um, okay. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please? I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. Motion by council member Pchman. I'll second. Second by council member Mock. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Same sign. Motion passes. All right. Is anybody here this evening for community comment? All right. Um, we have no presentations and reports, but we do have a public hearing. So, um, I will make the motion to open the public hearing. Can I get a second, please? I'll second. A motion by Mayor Johnson, second by Council Member Pushman. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Same sign. Motion passes. All right. Uh I don't know who's starting. Miss Smith. Miss Undal. No, I'm starting. I'm going to hope that my screens are going to or the screen will pop up. There it is. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Tonight we have a public hearing related to United Properties in the 212 West Business Center. So, the game plan. I'm going to give a quick project overview. talk about the times you've seen this project, some project details, and then Jess Green with Northland is here to talk about TIFF Authority, the developer request, and then we'll have the public hearing. So, the project that we're talking about is located at the corner of Jonathan Carver Parkway or County Road 11 in Levriffin Road. So, it's the property here was recently annexed into city limits. So, it is in the city of Carver. And then our on our comprehensive plan in the red circle is the property circled. You can see it is purple which is uh guided for a commercial industrial mix which this project confirms with their land use uh applications. So again corner of JCP Jonathan Carver Parkway County 11 and Levi Griffin Road. The concept plan that's been reviewed by the council is on the screen now. So it's two industrial buildings both at 189,000 square feet with 550 plus parking stalls. The spaces are meant for leasable spaces. So it'll have high ceilings, space to demise for multiple employers, flexible site layout and parking areas. And when you think about the type of user, we might see there would be production, lab, research and development, warehousing, distributing, etc. Hot off the press delivered to the city this morning is a rendering that United Properties has provided for the outside of the building. So if you want to take a quick look, I know this is an addition to the packet. So truly your first look in this room. We can I'll leave this one up for a little bit in a minute. So some some project details that are important as we are working through the concept plan preliminary plat etc. There won't be direct access onto Jonathan Carver Parkway. So the county road 11 system will be untouched. There will be access from Levi Griffin Drive, Levi Griffin Road, that shouldn't be drive and Commerce Drive. This project specifically triggers the need for a signal at Levi Griffin Road and Commerce Drive. So thinking about that intersection between Lake View and this next project, there will be a signal at that location. Uh TIFF funds will not be used for that portion of the project. Okay, will be used, sorry. And then uh there's also the Levi Griffin deferred assessment. So when Levi Griffin was constructed for the Fleet Farm project, uh portions along that uh road were deferred the amount that the road cost to construct. So, this project specifically is carrying about a $775,000 deferred assessment that will be realized by the city when this project develops. So, planning steps that have been completed. It's hard to believe that you saw this concept plan almost a year ago in August. The city council reviewed concept plan. January 6, 2025, the city council reviewed annexation application went on to the state was approved by the state. So, now in city limits. March 3rd, the city council reviewed the environmental assessment worksheet. So this project due to its size required some extensive environmental review. So that was a review by the city council. And then the planning commission was asked to review the tiff application to confirm conformance with a comprehensive plan. So they did that at their June 26 meeting just a couple weeks ago. So at this point the project is in for preliminary plat resoning and final plat applications anticipated to be before council later this summer early fall for those additional applications. So again, I just gave the really quick project overview. Jess is here to give uh the overview of the TIFF authority and developer request, and then we'll do the public hearing, but I'm going to let you look at it one more time as Jess comes up to join us. I'm sorry for calling you Tammy. Oh, it's fine. It happens all the time, and it's a high compliment. It I agree. I agree. Absolutely. All right. Mayor, council, good evening. Evening. So, in addition to the information that Aaron just went over, um there are a number of materials as you probably noticed in your packet this evening. Um so, in an effort to sort of condense things a little bit, otherwise we'd be here for hours if we went through page by page. Um we've prepared a relatively brief uh presentation for you. Um we're going to talk a little bit about sort of an overview of TIFF, not really a TIFF 101, but kind of just giving some broad strokes to um the TIFF authority. and then we'll go over a little bit about the actual request that's before the city council. Um I am happy to dive into any of the materials that are in your packet. Should you want to do that, just let me know. Um but if it's okay with council, we'll just dive in here. Sound good? Great. Okay. So, um TIFF overview here. So, the TIFF law um is specifically in Minnesota statutes 469. It is 174 through 1794. Um it's rather complex and it has changed a number of times over the years. Um I wouldn't say that we have um lots and lots of changes, but it it has changed over the years and it continues to change and that adds to the complexity of the TIFF law. Um the TIFF law itself gives power to establish um TIFF districts to authorities and those authorities may be cities, they may be EDAS, HASS, um port authorities. Less often we see them with counties but counties are also able to establish tiff districts. Um, one second Aaron, sorry. Um, if you Yep. So, when an authority is acting with its municipal powers that, um, those powers need to be sort of, uh, provided for within a municipal development district. So, the terminology related to TIFF gets a little bit clunky. Um, if you read through that TIFF plan, you probably saw reference to the municipal development district and also the tax increment financing district. So something to sort of um just kind of keep those things separate is that the development district is really meant to be sort of an envelope in which tip districts are established. So when we talk about the development district, that's what we're referring to. And we'll show a map a little bit later on. Um but the development district itself for Carver is cerminous with the boundaries of the city. And then of course the tiff district itself is related to a single parcel. So we'll talk about that a little bit more. Um there are different types of tiff districts for our discussion tonight. We're going to be talking about economic development tiff districts. There are certainly housing districts, redevelopment districts, etc. And the type of district that you utilize is dependent upon the project details. Um and that's what sort of qualifies it for that particular type of district. Each district is going to have a different type of process. So there's different rules. Um which again adds to the complexity of everything. Um but no matter what um any type of district is going to require some ongoing monitoring and reporting that is necessary to the state. And then as I mentioned we're going to be talking about economic development tiff today. Um so what is tiff? Generally speaking um it is a development tool that is available of course to Minnesota cities and other authorities. Uh restated here simple um in concept but complex in application. So at its core, it is the capture of taxes that come from development. Um so that's why we say it's it's rather simple in concept, but um all the process and everything else that goes along with it, it makes it somewhat complex. That being said, um property taxes of course created by the development are captured and then used to finance activities um to encourage development or redevelopment. And before you can create a district, a city is required to hold a public hearing related to the creation. Now the city needs to find that in its opinion um that the project would not move forward but for the assistance to the project. Um so and sort of a distinction here it doesn't mean that you believe that no development would occur. It's just this particular project in its concept in its scope would not move forward without the assistance. So again, property taxes that are attributed to the increase in the property value um is what captures the taxes that are attributable to that, excuse me. So um in practice, the base value that exists today and the property taxes that come from that, those continue to be um received by the city um the school district, the county, the state. So all of the um individual taxing jurisdictions. However, it's that again that increase in the property value and those taxes that are captured for tiff after that capture ends that tax capacity is then enjoyed by the city as as all the other um properties on the tax roles. So, the type of tiff assistance here that um is being contemplated is considered a pay as you go assistance or we often refer to it as payo. Um there are other types of assistance such as the issuance of um tax increment bonds. Um those are general obligation pledge. Um you can do interfund loans, things like that. But PIGO assistance is what we see most often. Um there was a time when um TIF bonds were issued quite often, but starting in about 2007 or so that died down quite a bit. Um but what this means is that the project costs are financed by the developer. Um so they're not seeking any upfront assistance from the city and then the developer is reimbursed semiannually as um as they pay their taxes on the property. So again that increment is captured and then they are reimbursed as the um tax settlements come in from the county and then the tiff revenue note blessing is um issued to the developer and payable solely from the pledge pledge tiff revenue. So there is no general obligation pledge here and that's important to note being that if the developer for some reason doesn't pay their taxes for that particular six months then no increment is created and there is no pledge from the city other than that increment. So it creates sort of more of a risk position for the developer again because they're financing all of those project costs up front in terms of um the tiff assistance itself. So, the city would agree to a specified amount of tiff to reimburse the developer um for certain project costs up to a specified amount and those um tax increment revenues available to to the developer or the city depending on who's sort of leading the project is defined within the development agreement. That's another one of those documents that you have in your packet this evening. I do want to mention um one just correction as Erin was talking and said that the tiff is not going to be used to reimburse the signal. Erin is correct. So we're reimbursing for other improvements within the district because the signal is actually outside of the boundaries of the district. So that's why when we say certain project cost. Um just a clarification there. Um, so again, while the TIFF isn't being used specifically for the signal, there are other sort of project eligible costs that couldn't be covered with TIFF. So, it's a little bit of a shift in how that's covered. Um, but just to be clear about those certain project costs. Um, so the city does need to require the developer to certify the actual amount of the cost that they've incurred. Um, and this is important because if if and I'm going to use round numbers that have nothing to do with this request, but if let's say a developer tells you that they're seeking reimbursement for land acquisition and that's and they say it's $5 million. If they only spend $2 million, you're not going to reimburse for five. So again, you need to have um some documentation related to the actual project costs that are going to be reimbursed from TIFF. And whether that's lean waiverss or cancel checks, um the city does receive those and once the city is satisfied that those costs have been incurred, then the city would be in a position to issue that tiff revenue note to the developer again solely on the pledged revenue from the increment. Any questions? Generally speaking, I know I'm kind of rushing through the TIFF authority, but are there any questions about TIFF in general before we move on to the developer request? Any questions? No. Okay. ready for the presentation. Mayor, could Jessica, would you just mind just clarifying for the council because the developer is paying for the signal? They are. Yes. So, it's it's a cost of the the total construction package, the total scope of the project and because of the development and triggering the need for that signal. However, because the signal lies outside of the boundaries of the TIFF district, the developer is still going to incur those costs, but we can't use increment to support a project cost outside of the district. So, instead, we're going to support other eligible costs that are located within the district. You're both right. Okay, so the city has received an application from United Properties. Um, and Aaron just went over all of this information, but just as a quick refresh, um, 389,000 total square feet are planned, um, for the 212 West Business Center. Um, in terms of use, and this is why it's eligible for a economic development, um, tax increment financing district. The use here is warehousing, production, manufacturing, and then some related office space um, for those uses. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases and again we're here tonight to uh hold the public hearing if the council of course wants to move ahead with the establishment of the district. Can I just ask you a question? If they use it for another use that's not outlined in here, what does that do? Yeah, so there are certain types of uses that are that make it eligible for um economic development. So, let's say that they switch tracks and they want to do housing. That wouldn't work. Or if they sort of switched up and they want to do retail in that location. Obviously, there's other sort of land use implications to sort of um changing that, but that also wouldn't work. A retail space wouldn't work for economic development. It's really um manufacturing, sort of light industrial, warehousing and distribution. Um there's certain sort of research facilities that would qualify. Um but everything that they're planning here currently does qualify. if that were to change and those types of uses are also built into that development agreement. So if that were to change then we'd have to re-evaluate the request to make sure that it fits and then of course with the change in use we'd also want to do some evaluation of does the financing make sense. Okay. So yep thank you. Yep. Number of safeguards in place. Um we do have um some updated uh construction dates. Um so this was prepared about a week and a half ago. So we and we just got some new dates just late last week. So I'm going to go to my dates here. So phase one is proposed to commence no later than September 30th of 2026 and then be completed within the year. So September 30th of 27. And then phase 2 would begin no later than um September 30th of 27 and be completed by September 30th of 28. and that's to allow the developers some additional flexibility to get the property closed and um get all of the arrangements for the project. Okay. So, here's the boundaries of the tiff district and also the development district. So, the sort of red and black dashed line that goes around sort of the majority here that is the econ excuse me see I'm even going to get the terminology mixed up here. That is the municipal development district number one and that is coterminus with the boundaries of the city up in the left corner. Um that sort of yellowy green um that's the actual location of the district itself. So again within the development district lies the tiff district. So this is um to give you a bit of a snapshot on how we approach our analysis when we're looking at tiff requests. So, one we're looking at is TIFF assistance necessary. Um, because that's going to be again trying to help the city determine whether the but for test is is met. And then once we get to a yes for that, then we're looking at if so, how much assistance is needed for the project to move ahead. Now, our objectives when we're going through this analysis is one to provide the minimum amount of assistance that keeps the project in its scope moving forward. um so that we're not sort of taking out, you know, various attributes of the project itself, but getting the project across the finish line. We also want to mitigate any city risk. Um so again, we're not uh proposing that the city issue general obligation bonds. This is payo assistance um which uh puts the sort of risk position on the developer. And then finally, we want to return the property to the general tax capacity so that you can enjoy the the benefits of having that increased property value here in the city. So, based on Northland's analysis, we are recommending that the city consider um a maximum tiff note to the developer um over a 9-year term. That is the maximum duration of an economic development tip district um on a present value basis at $2,376,471. That is discounted based on a 7% rate. That is the cost of money for the developer as they're um constructing the project. tax increment is received semiannually. So just as um folks pay their taxes and you get that distribution from the county, that's when your increment distribution would occur as well. And the development agreement that's in your packet this evening um lays out um some of the terms here. So the tiff assistance to United Properties properties, excuse me, would be payable solely from 90% of the tax increment. The remaining 10% would be held back by the city to cover administrative costs and that covers staff time for administering the district. Those reporting costs, there are some publication requirements that go along with reporting for TIF. Um, so that 10% hold back would cover that. Any amounts that aren't used for administrative dollars can be returned to the county as access increment and that's redistributed based on the individual jurisdions's tax rates. Um, so that can come back to the city um as excess increment. The city would make payments to United Properties on a pay as you go basis and again tax is collected from the development property just that new value that's created and the principal amount of that tiff revenue note is suggested to be that 2,376 471 and in no case we would um anticipate going beyond that and that assumes that both phases of the project are completed. Now if for some reason phase 2 does not move ahead then that amount would be reduced accordingly. So that's built into that development agreement. And then finally the unpaid principal amount of the tiff note would bear interest simple non-compounding interest at 7%. And again that's tied to the cost of money for the developer. And here we have just um sort of a breakdown of the total increment that we would anticipate receiving from the county and then broken down into what the city is retaining with their 10 10% excuse me and what the developer would be receiving. Now this is based on future value. So this isn't discounted to present value here. So in total we are estimating that approximately 3.967 million um dollars in tax increment would be received from the county with 90% of that going to the developer 10% withheld by the city. And then in terms of the um the use of increment and the reimbursement of project costs, currently we're looking at the land and building acquisition approximately 1,276,471 and then site improvements and preparation costs um of $1,100,000. That leaves 295450 um for the city's administrative costs. And again, I don't believe that the city will need that for your administrative costs. Um, usually that runs you a few thousand dollars a year to administer the district and do the reporting. So, um, I have a feeling you'll be returning some excess in increment and receiving the benefit of that um, as that's redistributed. And finally, it's Northland's opinion that the proposed project would not reasonably be expected to occur through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future given the extraordinary cost of the development. Now again, this is to say or I should say it's not to say that no development would occur here if the council decides not to move ahead with this project. It's simply that it is our finding that the project as proposed is unlikely to move ahead without assistance. Um some key dates uh with any sort of tiff district and depending on the type of district different notice requirements are um are necessary. Um but we did distribute um notification of the hearing to both the county and the school district. They also received a copy of the TIFF plan. Um they were invited to um provide us any comments. I'll pause um to see if staff received any. Northland has not. We have not either. Okay. Um and then you just mentioned this. The planning commission was actually on June 26th. Um so they've reviewed that draft tiff plan and uh passed a resolution um with the finding for conformity of the plan with the general development plans of the city. We've also published the hearing notice in the newspaper of tonight's public hearing and then we are here tonight for the hearing and for the council to contemplate whether or not you want to pass the resolution to establish the district. You also have a development agreement for your consideration as well. Great. Any questions? Um, let's open it up to public questions. Are there any public comments? This is kind of a a speak now or forever hold your peace. All public comments um after all public comments are received. If there are any, the public hearing will be closed and no further comments on this issue will be received at this meeting. All right. Um, can I get a motion to close the public? I'll make a motion to close. Motion by council member Pchman. I'll second. Second by council member sir. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Same sign. Motion passes. All right. Um, any comments or questions from the council? No. I think we knew that we were headed this direction. This is part of the process. It's not a surprise. And I'm only saying that because uh for the tens of viewers that we have, how we could uh just move move along without a lot of deliberation. This is part of the the process in any large project like this. I have one question. Um the nine years, for some reason, I was anticipating 10 years. I don't know if I just It's been a while since I Nope. had to look at a tip. And you could be thinking so with again different types of districts, different rules. So economic development t districts um you're allowed to collect increment for eight years from the receipt of the first increment which allows for nine years in total. With um housing districts for example or redevelopment districts, those are allowed to go up to 26 years. So it's 25 years from the receipt of the first increment. So 26 years. However, lots of times cities when they're um contemplating housing or even redevelopment districts, they'll elect to go shorter than that. So, it's possible that in the past you've seen districts that could go longer and they've gone for 10 um just based on the amount of assistance that's necessary. Right. Thank you for explaining that. Sure. Any other questions on here? I'm not anticipating this happening, but what happens if we get to the end of nine years and there's money still left in the TIFF account? Does that get redistributed to the county and the city? It does. Okay. Yep. Um, and I'm going through my questions. Thanks for anticipating a lot of them and answering them already. Um, my only question is is you talked about, and it's maybe piggybacking off of Lor's, but if they start construction next September, September of 2026. Yep. When does kind of that clock start running? When is the first? Yeah. So, it starts from the receipt of first increment. And unlike housing and redevelopment districts, with economic development districts, you cannot elect to delay the receipt of increment. Okay? So if the developer chooses or for whatever reason that the project is delayed, anything built in 25 will be recognized by the county in 26 for taxes payable 27. So let's say that they delay and they don't start until 26. That could mean that we do receive increment in 27 if there's a difference in the property value if that increases. um because when you certify it, they certify the original net tax capacity of the property. Now, if there's no change in the value and it's just the land that exists today and they don't actually start construction until 26, then I would anticipate that they're actually not going to receive increment until 28 because of that delay and the lag of um when things are sort of recognized for the tax rules. So, there there is some implication to delaying the project. Um, and it all depends on the timing of when that first increment is received and that starts the clock. Okay. All right. Thank you. If there aren't any other questions, I'm going to entertain a motion. Okay. I'll make a motion. We're all back. Somebody else. Adopt resolution 119-25 approving the modification to the development program for municipal development district number one establishing tax increment financing district number one-1 within development district 1. Adopting the tax increment financing plan. Therefore, establishing an in interfun loan and approving a business subsidy. Motion by council member Pchman. I'll second by council member Mach. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Those same sign. Motion passes. And then I'll make a motion to approve the tax increment financing dis uh tax increment financing development agreement between the city of Carver and United Properties Development LLC. Council member Pchman. I'll second. Second by council member Sar. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. All right. Got a new tiff agreement. Thank you. Um, okay. Moving on to the consent agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion by council member Muk. I'll second. Second by council member Pasco. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Oppos. Same sign. Motion passes. All right. Moving on to business items. We have the Great River Energy Lake Town Transmission Line Project. Miss Smith and Michael Swan Swenson. Oh, shoot. Oh, there they are. How did it change? I just unplugged once. Okay. Thank you, mayor and council. I'm going to give a quick uh overview of where we're at and then we have some guests joining us for the conversation, too. So, the city council reviewed the uh Great River Energy. Again, I'm going to try to not say great river greening. I'm apologize if I do. at your May 19th meeting. Some information about the project is that the line will run through Laketown and Dogrren Township and the things that are important is that the transmission lines will be on 70 to 95 ft poles and the most impactful piece to that I think is the 100 foot ride ofway that will be required under the line. So really impactful for development in the area limiting the amount of uh development that could happen with structures, trees and vegetation. So, some information about how it relate relates to the city of Carver. You can see in the yellow dash outline, that's our future growth area in our 2040 comprehensive plan. And you can see the call out there with Great River Energy's preferred route at this point. So, after the May 19th meeting, the city council, I think if not all, most of you attended a public hearing to provide some commentary um feedback about the project. But as we know, those typically are sessions where they hear what you're saying, but there's not an opportunity for dialogue. So, we invited members of Great River Energy and MVC to join us at this meeting to give some additional context, engage in some feedback and discussion with the city council. So, at this point, I'll turn it over to you. Welcome. If you guys want to introduce yourselves. Yeah, thank you. I'm Mike Swenson. I'm a transmission permitting specialist with Great River Energy. And Joe Green, Minnesota Valley Electric Co-op. the community relations and I also work with our KIA council on commercial industrial side. Yeah, we didn't prepare a formal presentation. We just thought we'd show up and based on the feedback we got during the public hearings, it seemed like you guys had some more questions about the project. So, we wanted to make ourselves available to answer questions about the project or the PUC pro questions. I thought you guys were going to have a little bit of a presentation um for the emails that we sent, but um okay, questions for the group. I'm going to start off with a very coing question. So, when I'm um we made it very apparent and very clear that we were not notified of this ahead of time and that we found out in kind of a roundabout way that this transmission line was being proposed to come through what will be the eventual city of Carver. Um, when I'm looking at the map here, well, I'll back up a little bit. So, when we're talking here, it says Carbo County, City of Victoria. Those two entities and municipalities were um or and municipality were notified and discussions were had with that group. Uh, city of Carver had no notification, no discussions on where this line was supposed to be. And when I'm looking at this, it talks about Dogrren Township. When I'm looking at the map um up here, it doesn't look like where the uh initial proposed line was going along 10. That is also still township. Is that what township is that in? Lake Town. That's Lake Town. All right. So, in order to talk to the city of Victoria, you had to go through Lake Township because City of Victoria has not annexed that in yet. So, then to move the line into our area, we have Dogrren Township and then City of Carver. So I'm I'm wondering where how this disconnect came in from talking to Laketown Township to City of Victoria, Carver County, and then a line that comes through the Dogren Township, which is also another township, no different than the one above it, but didn't make its way to City of Carver. Can I can I get some explanation on why that happened? Yeah. So the three routes other than alternative B were actually developed before we spoke with any of the RGUs in the area. Uh initially as part of the routing process we reach out to the directly impacted RGU. So in this instance it was Carver County Township and Lake Township. When we met with Lake Township in January of 2024, they mentioned the annexation agreement with the city of Victoria. And also during field reviews of these routes in the fall of 2023, we noticed along the XL line there was like flagging on some of those parcels. So assuming that there's some type of development going on. Um, so once we were notified of the annexation agreement and realizing that there's potential development along one of our proposed routes, we went and spoke with city staff at the city of Victoria and they let us know about the upcoming development on those parcels. Um when we met with Dogrren Township it wasn't brought up with from through them that there was a annexation agreement with the city of Carver and also when we met with the county they did not bring up the fact that there was an annexation agreement between the city of Carver and do township. So, we didn't we weren't made aware of it until after we had submitted our route permit application and then a member of the public I think came and talked to staff about the project and once we were made aware of it during scoping for the EA with DUC we reached out to staff to discuss the project with them. That's how that whole thing played out. Well, I'm sure you can understand our frustration, right, as the city of Carver, as staff, as council members, as mayor, that um something that has a 100 foot swath of easement is coming through the township and we have and into an orderly annexation agreement area and we have no idea of it. So, I just wanted to start off with that uh my displeasure that that happened and that we weren't part of those discussions early on. Um, I understand that no one's going to say, "Great, put that in my backyard." I understand that city of Victoria is not going to say, "Yes, we want that there." Harvard County is going to, you know, you know, talk on the side, too. But, um, the city of Carver is going to say the exact same thing. No, we we don't want that taking up what will someday be or is destined and is planned to be part of our community. So, I will step back on that one for all right for a minute. Yes. Um, so when reviewing your response to some of the memos that had been sent by city staff, you mentioned that um, it is common when going along a road that within the state you will have a 55 foot easement along a road rather than a 100 foot easement. Um, and you implied that that the 100 foot easement would be no more burdensome upon development than the 55 foot easement following a specific road that already exists. Can you elaborate on what your logic behind the fact that a half-size easement along an already dividing line um is equally or more burdensome to the city um or to the planning process than a 100 foot easement um along a for development purposes from understanding ing your question correctly. You're wondering if the 100 foot easement is less burdensome. I'm I'm asking you to elaborate on the position you put in your letter stating that a 100 foot easement along open land would be equally or less burdensome to development than a 55- ft easement along an existing road. Well, the line itself is following parcel lines. So that burden of the rideway would be on either either parcel. That's kind of what we're getting at there. I don't I guess I'm not I understand that and and from your perspective, I understand that. But what our position is and has been is that when developers come into this property and you as we've looked at especially with housing developments that have gone forward, they don't buy one and develop one parcel of land. They buy and divi they buy and develop parcels of land that they then aggregate. And by putting a 100 foot easement along a property line, yes, right now that would appear to be less burdensome, but when it comes to development, that becomes a more burdensome situation for developers because they no longer have a undivided parcel of property. Okay. Um throughout the metro we have and Excel Energy has multiple 115 KV lines with 100 foot wide rideways that are going through parcel lines and in a lot of instances not following any type of existing rightway or parcel line. Um and development occurs around these lines consistently. It's all across the metro. You can see where development is right up against our rightways and it does not seem to preclude any type of development. So, it's not really seen from our end as a hindrance to development of having our rightway through these areas. The example you used in your letter was um Apple Valley and Burnsville. Were those lines specifically crossing following those property lines, not along existing roads at the time that they were constructed? Those lines were constructed originally probably back in the 60s. So in some instances, yes, in some instances, you know, no, they were following roads in some instances. Yeah. So you're not aware of any changes that had to be made to their planning or or any development because of where those were placed specifically? I would say I I personally don't know. I could go back and talk to the project team on those projects and see if they have any idea of where they might have had to change their um and you provided us a copy of your 2040 plan and we reviewed it against our proposed route. Our conclusion is that that line is compatible with your proposed land uses in that area and in fact it this project itself would help facilitate the type of development you're looking at and were talking about earlier in this meeting. Erin, do you have accessible a copy of the overlay? Okay. So, uh, there we go. Um, so what we're looking at here is we're looking at if we're the housing development is specifically what we would be looking at, what we have currently zoned for low or medium density residential, right? And that's where it's going to cut across the property lines. In my experience, which is albeit not as long as some other people on the council, these are not going to be individual parcels of land developed into a single tiny little housing development. What this is going to be is that this is going to be this entire portion would be purchased by a single developer and then developed into a single residential development. And by crosscutting this property, you're reducing but the development value of this tiny little portion up top. Now, I understand what you're saying about it serving those people. I'm not against this line fundamentally. I think that it's important for our residents, for our commercial development, but the way that it crosscuts the planned property, you're limiting the development, especially of that northern portion there, because people don't want to buy that small subdivision to do a small subdivision. They want to be able to plan that entire large district that we have mapped out on here. And that's the problem that we have. It's not that it currently follows a property line. It's that it will not follow a property line in the future. Well, that line cuts down right there and crosses property lines due to existing homes where Algrren and 43 meet. And then when you get up into Augusta, so basically just trying to get from point A to point B as a whole, we're trying to avoid existing structures. You know, like that small little pie piece, there is a home there. Um that's why the line the proposed center line is actually shifted off that property line that cuts out that little triangle piece basically to be placing the line away from already existing homes. So So the the homes that exist there exist what would be within a 55 foot even if it was on even if you moved it to the other side of the road there's houses that would still be affected by that 55 foot as opposed to 100 foot going through the property line. No, there's no homes within 55 ft of the proposed line. Okay. But if we were to continue following Hampshire Road, are there There are more homes when you start getting up towards the intersection and then once you get to that intersection trying to get across through Augusta while avoiding that development there in Augusta, that the down of Augusta, I guess you could call it. So, one way or the other, we'd have to drop back down and go over to the west. Okay. Thank you. I just can you put anything under this easement? Can you have a road? Can you have a parking lot? Tell me what can go underneath it. Pretty much I wouldn't say anything, but um you can have parking lots underneath them. Just can have structures or tall growing trees. Things like crab apples, shrubs, they can grow in the easement. Just can't have structures under the ement. So you can have a parking lot. I mean I can show you pictures in Delano where Culver's just built right next to our line and their parking lot is right underneath our line. Okay. So, okay. So, the building any structure has to be 50 with outside the 50 ft. But you can put parking lots, you can put a road through it, any of those things are possible. Correct. Okay. Thank you. I have a question on if you had parking lots and maybe we can see some examples. Can there be lights lighting to the parking lot there? they anything not within that 100 feet you wouldn't be able to have a light pole. So 50 feet on either side of the center line you wouldn't be able to have a light pole. Generally if it's tall enough outside that 50 ft to fall and hit the line it's got to move back a little further or they got to short. Okay. So that's the only question I have at this time here. Yeah. So I think we've established that you were unaware of the annexation agreement. Right. So we that's pretty well documented. Uh our response to that was that we asked you to reconsider the proposed alignment. So all of these routes that was done prior to this knowledge, right? Correct. Okay. And we our response is uh we're going to ask you to reconsider uh and give us the the same level of consideration that you gave Victoria and and Carver as you were developing this. My question then is what have you done? I mean, it's it's I get defending the the route that you already have in place. You've done all of that work, but in light of what was missed in light of our development plans, what work has been done to consider an alternative route? Has there been any? We reviewed the 2040 land use plan that's shown up here based on the comments we received from the city. And then our response to the PUC based on your guys' comments was we felt that our proposed route was still compatible with your proposed development and land use in this area. So we did not change our proposed route at that time. So there hasn't been a critical evaluation kind of a fresh start. Well, let's look at this how we could avoid that. Well, so the way the PUC process works is us as the applicants have to bring forward a proposed route for the commission to review. So in our application, we included this as our proposed route. Um alternatives, the XL alternative and the Cassad alternative were considered as reviewed but rejected alternatives. So there alternatives we looked at along with several other there was like eight other alternatives we reviewed and rejected based on various conditions coming into it. Our propo our route application included this is our proposed route and then it goes to the PUC. They hold scoping which they developed their own environmental analysis which includes included both those CASAT 10 and the XL route along with an additional alternative that was not included formally in our route permit application and that analysis has been done by the PUC by the ERRA. So they've reviewed four alternatives for this, four alternative routes for the project prior to the knowledge that this was part of the annexation agreement afterwards. So the knowledge of the annexation agreement came up during scoping which is the time when the ERRA is developing the scope of the environmental analysis. So the knowledge of the annexation agreement came in during the time when it should have come in even though we missed it where the ERA is made aware of it and that knowledge was brought into their environmental analysis which they reviewed four different alternative routes for the project but there wasn't an engagement with the city and the planning of that as there was with Victoria. The planning of what? Planning of the route. So, Victoria successfully uh worked with you to to avoid routing through. We didn't engage in routing with the city of Victoria. These routes that we had in our application were developed before we met with the city of Victoria, before we met with the county. They were presented to the public at a public meeting that we held in January of 2024. So, the city of Victoria did not dictate our routes in any way. I would say all we did is when we approached them, we understood that there was an accessation agreement with them and we knew from reviewing the routes that there was potential future development in those areas. So we wanted to know what was going on on those routes. That's what happened with the city of Victoria. All right, I'll let you ask any followup questions from that. Um, so I think you're clear that we are pained by the fact that it felt like Victoria got a public meeting 11 months before we were aware of this project. Um, in your own filing, it says the city of Victoria has already planned to host future commercial, industrial, and residential developments. As compared with the alternatives, the proposed route has the support of the city of Victoria as well as Carver County. And it's a bummer that we didn't get a seat at that table. Getting that off my chest. My questions for you are um can you talk us through Erin, can you go to the first slide that has all the different options? Can you talk us through and maybe with a lens of taking the city of Victoria's preferences out of it? Why we didn't why you didn't go with route A or route C for your recommendation for your final? Yeah. So, route A, I mean, leaving out the fact that the county is going to realign and expand Cassat 10. There are several existing houses along Cassat 10 in that area. And if you notice, the line kind of zigzags. So, it bounces. It crosses the highway in 12 locations to try and avoid existing structures. So, minimizing impacts to existing structures is basically the reason why we avoided route A. RA alternative C. There is a existing switch structure at the intersection of CASAT 10 and Cassad 11 and our interconnection point has to be south of that switch to achieve the reliability that we're going for with this project. So that switch would have to be moved north of the Excel 230 line. So a reconfiguration of some of Excel's line, our line and that switch and then just the cross country nature of that where it's not following an existing parcel line parcel to boundary. The fact that we would be placing our poles basically we'd have two poles for every one of Excel's lattice structures. So you'd be doubling up structures within the middle of the parcels and the farmers would have to work around them or in the terms of like potential development that now that new rightway. So the 230 line's probably got 150 foot rightway. You'd have to add another 70 foot on top of that. Um so that impact plus the unknown of what's going on with that realignment when they're trying to remove that curve and regrade through there. That's really why we decided against route alternative C. Um I've been to the public meeting. I delivered comments. I don't know that I have anything else to add unless anybody else has anything else. I have a follow-up question. Go ahead. How? So, you're saying that the route C was um less favored because you would be having additional poles in between each of the towers that XL already has there. How is that any different than the number of poles that you would be having on any of the other routes? It's different in the fact that there's already a 230 lattice structure there. So, we would be doubling up. When I say doubling up that same number of pole, you still need that same number of poles. I'm saying doubling up in terms of there would be Excel's 230 structures plus our structures on those parcels. So a doubling of two transmission lines, two sets of structures. Okay. I I guess I'm not seeing how that's more impactful than having the same number of holes on any of the other lines, but thank you for trying to explain it. Um you when you were talking about the different routes you mentioned on route C a curve where that is that in county road 10 that idea is to have it corrected or correct our understanding in talking with the county is the curve on county 10 I guess I think that's county 43 when it comes in they're going to regrade realign the county highway through that section is that right where area okay Um, you said something about with the route A. Did you say leaving out what the plans are for County Road 10 or you trying to align with the plans? I said if we were to ignore the county road 10 plans, even incorporating the county road 10 plans, there are several existing houses along Casaten that do not facilitate that don't really work well with having a power line going right in front of their house. It'd be really hard to avoid including any other structures in the rightway. So just trying to avoid existing structures along the road is why we don't like alternative A. Do we know like I I my wish list would be that we would know what the county was going to do for county road 10. Have you got as their community relations? Have you gotten any? We we've had several conversations with the county as to what's going on with 10. But is there anything with time frames? time frames. I can't speak for the county in as to what their time frame is. My understanding is it could be in the next 5 years or it could be the next 10 years, could be next year. So, time frame wise, no, I don't believe we really know when they're planning on doing that. I know what we have in our environmental our route permit application and the environmental analysis is a proposed alignment for county road 10. So that's all we have to work with which includes removing that realigning it through that corner. So and then if you look at if you look at the alignment for county road 10, they're obviously going to be impacting a lot of those same houses that we don't want to impact. know as to what that process is going to look like. I can't say. The county has a process they have to go through to figure that out. And then what is the timing? Are you on a time crunch or like is the demand for this so high or like what is there a rush? There there is a rush from a sense of u you know you know getting for the growth that's coming to the area and for the reliability of getting this new substation tied in with the other substations. Just the meeting that you had tonight with new growth coming here. There's we we've been approached by a number of data centers that's not factored into this at all, but just the the focus and attention on this and our goal has been, you know, from a co-op from a substation standpoint is we're projecting out what we need with our this is transmission with what we need for our distribution and substations. what we need in the in the near future, five years, and it takes five years to fill a substation. It's taken us three years just to get the equipment for the substation. We don't have we have that on order. We won't see it till probably 2028. And uh what we've this is I've probably done three new substations in the last 10 years. and we we're projecting out we're looking at the city's plans and we're trying to project where that growth is take into account where roads are. I think that's one of the thing that County Road 10 if we were to build along even with our not speaking from the transmission side. If we're putting up our poles now, we know there's going to be a road there and they're going to change it. We're going to have to move it again. It could be at our expense as well. We're nonprofit, so we're trying to look ahead to where that's that's at. But um the substations what what we've seen is that um if we can get in there before the developers come that they know it's there and trying rather than trying to go in after the fact it's helpful to everybody and we have actually I think Wonia is a good example. We redid that and that's close by. We redid that substation there. And um you look at how closely the houses have come around up to the substation and uh growth doesn't stop. You almost have to push back how close the growth can be coming into into the lines and stuff like that. So thank you for answering that. if I answer trying to come from a co-op perspective, a utility standpoint is what I was trying to do. So, I have I am just going to say this because I have to. So, in our packet tonight, Great River Energy's own filing emphasizes this point and it is in quotes that this route that is picked, it avoids impacting land that the city of Victoria has already planned to host future commercial, industrial, and residential developments. That is no different than the city of Carver having this plan to host future commercial, industrial, residential, whatever it is. So, we're venting up here and we're obviously telling you that we are not pleased with this. Are we just banging our heads against the wall now for no reason? Is this a plan? Is this the done deal and we're just getting this off our chest at this point? Or is there something that we can do to have this line not come right through that that section of our annexation area? Are you asking? I'm asking anyone who might have an answer to that. So, where we're at in the route permit process, you guys provided comments during scoping, which was very beneficial. You also provided comments on the environmental analysis as to your preference for not having the proposed route as the permitted route. And that's how the process plays out. Now, the ALJ will issue a report on July 17th as to their findings in regards to what they recommend the PUC permits issues a route permit for. Sorry, what was the what did you say? The administrative law judge Yep. that presided over the public hearings on July 17th will issue a report to the PUC with a recommendation as to if a route permit should be granted and if so, which route should be permitted by the route permit. Um, after that is issued, the PUC will hold a meeting September and they'll make a decision on the route permit. And at that time, they could permit whatever they want. You know, they could permit any one of these alternatives. They could permit one that's not in the environmental analysis. They could push the decision out and make PUC go back and review additional information. So, at where we're it's not a done deal is what I'm trying to tell you. And at the end of the day, the PUC is the final say on which route is going to get a permit. Just because we prepared a route permit application with our proposed alignment in there does not necessarily mean that that's going to be the permitted route. All right. Thank you for that. I'm a little confused as to the timeline because I've heard you say both that the city of Carver provided information during scoping and that you didn't know that we had an annexation agreement until scoping. So, I'm curious as to the timeline there, how both could be true, how we could have found out about it uh and provided you information and you not know that we had an annex agreement in that same time period. So, if you can I don't know if you can go to the PC timeline I provided. So we have submitted the application common period on completeness and then public information and scoping. They held public meetings for the environmental scoping. So scoping for the environmental analysis and at that meeting a member of the public brought up the fact that the city of Carver had an annexation agreement with Delgrren Township and that's when we reached out to the city and I believe this member of the public came in and spoke with the city as well at that time. So that's when we found out about it was during Erin, is that correct? Did that did Great River reach out to us at that time? Uh so a resident from the township did come in. That was our first notification of it and then I think one of us reached out to each other. I can't confirm which direction it went. Okay. Thank you. I was under the understanding that we reached out first, but it's possible that that wasn't that's a misapprehension on my part and for that I apologize. Any other questions or comments? Right. I was going to ask the next steps question but I think you got to answer to Christiey's question. Um, I know, you know, we're not happy, but I appreciate you guys coming in and talking through this with us. I wish we would have had this conversation years ago. Um, but thank you very much for coming in. All right. Um this is the part of the evening where we are going to go into closed session um to discuss, develop and consider potential offers to purchase various permanent or temporary easements necessary the Carver levy reconstruction project. Oh, who's going to read that motion? Oh my goodness. Water start reading. Okay, I can do it. Do it. I think we're going to go into a different room, Todd, to do the Oh, we're not. Oh, all right. Let's go. A motion to go into close session pursuant to Minnesota statute section 13D.05 05 subdivision 3C to discuss, develop, and consider potential offers to purchase various permanent and temporary easements necessary for the Carver levy reconstruction project over portions of Carver County PIDs 2000500230 20002250 20002205 500180 2000500170 200050013014 2000 Z500470 2000 Z500490 2000 Z500480 2000 five00450 2000 Z50099 2000 Z5 500970 2000 Z500980 2000 Z500910 2000 Z500 2000 Z5009 200050075 2000500780 and 203500 a second got Motion by council member Pasco and a second by council member Mock. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. Thanks for taking that one, Kayla. All right. Um okay, we are back in open session. So friendly remember council members turn on your microphones please. Um and we are at the point um where we are going to talk about uh probably make a quick motion about the acquisition of real property interest. So I would entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to adopt resolution 118-25 authorizing acquisition of real property interests. Motion by council member Pascal. I'll second. Second by council member Pchman. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. All right. Um, on to communications. Anything from All right, Kelly, you want to go first? I don't have anything this time. All right, Christie. Uh, the HPC for next week has been cancelled. Right. Um, I had the opportunity to attend the League of Minnesota conference. Um, very just many good things came out of it. Um, insightful. there was a session where I would had me think of questions I wouldn't have thought of such as what do we have for insurance for cyber security um and then the question got answered in the seminar and also there was um really um just moving or just like people were so open and vulnerable talking about um within the city of Burnsville and their police department um February 2024 had an awful tragedy And so they spoke about it and there for me a big takeaway was for any of us you know if we're in a crisis who's our who do we call who's our own like personal like we talk about having emergency management plan but you know who do we call from our you know peer from you know maybe they're in the same position but at a different city or so it was just really interesting how much um they valued lean leaning on that and so you know who can you call um it was was a good takeaway. Um so yeah it was just kind of fun to network with different cities and it's either something that they're dealing with that we've already done with done dealt with or there's something that oh better watch out for that or like what might come on our horizon. So I appreciate the opportunity. Thanks. Yep. Just a quick follow up to council member Sars. I did connect with the I went to the same session and connected with the Burnsville city manager and he shared their emergency operations plan and it's a kind of that slim down version that we've been hoping to create. So, I sent it out to the team and we're going to be trying to use that as a theirs is a quite a bit more detailed than I think ours needs to be, but kind of using that as a good template for developing uh action plans related to uh emergencies here in Carver. Uh I had an opportunity this morning to uh attend a uh a session with Mayor Johnson at Carver Crossing and meet with a handful of residents there. Uh I think it's a great thing that we have, you know, there but there's a real effort to connect and this has been a regular ongoing meeting with the residents in that community. I think it's a little harder for them maybe to to come and see us. So, we go and see them. I'll let I'll let the mayor uh talk a little bit more about that. But there was some It was uh rewarding to hear the appreciation from those residents that the city takes takes the time to do that. Thanks. Um okay, updates for me. Um just going in chronological order going back to June 18th. I think I'd given you guys a heads up um about the Metropolitan Council's Committee of the Whole that was held in Chaza. So it was the first time that they took one of their meetings on the road and they chose district 4 to do it for the first time. So um it was great that they did that. Uh I was on a panel discussion along with Billy Wormkin and Bill Tagari and uh Shakapei and then Bill Rniki from the Shaki Mawaka and Sue community and we talked about um perspectives working together growth kind of all of the things. So, um, it was great to have a Met Council out in our community. Um, also I made a beline from there to the vehicle fair which was up at Carver Station and was just absolutely packed. It was a really great night for it. Lots and lots and lots of young families and I understand that the highlight of the evening was when the fire department got a call and all these little kids got to see the firefighters like pack up and zoom out of there. So, um, and then there was a line when they got back. So, um, really fun event. Um, let's see. We had on Friday, June 20th, we had a business alliance meeting. We continue to have a really strong turnout and valuable participation in that. On June 21st, Carver Ridge had their family fun fair. I volunteer Carver Ridge. So, it was a fun event and I was volunteering there. But that was first day of summer was such a hot day, but they very smartly moved everything inside, including the llamas that they had in their front lobby. Oh my gosh, I will never not see lamas there whenever I walk into that building. Um, and then I also went to the League of M Minnesota Cities conference and a lot of stuff and I I haven't even connected with you yet on my post-it note of things that you hear in passing of talking with other communities and like should we do this? Are we doing this? Are we checking on that? Um, I attended a a session on the um like the ADA compliance standards that we're going to need to have for our website. So that's something that's kind of bouncing around. The session from Burnsville was one that I got there early knowing it was going to be a packed room. It was a packed room. It was incredibly emotional as you can imagine. Like they had the fire chief, the police chief, the city manager, their city attorney, and their communicator. And I think it's no exaggeration that they all got emotional at one point during the conversation because I was such a good thing because I'm such a whenever you cry I cry. But like the uh police chief was talking about how she was running to the hospital and she was getting condition reports on folks and then she had to go back and talk to her folks that were there and all the other cops and firefighters that were there. And she said at one point somebody said to her like Tom's here. He wants to talk to you. And she's like, she did something else. And then they're like, hey, Tom's still here and he's waiting for you. And then she went and did something else. And then finally they told her again and she's like, who is Tom and why does And they're like, it's your husband. He's here. And she was just like so out of it. And you know, like and a lot of the stuff she's like, I don't remember how I got from forgot what it was, but like from my house to the police station in the morning and just about partnerships and I think it was the Indian police chief who like teen in was her right-hand person and just kind of like helping and again like just talking about that value of partnerships but that was the one that was like I felt bad because it they were all incredibly emotional um but it was really insightful um let's see and then um as Eric mentioned we had uh coffee at Carver Crossing this morning. I visit there probably about once a year and trying to kind of crack that nut on resident engagement. We only had three people this morning, but we met at 10 o'clock on a Monday morning. Um, so just trying to, you know, people don't come to us, we have to go to where folks are and just trying to figure out ways to best do that. Um, other updates, uh, congratulations to, as Brent mentioned in our work session, our now former, uh, fire chief Trimble on his retirement after 22 years. Um I hope he's sleeping in, sleeping well, and doing all the things that he can focus on now um in his life after the fire service. Um also wanted to at our last meeting, I told you guys that I had gotten an email from Comcast and talking about fiber installation. Turns out I need to walk those comments back. They are not installing fiber in the city of harbor, but what they're doing is they're making improvements to their existing system. So, um we talked with our government uh liaons at the conference in Duth and they mentioned and accessibility and all the things that just make your Wi-Fi and internet work at your home but without the digging. So, I think it's kind of win-win. Um they emailed us about it and if you guys are interested share that email. But um no fiber, which means no digging and um Kayla, I don't know to what extent you experienced this in your neighborhood, but it was a painful process when Metro came in. So, Oh, yeah. My my neighborhood got it, too. Everybody did. Um and then, um finally, just a thank you to Council Member Pchman. I don't think he realized when he got assigned the uh Southwest Transit Commission how much of a time commitment it would be and I know that he's really putting in some hours for that. So, thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. All right. So, with that, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. It's always like, do we want to be here all day? Please. Motion by council member Pchman, second by council member Ser. All those in favor say I. I. Both same sign. Motion passes. Good evening.