ask anyone out call the meeting to order and we will start with a roll call. McKe here, Lanterman >> here, >> Friedrich >> here, >> Eric >> here, >> Nicholls >> also here. >> Perfect. Uh if you'd like to stand and join me in the pledge 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. >> Thank you. on to agenda approval. Uh looks like we had a couple minor changes or updates. >> Yeah, no additional updates uh since yesterday, Mr. Mayor. So, we added uh item 8B, we added item 6M, and we updated item 12A. >> Okay. Any additional changes from council or staff, >> Mr. Chair? >> Yes. there. Mr. Mayor, chair. Okay. >> Um, if we could add 7B. Sounds like we've got residents that would like to have a conversation. >> Yes. How about um Can I >> You put it wherever you see fit. >> Put it at uh So, you're talking about 6L. >> Yes. >> Moving that to How about we move that? >> Okay. Can we just move it to 7A >> and then 7 A becomes 7B? >> Sounds good. >> Perfect. >> Thank you for doing that. >> So, then we will I think for cons what consistent consent we'll just keep the letters as is. So we'll skip over one. >> Fair. >> That works. We don't have to rect one of them. Um okay. So can I get an a motion to amend the agenda changes? >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Perfect. >> Just a quick question. I just have a question. So technically I think we can just pull something off of the consent agenda to have a further discussion. We don't have to move it to a different item and then can have a discussion after we approve the other consent calendar items. Just >> yeah we we could do it that way as well. I think um my thought and I don't this was your thought as well maybe a little cleaner have resident um feedback or resident or applicant or whoever speaking as opposed to just council >> speaking. Um, if it was just council, I'd agree that consent agenda, just moving it up or pulling it on consent is probably easier, >> but but either way, >> curious. >> Yeah. All righty. Uh, on to open forum. Uh, I have received no cards, Mr. Mayor, for the open forum. >> Easy enough. Then we will move on to consent agenda, which consists of items 6A through 6 K and 6M. Does anyone want to pull anything? >> No. I'll make a motion to approve those items. >> I'll second. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> On to item 7A, which is the pulled item uh or the the moved item uh originally consent item 6L, Rush Creek Reserve offsite storm water improvements completion. Please start Kevin. >> Sure, Mayor Council. Uh this is just really an update related to the offsite storm water improvements that were a condition of the Rush Creek Reserve development uh north of City Park for reference. Um there was a component that was tied to the development and for the past three or four years we've been working with the developer on completing those improvements. Um and engineering and staff's opinion that those have been completed. So, we're updating you of the completion. We've had extensive conversation with the property owners to the north. Um, I think they're going to speak here tonight. So, I don't want to I can let them comment on opinion, but staff's opinion is the work associated with the contract has been completed. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions? And Dean, did you have anything that you >> No. No. I the the effort that's been put forth and and what they've done. I I agree with what you're saying. So, love to hear what else comes from the neighborhood. >> Good. The council doesn't have any other questions or anything. Um here from Mrs. L. >> Yep. So, Mr. Mayor, we have the one card uh from Miss Karen Lyman. Uh and please come forward. State your name and your address for the record. And this is an a little nervous I did my points that I'm going to be talking about just for clarity. All right, I'll hand it over to you. concerned that contractual obligations on the agenda the hook but Um reserves the day that the flooding the June flood all the lots of Rush Creek reserves were dry but our five properties were flooded up to our knees where the private look at Rush Creek was actually empty. The water is rushing through the and put in our drainage and bring in like it's supposed to work their water reserves that the new people have over the old res because full price to review the situation about five weeks ago $7 it received it and I don't want any decisions to be made on this development discharge As far as the points from the reserve, you know that staff, I have to have to disagree with them. on Tuesday that this was on the agenda and um you know someone just showed up on our property took pictures. I feel like it's not accurate pictures. So the developer really did not finish the erosion control that we talked about and the barrier guard rails were dismissed by the staff. We actually have five children in the neighborhood and grandchildren basically council staff without notice and took pictures and said everything's fine. It's not because the water reserves doesn't water to the Russ, but feels like it was hidden from us. >> That's what this item is. >> Yeah, >> that's what this agenda item is. I'm asking to vote against it because our property and I just feel like the old time resed in favor of him and I just ask you not to approve that to leave it open at least until we can understand it Gotcha. >> Okay. >> Couple quick questions, then I'll open up to council if they have any. Um, uh, timing wise in terms of procedure for this. Is there a clock that we have to get this item approved by or? >> There's no official clock. Obviously >> historically we've been trying to close out projects that are lagging on and some of the previous conversations this summer were to get them moving to close out the project. There's no official clock like a >> typically this type of project is just administratively reduced. >> Um but we wanted to bring forward it to you to be transparent but there's no official clock and when we release it it's subject to us deeming the work complete. >> Gotcha. Good. Thank you. Um in terms of getting you said uh Karen that you did a request for the plan the spec a specific set of plans. >> Yes. >> Okay. I think that plan might be in the packet. >> Um >> well to be fair so to be fair there's an active ongoing data request submitted that we haven't fulfilled. >> Okay. >> Uh her request is it's a fair this is a >> going back five six seven years. So in an effort to be transparent and get all the data, it takes a little bit longer. So to be fair, she has she does have an open data request that we will fulfill. >> Make sure that we've checked all the areas and provide all the data to her. So part of the part, you know, the plans like the plans in the packet are part of >> what the improvements was pre- project and it tells the simplified story of a complex situation. >> But we, you know, we will follow through >> with the full >> with the full d So, so, so this is also something uh that when we've met on site, uh we provided hard copies at at one of those meetings. Council member Nichols was with us and we provided hard copies to everybody who was present. And so the the information in terms of how this was designed, uh what it's expected to do, um to Miss L's point, it's it's been discussed a lot particularly in the last year for me. Uh I've been involved in nous discussions at the heart of it is there's a disagreement in terms of what the expectations are and what MINI's obligation is. That's that's how I would articulate it. Uh the property owners feel like MI has a greater responsibility than they are contractually obligated to do. They fulfilled their contractual obligations much to the disappointment of the property owners. uh they they the property owners have some expectations that exceed what we are legally uh able to hold M and I to and what they are legally obligated to by the by the agreement. Uh some of the disagreement is uh when water flows off and so Miss Lyman did send you all some videos and some pictures after what was the largest storm event in Corkran uh this summer. Uh she had some drone footage that she sent videos of you. want to acknowledge that and you've seen that I went out three other times that at that particular event. It's important to note that that storm shut down three roads in Corkran. So, this was an unprecedented storm. Uh and and then I went back a few days later and I sent you photos of that that the water had subsided, but at the time immediately following the storm, we had numerous places to include right here at city hall uh with with the creek right behind us. So, That was an unprecedented storm. I I've sent you photos from other events like a July event, one that happened in June, uh, going the day after, like I sent you photos on July 28th because I I I was concerned. I wanted to make sure that this is functioning the way that it's supposed to. And in less than 24 hours after the June July 27th storm, there there was no evidence of collecting water there. And so that's why staff is saying, I am not a hydraologist. Uh, we have professionals that we pay for that expertise. They say it's supposed to function this way. I'm a person that can see standing water. And when I go there and I don't see standing water, that communicates to me that it's doing what it's supposed to be doing. Uh but there are instances in which the water might collect immediately and then it flows through. That's part of living in a wetland area. In in their case, they they live uh in in a flood plane. Both of those properties, if you look at historic footage, have flooded not M and I moved there because it's a flood plane. Uh and and that's that's a reality. Mi has significantly invested a lot of money and if you look at photos improved the existing conditions dramatically. Uh but not to the degree that the property owners would like to see it approved. Uh and so what staff is saying uh the city doesn't have a position anymore because contractually they fulfilled their obligation. uh and and it is working to the standards that they are supposed to deliver on and that is not what the property owners want to see happen. >> Mr. Mayor, >> can I ask a question? >> Um I guess I would like to understand when when discussions originally started, was the discussion at the start of of your discussions different than where it's ended? >> Okay. So, that would be one question I'd have. And then I'd also wonder like I know that out on Beck told road we have sort of a deeper culvert because a little stream runs through there and we do have guardrails up along that little culvert and that's much smaller than the one at this location. And so I'm wondering why we wouldn't put some sort of guardrail up at this one too, especially since it's a dirt road. And dirt roads tend to get kind of slippery in the winter. And I just feel like that would not be a good place to go off the road because it would cause damage to the culvert for one. And it just seems like sort of dangerous if we do get some flow through there. >> That's an excellent point. I really appreciate that. I'd like to see that you're talking. >> It's it's it's not a substantial. It's very small, but the fact that we have one there and wouldn't put one here, I'm just I'm questioning that. >> Difference to that. That's a city road and this is a private driveway. >> We looked at it under the lens. It's in the memo. So, you look at speed, geometry, conditions. So, it's not it doesn't meet the warrants for guardrail. So, guardrail can also cause problems if you put it in incorrect spots as well from a public safety standpoint or if someone's driving and they hit it. Uh, it can also be counterproductive. So there's standards much like a traffic signal when there's standards and warrants have standards and warrants and so we evaluated them under those premise. The other caveat I will say is we didn't we did change out the culverts and add more capacity under the road. The elevation of the road did not significantly change from pre-RO to post project. There was always a culvert there. So we didn't elevate the road. We didn't change the drop off of the road to any significance. So there's more recommendation to it and not put the car out there. So that's evaluated. >> There's more flow coming through there though right now >> flow was pre flood plane flood. This area was platted and there was actually flood plane ement that was taken over it. >> Okay. >> Um I would submit that the water is managed through this area. That's the improvement is managed to this area. We can't evaporate water. So we managed it, directed it, controlled it. That's that's the improvement. We can't eliminate it. >> Yeah. >> And that's kind of the gap from my perspective and the expectation. Do we have pre pre-improvement water flows and postimprovement water flows? >> Yep. That's it goes through the watershed. Um that's some of the data that they requested. It goes through the wershed. It's gone through the wetland conservation act regulators. All those agencies. We did multiple meetings with them. They've all signed off on it. Okay. >> So all the appropriate entities from a standard project have been met. >> I understand that. I think and I think that we're really good about like looking at what warrants specific criteria for when we're doing different projects. But I also feel like sometimes you need to look at like really what is best for this specific area. And so like when I look at that area, I think that there probably should be some sort of guardrail there, especially if I had children crossing that covert because it is wider and it's bigger. And I know you said it's a private drive, but if it's something that was discussed at the beginning and then that's one piece that didn't happen. >> So that that was not discussed at the beginning. That was a discussion when council member Nichols is on site and we said that we'd research it. >> Uh and then one of the biggest concerns that was raised was the public safety. It's going to narrow the road and I don't think they wouldn't want a fire truck to be able to get to those houses on the other side of that culvert because we've installed this. And that was a concern. >> One of one of the many concerns. Uh and then the other one is uh they didn't choose when this was at the same height >> to have a guardrail then uh and they had younger children many of them then >> and so this has been there since they've moved in some of the folks and they've never had a guardrail there before unless correct me if I'm wrong did you have a guardrail there before >> it was the same height the road >> the road well but the road could be the same height but the way the way the slope goes goes down could be different from what it is now. It could be steeper now than what it was before. So like if someone were driving and happened to go off the edge, it could it could possibly roll your car from the height that it looks like to me just looking at the pictures. >> It was not significant. The elevation between the road surface and the ditch was not significantly changed. >> I couldn't tell you today if it was it's not significantly changed because part of the other concern here is that we didn't grade out into the creek. So about 20 feet 50 feet down from the ditch was where we couldn't permit you know that's one of the other concerns that they have. So we literally tied into that same elevation from the drainage. So the road elevation and the culver bottom elevation did not significantly change >> which I get that but like when you have a sharper edge now when it's more defined >> and the road width didn't change. So I would ar I have to bet that out for but in my my understanding the project it did not significantly change. What changed was one small culvert to three parallel culverts to allow for for less height. >> So less flooding scenarios. So in if under the same it's really hard to replicate an exact same storm but if you could replicate exact same storm for duration intensity >> if you could literally do that which is impossible in theory the water would draw down faster. It would be instead of a waist high, it could be, you know, 12 inches. So >> this this is the culvert on the south side. >> So what I'm hearing is the length of the culvert as you're driving the length at which you're going to have the drop off is bigger now, but the drop off is the same vertical size. Is that a >> I know the road height in the bottom of the culver didn't significantly change. So I couldn't speak to the side slope. Um, that side slope is per engineering standards. I don't I I'm sure we have a survey on it. I don't know if the original one was per engineering standards because it was a private road, but I know that this meets engineering standards for a side slope of that pipe >> and and it was not part of the original discussion that came up for the first time when we were on site discussing closing this out. >> You're right. It was 12 M Mr. Tobin, please correct me if I'm wrong. I think I understood you to say that it's the opinion of the city that M&I has completed all of its contractual obligations. Do I understand you correctly? >> Yes. And we've had legal review with that too because as we continue to press them, uh the city's position is not we can't keep asking them for things that we don't have the authority to ask them for. And so this the city's not in a great position here with the the demands being laid on it because we have no authority to request any further change. >> So in other words, we don't have the authority to withhold this uh or to withhold these funds from M&I. Correct. >> I think that would be an accurate statement. engineering staff recommendation that they met their obligations. >> Okay. And is that also the opinion of Mr. Thes? >> I I believe he would take the engineering recommendation. >> Yeah. I I don't want to speak for Mr. But did he review this or did he have some input on this? >> He discussed it. But like I said earlier, historically the policy is administratively you're relying on the city engineer to reduce it once it's once it's to the bottom and the city council does it. But this type of project in our policy would be administratively released without we typically would even bring back the council. >> So to that point, I'm I'm routinely on behalf of the city releasing the letters of credit uh because because it's an administrative procedure. Out of the spirit of transparency, we brought this as a staff report because we wanted to make sure that people were aware that it happened, but we didn't actually have an obligation to put this on the agenda. >> Well, since since it doesn't sound like we have the authority to withhold these funds, I I would make a motion to uh to release those funds back to M&I. >> Do have a motion. Do we have a second? Should should we do the motion to approve the agenda item? >> That sounded slightly different. >> Is there a distinction between >> that would be my recommendation is to uh item 7 A as recommended. >> I think the recommendation was basically that we're administrative and releasing it. So it was more of an update. >> So I think this similar >> approved for staff recommendation. >> Okay. >> Amen. Okay. So, I have a motion. Do we have a second on that? >> I'll second, but I would like one more discussion. >> Discussion. >> Go ahead. >> What is going to come out of the data information that is being requested by this line of good here? >> That was generally public and presented through all the reports. There's I mean, it's basic copies of everything. will pull anything that's compliant with their data request. It's all public information. In my opinion, it's not going to change my the recommendation of staff. >> All of that information is driven this conclusion. >> Yeah. >> And and and it went into the development agreements uh that that were developed. >> Yeah. And I I understand I live in out on Betold and such and when we got the big rain it was seven days for my pastures to dry up to the point where I could finally even walk in them after three and a half four feet underwater. So if the timing is a couple of days, it sounds like it it's an event that continuously happens. The only thing that sticks in my mind is when the comment is made, >> the mitigation pond, I assume is what she was talking about, wasn't even full. >> Yeah. >> Is there a elevation change there that that should have been fuller before it overflowed onto their properties? Anything like that, Kevin, or everything is too specified. We've cross checked different flood stages to see if the modeling's right. Uh, I can't replicate that. I mean, that's can't replicate what that was to check that specific comment, but we've been looking at this and we believe it's a long time. >> We've been monitoring it. We believe the couple times we were out there, it's drawn down, you know, by the by 4:00. It's been almost >> when we've had multiple rain events, I grabbed Kevin and said, "Let's go check on this to see what's going on with it." So, we've tried to do our due diligence uh in order to make sure that >> we are paying attention to what's happening. >> We've done everything we would normally do to check to make sure Yeah. to make sure that this meets the standards. >> Uh >> we know we know the landlord's position, but we have an obligation to tell you when something's contractually done and you know that's why we want to be bring it forward. It wouldn't get to this point. Is there any evidence that you've provided that the pond was not filling? >> Was that before our meeting? Is that the >> Okay. >> Okay. Kevin, I have a quick question. So, the purpose of the holding pond isn't to hold the water there, right? It's supposed to fill up and then drain. And is that what's draining into the creek where the culbert runs by their property? >> So the purpose of storm water ponds in development, there are a couple purposes. One's water quality, but the one related to flooding like flood high volume events is really to hold the water back and make sure. So the rules are all based on rate. So the water always drains this corridor. It was actually more spread out. You know, it's a little more centralized and controlled than a ditch. But you look when when a development comes in the wershed rules in the law basically say you can't increase rate at the property. So if 5 CFS was going in pre-development and preconditions the ponds have to hold it back. So it's released at 5 CFS or less and that's what they're designed to >> in normal conditions >> in in at twoyear events, 10 year events and 100 year events. So they're like if you look at those reports it's like low flow conditions at like a standard rainfall condition in a 100 year would be you know you know once a summer but sometimes we get three of those a so it's hard to predict the volume and intensities all matter but those are the standards set for every development and that's the rules that we can hold them to. So um we believe that this meets those um conditions that were permitted. Another question. Did those did those I'm not sure what the right term is. The way that the pond is set up now, does there is there ever erosion, so the the the outflow gets stronger? And do we do we test for that to make sure that that's not happening? Or how do you like for escrow? I'm thinking if something like that were to happen, who's responsible for that breach of too much overflow going into that creek then? >> Well, so like if we have a really big event, there's always a pond overflow, right? has to be relief if it's like a more than a design, right? So in some storms, if you get two and a half inches in 30 minutes, that's going to exceed the design capacity that's required by the regulator. So in that case, the pond would over top and control the EF and it would basically bypass and get relief from the flood plane. >> So if there's erosion at those structures, uh it's part of whoever maintains those structures. In this case, it would be ultimately that bail. So if we had that erosion issue, sorry, thank you. So if there was an erosion issue of some huge thing, if the landlords notified us, we go say, "Oh yes, this is their responsibility. We notify the HOA to get it fixed." If it was a biblical event or something like that >> and if it's not fixed, we would fix it. And then >> in Yes. In our new developments, if it's not fixed, in theory, correct me if I'm wrong, we could do the work. There's a process to do the work and charge them for it essentially, >> right? set up storm water management agreements. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? >> So, if there was an empty pond, does that maybe that overflow pond you were talking about, Kevin, that maybe wasn't filled because the event wasn't big enough? >> I I can't speak to that comment in that instance. Um, it would surprise me that there would be a pond that was empty in a event, but I don't I'm not it's like that's where if like you're seeing that in action, call us in storm and we can get eyes out there and look at a problem, we can approach the Hway and address it, but I can't speak to that specific example. It's not replicatable. >> So, there will be future recourse if there are issues where the system isn't. >> So, if that happens again and she's the property owners are seeing an issue where they're taking a lot of water and the pond is dry or the bench is seen and you're not seeing it higher, you should contact the will go out there and look at it. If there's a problem, then it would it would be the developer now and it would ultimately be the HOA. And again, the city would have recourse if they didn't want to do something to be able to address it. And that's always kind of an ongoing maintenance condition that we have to react to over time. >> Okay. >> We don't believe that. We've been out there after these events. We don't believe that to be the case here, but um >> that hasn't been our observation. >> Yeah. So, we like I said, if some if there's a question about what's happening during storm, contact us and we'll do everything we can to be out there and observe and explain what's going on. So, we're standing there side by side. Um, it's just too hard to replicate afterwards on video of what's happening. So, >> that was on a Sunday. >> Yeah, we have we actually have on call uh components now where they can come out and help. So, I would if you're experiencing something that you think is off, we I can make sure you have the on call number and we can have someone go out there and um help document the situation or do what we need to to double check it. But again, when we've been able to get out there, it's we believe it's functioning properly. I think that'd be good to make sure she has that information that there's a potential you know, actionable path you can take if there's future issues here that seemingly would if there were those issues would have more teeth to it than what we have with the developer for the agreement here. Um because you know we can kind of debate some of the if it should have this picture or not but I don't know that the development agreement has any teeth to it for >> the HOA we we've got into perpetuity authorities if are not operating the way that they're supposed to. Like to the point that you made if erosion occurs and and things start to happen there, we we have procedures in place that will allow us to do something. >> And I just want to be clear that's for the infrastructure within Rush Creek >> within Rush Creek Preserve. >> So that a main outlet where there's where it leaves Rush Creek Preserve and transition that would be covered but the ditch and under the private road is not part of the HOA. So I just want to be clear with that. if there was an issue with the holding ponds or something an outcome of the holding ponds within the development that's why we can go back to the HO >> and and I do want to bring that point up that Kevin saying that uh in our other developments uh we have not had other developers do as much off-site improvement to the neighbors uh to to this degree and so they they've worked hard to try and make this happen you know 300 and something almost $400,000 invested other people's property to try and deal with the fact that they recognize that this is impacting them. And so these improvements uh in other cities, they might have been born by the existing property owners. Uh that is not the way that this has gone through. So then the the developer has gone a significant effort to try and make it work. >> Mr. Mayor, can I ask one more question? >> Um Yep. I Yep. um wondering if there is a possibility um because it seems like her request and this um item on our agenda is sort of crossing and it would have been nice to have waited until she got her data request until we presented this report. I think and that would maybe give her at least some information that she was looking for before we actually moved forward. So, I'm going to be voting no on this because I think we should allow the homeowner a chance to see that report, even if it's been public, to have it compiled all together over seven years and be able to look at it all together might give them a different p perspective of what actually's been done on that property. >> So, one thing that I I would say in that uh I just want to acknowledge that it puts the city in a very bad position legally uh because to Kevin's point uh in terms of authority, this is not our normal procedure. We're just doing this out of the spirit of transparency uh in and trying to go um I know I personally spent a lot of time on site and at the heart of this is a disagreement on what MINI is responsible for and the development agreement is the authority on what MINI is responsible for and so what we have before us is they've met their obligations for the development agreement and that development agreement was from all of these historical documents but that that's the authoritative document in terms of the city's partnership agreement with the developer. Uh and so if we don't do this, I just want to acknowledge that council's aware that this could have repercussions for the city. >> Can I add one more clarification just to make for clarity purposes? So her data request is more than one document and it's very technical. So I would suspect there would be a period of review time. I don't know what we'd want to give them for review time, but I suspect it could be extended because it's very technical in nature. So, the risk of delaying three, four, six months to a year of pulling someone's money is that's the risk I think as it's not one document to review. It's >> very technical. >> Um, and so I suspect that they'll be an ask of review time and that's fair. They can review all the public data there is, but we to comply with the contract >> and so I just want to clarify that it's not it's probably an extensive review >> I understand that I think there's a balance between trying to decide what is best for the people that live in our community against what the builders are doing that impact their property and I think it's wonderful that the developer went ahead and tried to correct some of those issues um but I just still feel strongly that the fact that she's put in a data request on that on those items for has to come through with this now to try to finalize everything before they've had a chance to review that complete document just doesn't really it doesn't look great in my opinion because it looks like we're trying to pass something through before she gets the data request is how I feel. That's why I think it's it's important for us to consider our residents and what's what's been >> Can I can I ask a question? >> Yeah. >> Uh what do you see as an alternative outcome? Because contractually we have an obligation. So, if she disagrees with the outcome, what is the city's play? >> I guess I wouldn't know that until she's had a chance to review. >> No, even if she disagrees and she says they're not fulfilling the responsibility and your expert staff have told you that they have >> and the contractor saying that you have >> and we have a resident that disagrees. >> What is the city's play as we're taking on this potential litigation? Because that's where it's going to end up. How how do you see that playing out >> because because that's you're you're accepting risk and and you're allowed to do that as decision makers. >> But it's important for us as staff to understand your direction on how we deal with the risk that you're you're taking because we're going to have to make subsequent decisions with the with the developer >> and and that that could have repercussions. And so I just want to understand what what the desire would be or what what the vision for the outcome would be like I don't I don't see what how we would get a different decision. We still have an obligation to release the letter. >> Yeah. I don't think based on the time we spend on site we talked about the guardrail that that was something we wanted to research and get more information whether that would be feasible and required in that location. Sounds like turns out that was not. If that had been required, it might have been arguable that MNI should do that as part of the Culver project. >> And they did do some of the other requests. >> Yeah. And that's good. So, >> and they did put the flags on there, which >> delineators. >> Yeah. Delineators. >> I think the other big ask that the land owners had was to clear out parts of the ditch that were farther to the north. I don't think it's arguable at this point that M and I would be on the hook for that. But we have for the past four or five years had in the offing the idea of a uh storm water access fee to generate funding so the city could take on projects of that nature. I feel like the best play not only for these residents but for residents in general is to try to expedite that so that when we have situations where there's 50-y old infrastructure it's grown in and filled in with silt there's a mechanism to deal with that without trying to pull it out of the general fund. Is that something that we could try to expedite given where we last touched it? C >> could I address one comment you made and then I'll let him So so one of those Could you bring this up again? Uh so they did do improvements and and clear out areas that were allowed that the that the watershed would permit >> and and so they did do work. Uh the degree of the work that they were allowed to do was determined by the wershed, not by the developer. Uh and and so to that point, the city would have a similar restraint as the wershed holds the authority on what you can and can't do. Uh the property owner to the west uh got a cease and desist many years ago for trying to self-perform the work and and he was told that the wershed by the wershed, no, you cannot do this. And so uh the work that is being desired isn't permitted. That's that's one of the challenges. the work that was allowed was executed by M&I. So, I just wanted to bring that point as far as the the storm water fee. >> Yeah, I think we I think we kind of paused that there's a lot of pieces to that. We could if that's a priority, we can re-engage the conversation in my opinion in this specific case. I don't know if it would apply, but there are other cases where it might apply and there might be benefit. I think it's if that's a conversation we want to have. It's kind of a different conversation this because this is really private in my private property issue. Um, but there are other scenarios where a swimmer may or may not be effective and we would need to evaluate that across the board. So, if that's a priority, we can re engage that conversation. Um, but I don't think it would solve this specific problem. >> I think we have had as one of our priorities identifying alternative sources of revenue and I think this would be a good example that we could point to at the end of the year if we were able to put something in place by then that yes, we we've taken action. and we realize we don't want to be raising the general levy to deal with specific problems that we can get funded through the development process. So, I'd like to see that happen if that's possible. It it may not be suitable for this specific application, but I think generally across the city there will be cases where it'll be helpful to have half million dollars banked to be able to do projects that come up as a consequence of development or as a consequence of deterioration. >> Is is there a consensus to direct staff to to reinate that? There hasn't been any activity for probably a year and a half to two years on the storm water fee. >> I'd be open to having the conversation about it and kind of reviewing where we left off and seeing >> I can confidently say it will not be in place by January 1st, but we could engage some conversation January 1. It's a it's a long >> Yep. >> Okay. >> So, staff will take that back and bring an update in the future. Perfect. >> Thank you, Michelle. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. So, so just I have a question back to the the contract because we're specifically talking about our obligation per the contract. How many days do we have once once the um project is completed and staff has stamped their approval and said yes, you fulfilled your obligation? What what are what is what is the contract state? How many days before the the escrow is returned? >> It it's a letter of credit shy. So, it's a it's a letter of credit, not actual cash, just as a placeholder to make sure this works. There's no timeline other than when the work's accepted, it should be returned. >> So, in light of other other developments, uh we we've returned it within days. Like that's >> uh Yeah. Well, we initiate the process. Sometimes it takes a little bit of work on the developers end. They have to bank it. We have to review it, release it. So, it probably takes 30 >> 30 days. Yes, we initiate the actress when we accept it. It depends on how fast they are, but I would say 30 to 45 days. And this has been a discussion candidly since I arrived a year and nine months ago. >> And I think the risk is if I decides okay we want it enough. that they would probably prevail if they were to challenge that >> and and back to that point, they have said, "All right, we we have done what we need to do and they've been showing up and having conversations with us." Uh but but the work was completed before I started here. >> One thing and then we got to get one >> as far as is the local government issue. >> I hope that's accurate. >> Can you repeat that question again? >> LG. >> Yep. or the LG or the wetland conservation acted. >> Yes, the wershed. So the wetland conservation act is complicated. There's representatives of the watershed, the city, Bowser, which is a state agency board of water and soil resources. Sometimes the Army Corps plays into that depending on the jurisdiction. Sometimes the DNR plays into that. It's a highly regulated corridor. It's not as simple as us saying we issue a permit. It's a collective panel that recommendation. If the city goes against if the if the local LGU goes against the recommendation, they're at risk of the state agency coming down on them for making a a poor decision. So, usually it's a we quarterback that process, but we don't have unilateral control over it. If we if we did, we'd get subject to liability. So, if we went against the TE recommendation, we'd be at risk of being liability for being non-compliant with the W conservation act. I want to thank you for your insightful comments and understand if we can make sure that Karen gets that information regardless. >> Yep. Data request on call number. We'll bring back storm water feed. >> Thank you. updating. >> Kevin, I I I heard your comments about this data practice request and I've also heard comments that this has been going on for five years. Is there is there anything that would be released in response to this data practice request that hasn't been available for the past five years? I mean what's new? Is there some smoking gun in this uh data practice request? Like what what's new? If a data practice request was made a year ago, would it be any different than what you are preparing? >> It would be all I mean it would be the most like in the last year would be just correspondences with the residents about updates or meetings or whatever. So >> um I don't have the date in front of me so I can't conclusively say that but there's It would be >> a lot of public data. There could be some emails back and forth that would be talking about a final decision would be all public data. So there there could be some exchanges. Um all the data isn't pulled together yet, so I couldn't guarantee something, but any of the data that's not public would have all been like tied into that final public decision, if that makes sense. >> Okay. So, but basically nothing substantive would come out of this new request that wasn't available years earlier. >> I don't believe so, but I haven't gone through at all. I don't suspect any of that. It would be like supplemental data to that decision if that makes sense. >> It would all be stuff that's out there before in previous packets. >> Yep. Just making a point. Yep. I get that. >> And Mr. Tobin, one last thing. I I I asked you this before and I think I understood your your uh response. Is it the opinion of the city that we do not have the authority to withhold the these funds from M&I? >> Uh it's the city's staff's opinion that they fulfilled their obligations and and we have a responsibility to release the funds. >> Thank you. And with that, Mr. Mayor, I have a motion pending. >> Motion. Okay. So we will call it uh all those just to clarify it was to to approve staff to recommendation to to approve >> right >> to release the funds >> right >> um as presented okay all those >> is it funds or the credit letter >> it's a letter of credit >> it's a letter of credit >> so it's not funds letter fair enough >> to proceed as staff recommendation >> well clear on what the motion is Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Nay. >> Thank you. And if you make sure that that uh number and everything gets to Karen and if future issues come up, definitely let us know. Um the whole conversation about with the HOA if anything's coming from that side. Um definitely let us know and there might be te there if problems arise in the future. Hope hopefully not. But >> thanks for coming in. Okay, on to 7B, which is Amberly Trail Easement Vacation. Mr. Mayor, I have just a couple slides. This is a public hearing uh for vacation of a trail easement in Amberly, second edition. If you go to the next slide, it is um in the northwest corner of that Amberly subdivision, lot four, block five. The trail was modified from the original approvals. It will still remain as constructed as a and it's constructed as a 10-ft trail in a 20 foot easement. But moving um the easement itself um would center it over the trail and provide more flexibility for construction of the house in this location. And the city engineer has no objection. The next slide shows the uh new easement location uh shifting it slightly from the previous location in that uh north west corner of the lot. And with that, we uh do recommend approval of resolution 2589, approving the eastment vacation for Amberly, second edition. >> Any questions from Seth or council? >> I just going to make a motion. >> Uh we have public hearing first. Oh, sorry. >> I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. >> Does anyone want to speak on the public hearing? >> Nope. Okay. Just real quick if I can. Can you pull a map back up again? >> Should we do this to close public hearing? >> Yes. >> For this? >> Yeah. Before the discussion, take a motion to close. >> Sounds good. >> So moved. Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> Continue. >> How far are we moving it? >> Um it's in that uh its feet. Um I'm going to look at the in the packet. We have the existing easement. So, let me just take a look here. Kevin's racing through on his side, too. And do you know exactly, Chad? It's it's a very minor change. >> What what sort of happened is where you see that it's a sweeping curve there. When it used to come up the west side, it sort of flattened out at that corner. So, it was more of a >> like a double curve. So, as you come in, it was a curved curve >> as you go transition from north to east. This makes it one one >> so it actually is the preferred alignment. I think we just had a disconnect between what was recorded as mentioned what was on the plan. >> Got it. N you answer my question. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> I was going to make a motion to approve. >> Okay. >> I'll second that. >> Motion a second. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. on to excuse me um unfinished business um 8A which is preliminary preliminary proposed tax levy collectible in 2026. >> So Mr. Mayor uh we we had our we've had some budget discussions and and uh after this decision we have scheduled um departmental budget discussions get into the details. So this sets the preliminary not to exceed levy and then per our practice uh over the next couple months we'll get into the details identify any um potential savings opportunities uh get guidance from council in order to arrive on our truth and taxation meeting on December 11th. And just for the record, just kind of um same process as we did last year where we really kind of went into the preliminary approval kind of with with everything included um had really sharpened pencils and then as we get I think I think it's a better process because we get more time to get actual numbers and more data from Henipin County and and actual expenses as we get closer to a full year. Um, and then we'll dive into the departments like J. Jay mentioned uh in a couple work sessions and even a couple meetings if we need need them. Um, and can get that number to where we need it to be by December 11th. >> 11th. So, yeah, just wanted to reiterate that for the record. Um, does anyone else have any questions or comments? >> Do we need a motion? >> Yep. Um, If I could get a motion, I'll entertain a motion. Um, I almost read the wrong one. That would not have made sense. Um, uh, motion to approve resolution 202590 adopting the preliminary proposed tax levy collectible in 2026. >> So, move second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Okay. Sometimes I'm bad at hearing everyone. Glad I got you. Perfect. Okay. Glavo. Um on to uh new business. Uh we have item let's see here. >> Unfinished business still. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you're right. I wasn't reading my own notes. Um, item 8 8B, which is the outdoor recreation grant from the DNR. And JC, >> yes, I'd be happy to provide an update. Um, so back in the spring, we asked for uh permission to apply for the outdoor recreation grant program through the DNR. Uh, on July 1st, we received notice that we were not the grant. >> Bummer. and then they came back to us on Monday and said, "Hey, we had some extra funds allocated to the program." Um, and you guys were next on the list. So, we're really excited to award you money. The downfall is we had already started the project and thus those items that have already made it thus far with the playground are not eligible for reimbursement nor the match, which is unfortunate. So, it doesn't look like at this point we would be getting the full $350,000 even though we were approved for it because it does have to be very specific to the playground. Um, however, staff and uh the grant administrators are working to try and figure out how we can most efficiently utilize the funds and get the most out of it. Uh, we're looking at including things like site amenities and features, benches, bike racks, things of that nature. Hopefully, landscaping that's around the playground. Go ahead. >> What about that third bay that we didn't build out that was going to be maybe a zip line >> at this point? Uh it would be very very difficult just because we've already had the plans to update the ball field that's along that edge as well. So the work's been done and graded and everything. So it might cost more in the long run to backtrack like that. Um, I could look into it if that's council's preference, but I think given what I've seen that would be eligible and working with Sarah from the grant office, it looks like somewhere between 175,000 to 200 of the 350,000, which is still exciting because we didn't think we would get this money. >> Um, but a bummer that we can't get the full amount, but I'm sure >> potential change orders that we could look at. No, >> no. anything that's been paid or delivered at this point before what will likely be either January or February when we can start tapping into the funds um because we have to go through the process with similar to the HUD funds we have to go through the process of shipo and um tribal consultation but since we've already done that work we can use that and move forward and hopefully fasttrack it a little bit more. >> Okay. Do we raise the issue with them at all that had they given it to us at the time they gave everyone else that we would have been fine? >> Yep. We met with them uh Natalie and I met with them on Monday or on Tuesday and unfortunately it's just the way the cookie crumbles was kind of what I was told. >> I >> but what they said was say thank you that you're getting something that was you were told in July that no you're not getting >> I mean to be fair it's a it's a fun we weren't expecting >> the contact there. I'm sorry. >> Could you provide me with a contact? >> Not publicly, but after the meeting. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Otherwise, we can just get a lot of bike racks. >> The Oprah win free of >> Did you look at trail with that? >> Because we were prepping for it. We just didn't include it. >> Yeah, because I think we did. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Good. >> Good job. >> Heaven. >> Heaven. Could that qualify for the pickle ball courts? >> No. >> No. It's outside of the scope of the playground. >> Okay. >> But there are other funding sources that we're looking at that might tackle into that that might be coming up in a future meeting here. >> Tether ball poles. >> It has to specifically be the playground. Like even expanding beyond to the landscaping areas, I think might get a little bit of push back, but I like to push the envelope. >> Yeah. And I think we're all in favor of maximize much as you can. >> Ultimately, my request was if staff can work with the DNR folks to try and get the most amount. I don't want to set an amount that we're shooting for. >> We don't need a motion. Do you just need consensus >> guidance? >> Keep going after it. How's that? >> Yeah, >> super duper. >> Thank you. >> Get as much as we can. >> Thank you. >> And get the information that Mayor Vicki request. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Okay, on to uh nine with new business uh which is Elm Creek Wershed Commissioner resignation and publish vacancy which is a motion that I uh drafted a potential motion that I almost read for the budget which would have been awkward. >> J I'll turn it over to you. Uh so uh if you recall when Ken Gunther had notified us a year and a half ago that he was going to be leaving, we started our search for watershed commissioner replacement. Uh Tom Anderson agreed to stay on as our alternate and he thought that he was staying on for another sixish months to nine months. And now a year and 10 months later, uh he's still continuing to faithfully serve. Uh and we have an opportunity to potentially allow him to step down. uh and so he's asked to be able to step down as of December 31st uh which gives us time to publish and recruit. We currently have three applicants on hand of people who applied to be a commissioner previously. Uh and we believe that they would be interested in being the alternate. Uh so what we're asking for is to publish to recruit a replacement for Mr. Anderson. Uh and for for the two weeks we we have to have it out there. like 15 days. Get the exact date. Uh and then come back at a future council meeting uh with council to be able to approve those. One caveat to that is we're asking that we actually recruit for two alternates and we we differentiate between them as first alternate and second alternate because when Kevin was talking with the wershed they were explicit that the city has one vote in the representative. And so we wanted to make sure that we understand a secession on who has the authority to speak for the city just in case as might happen from time to time people disagree on what should happen with watershed related issues. uh just referencing an earlier conversation and so making sure that we have some clarification on it would be the primary then the first >> appointed recently. >> Yep. That's been appointed and then we would appoint the first alternate and then a second alternate. The other advantage is it also gives us a session plan so that if any of those people should step down we have another opportunity for someone to rise up and we can recruit someone else. I think that that aspect of it is great. Going from >> we went like about a year plus where we didn't really have a candidate to maybe we have three to four interested people right now. Um that's a good problem to have. So So one thing that wasn't included in this that I think would be helpful, Mr. mayor to clarify is uh who the uh um committee would be uh for interviewing the commissioner. >> If we continued on, I think it'd be me and Dean, >> right? It's you and >> it was us for the last one. >> Yeah. And we go this way, I believe. So, be me and >> Okay, I'm in. >> Sounds good. Uh so so the request from uh request from staff is to consider a motion and then as it's written out there accept the resignation of uh commissioner Anderson effective December 31st declare the vacancy which allows us to publish it and then direct staff on this support for multiple alternate commissioners authorizing staff to publish the vacancy and schedule appointed discussions. I will make a motion to that. >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Huge. Thank you >> to Tom Anderson for everything he's done. >> If we could get a resolution of I think we did one when he stepped down from other duties, but probably an updated one of recognizing him because he has done >> we'll plan that on being on the agenda on December 11th. >> Thank you. and the pickle ball courts after >> one just just a procedural comment just knowledge every year annually we reappoint wershed commissions it's different than other commissions so just every year in January appointity point >> and that's actually important detail for why the timing of this is so that we didn't appoint them and then have to do it again in January so so I actually asked Mr. Anderson to stay on to December 31st so that we could find the replacements and have the good transition for January >> and the bench I think will also offer some flexibility to people too where they can make a meeting. It's maybe not the end of the world because the next guy could step in and do that and building a bench is always good. So we did have that motion and second out there. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Perfect. >> And I will say that uh Tom as we've all recognized, has done a ton for the city. There's two times where I've been at in city hall here with Tom, I think one time with Jay and one time with uh former counselor Bottom where uh I wasn't paying attention to who was around me and someone said, "Well, Tom, I just want to thank you for all that you've done for the city and I didn't realize Tom Anderson was in the same room." So, I'm kind of awkward like, "Oh, uh, thank you. That's very kind." And John goes, "Not you." And then I realized H was there and I was like, "Oh, but if I didn't say something and it was just us in there, that very awkward, >> you're talking about you. >> Somebody set a trap for you there." >> Random, too. I was like, "Oh, that's so kind." Thank you. >> All right. Um, on to see here. Staff reports. Do we have anything staff? >> Uh, the only thing, Mr. Mayor, is just a reminder to council that I will be departing on Saturday. I'll be out of the country and I'm not taking my phone this time. And so it was on consent agenda. Uh Nicia will be the acting city administrator. Uh so our regularly scheduled meetings, if you would like to meet with Nicia, please work with her on what works with your schedule. Uh and I will be back on October 6th and we'll see you on October 9th. Sounds good. Council reports. Um I don't think I have too much. We kind of had a lot going on in August and September and now it's a little bit quieter. Uh there was St. Thomas groundbreaking the dean and that were at fantastic. >> That was great meeting the bishop and the excitement throughout the church is unbelievable >> to do what they're about to do. So that was number one. Number two, um >> October Fest down at Heidi's. >> That was great, too. >> Uh a great business owner in our community doing what she's done or did. The kids, everybody was engaged and such. So that was neat to tried to walk out the door with a pumpkin. So, fortunately, he caught that. >> All right. >> I'm sure Heidi would have been very kind about it. It was only this big, but still. >> Start off with >> about what's going on this weekend is Breastfest at the Shoes. >> Um, if no one knows, this is its 15th year. >> Really cool. Um over 15 years they've raised $559,000 and excuse me $559 $820 if I remember what it is. Um a ton of auction items, some great music, a stage. I believe it starts at 10:00 a.m. and goes till 6. >> And what day was that? >> Saturday. Um park team will be at St. Thomas Church for those and then you'd be shuttled over. But, uh, >> it's a great place, great event, great old barn, some, uh, beautiful old trees and, uh, by what I'm understanding, a number of vendors coming in and stuff, all for a great cause. And, uh, the Shocks are are, uh, some very good people here in our town. So, >> well, >> they are looking for volunteers. I'm in. >> If I can make it, I'll check my schedule. I can make it. I will be. >> They would appreciate anything. >> I'd love to be there. >> Let you all know. >> Kind of cool. >> Otherwise, that's all I have. >> Anyone else? >> I had a question. I don't know if Ryan will be able to answer this on the spot. The speed trailer that was set up on Gleon, are you seeing any evidence of speeding? >> Um, I'll have our cso um download, he'll uh download stuff next Monday. I think he put it out on Monday or Tuesday this week. It was on Ste Road. So, okay. >> He'll take it out next, but he'll pull it next week. >> I think um the complaints that I heard were actually from traffic coming from the west. >> Okay. >> Rather than from the east coming over that hill and there was conversation that some of the landscaping in the island has kind of grown up and blocked people's view of cross traffic. So, I'd be interested in seeing if there should be any changes made to make that a little bit safer. >> But landscaping has been a topic. >> Just acting off of that. There's a couple areas that I know that's a similar issue um along Gleon and I don't know where that gets into because of the kind of weird it's still part LAR in places and part HOA and part eventually just becomes a regular development and I don't think we'd have an issue with a regular development changing minor landscaping thing. >> There's update forthcoming. So as part of some of that updates we continue to review that. there's an update for coming on that specific >> those big bushes kind of run up and have blocked the >> been a few close calls. I know I've had a few >> they're beautiful and I'm not sure if they're supposed to be that tall as a feature like to people to drive slower but >> yeah the problem is it just it blocks until they're pretty much right there and you have to seen >> if we could dwarf them or cut them back I don't know >> that' be a good update. Appreciate it. Anything else? If not, um only thing with city council schedule, I think >> Jay mentioned this beforehand. Um we have the meeting. >> So we have work sess work sessions on the 9th, 23rd, and 13th coming up. >> Um so the 9th is an addition. Uh and this um BKB and uh Krauss Anderson wanted to get council feedback. it was part of their application as one of the work sessions with council on the facility condition assessment and then the first phase on where they're at for the space needs analysis. Want to get that helpful feedback so that when they come on November 13th, they've responded and gotten your feedback so that they don't move in a direction that that might be contrary to what council wants to see happen. And so I I I think this is a good plan to make sure that we're aligning strategically. Uh and then the pivot on the 25th that was previously scheduled for November 24th and then we recognized that uh staff won't be here on the 24th and we have an obligation and I was only that was flushed out and I was like whoops that was my bad so I apologize. Sounds like we have three, at least three for that, not four. And then um yeah, as long as we have three for the for the October 9th work session. Um should be good there. That's it. And >> 5:30. >> Yeah, that was my question for all of the work. >> Yeah, 5:30 for all the future work sessions. >> Perfect. Um and then yeah, the rest of the year's meetings October 9th, October 23rd, November 13th, November 25th, and then the only December meeting is I believe December 11th. So, and if there's nothing else, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. I. I.