e e I will call to the order of the regular meeting of Dayton city council for June 11th stand for the pledge ALG 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 any motion is second for the agenda make the motion I'll second um make sure you read that item oh yes um actually I'll just I'll get that out of the way here um I will note for the record that notice was given that council member Henderson is participating in the city council meeting via interactive technology which is allowed by Minnesota statute section 13 do2 the address location was included in the notice and is open and accessible to the public so that we comply with the statute all votes we take tonight will be conducted by roll call of members so we got a motion in second there was an addition of in. one what was the title yes please mayor that would be the approval of release of settlement agreement this is related to the scel property owned down by DT Parkway this is releasing them of their assessments that they paid when they purchased the property any other changes to the agenda all right I got a motion a second all those in favor say i i o I got to do a roll call MAT hi Dave hi uh I'm and I Scott I and Travis I all right 5 to zero move on to consent I need a motion and a a second I'll make the motion I'll second it any discussion uh a question for Gary on on Jay if we sell that truck now we don't use that truck at all currently um we're using that truck for respon resp to extrication calls primarily only um so we are consolidating down to engine 21 to add um moving our equipment to that particular truck and then the only other resource that that offers currently for us is um portable air if you will if we're to fill our bottles in the field um currently we have the opportunity to still fill at station one um and then down the road when we do go to spec engine 21 in 2026 for 2030 delivery um will'll add that back into that piece of apparatus at that time so currently for the most part we're not utilizing that all that often um there's a fair amount of Maintenance that needs to be done to it and as I said in the council request um it was not put in the capital uh or uh replacement schedule for whatever reason um back in the day and then one other side note to that the 120 will go back into the capital um plan and then our attent from this uh bring to you at a future council meeting is purchasing a small SUV that's already in the capital plan currently not a new addition but already there and then actually that will be removed because we'll use Public Safety dollars to purchase that the onetime public safety dollars that we have so that'll reduce our future requests from the fire department um to the capital plan and this is not the the engine that's sitting over in the yard no this is the big box looking truck that sits here next door um I'm not really sure what it's intent I've heard mixed things from the various people that have been here they wish that it would have had water maybe when they purchased it back in ' 07 um but primarily um it's we can transport people in it and it's a good blocking vehicle for in the freeway but that's really about the extent of it at this time are we going to get rid of that other one that's just parked yep we're working on that we need to put that out we're going to probably put that up for auction or we might get McQueen to take it as well um I have a little leverage with them at the moment so it's just about scrap is all it is yeah exactly y I just didn't want to uh all of a sudden a year and a half from now we we're going to buy something to replace this thing if it gets us by for a little bit no my intent is no and I said earlier last two weeks ago in our meeting that from a large piece of apparatus moving forward with the approval of the tower aerial we should be good for some period of time until 2026 when we come before you for um replacement of engine 21 you have more Dave um just one that I wanted to ask about um and this is not not questioning the expense but uh uh Professional Services related to elevate henpen in 2024 um does that expense belong to the Eda that is correct okay it is quoted to the Eda Fund in the council packet um that was direction from the Ed that we wanted to utilize the 2-year service agreement and so that needs to be approved still by the city because the city is the holder of the monies for the Eda I just wanted to make sure that because I remember talking about it in the Eda correct after their presentation and I thought that cost belonged there so good it does all right thank you thank you oh and one other on page 35 um we have an expense to locality media onetime fee in four months subscription for 6465 it seemed like a pretty expensive subscription or and to figure out what pace 35 is in your packet so there's another page on that helps you second down okay that is the fire department so that is Gary is that your subscription for um what's the new program you just got Echo is that Echo Dan echo which I'm sorry it's the locality Media One Time startup fee four month subscription oh yes uh so uh counc members of council um that is our new records management system um so we're moving that direction I mentioned it that a couple weeks ago so a $3,000 startup fee and then the remaining of that is uh for September through December starting next year the full year will be $10,500 for records management system on an annual basis okay thank you that's all I had you good any any body else okay we got a motion second um to call roll call Matt y Dave hi and I'm an i Dennis is an i Scott hi Travis hi right 5 Z move on to open Forum open forum is anybody here for open Forum anybody online for open for are you here for open Forum okay there are no attendees online okay you close open for staff consultant Council updates Z good evening mayor and members of council couple updates for you tonight wanted to provide you some information that City staff has applied for some 2025 congressionally directed spending dollars for the Wellhead treatment plant proposed in the historic village we have requested $7 million for this request it has moved on from our um first step and is now at the federal Senate Appropriations Committee so hopefully we can continue to move move forward with that project we had good luck at it last time let's hope we can have a second good luck and we will keep everyone updated as we know more um and also the city blood drive is June 18th from 1:30 to 6:30 you can still sign up on the city's website if you'd like to give blood thank you very much um good evening candidate filing was open May 21st through June 4th the five Council candidates will be on the primary election located on the backs side of ballot being nonpartisan from the the four remaining Council candidates will be on the general election ballot and the two mayor candidates will be on the general election ballot only planning to head to primary elections we wanted to remind you that the meeting August 13th will be held on the 12th due to the election and please reach out to Amy if you have any scheduling conflicts all right uh just one thing really um we did get awarded the henin County Youth Grant uh for the playground at area 21 we did get $100,000 for that which is the most we've ever got out of those people I was going to talk about the uh wellhe treatment Plum but Zach beat me to it mayor's Amendment Council um next Thursday 6:20 if you're interested the north westurn fire academy is hosting the graduation over at the 21st century Event Center in Rogers it does start at 6 o'clock so you're invited to come if you would um please let zachari know so we can plan it in advance evening mayor members of the council just one um Everybody noticed that the project demo demonstration at the Del Dayton Elementary is still up um they are planning on keeping that through the summer and into the next or first two months of uh school um once snow and it gets cold it will be removed so it's just an update it was originally just going to stay in a couple weeks um but now they want to keep it through a couple months of the first um next year's school so any feedback on whether that's been a good thing or a bad thing um feedback is as it it is helping quite a bit a lot more people are actually stopping at the yield signs and it is slowing traffic down during school hours out yeah it's not very noticeable bump Bel sidewalks in general intend to slow traffic down so yeah it's a good thing John um this Thursday there's an online workshop for met Council population forecastings that the council's been invited to so this is being organized by uh Metro cities I believe so that's uh Thursday at 2:30 Jason got zero Travis nothing this week um I have a couple things so um the Pioneer Parkland Dallas Lane business is there any plan on that yet or uh so we have put in uh the uh crosswalker head signs and the crosswalk signs there um and the uh the crosswalks are painted there as well so that's where we're at with that at the moment um will that get one of those flashing crosswork things um what we're looking at is is not putting um a flashing crosswalk sign like you have here but what we're going to do is put some um signs up with LEDs around the outside that flash so that people so it highlights it more than having to have somebody pressed a button all the time but they're always flashing yeah oh all right I gu are they solar powered so always flashing when it's light out or they have a battery so they're always flashing uh they are solar powered um so it will go it will have a battery that will get it through the night um by the way that one by my house is still beeping I know we're looking into that um I've got a meeting with with Rowdy and the installer coming up I think next week or this weekend um I'm not sure what exactly is going on there yeah I mean it's it's still working I can people hit the button it still works yeah it beeps all the time so um I'm not sure exactly what that is going to be but we will uh I'll get back to on night corner I got to believe is do it does it keep you up at night not me cuz I'm far enough away but the guy in the corner is right there so um so I was in Stevens the other day and those Limestone blocks that we've had so much fun with um they're cracking I saw and oh so you did see that I saw there was some minor cracking um in a when I was in there about a month ago I guess so yeah one of them looks like it needs replacing but what's odd is it looks like about a third of them are cracked all the way around okay and they're cracked almost as if that thing was assembled so it's like an inch down from the cap from the top and it's all the way around and I got to believe water eats in there and then in a couple winners they're going to be shot okay so we should probably chew on that before we buy more of those things I agree let me take a look see what's going on on there take a look and take a look take a look and see okay that's all I got on the crosswalks are we still in process of painting all the crosswalks in the city and all the major ones seem to be getting got through so far but are we looking at painting all crosswalks in the city um I think that um the majority on the Parkways uh are being taken care of um and I think that's pretty much the the ones on the side streets were're not uh where go from sidewalk to sidewalk we're not going to be painting those okay it's just the actual sidewalk where you got signage is what we're going to be doing okay that follows the cross policy um just to mention that uh Council lamber salonic and I attended a ribbon cutting at graco's new international Distribution Center last week um very nice facility and uh you they're pretty excited about their growth in Dayton and uh I think they've been a uh welcome partner along there this uh lot of trucks going in and out of there I think they said something about 140 it's busy dock bays and well that might sound a little scary this isn't really new traffic because they've been their Distribution Center has been across the street in Rogers so this is just moving that over I think the traffic on Brockton probably stays the same maybe it's a little better with the with the light that's on there on their corner there um but anyway just wanted to mention that it was a nice event and when is that road supposed to open um I think one to two weeks from now oh there was some settlement in there that's being addressed and then there was an issue with the structure that's being removed so there was a a little bit of a setback in there but it's getting close okay that's it for me yeah yeah I just wanted to say um I got the opportunity to attend the fire burn that happened is it two weeks and two weekend ago I think so it's very educational so that was uh it's amazing to see the department in action and doing what they do a lot of uh good things that go come from that Chief it sounds like talking to effords you've got some follows for the the team so that's good um congrats to Chief Enga and the department for their recent defense Patriot award um so congratulations on that congratulations um it was brought to me by someone in attendance a citizen that you know we do meeting notes how much do we pay a year to have our meeting notes done I don't know that answer off the top of my head I can get it for you but I do not know that off the top of my head have we looked at using cuz we use zoom right um we use zoom for all of our meetings that's and the audio goes through Zoom right I believe Zoom has an Aon AI add-on will it'll automatically take notes of the meetings so we don't need to maybe pay for that to get done just a thought the only thing is is I noticed those things um they they get the words pretty good yeah they're but they don't necessarily get the source who yeah yeah the who but still I I think we pay a good amount for minutes we do we do pay quite a bit for minutes I don't remember what it is but essentially we have to to pay per hour cuz they have to rewatch every meeting and then take notes for it so um and the notes aren't very detailed they're very like a 30-minute conversation in two senses sometimes which is I get is fine but I just think with the way things are going we use it at work so Grant doesn't say the who but if you've got the recording there someone could easily just drop the who in on who's saying things and that might speed up the process and save us some we can take a look and see how much we spend and see if it's a cost savings for us to either bring it in house or do an i thing or something it was noted years ago and we had less staff of issue that it could it issue with um timing and how much it took to do it now that we have a little additional staff and maybe some more resources we can we're doing it for multiple meetings too so that's the thing is like corre and they're now you know they've always been recorded but they're way back but I mean now it's pretty easy to click to as I just question the value of them we have to legally take minutes yep but they don't have to be um I don't think anywhere near as detailed as there yeah but the a take the notes for us I'm just a drop in who said what then that seems a lot more effective and we get better notes and we get minutes and it's all kind of except yeah if you don't know the who that might be a big we'll take a look at it and see I've asked about that cost before and you know it didn't make sense to me until we talked about it and said you know they have to listen to the whole meeting and then do their notes and then type it and so it's pretty labor intensive and if there's a way to automate that that would be worth looking at yeah yeah cuz I said we use that at work for all of our meetings have send up meeting notes afterwards we just use that and then the giv The Who because it can tell from the IP who's who's speaking but these these aren't so easy so maybe Chris has some ideas too he's pretty we'll take a look and see okay um be curious to know if they have sorry not to interrupt no you're good go ahead to know if they if they plan to integrate AI in as a part of the tooling you know maybe that's a discussion that ask worth asking them if they plan to use AI in the future for any information could be yeah um and then the last thing is probably more fitting for the next meeting but I don't know if I'll be at the next meeting but so I wanted to bring it up real quick at the Planning Commission there was a developer Mark jorgens who um I would say made representations of what the city council said um and I don't know how you guys feel about that but I don't feel those words are representative of anything I've ever said so I just want to call it out cuz I don't know if I'll be here and I'm assuming I'm not alone in that boat so I just just because I'm not going to be here I want to make sure it's it's noted that that is that he does not represent us nor do I think he's appropriately representing any conversation I've ever had with the man so yeah that one kind of irritated me yeah so I just I knew I wouldn't beong to that one that's the last thing I had all right um on to council business item o evening mayor council uh the next two items that we have are U generally introdu C to potential projects um we have some development occurring in the southwest part of the city and we feel there's a need for some infrastructure improvements to help support that development so this is just to introduce the projects no formal action needed tonight however I I would be asking um if Council wants to at least explore um the possibility of a project that they let us know that so we can come back with a proposal with a scope and budget and timeline for the projects to to get those moving forward so so the first one has to do with the territorial roads so this is located generally between Dayton Parkway and Brockton Lane um as indicated on the dry um currently it shows here currently uh utilities exist about halfway I'll call it um down the roadway uh the the lines on the screen represent blue represents the water and green represents the sewer um I'm not sure why but they weren't extended to the same location so the water is actually a little bit east of uh of where the sewer was extended to so the dash lines is where we're proposing that or suggesting that extensions should occur to support development um further to the west of this location and just to note the 11 acre parcel we've had conversation multiple conversations with the property owners they've owned this for a number of years um I think I I first spoke with them probably even seven or eight years ago um that they had bought it for with the purpose or with the intent to develop it at some point um they've now come forward and said they're getting closer or have an appetite to to look closer at it at at a minimum so that's the 11 acre parcel and then I'll just also note the Dayton storage the one in in Blue uh that's currently under building permit review so they are moving forward as a storage facility that one does not require sanitary facilities so they don't need sewer on the site and they don't necessarily need water supply to the site for at least recreation use or for or sanitation facilities or other but they do need a fire suppression system and I'll come back to that at the end of the presentation but the um uh they do need water at the site they're proposing currently to do that with a well storage and pumps on to operate their system and that will make sense on a later slide but what we are looking at is is the extensions as shown so it would include the sewer and water extensions again to service that entire Corridor and because of the depth of the sewer and to be honest the road condition the road would be fully reconstructed as part of the project and then any storm water improvements that are necessary to satisfy the rules with this with the road reconstruction uh would be completed as well we have not run a detailed cost estimate on this but we do expect it to be uh $2 million it might even be a little bit higher depending on land Acquisitions or or storm water requirements won't we once we dig into it a little bit and just on the screen I've identified a handful of potential funding sources for the project um this could be done with special assessments which the benefiting properties along the corridor could be assessed for the improvements uh direct developer contribution which is often done as the the developers enforced through the da would contribute funds to the projects um tax in increment financing has been discussed um not in any great detail related to this um we did learn that the storage facility is not eligible to generate Tiff dollars so that that one would be out of the consideration but the 11 acre parcel assuming it was distribution or Warehouse or office or other that would have some ability for Tiff if that were to be considered um and then of course the local funding um through the city and then I we'll just also note that this route is on the state aid system so men state aid dollars could be used towards this um if needed I will also state that we are still in deficit in that account because of an advance that was done for Pine View we're almost back to a positive balance in fact January of next year we should go positive again and then that fund will begin to to increase again but uh may or may not be a a reasonable one um for this project but uh available if needed the special assessments would be under that 429 yes what could you ballpark what that would cost us to produce to to go through that process yeah um it does add a lot of steps um I mean it's mixed throughout the whole project so it's to be h i mean a 429 process is really a legal process so it's it's the legalities of holding the public hearings and giving the the appropriate notices out um it does require a formal feasibility study that has to be adopted so it's it's as much additional timeline as it is um costs um but there's certainly costs with it but isn't it better uh for allocation um rather than I mean the direct developer contribution how would we how would we come up with that so that would be negotiated through development so that that would be and I'll maybe put it this way the direct developer contribution is easier if you will because it's a direct y um negotiation with them and front right we'd have to bond it up front before elment would happen most likely and so now we're kind of on the hook whereas with the 429 you'd probably still have the bond but you're at least recouping through guaranteed guaranteed funding so yeah the director and it varies project to project this one the single 11 acre development probably can't handle the whole cost it just it's not a big enough project um that together with others probably could but those others aren't happening right now so if others were to join in and and look at projects I could change it but and how serious is the 11 acre piece it sounds like they want to go I mean they're talking about 2025 but I will note they don't have a user they don't even know the product so um they did share U I think just on a screen share to be honest I don't think we even have it um if I'm not mistaken I think it was like three smaller buildings like office warehouse um comination um on it but not nothing I think it was 330,000 square foot building does that I don't know so it's it's you know it's a meaningful project I mean they have a lot of usable space on the property so and what's the time frame to do this project um depends on the process but but I would say probably earliest would be a spring construction 20 as far as take 3 four months to get it done or yeah and if it's if it's special assessments it could take longer because we probably will not get assessment waivers contestment waivers so probably we'd have to go through all the uh public hearing processes which would stretch that out probably it may be still realistic to to have a a spring or summer 24 or sorry 25 construction what I'm getting at is it doesn't really pay to do it if there's time to do it in 25 um well if we wait until 25 to start we won't be building it in 25 maybe in the fall okay um the storage facility plan on breaking ground um I think they were shooting for well it's soon I think they were this year this year July or August July August so how a because they had to do that yeah but they they had to do a standalone fire sprinkler system which has got some real cost to it yes it does um and would we still require that or would there I mean the building's going to be there before the the water will so need that for occupancy they would have to have their fire suppression and their storage and Supply in place I'll jump ahead here this will help a little bit this is basically the same slide we are suggesting that this should at least be considered um and then we've already started the discussion on the potential funding sources um the main one we really need right now is yes or no to special assessments because that will change how we propose the project if you don't want to look at special assessments makes it very easy if you think they might be there we have to add some things in there have we talked to the storage facility to see hey it costs $10,000 just picking I'm going to pick bad numbers but $10,000 for us to build our own water system it's going to cost $10,000 to or $12,000 to pull the water up we'd rather just pull the water up and be done with it and the water's not under the road right it's next to the road I believe it's under but we can go next to it okay so we'd have to connect under but we can run it I I'll come back to that I have the next slide on that okay I'm getting ahead never mind keep going yeah right on them I just put these out of order maybe I assume this road was um evaluated as part of our pavement condition study and it couldn't have done very well here it comes I no I didn't I looked it up when I wrote the memo did I I apparently didn't include it in the memo um it was very low um I don't remember what the number was I want to say it was even in the like 20s what's the year what year do they have it being replaced yeah that's try to get yeah we forced this one because we knew this was coming so I don't know when it would have been slated for to be honest so we we forced this into the system because we knew development was likely to occur so we kind of said Target this one and I I don't remember what year we assigned like we targeted fet Hills in 150 seconds happening Y and 113th off of fir Brook we did the same thing because we knew that would be completed so um so I don't know when it would have popped up but it did it did score very very low I apologize I as soon as he started asking that I I can picture looking at it but I can't remember what the number number was other than it was very low so um so I I guess if I don't know if you're ready to say generally interested in the project we can come back with something and it sounds like special assessments should at least be accounted for we we can always initiate the process and not follow all the way through with the special I guess my concern is that and I still kind of Wonder even whe the $ 429 if we're going to get that 2 million out of cuz I don't know what projects would be not enough there to get I just wonder if there's enough to yeah with so with with sewer and water you usually can assess maybe even all I'll see U because the cost is what it is and and you either have it or you don't yeah so it's a switch so it costs this much to get it to your your property therefore that is its value so they're usually easier to justify Street improvements not quite as much cuz you can get to your property on a crappy Road sorry a less improved Road versus a brand new road they're both going to service your property so that one's a little bit tougher to show the true benefit of it so there might be some Road some supplementation or some some uh but in some form we're planning to replace that road anyway it it's in need of improvements for sure going to be I did check the plan so it's either if you do the $1.5 million one it's 202 six was planned if you do the achieve the pqi by 2028 it was planned in 2025 okay to replace that whole road that portion um west of the parkway so yeah you get I want to see I think the next SL I want to see is yeah so back to the water the water extension um we're we're pretty early in this but we have I mean we've spoke directly with the the storage facility and they are certainly interested um it's a it's a substantial C cost for their fire suppression um or I should say Supply and storage um system it's a 36,000 gon tank that goes underground there's a bunch of structural improvements not to mention the well itself so they have significant costs in it we've thrown out the idea hey what if we construct the part in red this year um so you can take your occupancy of your building and that cost becomes yours more or less or at least casier at a minimum they're definitely interested in exploring that um we have not had enough discussion to know what that cost share is between the two facilities that's not a big cost right but to me that's the more dire of the everything going on there that's the more I would say time sensitive it certainly is do it you might as well do it all well not if we can run the water next to the road right we don't dig up the road then so that should greatly reduce the cost and then if the 11 acres wants to move then maybe we say great then you pull the sewer up and then we don't have to they just just like we do any other development they just do it for us we don't have to pay for any of it and they front it all we don't have to like that's I think there's way we can maybe work this out so that it's beneficial for all Without Really costing the city anything cuz there the ones that need it the city's not like we want to push it through there for any reason like it's a dead end pretty much so can anybody else use water only or is that at um currently I think that's it I well I think the the other well at least the one lot um between the storage and the or maybe on the for sale I forgot to mention that property is actually for sale it was it was purchased just by an auto parts company I I spoke with the owner he has no intentions of developing on it anymore he was at one time so it's actually listed for sale presumably for development purposes so this would be a benefit to them as well um besides that I guess I don't I don't know um other than the home that exists on there but to be honest I don't know if anybody's even living in it so I don't know if there's other immediate benefit of the water or not but it saves everybody in that Corridor in the long run yeah well I think it would be really forunate with this on being on the table for the storage facility to I I don't know the cost but I got to believe it's north of 100K to put a that size tank and a fire pump and a well oh well well yeah um yeah we've looked at some comparables and it's it's a significant cost and it's well and for it to become obsolete in a year or two when this comes through and then they'd be faced with an assessment on top of it probably to to so yeah um I mean I can see them fighting they're very willing to talk to us I mean they want to do this in all honesty so I think this can certainly be work a two-part question then or what well I I didn't necessarily include this with it but if it is if the decision is contingent on this we can hold the process if the decision is not contingent on this I would suggest moving forward with the project and then this would just come out of the scope and be handled separately with them as an individual company it would just it would lower the scope and the cost of the overall project as all we'd get to the same place at the end of it this would just be accelerated and likely come in cheaper for everybody other than the storage facility what's past the storage facility if we just run water to the storage facility what's past it um right now there's I don't know what I don't know if you know what they run out of there there's like a four bay garage lawn care company out there is it lawn care and then I think the I think it's Landscaping the next one over from there so um yeah so like they're not getting shorted by not getting the water at that point in time CU they already if they need water they've already got it somehow I'm sure they have wells out there I haven't had any requests um I haven't spoke with either of them for probably two or more years yeah if we're going to work with Datt and storage just to pull the water up we should probably talk to them and say hey do you want you want to pull it farther yeah and if so you'd be paying for it but do you want it for whatever reason just see what they say cuz they may be like yeah actually we need it you ran it up there due to the 11 acres though right I mean that's their access point well one thing to note inst stalling the water now is more expensive it's more expensive than doing it with the project oh yeah so um and and we would almost certainly be drilling it it is off the side of the road but with the trenching we would basically be taking half of the road and then we have temporary pass patching um but the city wouldn't see even I mean there's no way we would participate in anything higher than what it would cost the cheap way so there'd be because all of the benefit for the acceleration is to the the business so of it right I'm sorrya doesn't need any of it no they have both right now yeah so the again it's it's not a formal decision but if if council is interested in in the project I mean we can put together we'll we'll try to refine costs a little bit get a realistic timeline and and uh uh just kind of lay it out and and the process that would be involved for the development of the project I I guess my my only concern is like I said that we can actually recruit the bulk of that um I don't want to go with a tiff no yeah three and four I don't like for this person yeah or five I mean we're already kind of oh five yeah yeah I read that as like I read that differently yeah three four five I'm that if we're pretty sure of of two that we can get allocations correct and and Rec coup the same thing we get on a 429 and I'm fine with that I just have a little bit leery of you know assuming these will get into days and they'll get signed but true so what so it sounds overall like forward with both we'll put together a proposal and bring it to probably a July meeting if that works okay the uh the storage guy I mean whatever it's going to cost him to put his own deal in if he kicks that in and it's going to cost him anyway so yeah yeah yeah and we'll we'll certainly continue those discussions those we've had a couple of them over the last couple weeks so we'll continue those for sure okay um P item P dayon Parkway intersections so this very similar even very close proximity for that matter um situation so the intersections being discussed are the the two circled here um I'm I'm sure council is aware of this for just the the broad overview um The Interchange was constructed um it was opened late 2021 um with the construction the intersection of uh Brockton Lane which is on the far left of the screen as well as the two entrance exit ramps and then well those three were signalized with the project and then 81 was already signalized so those four intersections are signalized the two that are circled were not signalized at the time of the project but fully expected that they would need control added in the future as additional development occurs uh the one on the west um as you can see there is nobody currently served by it um but it is anticipated as you'll see on the next slide to be utilized for the development of that area um similarly the the other one between 81 and the part and The Interchange is uh IT services samstone and and King Solutions and those I should have just gone to this slide um so that shows all of the development that's in some phase right now um Dayton Creek is under final plat um Dayton Parkway is doing an eaw right now quick trip is um in process of uh site approvals um Opus um same thing um they're they're working towards approval so quite a few users that would heavily rely um on these intersections we thought this might be an opportune time to install these um we have done a traffic study just as a reminder for the one to the West um and basically showing that any development that occurs there will need a signal otherwise they it'll be very very difficult to utilize or get access to the parkway during peak hours um the numbers on the screen are the daily counts the most recent that we had one is 2022 one is 2023 I'll be honest I can't remember which is which but either way pretty significant use on there already and that's only expected to increase as development occurs along the corridor and extends when we had our intersection conversation about intersections and Dayton we talked a lot about lights versus roundabouts is there a reason we're talking lights here on these and not R because like to me I mean my biggest concern is light light light light like yeah traffic moving through there is going to get really tough and this traffic increase only going to get worse I know they cost more but like especially on the west one you're going to have a lot of residents out down there a lot of traffic down there I just I think he's going to have real estate problems though well we I don't know why I'm asking is there reason we're talking lights not roundabouts cuz we were very adamant roundabouts are better for a lot of reasons well generally um for most situations or many situations yes um this one to be H I mean it was designed this way when the design was was done for the parkway it was all set up for this um doesn't necessarily rule roundabouts out okay we'd be tearing out fairly new road to put back um roundabouts maybe still the answer I think it'd a challenge at the territorial just because of the proximity of the connections there we'd have to look closer plus the the land there would be um possibly a little bit tougher to to coordinate um the other one it's probably more doable because it's less disruptive to existing traffic as well I just remember there being Wetlands real close to that there is and there there's a pretty significant Culvert Crossing um that that's close there as well um again not not necessarily impossible um but C certainly a lot easier to just add the electronics rather than rip up the road and and do it the other thing I'll mention and I did talk with our traffic traffic folks um for that introducing back and forth um signal roundabout signal signal roundabout signal um can take away a lot of efficiency because all of these are coordinated so they have um interconnects between them that times them to keep traffic moving though admittedly I was told that the diver merging Diamond which is the style of this intersection where you go on the opposite side does reduce that efficiency so um while there may be some it may be less than is typical on a a corridor usually if you have roundabouts you want all roundabouts or if you have signals you want all signals probably still true here even with reduced so for the West intersection there it's safe to say that but for those two or those three actually the one to the north there I would assume would have to participate but I mean they are why that that would go in um and I'm assuming that get allocate those costs so I I mean I I have some thought I mean the same slide um as this the list is the same one different I did add special area charges on here um we haven't utilized those maybe not ever um at least that I've been involved with that might be another mechanism um we'd have to work with the attorney I don't know if that if there's advantages to that rather than special assessments um so that's a different process than the 429 I thought those are the same but they're not no special area charge and I don't know the details of this um again it it have to be worked through with an attorney but basically it's like your sewer and water where you have your need for the system build out and you make your area charges Citywide you would do a special area specific for some improvement so we'd say this signal is going to be spread across these and then as they develop a cost District it right and then as they develop they pay those area charges in addition to the others if that makes sense much simpler than it it might be but I'm probably missing stuff so um before I I go on a sales pitch on it i' I'd say it's still three properties they know they got avalite there um or something so it seems Seems like that's not they do and it's been shared with all of them um even the hashed one on the North I mean they're they are looking to develop um we're not in frequent Communications with them but have spoke with them regularly um this one's pretty Al the left side the west side is is pretty easy because all of them access only this intersection and there's not expectations for additional connections or extensions so the benefit is very defined it's that triangle so that one seems like a great candidate at least in my mind for a special assessment process the other one is probably probably harder um and and I only say that because for special assessments you have to treat all the properties equally which means existing businesses and operations and then where you draw the boundaries and then you have um the other components that come with that so um my initial thoughts on it are a special assessment on the Westerly one and set it up that way and it can still be part of the same project but then funding for the easterly one um near the quick trip and Opus sites U would be paid for by other means um probably direct contribution from the developers um we have spoke with them um quick trip is in quick Trip's on board they're in big support of it to be honest and I so their site generates a lot of vehicles a lot of trucks they would get hit with the biggest chunk right yeah well they about half I think is what they they preliminarily had said they thought it would pay for cost um I don't remember the breakdown but they're they're expecting they're expecting a sizable portion for it I believe um and and they realize I mean you get trucks trying to make a left back on the highway during peak hours it's not going to happen 440k out of the 750 quick trip that was our initial Kelk yeah um based on traffic counts so they they have question that and they want to look closer at it um what open it um I'll say they're less excited to contribute yeah we'll continue conversations with them but they've got that right end that's eventually going to go away right U they do yes they approv despite the county not wanting it so they might be advantageous for them to come to the table and get a light put in there in the long run yeah um they have a lot less vehicles to I mean at least on they don't have a user yet so that's maybe not fair to say but based on expected use um they would generate a lot less traffic than than quick trip but when you say the the lights would be coordinated if they were lights mhm is it are you talking about those four lights or are you also talking about 81 um potentially all of them including 81 um I don't there are limitations and it gets complicated the more intersections and other timings you're trying to coordinate so I being 81 at least today is the dominant route I think that will change over time um the signaling might be more difficult with 81 I I'm I'm just kind of 81 might drive the other ones right it it might so the coordination between Brockton and 81 might Trump if you will the coordination with 81 and Dayton Parkway um again it gets it gets very complicated very fast so I'm not going to pretend to to know all the ins and outs of of how those will coordinate but they they do time the signals such that they can keep the traffic moving for longer periods and it it doesn't uh create the stop go stop go they they'll work together I've run into this in the past where we had City County and state lights all within about a block and a half and nobody nobody talks to each other as far as coordination goes oh um that's interesting I haven't heard any issues with that but um I guess I can't say for sure well then you have the BN signal there as well too you'd have to coordinate with that because that way that would have to cut off traffic at some point you would think railroad crossing say that one more time yeah the railro cring yeah the um those do tie into the lights but I don't think they're on an ongoing situation I I think there's only I don't know Zach if you remember I think it's one to two trains a week on that one it's very low yes yep that's right so there to be honest I don't think I've ever seen a train on there I know that I know what happens but I saw my first one in 20 years last earlier last week so but it's a um yeah it's not a heavily traffic but yeah that would there would be coordination between that as well so what are you looking for from us the same thing if there's interest in moving forward we'd come back with an engineering proposal um I think so to consider these lights um so it' be a refined cost estimate again a schedule and then maybe a funding scenario um we can even outline in there I expect special assessments should at least be considered at this time so we'll incorporate okay we'll incorporate that are you including the large area when you say speci special are I well the process will be the same even though the special the process is the same even if it's only for the one so so in this case one two and three we' be looking at we will only look at special assessments for the West half not the East one the one in the Triangle not the other one for special yeah the Quick Trip one's pretty much already handled oh it is yeah well well to an extent I mean you're going to go a large chunk of it's already taken care of yeah 75% of it and we can talk to other existing businesses too if they want to if they see a need for it they may pied somebody to be able to say they wanted there too cuz it's sometimes it's got to be hard to put take a left out of there at times it's got to be we can I mean we we don't have to rule it in or out at this time special assessments there might be other ways we can get creative to and even if we the rest I mean we are putting a lot of residents through there and I I I get that but I I suspect we yeah I'm okay with both okay all right so we'll come back with proposals for for both of those at a future meeting thank you would it be advantageous for us to look at the intersection of Territorial and Brockton at the same time or at least include it with the traffic changes over you know I I with the use user changes that are possibly coming up and with just these ones in general that might direct some people to take territorial to maybe as a roundabout way to get to 94 I was looking at this earlier I just trying to think like you know what other things could possibly happen if this was a roundabout or a London is it easier for people to go through the light to try to take a left at Rockton territorial trying and get on like for West that way if there's something happens I'm just trying to think like is that the next intersection that we might have to look at when me take care of these L intersections here um potentially are territorial which side of 94 are the Dayton this would be yeah the Dayton portion it's not you can't see it on yeah there's a jog and territorial so it's off the screen but at the top of that triangle there's territorial West through Rogers um um yeah that that intersection will will certainly need to be looked at in the future I expect once development further development occurs on Territorial and starts driving those trips up and to be honest if the roads improved it might make it more attractive for cut through traffic or others to to utilize it that's why bring it up now it's because you got water sewer and then you talk about doing a road to and I'm like well might as well throw this put this on the list well too it it could be evaluated it's probably not going to meet warrant um you know until a development occurs in addition I would I would expect the majority of the traffic is going to continue on 81 to Dayton Parkway okay just want bring out y yep okay on to that was p uh Q D Parkway alignment a fun one um so this one there's no action yeah you better give it so this background is coming for informational purposes mayor and councel so that we can continue to move forward this is brought about the master plan discussion about 2 and a half months ago or a month and a half ago and we want to make sure that all the past details were so we provided the resident expert who has all the past details so so I dug through a lot of old emails and and and things I just through I I didn't get into a ton of detail but I do have I have quite a few slides quite a few pictures just to kind of show some of the steps related to this have been taken over over time so um I'll try to keep moving through through them um so we don't get too hung up on things but if there is questions um by all means um um we can go through them um as they come so this is the latest aerial of the aial area um with Dayton Park wayas construction so this is what exists today and specifically what we're looking at is the alignment of the extension between 81 and 117th and to be honest this is being assembled because the question has come up of how did we get here how was that alignment selected um there's also been discussions of potential what should be done different or redone um if anything um for that alignment so just putting together put together some of the history on it so I'll just kind of go through um some of the Milestones that have happened over the the last number of years so it kind of all started with the well I shouldn't say that because I don't know what the 2020 plan says but the 2030 comprehensive plan which would have been approved D I presume in 2010 or sometime some time frame around that um is what's showing on the the right side of the screen which shows the general alignment of the interchange or where the interchange would be um General location of The Interchange and then the alignment of Dayton Parkway as it continues north um and then as shown here North and then East um just to note this was generated from a study that was done um as reference the Northwest hennipin County I94 sub area transportation study so that was literally pasted into your 2030 comp plan and utilized for your transportation system AES so that's the starting point in 2016 um I I wasn't involved with the I think I was well I was around when this was finalized but I don't I don't know what drove this or initiated it so I don't sorry I don't have the the history on it um I presume it was to look at something other than the X if you will or look at some alignment that creates a a stronger north south connection with the parkway so what's on the screen now is the sketch up if you will of what the road configuration could look like um there was some analysis behind this as far as capacities and and T traffic distribution um with it not necessarily important for this discussion this alignment did function was this this wasn't an amendment then right it was not Incorporated in the overall plan this was a standalone Transportation plan updated has posted on your website yeah and I and at that time I think this is the one that was focused on so the 2021 by the way had Brockton as the energ oh sure and it swed down across to yeah that that would make sense because I know that yeah I knew that was considered at one time yeah yeah I think this one was probably heavily considered because this is what your land use plan seemed to be based off of yep so so then in 20 19 I don't know if it was initiated earlier I think it was probably initiated in 19 maybe late 18 um srf was retained to do a corridor study which would look at what should the alignment of this roadway be so and here we go back and I haven't got to do this for a while so there was conversations on should it be an X the road Cross or an H the roads go north south with uh straight East West connectors as shown on the screen so that was kind of the starting point the one on the left option A aligns with the 2030 comp plan option b on the right aligns with the 2016 Transportation Plan update so this was a again the starting point and looking for refinement and trying to decide all right which one's which one's better if you will um and just to note this draft the report I couldn't find a final report I don't know if it was ever finalized I did find a draft report which was the last communication I had on it so it looked like June 2019 um this was presented to council back in April of 2019 so these are the DRS that came out of the study again a little bit more refined um still still high level I mean we're we're talking pretty large expanses here but again it's the X showing on the left um and just ignoring the initial part of um where everybody's attention is where the cubes sits um generally speaking it's the the X on the west the H in the middle and then they did look at kind of a hybrid if you will to to kind of um give the option of either having a strong North South or a stronger East West kind of a an in between if you will uh I think that one was ruled out pretty early um so it kind of went between four and five um lot of information on this slide I I do want to get one point across in here just um just so folks are aware um this was also part of the study the considerations for for the overall layout were broken down into two segments so one of them was called the city center segment which is the smaller box to the lower left and the other one was called the north segment which is the larger box to the upper right to the Northeast that star um that's located in each of the drins is the common point so all I really want to come across onto this is that those two are independent so you can move any of the small boxes and align with any of the large boxes meaning you can start the alignment between 81 and the star um and still achieve the x or the H or the hybrid or vice versa does that make sense I just I just want that to just that yeah it it does there's not a correlation I know at the time it was It was kind of advertised as not that where you had to have so for example when you had the X you did have to go north through 117 to make that X it wasn't advertised that way this is also the the the um when we had the open house for the uh uh interchange for The Interchange and I remember it was kind of funny because the mayor at the time asked me what that was oh ex because everybody had been looking at the the plan the the the that you just shown the H and so when this showed up in the in the comp plan it was kind of a surprise to everybody okay yeah I I I just wanted to make that distinction so we're all clear one is not reliant on the other so we we can for the purposes of this let's concentrate on the small doxs so that's the the city center alignment so just why it was called that um is the area in the purple circle is was was thought of or planned to be call it the city Center so the um where the residents come in you know maybe it's a mixed use of some sort um the graphics on the right aren't important necessarily for the discussion it's just to show that there was some thought put into this and you know what could incur in that occur in that area um to utilize that space and and best uh best fit in there this is srf also right yeah this is all part of the same study and and most of this is taken well it's some from the study some from the presentation of the study so so within that area these were the three configurations um the one the Westerly is the one that was finally implemented um Center option b um kind of ran the main road through the guts if you will of the city center and then option C is to go east of it and essentially in accordance with the uh previous comp plans kind of showed it that that way and the update um just one note from my memory and it kind of comes through on a a future slide um part of the discussions on this were um you know option b do you really want to put a very busy road down the middle of you know a buildout that's made for you know Gatherings or or pedestrian use or other um I think that was ruled out pretty fast too so then it kind of went to the other the other two options of the the west or the East and then further refining that I think one of the um points that was was mentioned repeatedly generally the area to the West is industrial it's your Capital Partners your Inland your gry Co um industrial areas that to the east is residential um Sundance Sundance greens territorial Trail Rush Creek Landing um those developments over there so now they're trying to build a hub if you if you will of pedestrian use in a city center type do we want to put a major road between where we want the people to get and the people or do we want to use it as a buffer between the industrial and the the city center area so I that may or may not have been what swayed it that way but I I do remember um discussions on that and it logically made sense if you're going to have Trail Crossings or pedestrian Crossings um you know let's do it under on a smaller Road um keep the major road on the other side so just to note that I think that was was part of the decision there um and this is this is uh out of the report itself um just the evaluation um seemed pretty clear that the Westerly I don't know why they're a b and c and then one two and three in the table but um they're at least consistent with the direction so um West came up with a a favorable Valu if you will in all of these categories again the points I mentioned the land use compatibility and the the local access being the ones I had I had mentioned excuse me and additionally as you can see the center option the East amp option have um more New Roads if you will so this utilize some of the same roads a little more efficiently so that's what drove to the 20 240 comp plan um was to utilize that Westerly alignment um and then the the the X and the h i i remember this pretty distinctly um is that all the experts they got to the end of it and they said we did all of our analysis and we said which one's best and they all said it doesn't matter they both were they were both work just fine so um it ended up the X I I I won't say who was the deciding vote because I don't remember I don't know if I ever knew it just it kind of seemed like a coin TOS at that point to be honest um that either one of them worked and this is what was selected um so just going steps forward I just kind of wanted to show some options I mean there's been discussions of should it be realigned should something be redone um so I just put together some kind of crude graphics on here to to kind of go through some of the potential scenarios so again existing configuration um as it sits today is showing here so the the buildout um as planned would be the extension as shown in blue um in the interim until that leg is is constructed um 117th to East French Lake Road would be used for that access and I'll I'll just point out that the ultimate could be constructed east of East French Lake Road and this could just be utilized as um if for some reason the east side of French Lake Road decided to develop prior to the area shown in the in the Triangle or the wedge if you will so that would be the in solution the realignment to be consistent with the 2016 update would look something like this which is what is shown in the 2016 update um so it' be removing down to maybe you'd be able to salvage the the roundabout I'm not sure we'd have to look closer to stay south of the Wetland and and get through there um but either way it wouldn't be it wouldn't be much if any farther north of the the roundabout so um that would be directed somewhat at least somewhat like showing um the reason for the Arches is because if you run the parkway as shown you now have a six-legged intersection which tend to not function well um so just removing enough Road and realigning those to create sufficient spacing between those intersections it may look something like what is showing do you have an estimated cost or something like that I don't um very expensive um I assume it would be tens of millions it it's uh yeah it's honestly right away would be yeah the right away it' be a lot of property um I mean we're going through ddl which they're looking to develop but they they did just finish their EA not showing a road through the middle of it so yeah um that might be a challenge to start um getting through that one but so this is to look at the 2016 update and then I was thinking all right this is very impactful maybe there's something less impactful um that might be kind of a compromise so just sketch this out again this this is just me drawing with the sophisticated my Microsoft tools so um you know maybe just the Northerly portion is is removed and it's you know the more uh tighter turns um if you will but maybe utilize some of the existing Corridor and less disruptive um so just something I threw out that that might function still gives you all the spacing that we'd be looking for um and then I I thought well maybe maybe we can still do less so I figured something like this could even work work um which would be a little less impactful um just with a it's just a little bit of a tweak but it makes a lot less impact on those properties um near the existing intersection or seem to at least is that that's in it I'm sorry where the roundabout is shown their um is that city property or is that no that's ddl's property part of the ddl and I yeah I kind of just for it in there with the lines I don't I'm assuming something similar could tie in there we could make it work but um again this is super high level um so I just our recommendation um largely due to cost um is to to proceed as planned and and construct the the ultimate and and use that interim for Access you know until that ultimate is is constructed um if it'd be helpful we did find a similar intersection um I that I do have some slides if it's worth going through um I don't know if that'd be helpful there's discussion before what you mean a similar inter oh just so I we just found another I don't know if anybody recognizes these the one on the right's pretty obvious because that's the one we're looking at but um just finding some historical photos here I thought might be helpful just for getting a visual on on what we're talking here I don't know if anybody recognizes the one on the the left yet it's from 200 six but two areas you'll probably get it on this one there's a road constructed up to um the main road which did not continue through so that was between 2006 and 2008 similar to Dayton Parkway that was constructed up to 117th in 2023 so now both of them dead end oh yeah that's the park there yeah traps got it so both of them have the plans to continue in the future so that's again starting in 2008 that has the benefit of hitting a fairly major road whereas 117th isn't know so in 2024 so 16 years later they're building that it's still not making the connection they're getting the first half there yeah um but really just kind of wanted to point out the similarities I mean it's a bypass of that ultimate if we have to wait we have to wait the cars still get there yeah but they haven't they've waited 20 years I would be surprised if if we won't wait long and it could be but it's it I mean it's functioned I guess is just what I wanted to mention that if we were to redo it and build and we're not we going to hit other properties that they might be the hold out too so that's a dead yeah it doesn't seem it just seems that that we could I don't know I I I'm just concerned in five and 10 years what the traffic is going to be at that which I got to believe at some point we're going to have to have a three-way stop there and the backup is going to be all over the place but I I don't know yeah it could be I mean that intersection may have to even without the extension North may have to be upgraded um especially if traffic increases significantly to the east well that's why it seems like I don't know if ddl do they have any plans for that area we at least get right away there yeah which one are you talking about not you're not like one one no I'm simply talking about the intersection right now the the Parkway in 117 yeah oops go back to where go back to a couple options Jason yeah that that one oh got okay um I I mean I don't know this but I'm not sure what they can do with that with that area there anyways but gas for gas station that's what they're showing on their gas station EA is showing a gas station a gas station so we have okay that's three gas stations and three gas stations and two miles of each you're going to have a big Quick Trip half a mile away another one the other way is that quick trip a quick trip no more quick trips so we get one on triangle well the bottom line is the interim is going to have to get you by until until it happens I just think that going to be a I'm sure the reason we got there is because the cubes would pay for that little piece of road and that's why we got there mhm oh well because originally that road was supposed to be in that open field yeah the well and that's that's Parton I I didn't I didn't include one of these so the initial cubes development showed the road bending East and continuing East yeah and then there was discussion on okay now the cubes only has one access there's no connection to 117th Emergency Services didn't like that we had no idea of when that future extension would be ddl didn't even exist own the property well maybe they did um but they had no plans of developing plus going past ddl we still had Residential Properties further east that we had no timeline or indication of so there was no known possibility of getting a second connection to that roadway 117th was a achievable Landing point if you will with the project looks like we have two semi attainable options going forward one is just the plan to go straight North and the other's this one here this yeah I I mean there we could we could make something like this work I'm sure um certainly an impact to ddl's plans as of today but yeah um well I don't know that you know I'd even think that we need the the the eastern part of that I'm just concerned about that that intersection by itself oh you just be the roundabout right where or something right where 117th is you just said a three-way stop sign something there yeah instead of uh what's going to have to be is it a three-way stop sign no it's no it's just a Dayton Parkway stop right now right I think just a one way stop I think that's right yeah I think you're right yeah I think I think once it's open and I'll I'll talk like the traffic experts I guess we'll see what what happens when we open it but when the road opens how much I mean what runs through my head as probably FedEx is going there they're not turning on Brockton to go left at 81 they're they're going all rights they're going straight across and coming down here and going right down to The Interchange I suspect that vehicle count is going way up when that road opens but today almost all those vehicles are right going north to west or east to South um I don't know what that means for intersection control it's probably going to be a three-way stop it's it's almost going to have to I just hate to get down the road where ddl does do something with that piece and now we're stuck but I not sure would not sure what the Well we'd be acquiring additional RightWay along French Lake Road in fact our initial conversations it's probably dating back two years now with ddl are that we're fully expect ing upgrades to 117th with their project at a minimum right away um but okay um upgrades are are expected so that Corridor will be improved um at some point with that development I would expect so well yeah so what we're looking for tonight from Council is just direction if if there's not the current option what else would you like so that we can if DDO comes in with a project we can try to have preliminary conversations before I mean this looks fine in my opinion yes but it's just good for Direction yeah that the only I don't like is the second one the go forward one I mean that that plan I don't like that's just I don't like that too much yeah I don't like that one yeah I mean that gets you by but it's the blue line is going to be 20 20 years plus from now maybe and that's okay without a doubt I mean it was yeah I mean that's and that's fine I me I don't know you think it's going to take us 20 years to get that far huh you think going to take us 20 years get that far all those all those people either got to be bought out or or die what we're trying to say is Staff council is that council is that if it it doesn't happen for 20 years it that will function yeah as it sits right there with that green line and my concern is it won't sure exactly I mean we I think we're still waiting on a four-way stop at 117th and East fren sake road that we semi talked about a while ago so I don't right on that either but for we are moving forward we look for FedEx to take a left on 117th there that's that's going to be a busy yeah I don't I don't know if they'll take that way back or not but I I that would shock me I suspect they're going from from their home 81 Toton yeah to the freeway I I think to the freeway they are going back they're probably exiting to Brockton and going all the way North I'm guessing I don't know one thing's for certain Marty you're going to need a lot more Patchwork for East FR like R that's true you know cou and patches yeah um I mean we're stuck with what we're stuck with it just would be nice if we got two options we're not good thing is hopefully we're not stuck with anything well we are stuck we are stuck but it should have been fixed from the get go but something changed it for some reason I I think the important thing is like when we tried to have the conversation at the I don't think it was at the planet when I watched it the whole thing got sidetracked cuz we were talking about this I think the important thing is now we know that we've got one of two options in front of us so we can kind of move forward with what goes beyond that for that Master Plan area and going from there I think is important is just to have that so that way we don't constantly come back to well the road was supposed to be there well it is so like we kind of have to make with one of the two options we have after that unless we're going to spend millions and millions I'm not in favor of moving that road no one is so I think we just need to accept that piece and move on fo forward okay anything else from the council mayor council we will proceed we're fine yep we'll proceed thank you Q on to items [Applause] R good evening mayor and members of council we have Ed chair hutner in the coming up to speak um to talk about the Eda and the forfeit land tax forfeit land down by the pway and interchange take it away good evening Council and members and staff the DAT and economic Authority seeks authorization to initiate and develop of the triangle our goal is to leverage new Eda assets including our partnership with iag commercial of Minneapolis we we we proposed the following strategic action RS for this commercial area one relaxation of the height requirements by adjusting the current height restrictions we can attract and significant office complexes and medical offices greatly enhancing this area's Commercial Appeal two strategic negotiation with h County effectively negotiate and a purchase price is crucial the development of promises to generate substantial tax Revenue alleviating tax burn from the tax burden from the Dayton residents and homeowners and positioning Dayton as an attractive destination for major businesses conversation with Peter deuth has expressed a strong support for exploring and modifying the building height cup limits should you authorize e to proceed we will move forward within the cup and planning requirements and return with a detailed funding opt options cooperation the main council is crucial to responsible commercial growth of Dayton's future please note we will not discuss any purchase price tonight I would request a Clos session to address Financial strategies off camera thank you for your consideration um I know the height requirements has come up in the past 55 ft we relaxed it a couple I want to say two years ago but you remember that um I believe it's 50 it's 50 oh we went above that for the one building yeah it's come up a couple times and we've given I don't know how we gave them I don't think was is it a variance or uh yes it was a variance um this was for elow so they had some special equipment that they just needed a little bit more of pight clearance it's it was also for Capital Partners building we did it through a PUD which is how we got the roadway of 121st Avenue construction for PE so I guess I don't I I personally I I could care less I'll big uh you know those buildings are down there um I don't know where the 50 came from I know that he we did bump it because I thought is it Greco was previously running up against anyways bottom line is I I don't know if the 50 is a magic number if that's a I don't know that's a you know how much of a hindrance that is but um well isn't that you know isn't the the question here really around not necessarily Warehouse kind of buildings I mean I think we we did talk about going up because of bay height and cranes and things um that that were sort of driving and need for some additional feat but I think this is really on the idea of multi-story buildings that would go could go well beyond that beyond that number and we wouldn't allow that today that's what I was thinking as well um is this something that the the height requirements is this something that we would have the the Planning Commission look at or what what sets us at 50 ft why is that a magic number I I don't know but I don't think that's I don't think Height's the big issue okay like we can figure out the height we can worry about that later yeah I would say if the Eda thinks the Height's restricting businesses from coming here I would recommend that they talk about at an Eda meeting vote on it and then maybe push the Planning Commission to make a change after that if that's a separate issue that the Eda could then push to the Planning Commission that would then come D um I do believe we've done that there's been yeah there's been discussion at the Eda there hasn't been I would say clear direction of what number we have to put a number in there I don't know if there's been a number we decided on but yeah we can mostly look at that as planning department I I guess I'd be to me it would be best if we you know did kind of do what John said is worry about it later um because I personally I I can't imagine we're going to have an issue with that if if somehow that's a hindrance that we can fix that I hey you'd be able to cross that bridge was a PUD seems like mhm mhm yeah um my my other concern is is that right now I'm sorry D can you so my other concern is right now um where are we at with getting the E the uh the eda's funding documents cleaned up is that still in Amy's hands yes so mayor call Le is in Amy's hands and it would have been on the doc or the agenda tonight she been here she is not able to make this meeting so which is why I got pushed the 25th of July or June sorry 25th of June okay yep but she's got it kind of lined up as far as I'm aware yes and have the Bas reflect so they'll be need they'll be they will need to be direction from Council of what you'd like to do specific to the Eda and the dire this needs to be fixed as all right right I I yeah it just seems like a step that that we need to take you know I I'm fine with the Eda running with this um I it just seems like that step needs to be cleaned up because right now um that sounds like it seems like we're legally in kind of murky water doing any new transactions or signing contracts through the Eda if we have not cleaned up the the buy the bylaws and the other pieces that sounded like they were missing from 15 and 17 in terms of correct authorization sure yeah but I think it I think that before anything happens all of that can be handled correct I think we can get that done in the next meeting or two if we want to talk about a direction I I personally I'm fine with this um I think our Eda should be doing Eda things I'm all for that it's just I want to make sure that it's cleaned up um before any action occurs but you know maybe there's some Head Start maybe there's some you know some AC that can happen before the Ed actually takes official action um well then Dennis my question at that is do you want Amy to work on that or do you want our new attorneys to work on that I want our attorney to work I think yeah I think given given that it's a um a city um it's a city document right it's a city uh issue I think it would have to be Amy um um and what do you wanted to work on getting C CLE that get those but is there anything else that you wanted to work on besides cleaning up otherwise we can I can provide that that's already kind of in the works I just want to make sure I'm not missing something we do well uh so then having the bylaws reflect that whatever those changes end up being um but as far as this goes um I don't know that Amy would have to do anything with with this like I said I I I think um I'm fine with the Eda running with this once they're more official I mean once that documentation is cleaned up does that make sense yep yeah I got that yep we W so M waiting noit go ahead no I'm I'm ready to make a motion that we get oh I I'm not okay with I need to handle this piece of property I think this we have a Million Dollar Plus piece of property that we're allowing non-elected officials to manage in the city and I just appointed I don't think that that's the right use of that I also don't know how I mean if the Eda wants to come to us and say hey we've got some people here they want to use this who's what we think could go here I'm fine to listen to the Eda and see what they have to say and you know go down that route but so far all we have is he we want this property but we don't know what we're going to do with it yet and to me that's not a plan we would ask a developer to come to us with a plan of what they want to do what you know what that looks like and I I think right now we've got like a one statement on what we want to do with it that is nowhere near enough for me to say the Eda should handle this piece of property in our city but in general edas don't know what they're going to do with the property till they look at it till they start to dig in yep so I'm not saying they can't look at it and dig into it but I would not be okay turning this over to them to just manage on their own we have a meeting tomorrow at 2:00 so we can pick a direction tonight's meeting or tonight I come in front of you to Simply say say hey are we on this or we're not on this you I'm saying no I'm not okay with that so we have a motion for no well so there's no motion we'll do the motioning just we'll take can look into it or what do you say I'm fine if they want to look into it and come forth us with more information but as far as us saying that we're just going to let them take this and run with it and do whatever well I mean in the end we would still be depending on what these documents are that that Amy comes through with I mean we're still going to be looking at probably a funding mechanism still got to come back to us yep and I'm very interested in what that funding mechanism looks like and how we're going to do that and those kind of things MH but if they're not going to be looking in so you're saying you're okay with them looking into it yep which I think is what's well I think what they're asking for is the ability to take ownership of this property in its future and since they can make motions and do things outside of what the city council has any say and once it gets put in their name or something gets done I'm not okay with that that's what I'm saying I think that's less clear me I understand what you're saying yeah but I I think with the the range of of what cleaning up the Eda documents ends up looking like yep you know who's got authority over what I I think we need to have those answers um I I have no problem with the conceptually with the Eda moving on this it seems like Eda stuff to me um is as well but you know what what those controls and what that looks like specifically I think is a little bit muddy right now for me because of what's come to light about what was passed and what was not passed appropriately and so you know we've got some other fundamental work I think that we've got to get done first it it sounds like we need to reappoint members amongst other things um you know so how it just feels like murky water that that in a month from now maybe is is clear but I I don't wouldn't feel comfortable saying okay let's go tonight because I don't know what what TY means I don't know what that means and that's what I'm saying is it's there's too much well we can certainly or table it until after we that would be my recommendation would be to table it until the the Eda I was want to call it the charter but that's not what it's what it is the the founding it can be it can be called Charter laws phon do whatever you want to call it it's all the same I I think we have to have that settled before it's it's really appropriate to do this I wouldn't say though um Tim that the Eda should just drop it I think that you know that planning and and uh finding out what's possible for this site and and some of those things should continue but I I just don't feel like we should be taking any legal actions through the Eda until we have the Eda piece cleaned up and we know we all know what what that is okay we found out today there's a property for sale right by Odessa you guys interested in that one as a city group we were always interested in everything in the city of course so you got something else to work on too next me see if that um I'll make a motion to table it for 30 days all s okay any discussion on that as it sits today nothing that prevents the Eda from bringing forth the project if they have a interested party I mean the city the the city ultimately has the rights to the property right there's nothing that says the E if the Eda has a project moving forward that they say hey we want to use this property what I'm saying is basically they don't have to purchase the property now to start a project they could easily have somebody in the works and saying there's interest here in Eda with like the you know move within the functions of it right I mean it just seems silly to me that that we we would sell a piece of property when to to the Eda or have the Eda function over it if it's already Ci's uh property at the end I mean I'm just saying they don't have to own it in order for a project to start I could see a project and then we can sell it for that project is what I'm kind trying to get at I just it just seems like we're kind of putting a cart for the horse on this one so you're saying you don't want to execute the the actual financials of it until we know we've got something lined up so not sit on the property for a while I mean the fire department put together pretty good PR what they would do with it exact you know kind of think the Eda would have something that they would come forward with too as far as like you know here's what you see this being used as the only issue I see there is you're not going to hire a broker for a piece of property that you don't know if you're even going to be able to sell yep exactly no I think it there needs to be kind of a package with that but I feel like that's a bit further away my my concern is around if we're and I just use this as the example we have we tell the broker the Eda tells the broker to go ahead and start negotiating with the county over price and something about that ends up being contested I feel really unclear about where we are legally in terms of what the eda's authority is at this this point and if we make some missteps you know in this in this period of time where we where we don't have our ducks in a row for lack of a better term I think we we expose oursel to some risk and I don't think that waiting 30 days is going to to to get some of that cleaned up it also seems like we amongst the five of us have some different views on what the Eda ultimate ultimately should look like and so I think we've got to get on the same page uh around around that or at least land it and um yeah before we would move forward so we need to get that done y but I think this is the wrong time to move ahead full speed with this okay any more discussion got a motion in a second uh we'll pull Matt I to table at I to table it's Dave hi I and Scott I'll table that for 30 days let's get it done all right table yes yeah I agree okay so 5 to Z to table it for 30 days and so it sounds like Amy's got stuff she is working yes Amy is working on things right now like said the plan is going to be the next meeting if she was make it here she would have been here tonight okay okay item s evening mayor members of the city council and here for approval for Police Department employee retention incentive uh the police department currently employs 16 staff members uh 13 sworn officers one non-sworn and two civilian employees um in recent histories um probably since 2020 we've noticed a mass exit of law enforcement Personnel throughout Minnesota and through the nation I mean unfortunately city state and federal government has had to start looking at detention um of of law enforcement officers and the police department staff um I'm proposing a total of 77,500 as a retention incentive to be distributed to all employees um those with um most of our department is under 10 years of service at the Dayton Police Department and we have a couple um over 25 years of service in the police department and then our civilian employees we have our one non sworn under 10 one civilian under 10 and one civilian over 25 years of service um each employee with under 10 years of service would receive $5,000 Administration staff under 10 years would receive half of that and then um anybody with the non-sworn would receive under the 10 10year mark would receive 5,000 uh this is not a budgetary item this will come out of the One Fund dollars from the public safety funds um for the total of 77,500 what do we have available for those Public Safety funds I think for the police department 175,000 is still available and there isn't any language in the um in the contract today in terms of of the that kind of retention uh bonus for at set intervals 10 years 20 years no nothing today just wages and correct increases that are associated with that correct and then the contract's kind of quiet about pises uh we didn't have to run through this through the Union as it's not a union negotiation it's a city benefit no I know that Teamsters won't let you do this so I'm just wondering we have not heard any anything from any of the unions um are there other are we trading another use um for those Public Safety dollars currently we are not the public safety dollars are were mostly meant for retention and recruitment along with Wellness programs um they did allow for some equipment purchases but it's very limited on what you can purchase for equipment is it tied to the wellness factor is it okay yeah my biggest question on this and I don't know how you handle it I'm fully supportive of the program but um it's my experience if you reward somebody for something and then all of a sudden they back out you're never going to get that money back you would uh out of their sick and vacation reimbursement if they were unwilling to pay it back what if they used all that up go Ahad Trav as I say what if they used all their sick and vacation time before the incentive was probably St where stock her the city could go after them for the fund yeah yeah you never get money out of somebody if they don't want to pay it why not spread it out then why not spread it out if it's over two years why not do half the payment this year have payment next year just spread does a money have to be used this year I guess as I'm getting it no it doesn't but I'd rather do the onetime payment in one year um and then require him to stay for the two years what if you just have them have them stay the extra two years and then give him the money yeah could you pay it out over the 24 months yeah you could pay it out monthly over 24 months every month they stay they get a stien right good so um I appreciate the benefit of retaining good employees I think it's often miss um missed by many companies how much it costs to then recruit and train in the time and all that so I think finding an opportunity this isn't a bad thing um I had some questions you answered some of them where's money coming from you answer that one I'm curious how other departments um outside of our city are using the same funds A Lot are using them for retention I know AO has um city of corkran has budgeted for theirs but theirs is a different program they do a 21-day um sabatical and then if they get $1,500 for 4 years um to be in rever reimburse travel expenses and then they get so much a year into a retirement savings account and I don't know if they're I think they budgeted that they're not using their Public Safety dollars on it um but which they could now being they they're funded for it they could use the public safet for um Brooklyn Park is using some of it I believe for retention and recruitment um so that's what a lot of cities are using their retention you talk like over champ or anybody that I have not okay and have you presented the different options to the force to see what they're interested in whether it's a program like I think Sayo is doing like with the the 21 day sabatical and that kind Corr sorry yeah doing I have not um but that is going to be a budgetary item so I'm looking at bringing something back to council for fure Recruitment and Retention okay so so so we're presented with one option I guess but not there's multiple options out there and the team hasn't had a chance to look at multiple options you're just I guess I'm trying to figure out how I don't have a problem with this my question is how we got to this and if other options were presented because some people like I want extra 3 weeks vacation picking R number versus the money some people the time off is more important than the the money right especially when mental health is a huge deal and you know getting away from work can be a good thing so I'm just curious if how we got to this particular place uh just because this is the most common retention right now um corkran is kind of went a different route um and I would prefer not to get into the finites of how they finance or how you reimburse for travel expenses but um that was between city of court and their employees so um I will be bringing back a second proposal in the future for long-term Recruitment and Retention um that the officers are aware of I just didn't want to bring it at this time because it is a budgetary item and then is two years the proper one of time to ask for given the amount for the amount yeah like I mean if we're worried about retention run to 3 years or four years or 5 years or something like that for the amount that we're offering them two years is I wonder honestly about the enforceability of that yeah piece of anyway we've done that in the my past where we tried to incorporate um you know a commitment where the the hospital would need to expend significant training dollars on somebody and to try to have some kind of agreement that you know that we would ultimately benefit from that versus them getting that training and then jump and ship to the next highest bidder and and it didn't play out it was really difficult through the National Labor Relations Board to try to get language that was enforcable and so ultimately it that retention P or the commitment to stick around is you know you can ask people I don't know if you can really make that stick or not um do you think it's better to payin year-over-year versus all front or I think for this amount of money I would do it in the love sum um you know I would I would say for programs going forward it sounds like we're in a contract year for U at least I think that's a discussion that could be had there I wouldn't and it more appropriate for the union to bring It Forward then for us to do that but um I would I would recommend um that it stays at city council level and does not go into contracts because at any time if you are financially struggling as a city you can take the retention benefit yeah I I would did the comment that Chief made is that if it keeps at a council level which we're happy to do um we should keep it that way versus in the Union contract cuz then it's then required yeah I'm not encouraging that I'm just you know that's that's for the call it the other side to bring forward those kind of um things but I think you you know got an opportunity with these dollars to do something and uh and you know the challenge is there it's real I don't think anybody wants to argue with that um but I think we uh so I think we go with it as as proposed and what we do going forward I guess at remains and I will be bringing back a t proposal I've got one more question should we be expecting this every two years now no okay I I mean cuz hopefully my second proposal will take care of that okay perfect thank you need a motion in a second I'll make the motion to approve as presented I'll second any more discussion okay you is there a way to handle that vacation thing so that all of a sudden somebody's not left hold in the bag because I promise you it it's going to happen we will do what the best we can um we try to be open and honest with our employees so yes the best we can we've seen what the employees do to that Ian some of them best I better add okay all right okay any more discussion time we need the pull for uh EA to approve Matt yeah Dave yeah Dennis is EA Scott yeah I suppose there's just a huge loophole there and we're going to get burned on it I don't disagree with you but I don't know and I think you extend it two years that's all you do yeah you okay we got like can I call that a 4.9 yeah thank you all right okay and now we are in closed session you can yeah had us adour this meeting yeah so what so my proposal or my thought process is read the statement make a motion in a second to go into close session and then we can either adjourn the meeting or then come back andour me I think it'd be best just to do what we've always done and just come back and adj the meeting because it makes right it makes yeah it seems okay so this something yep next item on the agenda is a yep is a closed session that will allow the city council to receive legal advice related to the city's appeal of a public employment Employee Retirement Association or parad determination awarding continued health insurance to a former employee open meeting law Minnesota statute section 13 d05 subdivision 3B States that the city council May close a a meeting pursuant to the attorney client privilege during the closed meeting the city council will meet with its attorney to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the party's position and discuss litigation strategy there is a need for absolute confidentiality because the city's position would be compromised if such discussions took place in public and could be overheard by the former employee or his attorney accordingly pursuant to the law I've cited I will I ID a motion that the just meting me close pursuant to the attorney client privilege I'll make a motion I'll second okay um thatt any discussion on that we need to pull so hi Matt's and I Dave hi and Dennis's and I Scott and Travis hi all right 5 to Z we're going to close meeting give us one minute may be good for e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for e e e e e all right uh we're back we're back um so if there are no objections we'll be a Jour from our primary hi adios right e e for