All right. Uh, June 17, 2025. Welcome to the Dayton EDA. We are now in session. Before we get started, I want to make sure that we get some things covered. And one of them is uh card for Jack. Yes. Oh, thank you. Hey, you didn't have to do that. Probably probably didn't see what your big name written all over here. I can't see out of my left eye. So, good placement. Yeah, but uh we just want to make sure that we recognize all the work you've done for the city. So, Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. And and may there be many more. Yeah. Thank you. I have four radiation sessions left. So, end of this week I'm done. So, you can see this is the side of my head that they're radiating. But, uh, yeah. So, it's been okay. It's, you know, back and forth to Rochester every day except for Saturday and Sunday. But, uh, yeah, it's worked out. Hopefully everything will be clear in four months when they do a new scan or whatever. So, should be good. Nice. POS. I'm being positive. Let's see here. Yeah. Well, I thank you. It's been a long time since I joined the EDA and it's been uh slow to get going for sure. Hopefully some things now are really starting to happen, which I feel like they are, thanks to yourself and others on the committee. So, that's great. And uh it's just uh it makes it a lot easier to come and attend the meetings when you see things happening versus when you know can't get anything done. So, a that's awesome. So, appreciate it. Thank you. We appreciate it. And of course, I'd like to recognize what's happening in the news lately. Uh John is technically one of us as he's tried to help us many times. Of course, to no avail last time. John Hoffman. John Hoffman. Yeah. Senator Hoffman. And uh I he's he's a friend. So I want to make sure that we reach out and publicly address that. Okay. Can we get approval of the agenda? Anybody want to see any changes or what you got going there? Everything making sense everybody? I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. We have a motion. Second. I'll second. All in favor? I. All opposed. Okay. Do we uh have to talk about the consent agenda or do we just push that through there, John? It it it's up to you. So, if typically with the consent agenda, it's uh a motion, second to approve or if there's any items that you want to take out, then remove. The motioner should remove that item from the consent. Okay. Then we want to approve the consent agenda, everyone. I'll make a motion to approve. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. All in favor? All opposed? Open forum. John, is there anybody online? Hayden, is there anybody online? There's nobody online. Nobody on the floor. We'll skip past that one. Our old businesses still stand. We've also put the uh related E back on the program just because we've had a conversation, well not we, but someone in the city has had a conversation with the Hemstone about the railroad spur. Yes. Is there any more traction on that particular E? Um not that I can confirm. So, I've got a a message in the Hemstone, but um so in short, I know Zach City Administr has talked to one person at SMstone who's interested in pursuing it. Um but that I've not had a chance to talk to that person. So, I've talked to other people at some stone. It's just not the right people yet. Is this person that we talked to or had been talked to a uh higher level? Yes. Oh, so it's got some traction. Uh it sounds like it. Okay. Uh, in related to that, would it do any good for the ADA to go talk to that person? That has been offered. I'm waiting for a response from to go have that conversation. So, anybody else want to talk about businesses? Uh, I see. Go ahead, J. I just want to say that the gal doing the flower pot stuff, I can see her out there working all the time. They look fantastic and she's doing a great job. Nice. Okay. I mean, you know, you drive by town, she's out there pruning them or doing whatever. So, I've stopped a couple of times to thank her. So, okay, good. Mr. Chair, if we could go through the whole business item by item. You got to No. Okay. So, we we do have a couple items that that should be talked about. Go ahead. Uh, so we we have item F, which is the lent property. Mhm. Um he didn't Yeah, you scroll down there. Uh this item was tabled at the uh May 20th EDA meeting. So Stantech had put together three concept plans. Uh each of them included the Refsland property. The EDA had requested that Stantech prepare a fourth concept plan that excluded the Refsland property. Um just to summarize each one if if we can go to to option one. Uh option one is for the event center. Uh this is a 12,000 ft² building with a 250 person capacity. It's similar in size to the Mississippi Crossings event center. Option two is a brewery outfitter with a 7500 ft brewery and and outfitter commercial space. Um, it features outdoor viewing towards the Curl River as well as um a uh a staging area for the outfitter. Option three, and I'm going through these real quickly int anticipating that the EDA will discuss this in more detail. Each one, uh, option three is a flex space with three 2500 foot buildings. The intention here is that each building could have a separate use, whether it's a um a coffee shop or a restaurant or a some type of retail or an outfitter, but each of them it could be used for um you know, any any use that you can imagine. Then option four is the commercial retail. Um this is intended just to sit on the property that the EDA currently owns. It includes a 5,000 foot commercial retail building on the corner as well as a second building with uh intended for a restaurant with 2,700 square ft or 85 seats including outdoor seating in between the two buildings. Uh the commercial retail, it's commercial retail on the first floor and then residential on the second floor. So residential being four apartments, uh each apartment with a onecar garage and one stall. uh parking stall in front of each uh garage stall. Um so Stantech kind of did a lot more detailing with this and trying to figure out how does it fit within the zoning ordinance. Um in each of the four cases uh the parking lot is used as flood plane storage. As you may recall, most of this property um is within the 100-year flood plane. So whatever amount of fill we we put in, an equal amount needs to be um reestablished as flood plane. For the record, that's exactly what I pictured. So, hats off to Stantech on that one. Option four. That one right there. Option four. Cuz in the event that our funding didn't come through at the state level, this is we had a plan B. And in my head, this was plan B. I' I'd certainly like to see where the parking lot goes into the uh the Crow River there or of a of a landing for canoes or what have you. Uh so one of the differences between options one, two and three and option four. So one, two, and three draws a lot of attention to the Crow River. Option four doesn't so much. It puts all the the attention towards the street. Um so on the Crow River, there is kind of a a I don't know if I want to call it a pedestrian area, that little circle. Um Jason, if you can point to it. Yep, there it Yeah. Well, yeah, to the right of where you're pointing. So, essentially within the the floodway, which is the green area, there there's intended not to be any fill. Like that's just left alone. Whenever you have a large flood event, it's going to be in the floodway. Um so, within the flood the 100red-year flood zone, you can add fill and and um as long as it's compensated. So, um but option four does draw more attention to the street and less attention to the river. And part of that is just because there's not as much land to work with along the river. Well, I like it. Yeah. You guys like that look? I think all four are Yeah. Oh, yeah. So, is that That's what I was going to say. Are you looking at if you do get some funding maybe the other some of the other options versus Well, we we were funded three ways, but given the current events, the other two are kind of Yeah. No, I understand. The one that we officially applied for uh I nobody got there there was it's not a city year. So we're not the only guys in town that didn't get uh any of that. Mhm. And what you're referring to is is um the city uh put in a request for funding from the legislature to to buy a property in the old village and we did not get any funding from the legislature and neither did almost anyone else. Yep. That's what I'm referring to. Yeah. For the record. In looking at option one where you have an advance center, it does this essentially then become a cityowned entity. That'd be the intent. So that would replace um the uh the city the what are we calling the event center that we have at the at fire station 2, fire station one. Okay. Um we do have long-term plans of replacing that. It's just this would potentially speed it up. Well, we're going to be talking about more this more anyway, right? Um or is this you this is your venue, right? It is, but I'm looking for direction from the EDA. And this more deals with what we'll be discussing in the close session. But if if there's any of the four options that the EDA really likes or does not like, then um that I would like to know. What's the I'm looking at option three versus four and that the difference is we have to buy the other property two and three you got to buy the other property. Yes. Is there a I'm just asking is there a hybrid where you could make option four a bit a bit more like three obviously not that big but where you maybe you'd still have the retail up top and on four and but yet have more river access or whatever. So for would it make it more appealing to the potential buyers andor sure developers. So if if we had option four and then had like a a flexible building space on the Revsland property, you mean? Or in that green area, which I know is flood plane. I mean, I know it could only be like black copper concrete or or some kind of um you know, pergolas or what whatever things you'd put by the river. But I mean, something that could go by the river that would make the river more accessible for these companies as well as be flood plane friendly, I guess you call it. I don't believe so. Like I don't believe we can put structures in the uh floodway. So, well, I didn't mean structures. I meant like I mean are there as an example at Steven LC Park or whatever. Yeah. uh you have things that are going down to the river that are allowable because I suppose when it floods it doesn't hurt doesn't make any damn difference I guess. So that's what I was thinking. What what kind of things could you do in that green space that would make maybe or even come up into the parking lot a little bit make that more attractive for potential suitors so to speak or Sure. for businesses. I'm not saying it's not attractive right now. I'm just I'm just No, I don't understand what you're saying. More better something better than a lot. Can I um um the uh the second property there? How much of that is in the flood plane? The entire All of it. I mean, within the lend property, almost all of it is in the flood plane. There's just a small area that's where the existing where the upper garage is. I I agree with Tim. I I like this option three and four four four and and without regard to um the other issue that we'll discuss later that this is still a viable issue you know and I like that it's privately owned not owned by the city because let's get out of business way yeah so that's where I was going to weigh me in as well in terms of the options is my preference is that it be commercial. You know, this is a combination option for commercial and residential. But it be my preference there rather than the city competing with the event centers that are cropping up around town. That's seems to be a viable business, but we don't need to be in it if um private enterprise is working in those. Sure. We are in it now but to well it's a community center you know I I get what you're saying but this would be a focus on different an expanded list of types of events it might attract and for for me it's the same argument against a municipal liquor store you know if do we need to be in that business and for me this is a no um so I prefer the the option four because that's the property that we own and it and it's a good-looking option. Um, you know, if we're I'm a little bit confused because you're saying that we can't if the if the other property became available that we can't build anything on it, but option two shows a building on that property. Um, so when you build on to you have to compensate for what area you build on. So, like for example, in in option four, we're using the parking lot as flood plane storage. If uh someone were to redevelop the the Revsland property, it's kind of the same thing. It's just they have a smaller footprint to um compensate for flood plane storage because now it, you know, what they do has to stay on their property and what we do has to stay on ours. It doesn't mix together. Um if we had all of it, then we have more land to uh share. Yeah. And I guess my thinking was just that if if we moved ahead with this type of a concept and then that other property became available, you know, could we expand still do this but expand onto some portion of property with additional construction? Yes. Does the city council have any say in in what decisions we look at? Certainly, if you look at that picture on the top center, you know, that really establishes a um uh sort of a a cornerstone for downtown Dayton, whatever that is going to be. And so, I don't know what the city has plans, setting the mood, you know, but it does it it says, "Oh, you know what? This this could work." You know, it could be a beginning of of a whole bunch of things. slavery to come. Can you go to the master plan if you page up? So the the EDA and and the council has adopted the historic village framework plan which shows that corner as being uh commercial and then the Rland property just stays as I remember those conversations and that's why we zoned it in in that in that way. M uh planning finished up the zoning perks and we just got to be able to say this is our vision. Sure. So, you know, we've all had we've all seen this in a show of fingers. Why don't you just hold up which ones you want? Which ones you like the best or the one cuz I I agree with him and I'm holding up for the one that's going to fit with you with what we got without the purchase. Do you get to do sign language here? We had enough of that this weekend. Yeah. watching all that. But I I'm I'm on for four. Yeah, that's my preferred. That's my preferred. Yeah, Scott, I'd be all over four. I've said it from day one. I I support four. I think you just got to have at least a thought process about what if some other opportunities come available? What do Yeah, I mean, how do you take for and expand it if opportunities were to present themselves? Well, we we should crawl before we run. No, I agree. So, I think we got direction now for four. Okay. Yep. And and do you want to do a backup for all the other the other ones? No. No. Send it. How Let me ask you a question. when we do that, how do we as a EDA andor city um because obviously it's going to be private funding, how do we more or less dictate that this option for is what gets built? You set it up for as as the land owner, you have the option of selling it to whoever you want to sell it to. And so the I guess my suggestion is you sell to a developer that's going to build what you want to see there. So you'd send it out for like an RFP with designs to come back and then you choose the caveat. So here's what we want here. Yeah. This is kind of what we're looking for. What's your proposal? Okay. Yeah. Kind of my my plan since you know option four is the direction of the EDA is we we staff can talk to developers that are specialized in this area of is how is this feasible? you know, so we have a pretty picture. We don't know if it works financially. Um, so oftentimes we'll, you know, we're really good at coming up with a vision for what we'd like to see and then the developer comes in and says, "There's no way that that pencils out." So, good thing we got an IG company that could back us up on this. This is the venue. Um, yes, for marketing. Yes. So, we should probably have direction there and say, "Okay, IG, we get it. This is our thing. How do how do we move forward?" Mhm. Yes. We all agree to that? Mhm. Let's do that. Okay. That's our reality. Are you good with that? Yeah. Okay. The real IG is the real the commercial realtor. Yeah. Okay. You said you want to talk about something else on this. Item G, the EDA mission statement was tabled by the EDA on May 20th. Uh the EDA had asked for more time to to consider the language. Um so I don't know if you know I don't there's no hurry in this. So, if if you'd like to make a decision, that's great. If you'd like to put it off another month, that's fine, too. Let's let's get it off our old business. Let's get it off our old business. And so, we should take a decision on this for now. Okay. Have no sense of, you know, waiting and waiting and waiting. So, do you guys like the proposed? I like it better than the existing. Yeah. Is that code for Yes. Oh, I I would agree. that can always change it again. Yeah, we think think we need to, but I would also agree that it's better than the existing. Mhm. So, everyone else motion to change. Anybody? I'll make a motion to change. I'll second the motion. All in favor? I All opposed. Motion still carries. Was there something else, John? You want business? We can go and get rid of that now. All right. Um, okay. New business. New business. We have um two uh two items and we'll try to go through these fairly quickly. First one is telecom concept plan. Yeah. Last Mr. Chair, members of the EDA, last uh week or two weeks ago now, the planning commission met and reviewed a concept plan on Dayton Field's fourth edition. If you uh orient yourself on the corner of 121st and West French Lake Road, um kind of up by the Invent or Capital Partners building, that warehouse up near the Greyco um site, um are looking for feedback on a 26,000t building on a roughly 7 acre property. It would be a contractor operation out of Clearwater. Uh the company is Telkom Construction. Um everything on the site is generally uh in compliance with the zoning ordinance. There are a couple of flexibilities that they'd be requesting uh through the concept feedback uh related to gravel as the surface on outdoor storage. So that was kind of the main discussion at uh the planning commission meeting. Ultimately the planning commission uh said that uh they are comfortable with allowing a certain amount of area of gravel for outdoor storage area. The applicant basically uh described the large tracked equipment that they use on the uh site for maneuvering and things like that would make it hard to uh maintain any asphalt or concrete on site. That was kind of what they had uh stated. Um though the zoning district in the I1 um does limited outdoor storage pavement to uh asphalt or concrete and does not allow for flexibility for gravel. um the planning commission ultimately said to work with them to see if we can reduce it as much as possible um and they would be comfortable seeing it come back. So um that was really the majority of it. Uh there's another the outdoor storage area will be fenced and uh around I don't know if you've been out into this area before, but this property is set uh quite high up above the road that is out there. Um, so we think that visibility won't be too big of an issue related to what is going to be stored back there. Um, but uh, yeah, overall the planning commission gave positive feedback and um, gave them good direction. So, it's a tall property. Yeah, it is very tall. I mean, it's like 15 ft up easy. So, I I walked it, I seen it. I got zero issues with that. Now, the company that's there is the actual applicants, right? Well, the uh applicant the company is working with a uh person to help them get through this process and they were essentially the applicant. But uh setting somebody for somebody else maybe sometime down the road. It's not spec. No, no, there is an identified user on this site. Then then I have no issues with this at all cuz I read I read through it. I bended a site. I checked it out. Um if they're that high and put a fence up and they got a burm on top of it, the only thing is going to see the satellites. The only other thing that the planning commission me recommended related to the site plan was if the front fence area could be a decorative fence along the building line or if they could tuck it back a little bit further. Um, let me see if I can go back to the the fence the large the 8ft tall fence proposed would go all the way up to roughly the middle of the parking lot. So, there was just a little bit of discussion on how they could make that look nicer if it is kind of the front-facing area of the of the property. So, well, hopefully we won't beat him up coming in. Let's get Let's get Let's get this one sold. Yeah, I think it's a great plan. It's a very good looking building. I think the layout is good. Um, the gravel area makes perfect sense for what they do and what they're going to be parking there. I mean, yeah, overall it's very nicely put together. And and I would definitely relax the outdoor storage thing cuz you're in I1 right now. This is their business. It's like that's what they do. They need space. I think it's 80. Yeah, I believe something like that. This would be a satellite location to their uh headquarters in Clear Water, Minnesota. So, there 80 employees including employees that are not there daytoday. So, they're coming and going or Well, it sort of fits in the high-tech as well. You know, they deal with satellite communications. So forwardation they um commissioner they uh what they do is essentially uh largecale uh utility work within right ofways for developments and things like that. Maybe they can fix our trenching lines and things. Okay. We haven't have a problem. We agree. However, uh you go Jack, you like Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don't know exactly where it's at, but I Yeah, you got to walk it out. It's a big area. And it's actually pretty nice. Right across from the the water. Nice setup. Mhm. It's a weird shape, so you That's from French Lake, you'd have to find something. I mean, it's big enough to do whatever you want with, but they got a lot of dirt work to do. Yeah. Recommendation issue with it. You good? Yeah. Not yet. What's it? Not yet. I'm not good. Oh, go ahead. Um, so I guess have to say or give this caveat. I've been out of the country for a couple weeks, so I haven't caught up on a couple of these other meetings that have happened, but my initial reaction is I don't love the gravel piece. And, you know, maybe I need to hear more about why this is uniquely different than every other business in the community that they have to have that instead of what our code requires. So that's that's my I guess my one piece of discomfort on the whole thing is maybe just understanding that better. You know, if they've got a legitimate reason, then I'm I'm happy to hear it, but I haven't heard it yet. So Sure. Uh what was discussed at the planning commission in Hayen, you can correct me if I my memory is wrong. They have uh five track vehicles and trailers for those track vehicles. And the intention of the gravel is when you have track vehicles on asphalt, it rips up the asphalt. So gravel, it's more forgiving. Um the gravel area it it is large for just five track vehicles. So the applicant did say that they can reduce it. Um but we didn't get into a discussion by how much. Yeah. So I guess that's what I'm looking for is more more discussion on that and I I will catch up on these meetings. I missed this. There's only you know 20 hours probably that you you'd want and and maybe a good alternative instead of gravel would be recycled asphalt. because I don't know if anyone knows about recycled asphalt, but when it is put down and it's compacted, it does become very solid and almost becomes asphalt again, but you can fix it, grade it, and use track equipment on it and it's pretty forgiving. So again, maybe something like that would be an alternative instead of gravel or similar type product. Yeah, using as mentioned the recycled batuminous works well because the binder material is still in there and then that especially in the win the summer months. It heats, softens, and compacts together and seals. Very good for dust control, too. A lot less dust with that than there is with either virgin material or even recycled concrete. Would that suffice our ordinance? It could. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's still it's not uh it's better than gravel, but it it's not concrete or asphalt by itself. So, I'd say it's a happy median. How you feel about that one, Dave? Yeah. Well, I'm fine with moving ahead with a recommendation from this committee. I'm just saying for myself, I want to hear more about it before I get to final council, where you Well, maybe to the loading area for their track vehicle. It sounds like what they need is to be able to load them onto trailers. So, how big does that have to be to and trailer accommodate their business? You know, everything beats up the tire. We can't we can't park tool trucks on ours though ditching them. We got 7 in. Yeah. Well, I get what they're saying. Yeah. No, I mean any vehicle will, but I mean track one. And I'll just note too in terms of dust control, they did mention that they would plan to use class two gravel instead of class 5. So it would be a from my understanding it would be a larger rock. Oh smaller I think less vines. Yeah. So that not as much sand small small particles that create the dust. So it would be larger particles that would stay on the ground better. And does that would that still count then as a pvious surface? Um compacted gravel is impervious. It's considered impervious at least for storm water regulations. I don't know about by your code but if it is compacted gravel it is treated as an impervious surface for storm water needs. Okay. We would treat that we would calculate that into the percentage for impervious surface whether this is is paved or that it still works. Yes. As far as the ratios of things that you have to have there. Yep. Their storm water is treated exactly the same. Yeah. And council member, you'll uh see this at the next meeting at the next city council meeting in June. Um this will be coming forward to you. Um, one of the things we will touch on is the I1 um outdoor storage requirements. I after the planning commission did mention that they were okay with the uh gravel on the site, I didn't get any direction on terms of how to address that in the code because they are not going to ask for a planned unit development to offer those flexibilities. So, their alternative is either requesting a text amendment or applying for a variance. Okay. Well, also more to come, but I I I think the use is good. Okay. So, John, we're going to recommend we move forward with that that they have our nod of approval. Okay. And and hopefully they take this and we have a new business in our city to Okay. Skidell property uh site plan. Did we cover that or do you want to cover that? Uh yes. So, this is a prel request for preliminary plan approval and site plan review approval. Uh so Scan canal is proposing I think it's Dayton I got to think of the name of it. Dayton interchange I believe. Um the upside down tie piece. Yes. Um so this is uh previously Scanel received approval for this in 2022. Um at that time they although they received approval they did not build it. There wasn't a market at that time. uh they've come back and are asking to to kind of go through this process again. Uh they're proposing to build 126,000 square foot speculative office warehouse building. Uh one change between the 2022 plan and the 2025 plan is that they are wanting to flip the building, the orientation of the building. So the front of the building is going to front territorial. Uh the back of the building with the dock doors and trailer storage then faces County Road 81. uh within our code uh the code does not allow outdoor storage fronting uh arterial roadways which includes um Interstate 94 as well as county road 81. Um so in this case it it is not um consistent with the zoning code. Uh when this re and the area that's highlighted in yellow is the trailer storage. Uh when this was reviewed by the planning commission, the comm commission determined that um the railroad track separates this property from county road 81. Therefore um they the commission plan commission is supportive of the trailer storage as it is. Although they did request that the uh that canel shift the trailer storage a little bit to the west as much as practical. So there's the very west corner there's a storm water pond that's planned. Um I don't know what that will look like to to kind of try to shift it but so that still needs to be worked out. So direction to us you were looking for us to do um so the the first question is general are you supportive of the project as is proposed. So again it it's a 14 lot subdivision of you know one building on one lot. Um with the site plan review it gets more into the appearance of the property. So the elevation um shown on the bottom of the screen is the front of the building that faces territorial. So it's different shades of of gray essentially. Um on the back side you would see uh dock doors. Uh the plan commission did recommend that the dock doors not be painted white. That' be some form of gray to match the building or such that it doesn't the doors don't stick out as much from 81. Just to be clear, um isn't is this the property that was um proposed to swap with the triangle? No. Okay. To swap with the triangle. So, it's across the road from Well, they're not going to, but No, they're not going to. Across from Stone, next to Opus. Across from Stone. Yeah. Right next to Opus that was constructed, which is the turbine. The turbine. And that's why 81. Yeah. There you go. Yeah, the turbine one's the one just Yeah, right there. That sunstone there. And that sunstone's down there. Well, it would seem to me that it based on on the description that they had already gotten approval in 2022 to do what they wanted to do. Now, I don't know. I wasn't on the EDA then. I don't know if the EDA had a say then or not. Um, I don't remember, but it to me it seems reasonable. Jack, you remember going through this? I don't remember seeing this in 22. No, I don't remember. But my memory could be bad, too. I don't know the But I mean, the only thing I I mean, it's Call it what you want, but it's another warehouse. It looks like to me warehouse with maybe very limited office space. But considering that all the neighbors are kind of pretty industrial warehouse type places anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter. I mean, you know, I think what from what we said from an EDA, we'd like to see more businesses that are bringing in more jobs, not warehouses manufacturing. I mean, considering where it's at, maybe it's okay to have another warehouse. Well, my experience is and based that looking at the frontage, you know, the front view of the building, you know, this would probably be an ideal building for say Boston Scientific, they want they need another 50,000 square ft. You know, you have the office, the, you know, the frontage, uh, easy access to the road. So it might look like a warehouse, but it also looks like um you know uh renting to a a company that needs office and manufacturing or warehousing, you know. So I mean, but it's still spec, right? It's still spec. So we have we have enough we have so much spec in this city now. Yes. and and if Scanell were here and you know granted the EDA and both the the city council and the plan commission have had concerns about building speculative buildings versus wanting to know who's going to move in there before the building is built. Um what Scanell and other developer similar developers have said is you have to build the building first in order to track the customer. It doesn't really go the other way. It's hard to now I I say that and the last project we had for telecom is doing the opposite. I'm just going there. You caught me, John. Well, you say, "Well, I know. We just talked about a piece that wasn't that." I think that's different, though. I think that the telecom business is an existing business looking to expand into the northwest suburbs versus a spec building. I mean, when when we bought our building, we bought pretty much exactly the same thing. Mhm. you know, uh um and when we rented, we we looked around at existing buildings because it's just easier, you know, as a company, you know, to sit and want to build a building. Boy, they you that's 2 3 years of work, you know, versus here's some space. It it fits well. And I think as long as it looks good, you know, it's it's not just a a row of of loading docks, you know. So the loading dock um I know we talked about facing 81. Is there an ordinance or is there they like technically they're not supposed to face 81? Um it's more the trailer store. So in the discussion that I remember taking place in plan commission and this was several years ago was that we didn't want the commission didn't want a repeat of um King Solutions all over the city where when you drive down 94 all you see are trailers. Mhm. Um that it you should be looking at the the nicer side of the building not the dock doors and not trailer storage. Um now on the flip side we have Opus that's next door. Um that's a recent building recently constructed that has trailer storage and dock doors facing 81 in Dayton Parkway. Um in that case it was a difficult site. It had a a cell phone tower. Um it was just hard to fit everything the it was hard to make the ordinance fit onto the property. So there were concessions that were made to to allow the opus project with trailer storage and dock doors facing 81 in Dayton Parkway. I mean, where this property is though, you'd never see the dock doors from 94, would you? I mean, no, you wouldn't just from 81. This is far from 94. Yeah. What the other thing I was going to bring up is if Semstone has this interest in a railroad spur, would it make sense to talk to this company about, you know, I mean, if you're going to do a spec building, I think that backs right up would probably put the spur, right? The tracks are in between this property. Um, so Semstone is across the street. So they they would operate independently. So I mean there would be could be the Well, where would the spur be if it went in? Right here on the south side of thestone property. Right. Oh, right down there where the track is. Yes. The track runs right along 81, right? Track tracks right there. I mean, it just would seem that maybe particularly if they're building at spec, that might be a conversation we'd want to have with them to say, "Hey, this company right behind you is looking at potentially doing a railroad spur. Maybe there's some advantage for you." Um, I don't think Scanella has an interest in in a railroad spur on on this site. There's just not there's not room for it. Okay. Plus a railroport in my opinion is related to heavy industry. Somebody that needs a lot of product like the lumber yard um solutions right there in the bottom. Look at look at the advantage they would have. And then across the road to the the cubes. Well, I was just wondering if that's going to be essentially a warehouse. I mean, is it really any different than King Solutions? I mean, King Solutions is mostly warehouse with a little bit of office, right? I mean, that's exactly what you're saying as far as spec. Yeah, but they're climate controlled obviously. They can they can house and store. See all the roof airs? Oh, it's controlled on Kings. On Kings, but I'm just saying that the spec building that's being proposed is not much unlike King's building. Maybe other than maybe it's not climate controlled. I don't know. Other thing I would mention is I think if you go down um 169 uh just south of 109th between 109th and 610 I think that's where you see a lot of these types of buildings it and that's a skinnal project and look at at who's renting I mean it's biometrics you know it's medical I think Boston scientific is in in there. You know, a lot of catheter manufacturers. So, our last direction. Um, where we going? So, I guess the direction from I'm looking from from the EDA is if you're supportive of the prelary plan and the site plan review. I personally am. Okay. Is the um tiff request still part of this project? Um, yes, but not for the EDA section. So, that that's they'll go forward to the council uh next week. Okay. Um, from with my EDA hat on, then I I think this is a good plan. I agree. I think it's a good plan, especially for the uh for the shape of the land. Mhm. It's It seems like a good planned out use. Scott, Jack, thumbs up. Yeah, I'm fine. Considering the neighbors, I'm not sure what else. All right, John, let's send that up. Okay. All right. Let's go to staff updates. Let's make that quick. I want to do this close session. Okay. Um so first item I I took this off the agenda but then had time to add it. So for the EDA budget um this is shows what our budget was in 2023 24 25 or what the budget was in 25 and what we're requesting in 26. Um our budget calendar we start in uh kind of May June and and the budget is adopted in September. Well preliminary budget is adopted in September then final budget adopted in December. So, it's a half year long pro process. Um the uh so currently where we're at is the department heads are requesting a a budget for the EDA of about $26,000 um to the council and the council will refine it um later this summer. Uh last year our budget was $0. Um well, I'll just say in 2023 it was $16,000. 2024 is 28, 2025 was zero, and then for 2026, we're asking for 26,000. So, this is just a quick summary. Do you know where the 26,000 came from? Because it seems like we're spending 100 plus on legal fees. Um, for the EDA, it's much smaller than 100 plus. So, uh, for the EDA, we we have budget around I'm going to say 10 to 12,000. So, I'm just assuming $1,000 a month uh with some extra money for if we do any studies or if we hire IG on an hourly rate to do any particular work. Uh, so there's a little flexibility in that. Um, we have uh contractual services of $2,500. that's to pay for Elevate Henipin. Um, so we we had I think we're on year two of a contract uh you know current year since we don't have a budget that just comes out of the EDA reserves and then miscellaneous we have $1,000 for just unplanned incidentals. So the main cost in our $26,000 is going to be legal fees and um professional services which includes legal. We have about a half a million in reserves rough. A little more than that, but yeah. 531. Yeah, it's we we've got uh some unpaid bills in there. So, it's I'm going to say around 530ish. Okay. You wanted to say something? Well, it just seems like to me that actual costs are are running higher than that and likely to continue that way since there's more activity. You know, historical is always a good way to look at things, but the the activity of this committee is has changed a lot in the last two years. So, I don't know, you know, looking back further than that tells us much. um you know also in light of um interest in purchases um you know there isn't there isn't money there to to actually be doing that correct there there's also limited money to support the revolving loan fund which we've not had any applicants for but we are offering it and we can only offer it if we have money to to put in there what do you want to see there I I don't know that I have that answer but I think that's a Great discussion point and uh you know kind of going both ways on this. I see Scott getting nervous on me because I'm talking about adding money, but you never get more than you ask for no matter what. And I I just don't think 26 26 will actually cover our expenses in this year. And if there's interest in we haven't talked at all about how to how to fund some of these other acquisitions. Um if that's intended to be covered in a regular operating budget or if we're doing something different for that. So that's a wild card for me. But I don't know. I think that I I you're asking me to just throw out a number. I would start at 100,000. See where that goes. So you wanted 0024% of our our average tax levy is maybe I'm not doing that math in well if if we're going to do this and we got to we got to now go to council and say hey big brother let's we got to fund this triangle piece well eventually we're going to have to have our own funding do this so we don't have to do that forward that this is legitimate and the council needs to recognize it and through the taxing authority Yeah. Um, you know, that's that's a separate discussion where it actually lands, but I think that you don't start this low. And we don't want to stay above ground. We want to be we want to be I mean, if we can start getting properties, companies coming in and start that going, of course. I mean, makes sense. We we've been what two years without and three years without the tax authority uh without an EDA levy. So previous previously the EDA levy was $100,000 which you can't do a whole lot with $100,000 but it builds up right it's build um so it had built up to you $700 some thousand and then the EDA started buying property and and you can't you can do that a couple of times you can't do that more than twice no sustainable value right well and I thought originally when we talked way back when the EDA first formed was you know to keep it kind of the minimal side of what we were able to tax. But to do exactly that, to be able to build up a fund to be able to someday be able to do some of the economic development things we wanted to do because you can't do I we could all come and meet and talk about whatever, but if you don't have any money to do anything, there's no reason to meet, you know, and time creates opportunity. Yeah. Now we had enough time. We're eight years into this. Things are happening. And I think part of the reason that we hadn't done any on the the taxing authority was because you know council we're going through these growing pains in the city and so they didn't want to have the tax rate be too high and so there's the tradeoff and I don't know if we're over that because I'm not sitting on the council but I assume as the a lot of these homes come into the tax base some of that pain is starting to maybe re readjust. I don't know. Never readjust. Yeah, I suppose cuz you have more and more needs. Give them a dollar. They'll want a$110. Yeah. Well, well, this is going to be a tighter budget this year because our tax capacity didn't grow the way that it has in the past. Oh, okay. So, it's going to be, you know, I think it's going to be a different kind of a fight this year over, you know, the pennies versus the dollars. Um, but I for me I think that you know philosophically I mean we well both ways I think we need to have a have a reasonable understanding of what our operating expenses are going to be and that should be funded through the levy. We don't have another source of income, right? You know our the original um vision of building up sort of a war chest Yeah. um piece of it, you know, does that go on top of what we know or expect to spend? You know, that's a discussion for this group and and ultimately the council, but I think those are those are two kind of separate pieces. I I'd like to ask a question. So, it says proposed EDA budget. It you know, is is that coming from the city council for 2026? This is coming from department heads. So, from Tim. No, this is from I'm going to say myself and Zach and specific to the EDA. So, this is the operating. All right. So, it is coming from the EDA in a in a sense EDA staff through through through the basically our what they think we're going to spend based on historic we have history operation. All right, that makes sense. Good history, Scott. That's what I said. Yeah. So, some time ago, what what do we want to do? You want to take her to 100? Is that a thing? You can. Is it Do you need direction from us at this point? Um, I mean, if you'd like, I I guess it would probably help if you had uh I'm anticipating more questions than answers. So, if there's things you want to know, I mean, we can look at uh similar size cities of what their EDA is uh collecting for a tax levy and what they're spending it on. Um, you know, granted, every city is different. uh depends on what this EDA wants to do. If if you want to continue to buy property, you need to have money to buy to do that. Given the fact we had three years of zero, I think at this point we should accelerate this. Well, but and the other thing is um it seems, you know, I'm I'm the new guy, but it does seem like the EDA is a a growing expanding entity within Dayton. And last year we spent 28. Why wouldn't it be 15% higher than that? That that was 2024. So that's the budgeted. So 2025, you know, this year your budget is zero. So everything we spend is B is coming out of reserves, right? With nothing coming back in. Nothing coming back in. So I think we should do what Dave says here. Let's take it to 100 and see what what it says on the council level. You can put a little bit whatever you want. I don't care. 4.6 million. Now I don't care. I can tell you I can tell you you won't get 100, but Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You're 105 now. Come on. Let's Let's see if we can expand that a little. Yeah. And and just see what the guy's saying. If you know, if we can fund ourselves, I'm okay with that. But we still need seed money. I'll just say there's some need there. That's it. Definitely is a need. We can't go forever without a budget. Eventually, we're going to run out of money. We're moving on cuz we're going to move on. Okay. So the direction is ask for more than zero. Go to 100 100,000. Okay. I think Okay. Does that clear up our uh staff update? CD member close session. Sure. Um yeah. So close session. Chris will go to close session. This will take a couple minutes. I'm going to use the bathroom. Close the door. We have to close the door session. Very easy. He has to move to it first. Oh. Uh Tim, you have to move into a close session before we actually do it. You want to take a little break before you do that? Motion to move to close session. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. All in favor? I. All opposed? Motion carries. We will close session. Party's over. Are we good? Motion to close. We did motion to close. We did that. We need a motion to adjurnn. Uh motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? All opposed? All right, let's go back to work.