and I will call to order the Tuesday, July 8th regular meeting city council. Stand for the pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Need a motion and a second for the agenda. I'll second it. Okay. And we have we have some changes, Amy. Yeah. So, we're going to add item J1, and that's that change order for the South Diamond Lake Road project. And then uh we're going to table item F. Item F. So that's the Dayton Creek Edition final platform. Any other changes? I found a typo, if you will, in the meeting minutes. Um, one of the votes have has the wrong name. So it's okay. Okay, we can Is it in the regular one or the work session? Uh the regular one. Okay. Do you want to know which one of them? Um it is on the personnel policy. It says Fiser and it should say Henderson. It must have been a good one because you want to take credit. No. Oh, okay. Um, I don't know if I want to take credit, but it was not correct in the thought. Yeah, for sure. Thank you. Any other changes? All right. All those in favor say I. All those opposed say no. Motion carries. And now we have consent. I need a motion and a second. Um, oh, that got pulled. Um, need a motion and a second. Sorry. Sorry. So move. Second. Okay, now discussion. Go ahead. Um, so I did have thing about the Dayton Creek edition, but that got pulled or it is being tabled. Um, but then the sunstone donation, you asked about an appropriate gesture gesture and I like the suggestion and I don't have anything better, but I wanted to explicitly tell you that I think your idea is good and I don't have anything better than a placard of some sort to acknowledge it. Okay, that was it for me. Anybody else? I have a couple. Go ahead. Um, let's see. Item had a question around payment of claims, but maybe I'll just email Zach when he gets back on that one. Um, item D, there is a U on page 24 there's a it's uh described as a $125,000 uh donation in the narrative toward a study or design or construction of uh road improvements on Fernbrook, but I don't see it in the resolution or Is it in the development agreement? It's in the development agreement, but it's not listed as a donation. It's I think it's an escrow. An escrow. Okay. I just want to make sure that it's in there. Um on uh item H on page 150, this is around the parks irrigation uh stuff. I just I'm wondering where they're at. it in the documents there it talks about substantial completion around June 1st and of course we're well past that now. Um so through no fault of their own they are a little bit behind substantial completion. Um they've got the pipe work in the ground but we're waiting for the electrical companies to set meters and run power to the uh uh the wells um for a couple of the projects. Um, so they can't set the timers or test the system until that the power's to that those uh locations. So that's where we're we're at. Uh they I would say they're about 80% of what what they should be at. So it's not totally substantial completion like I would expect say 90% of it, but they're as far as they can get without the electrical components being there. And the was the electrical contractor under the sprinkler contractor? was a separate he was part of the well drilling contract of course. Um so do they have any any kind of date? I guess what I would consider substantial completion is that we're watering the grass and No, we're not there yet. We're not there yet. Um until we get the um the electrical service there, we uh waiting on that. We can't go any further. Um I did talk to the electrical companies the last couple of days. Um Kexus will be set in meet in the next week or so at Hayden Hills and I've written it down here. Um they will be Kexus is going to do Hayden Hills and Iron Gardens in the next couple of weeks and River Hills Excel have are still working on the plans for theirs. They need to set a um a transformer at the entrance way to the park so we can run the electric to the well from there. So I don't have an exact time frame. I'm trying to expedite that as much as I can. Okay. I guess we are where we are. Um fortunately we've had a lot of rain this summer. So Sure. All right. Thank you. Um, yeah, that's all we have concern. Anybody else? Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed say no. Consent passes. Open forum. Limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. State your name and address. No council action will be taken and items will be referred back to staff. Keith Grover, 113 and Fernbook. Um, what I wanted to to bring up tonight was um the intersection at Rush Creek. Um, the county's put the four-way stop in there, which is fine. Everybody that helped with that, thank you for getting the county to do that. Um, the other thing about that intersection that's kind of always bothered me is there we don't have a street light on that intersection. We have, you know, the four roads that come through there. We know what the traffic looks like there. We also have the trail coming across from the new development joining up with the park trail. Um, the trail's not marked. There's no markings on the road for crosswalk or anything like that. Um, and there's no street light. I mean, the only street light we have is the one that's on the walkway that's on the west side, and that doesn't illuminate that intersection at all. So, if I mean, if we could at some point in the near future look at um at fixing that situation, I think it'd make that whole intersection a whole lot safer. And the other thing that I'm still patiently waiting for is the signage on the road, the painting on the road. I think Jason has got that in with what the South Diamond Lake Road. Yeah, the South Diamond Lake Road thing. Do they have the signs? No. Or just the painting? We have not got authorization for the county for the signs. Why would you need author authorization from the county? It's a county road on their rightway. No, it's our road. Rush Creek Parkway. I'm talking about the signage on Rush Creek Parkway. Okay. For right turn, left turn, and straight across, which is what hopefully the arrows on the road are also going to going to show. But I think we have that on 117th both. Mhm. So, I'm thinking that, you know, why why do we need to wait this long to put signage up? I realize the painting thing got cold last fall and everything, but I mean, we're talking about this for like a year. It just seems like it's moving way too slow, and that's the only thing that want to bring up tonight. Thanks. Can I can I just answer a couple of those points? We are working with Connectors and Excel for the street lights up there. The intersection is split between two power companies, so it complicates issues a little bit. Um, and then the the signage, we have got the signage of public works at the moment. As soon as the streets stripe, we'll put the signage in. Problem solved when they're up. Jason, do does the county recognize that as a crosswalk? Is that why there's no markings or I mean they've done that to it's not warranted as a crosswalk until it meets its demand. Yeah. So if there's enough pedestrians over a certain amount of time then it'll be deemed a crosswalk. So you don't know right now if they recognize it as they have not um they did do observations I want to say it was maybe even two years ago now um and they said it was nowhere near warrants at that time. Okay. Um, anybody else? Hi there, Lee Hawquist 11471 Fernbrook Lane. Um, I know we're going to talk about DCM later. At least I hope it. Um, drainage. I I figured out I'm pumping five gallons at a time, 30 times an hour. I'm pumping over 3,000 gallons of water a day. Uh that's a tanker load and and you haven't fixed a drainage problem and I really believe you caused it when you started when you approved the other project, but if if if it's perched water, something's refilling that perch cuz Zach has said, "Well, it's perched water. We can't do anything." Something's refilling it cuz I should have pumped out that much water by now. If it's a drainage issue and it's being recycled back to my house, which I've also heard suggested, why doesn't the city have a drain? because I'm running that water water line all the way over to P's ditch. Um 3,000 gallons of water a day is coming from someplace. And I know it's been heavy rain. I understand that. But this is just a buttload of water. And if my pump fails, I'm done. I mean, I'm going to have a lot of water in the basement in a big hurry. So, uh that's that's my only complaint tonight, guys. So, you're kind of off the hook here. Thank you. Anybody else? Anybody online? Um, so if you wanted to speak in open forum, if you can use the raise your hand function. Not seeing any hands. Okay, we will close up the forum. Staff consultant council updates. Any um I believe Zach was going to send this out in an email as well. I'm not sure if he did yet, but um we're planning an all employee event for September 12th. It's a Friday. We're wondering if we can close city hall for that day. reply. You got an issue with that? Are you good with that? Closing net for September 12th. Yes. Friday. It's a Friday event. So, it's from 8 to noon. Okay. Sure. So, what do you need to follow motion? I don't. Okay. Looks like you add up at least three or four. So, okay. Um, and that's all I have tonight. Marty, uh, good evening, mayor and council. Only a couple of updates tonight. Uh, well, head treatment plant, the masons are back on site. They've got the scaffold up. They're going to start laying bricks tomorrow once their mortar has arrived on site. Um, they're going to be working on the exterior brick work for the next two weeks. Um, there will be a little bit of interior pipe work starting up. Um so uh but that's going to be the next two weeks is basically the mason's work. Um with the parks I talked about the irrigation area 21 um the gradient and concrete work is progressing. They're just moving along with that. Um as far as schedule is on on on track. Um that's about all I have for tonight. Okay. Good evening Mayor members council. Uh we continue in the hiring process for the fire department. Um, we're in step four, I guess, if you will, of the health assessment. Uh, we've continued to move four firefighters on, which is good news. J, evening, mayor, members of council. Just a reminder, training scenario by training next Wednesday, July 16th from 1 to 3. I will send out an email with the address and time to be there. Uh, we have a vacancy on the EDA. Applications are due on Monday, July 14th. Okay. No updates here, Amy. Nothing from me tonight. Couple things. Um on the I believe it was the 30th, we had a uh chat with a few residents on Stevens Park. Went very well. Um they had a lot of input. Um I think it went extremely well. One thing that I do see there and uh there was general consensus on that side that they love the idea of a splash pad and a big playground. However, I in thinking about that. I think you got to have running water bathrooms before you put all that kind of stuff in. So, at some point, I think we need to talk about some What's our thought? What's our vision for a building? Um, Marty, kudos for uh calling uh Jeff Caldwell at uh Pro Playgrounds. You actually talked to somebody. Yeah, I I'm still waiting for a revised quote from him and stuff. So, okay. I was just tickled that you actually returned the call. Uh and then another one. Uh I know this has not brought up been brought up to staff mainly for Paul Riverfest will be held on August 6th or 8th along with the car show. So, it's going to extend uh up until like 10 10:30. Um I don't know if we need to uh do anything else. It's kind of in conjunction with the car show. So, just going to go a little longer than dark. That's about all I got. Okay. Um, I've got a couple of things. First one, um, it's it came up at our last meeting, and I know it came up a couple of times on when I was on planning commission that our ordinance regarding shrubs seems to be kind of ridiculous. Um, and so I'd like to revisit that. I also recognize that unless someone has a background I'm unfamiliar with, none of us are landscape architects or or landscapers. So obviously we want some input. So, I don't know if we want to look at like um League of Minnesota cities and see if they have a template that other cities have used or what that is, but I I definitely want us to look at that because thousands of shrubs at a single property is just not it's just ridiculous. Um so, that's the first thing. Second thing, um the A3 district, it was on the planning commission packet for this Thursday, but now I see that it's strike out. I don't know when it I don't know when that happened. Um but this we need to deal with this. So like when are we going to deal with this? Sure. Uh so first on the landscape ordinance. So we have about a list of a dozen or so ordinance amendments that we're working on kind of as time permits. So landscaping is one of those. Okay. I see. Um on the A3 district uh the the intention originally was to have well is to have a public hearing for planning commission. um when we put out public hearing notices that's due about 3 weeks prior to the meeting. Uh so we did publish that for a public hearing notice and then plans change. So uh once it's published by the paper it it needs to stay on the agenda although uh staff is requesting that the plan commission or will request that the plan commission table that and there's no date as far as when we would discuss it but we'll be asking uh the commission to table it. And what if they don't? Then it's up to the commission on what they want to do. Okay. Um is there So why is there not a date on that? Because I feel like this is something we need to deal with. Like Well, it really it would be up to the plan commission there. There's no really report attached to the the item for the plan commission meeting. There's an explanation, but it's it's not really a report. And and if I could chime in a little bit on that, too. Um, it's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong on this, John, but the the notice was published, but there was no notice mailed to, correct, all of the properties that would receive mailed notice. So, there has been ineffective legal notice of that public hearing at this point. So, I think that's another reason why it should be tabled. Okay. But what we need to have it I don't I guess my question is why do we not say it will be at the next meeting? Why can we not commit to that? It it'd be up to the planning commission on what they want to do. Can it not be up to us? Um, not uh no because it's the commission's meeting. So the the planning commission holds a public hearing and they need to act on their agenda. Like the council can't act in in behalf of the planning commission during a planning commission meeting. If if that makes sense. It doesn't. Um because they didn't like you put this on the agenda. They didn't put this on the agenda. I'm asking why can't you put it on their agenda for next month and just know that it will be I I can do that. Okay. Yes. So, thank you. Um and then lastly, uh I'm excited that I don't have to work this Thursday, so I'm going to be at the cribage cards and coffee from 9:00 to 11:00. I know Scott offered to let people dunk him at the water tank at the open house, so I'm open up to people who maybe want to come and try to beat me at cards. So, um, that is my last one. Beat you at cards. Yeah, it's the cards for coffee. Yeah. 92. What kind of cards? Well, cribbage is the main thing. But cribage, uh, King's Corners. Um, I'll always love it if I get a chance to get a little blood. So, we'll come on Thursday. All right. I have nothing. Dave, um I just wanted to mention that uh I attended the League of Minnesota City's annual conference last last couple of days of June and u really good experience. Uh I did attend a number of sessions that uh I think will be helpful for us as a city. One of the the best ones was the um number of representatives from Burnsville, the fire chief, police chief, mayor, city administrator, city attorney, and u uh marketing guy, I guess I'll call him. He was pretty key in that whole thing. Communications decided that he messed up his title in there. Uh this was related to the incident they had a year ago with the two policemen and the firefighter that were killed. Uh and how the city responded, how they organized their emergency operations center and so kind of lessons learned from that from that event. So that was really good one. And I also um got some information about uh what was in the bonding bill from the state that uh we know we didn't get any of our our direct requests, but there was money put into uh drinking water grants. And I did mention that to Zach. Zach said that you were aware of that, Marty, and that we were applying for some of that money. So that that would be a good thing. um also got some good information about more information or at least to help my understanding of how ambulance services work and how their boundaries are set and licensing and all of that. Um, so I think that's kind of an ongoing topic for us, but I got some good information there and also uh one about uh rightaway and um you know, we've had this can we've been kind of kicking around around knocked over um utility boxes and abandoned stuff and uh I think there's some things we can do. uh our ordinance looks uh long and touches on a lot of things, but I think there's more that could be done with that. And so that might be something I suggest we take a look at uh in the future because we do have some rights with those utility companies in terms of their franchising and uh responsibilities for damaged and abandoned equipment. So more to come on that one. Anyway, it was a great great seminar. I was glad to be able to go. That's all I got. Stephanie, nothing for me. Okay, let's move on to action items K. Uh, so this is going to be super simple hopefully, but we have two open positions on the park commission. Um, and we have one who reapplied and then uh we have an additional applicant um for the seat who did not reapply. Um, so I just need you guys to either um appoint the two applicants or decide to open it back up if that was what your wish was. And there are two positions. There's two openings. Two openings. Two applicants. Yeah. Does anybody have a problem with one or two of the applicants? Nope. No. So okay. Make a motion to accept both. Okay. I'll second it. Any discussion? I would just like to make sure that um I believe it's John Kenudson who is leaving the parks commission that we do something to recognize his time on the committee. Any else? All right. All those in favor say I. I. All those say no. Motion carries 5 to zero. On it all. [Music] Thank you, mayor and council. Okay. So, this is uh final plat and development agreement for DCM farms. Uh so as I'm sure the council is where the project is located off of Fernbrook and 113th Avenue. Um the preliminary plant was approved in this past April uh including 253 single family lots. The final plant tonight is for 106 lots. The whole project will be done in multiple phases beginning west to east. Uh so again the phase one is on the west side of 106 lots. Uh the project is uh within the R3 district as well as zone PUB. What else? Uh critical issues for this. The developer is contributing $125,000 towards a Fernbbor corridor. Uh so the corridor is intended to study the intersections for Rush Creek Parkway 114th and 117th. Um second item is that the developer is paying for the 114th roundabout up to $2 million uh with credit for that $125,000 towards the corridor study. Um item three is that the developer is has agreed to extend sewer and water adjacent to the six homes off of Fernbrook. um that would that extension would occur at a future phase. So not phase one. Um exactly where the water and sewer will be if it's behind the houses or in front of the houses still has to be worked out. Uh let's see item four. Uh the plans are still need to be finalized as far as uh two installing two gazeos and landscaping. Uh those gazeos are going to be a part of a future phase and then the current phase. And then um land item five is the developers dedicating land towards the park for area 21. And so this is kind of a short presentation and I can try to answer any questions that the council may have. I guess I have a couple. Um the the 125,000 that's that's more of a loan than a grant or a contribution because we're giving it back when the roundabout gets built essentially. Yes. Or providing credit towards it. Yes. Okay. Just seemed a little bit odd to me, but I don't have a problem with it. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. All right. Um, lost my place. On on page 175 of our packet, Jason, this is your letter item number 16. I'm wondering why we're requiring um, the roads to be designed to a 40 mph standard um, when it seems to me unlikely that these would ever be 40 mph roads. Um, I'd have to look. We often do that for the 113th and some of the more neighborhood collector type roads. Um I'm not sure why it was imposed on this one to be honest. I'll have to ask our team about it. Okay. Um yeah, it just stuck out to me that if these are residential roads, they're not going to be anything else. So yeah, didn't make that be it for 114th, not the interior streets. I I would expect it was intended to be just for 113 and not that's how it's not written that way but I think that was probably the intention. Okay. And then lastly, um we uh haven't had much discussion about the the existing home that's on the north end of the property along 117th and and it looks like that stays. That goes it goes. Yeah, that's being purchased as part of this project. Correct. Okay. And that's why we didn't talk about it. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Yeah. So that the house is being replaced by three um of the smaller uh I don't want to call them town homes, but the smaller homes in the corner and then I think that's behind not there's storm water pond that would be in front of the existing house. Mhm. Yeah. I just wasn't sure what was happening with it. It's on, you know, it's on the drawings, but then there's also an overlay that shows housing. So, I wasn't sure where we were at with that. Okay, that's part of the project. Then it goes away. In the communicator, the 40 foot lots were extended to 45 ft. Is that actually So, I'd have to look at the preliminary planning. Tom, I'm sure would answer be able to answer that, but come up or can I answer? No. Yeah. Come up. Uh yeah, then we can get it on the microphone. You might get more. So I'll I'll put on my notes. I got to make sure. on that. Uh I I believe um I think there's uh combination the so uh stuff homes that were at 40 I think went to 45s and 50s but there were the alley load lots and I believe those are all remain at at uh 40 but they still have the 7 and 1/2 7 and 1/2 setbacks. Okay. And do you know if well you'll know I guess have you acquired or have an agreement on for the roundabout for the additional property that you might need? I haven't. We're waiting on design right in the study. Okay. And what all of a sudden what what happens if that doesn't happen? Then you just move it south. I think you move it west. Yeah. I think we already said it was going to get moved south, right? It's already the intent is to move it south to not impact no permanent impacts on the residential properties on the west side. Yeah. I think what the hardest thing is, and Jason can probably speak to it, you know, I mean, I look the discussion up at at the Rush Creek intersection, you know, and just as simple as crossings for the bikes, you know, we asked for all that in the beginning. The reality is the countyy's gonna get a hold of this and we're gonna have no say anyhow. Or you guys may I I don't right now, right? Uh and another big stickler for me is is um this is a PUD. Um in my opinion, the roundabout at 114th is strictly for the benefit of that development. I don't think it does anything for anybody else other than that development. What you're con what you're willing to contribute for that roundabout is rock solid firm only on that roundabout. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I I you know and I think there's uh I mean I likeund I already paid hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars up at Rush Creek once, you know, because the county didn't design it right. I don't think that is my air, you know, my air yet. I've taken Rush Creek Parkway. I made it a parkway. I've curbed it all. It went further to the west. Wasn't required to have that. I'm cur but I curb both sides there. I'm curbing both sides of 113th. There's as many homes on 117th that they're only curbing one side. So I I haven't been making a ton of road, you know, improvements for the city all at all at my expense. You know, we are I I'll take it back. I think on 117th um you know one of the questions on the house going away it was already going to go away but it sounds like ponding is going to we might lose a lot because ponding's going to move going to have to move westerly because we are going to agreed to dedicate land for a roundabout on 117th. So I would say am I contributing some? Yes. Okay. That's my main questions. So at the last meeting, John, what so at that time there was some money proportional to the traffic for 117th and there was no limit on the 114th. What what happened there? Um, so part of it was in negotiation with Brayburn Trails and so the the agreement that we had with Brayburn was 125,000 and that that's the why we have 125,000 here. Um, so the idea of with 250 we have some money to start a corridor study. I don't know what the cost would be for a corridor study, but this gets us. It's not the study I'm talking about. I'm talking about money towards the roundabout on 117th. I can answer that if you want. So, we're hearing cost at 1.2 to 1.5 million at the tops, right? That's what they're saying they're costing. And I know if you say you're going to pay one and a half, you're going to pay two. You're going to use it up, right? It's going to go somewhere else. And so, I'm already told that this is already well over, you know, the cost of what it should should cost to do. But and so that's where I just said somewhere you got to limit it cuz now I see you're I see when the study happens these costs are going to get folded in and I don't want to get lumped into to the other intersections that I don't think are are my responsibility to pay. My issue here is I I along with Scott's comment, I just I want to see more public good with with with this PUD and I'm I'm not and and in fact, even last time I was leerary and now we've lost the 117th benefit and and I don't think 2 million I'd be surprised if 2 million cuts it on them. But but that aside, um 114th is it it doesn't I would ask you any other developer, any projects in the city that's asked to pay that much for one one intersection. I'm also giving the park land up in the in in the corner and still paying full park fees across. You know, I'm not asking for a credit there. I'm not asking for a credit on on trails. You know, we're just putting the trails in, which some are going to go to the city, which they could be credit. So, there are a lot of other things that add up. I guess I'd like to see what that looks like. Um, so I'm not prepared to vote for this tonight. Um, I don't know if we are Is everybody okay if we vote to table it or is there enough votes here to pass it? Well, none. I I'd have had a hard call had had the 2 million been the money that you were going to put for the roundabout been able to go anywhere. Cuz personal opinion, I've seen more need for a roundabout at Rush Creek than I do at 114. That's my personal opinion. And if that money went to there or wherever, we go to the park and say, "Hey, we can get this done. We want everybody to partner because everybody benefits with a roundabout." And I know you tried to do that before and the county just wasn't willing to go there. At some point the county is going to have to do something. Um and and there is conversation now. It might take 3 4 years. The county moves slower than everybody else. So um I'd have had a hard call if that would be able to go anywhere because I'm trying to to figure out the best location for the roundabout. And in my opinion, it's Rush Creek. Uh I do see a need, personally, I see a need more so at Rush Creek and 117th than I do at 114th. Yeah. And as far as the shopping center thing, everything the roundabout that that shopping center thing could get pushed if it happens, and I don't particularly care if it does or not. It can be homeless for all I care. Uh it that could go down on 117th because I agree that wherever the roundabout is is where the retail outlet should be. Uh so to me that could be shifted down there. 113th or the so-called 14th doesn't even need to be there. You can funnel traffic south and you could funnel it north so that they come out at Rush Creek and they come out at 117. Well, I would disagree with you and I'd say I'm I'm going to do because I own a business to the west of it, right? And I don't know how you're going to funnel all the Sundance. That's true. Through a through a neighborhood and I've been here in front of the other councils, you know, and and I was the only developer that would come that would even keep the golf course, right? We're sitting here, they wanted to keep it a golf course. Everybody else wanted to to wipe it out, you know. So, Anyway, at that I'm not in favor of there's the the other issue is the 40 foot lots and I've been rock solid on the, you know, 7 and 1/2t setbacks and I get why we're doing it all. It all brings in it's for more houses. I mean, that's the bottom line. You need it to make the whole development work. I get it. I'm just I don't want to build Minneapolis or Brooklyn Park. That's that's me. Well, and I think I'm already under what you're guided. You know, I'm I'm 3.1 when you guys have a four four units per acre in your ordinance, you know. So, I think I don't know that we I just went I don't think we do at this stage yet. So, with the tonight's request is for the final plat of the west, you know, I'm going to say phase one and and what we're talking about is not part of this final plat. Oh, well, that's fine. I mean, I know it's the same project. It's the same project. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not I'm not there because I know where it'll go. Well, and I I believe, right, if I if I if this project has to pay for a roundabout, right, and and maybe you're wrong. So, if it's if there's a a number, then then why should I have to pay 125,000 study for two intersections that doesn't affect me, right? And I've been willing to upfront, you know, between you and me, I don't care about the study either. Yeah. But, I mean, but the reality is we can all up here and give and I can give you my opinion. The county might say there needs to be one, might need said to be three, and they might go down to 125th and tell you need a fourth, right? I I don't know that. Right. That's why we're premature on the whole thing really. But but and I'm and I'm okay paying paying for it. Um but if if you know if I said it's 3 million, you guys are going to burn 3 million and if a thing cost a million and a half, I I just seen it on the other intersection. I got no control of any cost and and things get shuffled to different different areas. Just how how government works. and and I I mean I feel I should be to paid on the benefits of that intersection which is part of the development. Well, if it wasn't a PUD, I would agree with you, but it is a PUD. So that that that argues that that the public benefit is those other intersections because that gener that benefits the wider public and not just this development itself. Um, and I get if I were you and I had tried hard to make that Rush Creek Parkway intersection what it was supposed to be and had them not willing to play ball and then turn around a few years later and be like, "Haha, just kidding. We want your money now." I would be real angry and real salty about it, too. Like very I I will I'll be honest. It'll be, you know, I I just I feel I've brought real great projects to this city. I've required LP around all the sides. I know it doesn't matter. I guarantee you guys, you'd look at some of the projects that I have that are 15 years old. I take Yeah. Uh Nostalgia Woods here at hundreds of thousands extra. So when sewer came in, nobody had to pay. Nature's Crossing. I'll give you an example. I paid a half a million dollars for a road that never got even built for 10, 15 years, you know. So if I that's a little bit mayor when I say I'm just going to you know if I'm going to pay for anything they decide they pay it going to build it in 15 years right and and and that's why I just feel like you know I'm hearing well is it going to get built and then if I just say it's unlimited and who knows where it's going to get built is is my issue you know so I just you know to me I don't care if it's a roundabout at 114th you know but there's some intersection and then and to get that changed around, the county is going to need approval and or they're going to need to just put their stamp on it, right? Just for clarification, so it's 2 million for a roundabout. If the roundabout comes in at 1.5 million, is the city allowed to use the other half million for one of the other roundabouts, or does that have to get paid back? The way it's written is that the developer is paying the cost of the roundabout 114th roundabout minus the 125,000. So if it's 1.5 million up to 2 million up to Okay. So So if the roundabout comes in at 1.5, he pays 1.5. Okay. Minus the 125. Got it. In this section, this this plat um what are the deltas from our normal R3? Um this exceeds the R3. So the R3 uh average lot width is required to be 62 feet and 6,500 square foot lots. uh lot sizes are larger. The regular the benefit the developers benefit of the PUD is really going to be on future phases, not the current phase where you get into but this it seems like this kind of locks in those future phases to some extent. That's what I'm struggling with because I have no issue with this, right? But like if we say yes to this and then we get to those next phases, we can't like Right. Well, I think preliminarily I think it's approved. If it's just talking about the intersection, right, and that's the hold up. I'm okay to say if it's 2 million and it's 1.3, 1 million, one and a half, you want to use the rest of the other intersections, you know, but I I don't care about that. But I think just that's where I got to put some limit because you can't none of us can tell me a time, right? And and I I I've been here, you guys haven't, and I've experienced spending a lot of money and and nothing happens to, you know, I don't know where that money went. That 500 grand I pay back then might have paid to help put gates up for the park district when they closed the road down. I guess I I get back to my I mean, the 117th is is gone and that's a concern I have and I still don't know how I just don't see this 114th as a public benefit. Um, obviously, if you put the development in, you're going to generate the traffic. But, well, I think it's it's the first one they're willing to go there. It's going to slow traffic down. You know, that was that was a complaint that everyone had. And, you know, my dad lives on that road. I live there some with him. Right. I see that. So, I think there is there is a benefit slowing the traffic down. That's a public benefit, not but it's not I don't even know that it's I mean, you're going to be limiting those last two houses also. I I just don't see that as that big of a benefit. I I get it. It's going to it may slow traffic down, but I think our issues are, like I said, at 117th and and Yeah. And I and I I think that's a whole different road, right? that's going to be collect road. You're going to have a parkway. I mean, that that's a you know, to expect a corner of lots that really don't even have access to 117th to pay for that intersection. Um, I just feel is is unreasonable. I believe when the I'm going off of memory, so might be incorrect. So, with the preliminary apply, one of the requirements were that the developer pay a proportionate amount towards the 117th. Yep. improvements based on the amount of traffic that you were contributing and it it was a small amount. I want to say it might have been like 5% or something. Yeah. And I mean I don't know if you take take a half acre or whatever of land you guys are wanting for it, you know, I mean that just about takes your 5%. Why are you getting 5%. the the total amount of traffic on Fernbrook. So, how much of you know I don't know if it's 417. Okay. How how much traffic is going north past 117th? So, that's based on a traffic study from the EA, but the traffic is going to be added to 117th to get on the front road. So, well, there's no direct. So all the traffic from DCM is going out on either 114th or north through Braver and which goes into 117th. Yeah. I don't know if there's going to be a whole lot of traffic going through Braver. Well, if there's Yeah, there may not be. If with the 114th roundabout there, I mean, most people are going to go south. Yeah. Well, that only makes sense. If there's not a roundabout, then that might change. If there's not a roundabout, they have to go either there or creek. I think I'd argue as much traffic is going to go north, Braayburn traffic could go south. They don't have to contribute to 114th. I guess for me the you know I I agree with you the the project creates the need for some kind of traffic control at 114. you know, how much additional public benefit that gives is, you know, I guess hard for me to measure in my head. There's something there because of the, you know, reducing the speed in that in that area. We really need three roundabouts. I mean, that's what we're talking about. We need one at Rush Creek. We need one at 117th. We can't get all of that out of that project. I don't No, I don't think that's all to work. I mean, Lee and Kathy are here, right? Going to bring sewer, you know, to their homes, water to their homes. Lee has a drainage problem, which we haven't just got to there yet, you know, and I I I don't think he has any reason, believe me. I mean, we'll do whatever we can. We just don't have drainage back there yet, right? We're not to that phase. And the thing we kind of talked about trying to leave those trees alone this year to after the the season, but well, and I also think there's, you know, we're talking about traffic only, but as it relates to the park, you're giving the land and paying the park dedication fees. And so that's more than what is required. And so that's a public benefit. and and I don't have the I don't have the trails um I don't have the trails figured in there, but I just assumed, you know, that would be part of the the trail and and we're irrigating along some of it. You know, those are all all other benefits for it. Yeah. And I guess lastly for me, the the lot sizes that you know, it depends on if you like those road style houses or not. And it's not Minneapolis or Brooklyn Center. It's Maple Grove that's also building those. So we're not way out of whack, I think, in that we don't have them here is what's what's different. But at the end of the day, the project just meets the Met Council current minimum density that we're supposed to be achieving. And so, however you mix it, it's, you know, it's really do you want variety or do you want bigger lots? And for me, I'd like to see some variety in that area. So, I'm okay with what's what's on the plan. And I think I was here with a lot of concepts. I didn't come in fourth one. Part of it is talking about affordability. I I think there's other parts of the city and I'd add go, you know, more of the center off off of Fernbrook, which is your traveled road. Now you're probably back to 65 foot wide lots, you know, or whatever the 75 foot wide, you know, bigger. Stephanie. Um, a lot of what David said is kind of what I was thinking. Um, I think there are other benefits, you know, setting the traffic piece aside. And I I do agree that I do think it will eventually need to be three roundabouts. Um, but to not be redundant, I agree with you, David, and I am okay with the way it it is. now. So, don't know where that leaves us, but would you be okay saying $2 million for roundabouts if there and and 113114th is the roundabout and then anything left over could go to one of the other ones? I'm perfectly fine with that. Is that a sufficient for the two of you or one of you? still up to the You already have three. Yeah, you already have three if that's where you're teetering, I suppose. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, then go I'm not there. Okay. I I just don't like the whole 7 and 1/2t lot thing. We went back and forth to get to 15 or get to 20 and now we're going to go down. But I think I'm going now I'm at the end. You you know the ordinance is seven and a half, right? I on a PUD I asked for less. We moved it up to what the current ordinance is. and and uh so really the only PUD is the smaller lot sizes for that one chunk that we're technically not voting on and and but I think we we might as well just have the discussion about it today, right? You know I mean going forward I mean can't do part and then not it's all staying there. No. Yeah. I mean, to me, I just thought that was the agreement. Well, you know, the road and and and I don't know if if the county comes in and says there's one or two roundabouts and that's a regular intersection, then, you know, I guess that's what it is. You know, I I just I just see roundabouts everywhere is the only reason proposed it. Can I ask I I have a question. All right. Some of you just sparked something for me. So, let's just we play the game and the county comes back and says that the 114th is just a regular intersection. What happens then? Because this is written for that money going for a roundabout at 114. So, what happens if I'm trying like I'm talking in circles. What happens if that comes back and it's that's a regular intersection and it is 117th. That is needs to be the roundabout. Are we just like so like are we like what happens then? Well, that's why I'm asking can we just get $2 million for intersections with with paying for the 11314th first? Like get like whatever that one needs, that's where all that money comes from. And then any additional money would go to either 117th or Rush Creek. Whatever the county says 114th needs to be, the money goes there to improve that intersection, whatever it is. And and I'm I'm okay with that. Okay. Okay. I mean, that makes sense, right? Because then it's again up to the county to say is that a roundabout, is that a regular intersection? What is that? And then what else on that in that area needs to be improved? And if it is 117 that needs the roundabout, whatever money's left over would then go to that and then Right. Great. Yeah. Do you follow that? I I do. The one concern Jason, my my understanding is the county has seen none of the three intersections justify roundabout today. the my guess. Well, I think Rush Creek probably would. Rush Creek should Yeah, that's already operating at a left at an F on some of the movements. Um I expect the others will not meet more today. However, the county is more lenient on off the or moving forward with projects that for intersection control if they're roundabouts versus a signal. Okay. So, similar to Pine View, Pine View did not meet warrants for it. that was allowed because it it doesn't do harm and there was also a safety concern there and we paid most of the bill and we paid a lot of the money in Well, that's where like if we have this money then that you know that would maybe help this happen a little bit sooner so you're not waiting 15 years to actually get something. Yeah, we we've reviewed the roundabout preliminary layouts with the county. They seem fully supportive of all three of them. And is the purpose of the study to decide which one is the priority? Like what's the purpose of this study? to get to get preliminary design with them. So to go get the field information and then the preliminary design to identify the land needs and acquisition requirements. We don't want to wait for 3 years when we want to build this thing and then do all our preliminary work. So that was part of the reason for accelerating the $125,000 payment is to get this started so we know exactly what it is. So it's really the preliminary design of the project so that if you need certain land, you don't have a house built on it. We know how much to start the Okay. Possibly one day, even two-year, okay, um process of acquiring that land, then I'm okay with that. I think that's enough public benefit for me. And I I agree with you on the smaller lot sizes, but in I feel like by keeping the setbacks a little bit larger, it they're not going to be as on top of each other and they'll still feel like there's a little bit more space. um even though the lot size themselves are smaller and it will encourage smaller homes which are more affordable and I do think affordability is a problem. So So John, how do we do this when we have a DA that basically needs to be rewritten? Rewritten. Yeah. Well, if there's a an agreement on kind of what the the major points are, we can rework on the the writing in the DA. Um, so just so that I'm following correctly. So Tom, you're agreeable for two up to $2 million towards roundabouts. Um, and I think it's specific to 114th. If 114th is less than 2 million, the excess goes towards one of the other two. Take your pick. Improvements. Okay. And then you just call intersections instead of rounds. Intersection improvements. Yeah. And then um but the contribution is only if 114 happens. If the county comes back and says it's going to be at uh Rush Creek, your 2 million's off the table. I think she's saying inter well somewhere there has to be, you know, off the table if they're I mean they're going to require I know when we did Rush Creek back then they already said that 113th and 114th are going to be required to be connected, right? I'm just not making this up. It came way back. So, they're going to require some improvement on there. Yes. No matter what. And that improvement will be done first before any of the other money would go to the any of the other intersections. So, right. Is that I'm trying to make sure I'm following what we're saying here. Making sure it all gets out there. It's whatever improvements need to happen to 114th and then if there's something left over, it can be Yes. um used to allotted to either one of those others. Okay. Again, sorry I have to No, I think that's perfect. I just got to clarify. Are you uh Amy, are you clear? So, you will be reviewing this DA a little more intently just to make sure that we don't get stuck on something. Correct. I've been taking copious notes. Much appreciated. Um Okay. So, again, just I'm making notes as well on the resolution. And so I'm I'm looking at item number five. So and just how it reads right now is the applicant shall fully fund the Fernbrook Lane in 114th Avenue improvements up to $2 million minus $125,000 credit. We're going to change that so that reads similar to uh the applicant shall fully fund the Fernbrook Lane and 114th Avenue improvements up to $2 million. Any excess funds will shall be applied to either Rush Creek Parkway or 117th Improvements. Yes. So, it be at the council's discretion. But Tom, you're okay with that? And then we'll word Smith it more in the in the development agreement with the legal with the legalies. Legalies. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I guess you guys I'll be the county decide probably where more important. Yeah. And then there is no uh money towards applied to the uh study or the corridor study. What what is is this a check mark? What is this corridor study? I'm just wondering what the intent is. uh again to get a preliminary design. So to collect the field information and the the soil information and then get um I'll just say solid layouts so we know the footprints so we can go after land acquisitions um both for the roadway and for the supporting storm water and is this for just for the 117th or is this Fern? It'd be it all three. It'd be the corridor. So 125,000 will be allotted from the Brayburn Trails development. 125 from DCM farms and then that would be used amongst the three of them. But which quarter? That's Brook. Oh, it is. Yeah. All three corridors on Fernbrook. Yeah. Okay. Basically those three intersections intersections, sorry. On the Fbrook corridor. Go ahead. Should that still be included? I mean, I don't know that it really matters to Tom where that money is spent. He's going to pay it no matter what, but then at least for us, that money's then been allotted to do just that. If if it's helpful, we have more information on Rush Creek than any either of the other two. So, most of the money will be spent on those two. So, I don't know if that makes a difference or not. Six one half dozen the other, but sure. Doesn't really I'm just asking if it's easier, more efficient to just make sure that money is allotted. Again, I don't think Tom really cares where, not that he doesn't care where his money is spent, but if it's going to be spent, it's going to be spent. and whether it's for that or it's for today and today you move it on and get answers right that's the hardest thing is we don't know the answer so I think that would help clarify those so I'm I'm I think it moves it along if you will instead of we'll we'll work on that but again you know for clarity is Tom is capped at $2 million yes it'll be minus that oneus five and whatever after that well really yeah okay so if we approve final plat today does the development agreement come back to us then once it's finalized if you would like. I mean the the intention generally is the development agreement is what it is today. We can make minor amendments to it for clarity. Um to me that this is kind of a minor amendment. If we agree that it's going to be capped at 2 million and and it's going to go for 114th and any excess funds would go to either of those two intersections um as as you see fit. And you're not going to have an answer for that for probably three year three to five years. Hopefully the three year and if we do the corridor study it might help that help that a lot. Okay. Okay. Given that we'll entertain a motion. There's a hand in the audience. I would like to speak. Uh, sure. Thank you, Tom. Yeah. Thank you. Hi, Marcia Grover 11320 from Brook Lane. Um, first of all, I would like to Oh, sorry. I kind of horse. I'd like to talk about the perched water situation. Um, I think it's not only uh Mr. Hallquist house, but I think the situation is the same in the whole neighborhood. Uh, you'll if you drive down there, you'll notice that a lot of the houses are of the style where the basement is only about half underground and then they have the big picture window in the basement and that sort of stuff. And I think that's because the water table there, the perched water is so high. Um, last week we had to replace a fence post on our fence and Keith dug a hole to put a new post in and he dug down about 2 feet and boom, struck water. So, uh, you know, he just dumped the concrete in there and mixed it up with the water and put the post in. We have water there, too. Luckily for us, we have a lot that slopes towards the back and we have a walk out basement. So, we are not completely underground. Otherwise, if our basement was down another 2T, we'd be having the same situation, too. So, I think that's really a big problem that needs to be alleviated is the perched water. Also, um I'm wondering when the alignment for 113th might happen. The traffic at 113th in Fernbrook is getting crazier and crazier all the time. Um and I'm thinking, why can't he build the new 114th and shuttle all his construction stuff down that road? Um, do you I think that uh he can make the intersection wider and I think that that would be a good plan. And I'm also wondering exactly how long is this pause on the commercial part of this development? Is it going to be a couple months? Is it going to be a couple years, five years? How long? He never gives you a definite answer on that. And you need to get some numbers and some guarantees. Also, um, speaking about parks and trails, I think that pretty much every developer puts in parks and trails in their development now. It seems like it anyways. And so, I think that that is not a burden, but I think it's a selling point for his uh, housing development is putting in the parks and the trails. In fact, I would like to see the trail run along the uh the west side of Fernbrook Lane from all the way from 117th up to Rush Creek. Uh there we're seeing more and more pedestrians on Fernbrook Lane all the time. The other day, Keith and I, we were out running errands and we had to come home via Dayton Parkway because of the situation with Fernbrook and we came down 117th and then came down Fernbrook Lane and there's a lady walking down the road and she's got her nose buried in her telephone and she didn't even see us. Um, so you know, I think the pedestrian situation there and the bike riders is getting more and more common. And when you add 250 houses more to that mix, there's going to be a lot of people going to um be walking or biking on that road. And it only makes sense to me to have a path all the way up to Rush Creek where they where there is a pedestrian crosswalk there and the people can safely get to the park that way. So with the lady walking, you know, that's an accident waiting to happen and it's going to happen more and more. We've all seen videos of people walking with their noses buried in their cell phones and they fall into a pool or water or you know this this is going to be the worst of the worst though if somebody gets hit and um what exactly is the plan for the roads? We don't have a plan in place yet. Once you okay this plan there's not going to be going back to change anything. It'll be done. Fernbrook will not be able to be rerouted and you have to get this right the first time. There's no second chance and you need to pin them down and get the facts and the numbers. I don't want the city's money going to change or repair things that you you let slip by. Remember, you represent us, the taxpayers, not the developers, and put the taxpayers first. But I think the perched water situation is going to only get worse with the construction. Thanks. Thank you. Come on up. Go ahead, Tom. I just want to address the trail. So along Glacier, we uh on the east side of Glacier, we have a wider trail. We went back at first at Sundance on screens and then there was an update here to make it wider just to keep that traffic off of Fernbrook cuz it's a busy road. It's just, you know, Glacier is the first street east or westerly of Fernbrook, and that's supposed to be the traffic to move the neighborhood, trails, everything, you know, from north to south and keep it off off the uh off the trail. So, but anyhow, that's all I had. I think, you know, we've had all kinds of of um soil borings, everything on the perch soil. I mean, we're not building houses in and wet basement. And like I said, I'm still no different from the beginning. We'll once we get over with our storm, do whatever we can to help help alleviate those six homes. But I just may want to talk about the trail. Thank you. How many phases is this thing? Uh, three. Three. Excluding the commercial outlaw, right? But the homes on the on the east side then um are they is is that so that'll be separated is the third phase is that all the the 40 foot the there's a small section actually in the center the second phase we'll have pretty much that whole easterly side. So then we'll we'll work along all the existing homes. Okay. And then that at that point is when the house on 117th will have to come down. Go ahead. So that's phase two or phase phase two. Phase two. Okay. There you go. Sure. Yep. Pretty sure. Keith Grover 113 in Fernbrook. Um I understand what Tom is saying with the you know building from the west to the east. The problem is, you know, he's talking about 200 plus more homes going in there in addition to the hundreds of homes that there that are already built back by Sundance. And a lot of that traffic currently is using 113th to get out to Fernbrook Lane. If you switch the traffic over to 114th, obviously that traffic that's on 113th now is just going to move over to 114th. whatever uncontrolled intersection you have there, whether it's a stop sign or or a roundabout or whatever may be. My whole problem is is that all these hundreds of homes are going to get built out there and we will have done nothing, absolutely nothing to alleviate the traffic coming from those homes in the in the plans that we're talking about. I mean, it'd be nice to have a roundabout on both ends of it and funnel all the traffic into that because 117th is going to do nothing except get busier and busier and busier. That's never going to get lighter. 114th or 113th, whichever you want to look at, it's probably going to have a finite amount of traffic. It's going to increase, but at some point it's not going to get any more because you can't cram any more homes in than what's going to get crammed in there. I guess unless you build on the front line, which I haven't heard is not going to happen. But um so at least you have a finite amount of traffic coming from that. Um I don't see us in I mean is it a year? Is it two years? Is it three years? How long do we put up with or work around or have this catastrophe sitting waiting to happen in front of us before we do something with the roads? I honestly fully expected um 113th in the realignment to be one of the first things that we did before we approved this development because that would at least alleviate some of that traffic and get it over to an intersection where you have sight lines in both directions where you're not looking down a hill into a hole south of 113th. You can see for a quarter of a mile both directions from up at 114th. You don't have that down on 113th. At 114th realignment, you could have more lanes with left turn to go north, right turn similar to what we've done at 117th or maybe not quite so extreme what we did at at Rush Creek Parkway. But I see all of these things just like a snowball to me rolling downhill all towards Fern Brook Lane. And we're doing absolutely nothing ahead of time to relieve that. All we're doing is making the snowball bigger and bigger and bigger on the west side of this property and we're doing absolutely nothing to stop that snowball when it gets down to Fern Brook Lane. That's my fear. I don't see any discussion from, you know, from the council and and I don't see any discussion from Tom. I understand what he wants to do and I get it. I get what he wants to do. You know, every time he builds house, he makes money. So, if he builds houses there, he's got more money to put towards uh, you know, whatever approvements that you guys might request of him to get on to Fernbrook Lane. I get that. But we're the ones downhill from, you know, what running. And we're looking at that, the way I see it, for years, you know, to come. I just don't see that as a as a feasible thing for us to do with a development is build the whole back part of it and then sooner or well someday in the future we'll build the road in the front for all the traffic to get in and out. It just seems like a backwards way of doing things to me. The other thing I think it's I think it's great that Tom is willing to put forth money, you know, towards fixing that intersection, but the the language seems coming from a contract guy here. You know, the language that you guys were batting around up to $2 million. I know what that means to me sitting at a at a contract table. Up to means $750,000 up to 2 million. 1.2 million up to 2 million. Up to 2 million means anything under that is up to that amount. If you're going to ask somebody to put forth money towards a project, give them a dollar amount and make them give you that much money. Not up to Well, that's we said 2 million. 2 million. But everybody kept saying up to though. That's the See, this is an old contract guy. Listen to what you guys are saying. Not obviously not seeing what gets the final document, but up two doesn't mean somebody's giving you $2 million. It means if it costs 1.3, that's what you're going to get. Yeah. I think the intent or the agreement is 2 million. 2 million. Period. Hard stop. That was pretty clear. Yeah. Well, I'm the one that Yeah, right. That's That's not what I was hearing. And that's I kept hearing everybody say up to that. If you get that language out of there, it makes it's out of there. That was the correction. The correction was to get rid of it. Right. The up to part is out. And the other thing about the trail that Marca was talking about that there's a trail going behind the four homes that are there now, right? Yep. Yeah. And she was talking about possibly bringing that trail somehow and connecting it up along 121. So if all those 200 plus homes build back there decide they want to walk up there that there's actually a trail to walk off from that busy highway which is just insane trail project is the the challenge with that right. But again you're putting the cart before the horse. we'll do this in the anticipation that this will happen. That's just backwards to me for doing things. That's all I want to say about that. Thanks. Thanks, Keith. Any more discussion? I I I do have to um I I am concerned about we we already have an intersection that's a mess and we're just adding roads to it or houses to it. But go ahead. Hi Lee Hollquist. Same address as last time. Um and we we already talked about the drainage. You know how I feel about that. Uh but John, according to John's numbers, you're going to triple the traffic on that road and it's still going to be a two-lane 55 mph road. I just um I think something has to be done and I you know I don't want to do anything that's going to slow Tom down. He's got a lot of money in this project and stuff, but I, you know, I look back two years ago, we had, you had six meetings about 121, including one meeting that was closed to the public and only open to the developers. And at the end of the meetings, you just decided, yeah, we're not going to do anything cuz it's a county road. But I think whatever's going to happen on that road needs to be solidified before we get too close to that road, we get too much traffic. And and like I say, three times the traffic I got right now is going to be hard. It's going to be hard to get out of my driveway. uh or into my driveway safely. Uh most most of my neighbors have turnarounds in their yard now because you can't get out on that road. You can't back out on it. Uh it's just getting to be dangerous. So I like I say, I think Tom's doing a great job. I think he's he's got some serious planning, but I think you guys are kind of holding up the process here with the with 121. Um you should at least slow the traffic down, and you can't because it's a county road. Uh get the county out here and have them do something. But, you know, this this is going to get serious before it gets built. And that's it needs to be addressed ahead of time. So, what intersections are the stop signs going in on? There's one. It just went in at Rush Creek today. Okay. And and I appreciate that, but it's still going to come up to it at 55 miles an hour. Um, so anyway, um that's all I got for now. Right. So, there's Wait, did we already have a motion in a second? No, I I have no writing. No, we don't. Okay. Well, we're waiting for. I'll wait for a motion and a second. Um, I guess I'll make the motion to approve the final plat and the development agreement as amended by our discussion tonight. And just for my clarity, it's $2 million for 114th. If the cost is less than that, any excess gets applied to either Rush Creek or 117th at the council's discretion. We just have to be careful though. the county comes back and said no roundabout or goes to we have to be careful but make sure the DA is very cool are removing the study the 125 doesn't even I thought we were moving the study the 125 is is in there but it's part of the 2 million ultimately right but specifically for the study so what this discussion has added is flexibility about how any access excess gets used does the council want to see the development agreement or is this you verbally? Are are we are you okay with what what we've talked about? I don't know that I need to see it again to approve it again, but I would like to see it because it's gets hard to track some of these things that are all redlined and could it come back on consent the consent consent agenda? Yeah, if if you'd like. Go ahead. I didn't say I was just going to I just wanted to clarify one more point. And with the $125,000 credit for the corridor study money, keep that. Yeah. Yes. Keep that up. Or is that part of your motion? Sorry. I just want to clarify your Yes, it it is. I mean, it's it's in the 2 million cap, if you will. Um I have no doubt that we'll spend every nickel of it and then some. But it um it it's in that 2 million. The 125 is really as I read it was is an advance out of that 2 million anyway. And what this discussion has done is add more flexibility to how the 2 million gets used ultimately that it can carry over to another intersection if there is a balance. Got it. I just want to make sure that we get the right revisions to the to the to the development agreement. So, thank you. I'll second his motion. And you have to say all that again. Well, we're still working. Okay. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. No. I think I'll be a no. So that's three to two that it passes. All right. On to item M. Thank you. Uh so item M is the final plant for Legacy Woods. Uh so Legacy Woods is located on 107 acres on North Diamond Lake Road near Flora Lake. Uh the project is 10 single family lots. Um the prelimary plan approval was going off of memory. I believe it was in March. Um the staff is recommending that it be this this item be tabled. Um and earlier in June, we did get a letter receive a letter from the Met Council of concerns about the A3 district. So this project would be reszoned A3. Uh the concern the Met Council's claim is that the A3 district is inconsistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Um so again the staff is asking that this be tabled so that we can um resolve the issues with the Met Council which provided it will be on the planning commission in August in a No, you you took it off August the A3 district. Oh no, you took it off next week. It will be on August. Yes. and all the appropriate notifications are going to go out. We can do that. Can I ask why it wasn't done right this time? Um, so a lot of decisions have to be made ahead of, you know, 3 weeks ahead of meeting. So that the intention was uh to disc to have this discussion with the planning commission in July. um that changed and then we thought we want to bring this to the council before the planning commission but after clarity it does need to go to the planning commission. Okay. And it will be in August. August. My question on this whole thing is is correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure why Met Council has too much to say about this because I believe this developer has ghost plotted this entire development for sewer and water. Yes. And why can't that happen? Um, in the Met Council's letter, what they're claiming is that this the A3 district requires a comprehensive plan amendment and we did not apply for one. Well, then can can we not do it under on a different zoning district? Um, no. This is not allowed in the A. So, currently it's zone A1 agricultural, which is one home per 40 acres and this is one home per 10 acres. So, it would not be compliant with the A1 district. But I thought I thought we can build on. Well, but are you getting to the fact that it's called A3 instead of A1? That we didn't modify the A1. Cuz their issue is the modifications, not what we called it. Yeah. Well, and and we've been fiddling with this thing for about a year and a half now, and we're still not there. Mhm. It just move two steps forward. We were almost there, but that counts. It's mindboggling how this can be stumbled around on for so long. Can we pull this particular P from the Musa because it really isn't a very buildable spot. Even if even if we didn't have an A3, even if none has happened, the reality is this is not a good spot for sewer and water. The Met Council would say no. They have said no. To put in this specific one, have we asked? We asked about three years ago, four years ago. Uh we asked last year. So I mean all of Dayton is within the Musa. The Musa extends into Rogers. And that's a new that's a new rule over the last what years. Um the Musa. No, that that's been in effect since I'm going to say a current Musa probably with it by 2015 2014 14 2015 what was the question how how long well this happened in Ramsey where uh they pulled some land out at at one point yes and then all of a sudden they had to put it back in to get the development done that's because the development was being done using the sewer and it wasn't in so they had to push to get it back in. But so the the question here is can we pull it out? And we we have talked to in that council, we talked to them when we buttoned up the what were those districts called the um permanently unseed conservation easement something like that. Something like that. Urban reserve at one point. Urban reserve. Yeah. There was some other zoning that we created that would be permanently insured. At that time the council rural estate rural state re um which we do have a few which we do and at that time we did ask the Met council if we could add some areas because there are other areas not just this one there are other areas that we will have a hard time. Yeah. And they said absolutely not. But so staff is going to be talking to Met Council some more. Um, I mean that could also be brought up, but um I I I think we'll we still need to we still need to get there and that means we're going to have to negotiate with them somehow. Um, so I I personally I think we should we should table this and I'm okay tableing. I just want to have a I don't want this direction instead of a constant roadblock well and a timeline. I don't want this endless eventually eventually eventually. I want to know that this is going to go to planning commission in August and it's going to come back to us at the next possible meeting after that and that we will get a decision like I we need to have a time frame on this. That's what I want too except that we don't have any say about what the Met Council does with this. I mean, I think the intent is to to I mean, our position when we created the A3 was that we don't need a comp plan amendment. Yeah. And we have heard clearly from Met Council now that they disagree. um which is so it it seems that we have to negotiate with them to to preserve our A3 district to the every extent that we can but we have to have somehow their buy in on this and I don't so you know we don't have all the cards in our hand with this because they're not at the table and they won't I mean we can pick any date we want but what does that mean to them really I I get that. But I'm saying on our end, the things that we have to do, we can put some hard times on. You know what I mean? Like it has to go through our planning commission, right? We know that. Well, then let's put a date on it and then it has to come to us. Well, let's put a date on that. Those are within our control and that's where I want to have. I understand that we can't make Met Council approve it like we can't control their time frame, but the things that are under our control, I want to have hard dates on. I I think that makes sense. What was the And we shoot for the for that adjust if we have to. What was the planning commission for since this had already been approved? But what was that for? Um I'm sorry for like currently or back you're talking about the one that sounds like it was on this agenda got on the planning commission and they got for a comprehensive plan amendment. Oh well we Oh. which hasn't been written yet and we haven't Yeah, I got that out. We haven't agreed to it yet. Yeah. Oh, okay. Mr. Mayor, if I if I could go ahead. Um, just for clarification, um, the staff and I are in the process of crafting a letter to the Met Council staff, um, with the and with the understanding that we would like to meet with them again, this time include legal counsel so that we can maybe move it along a little a little with a little bit more clarity. Um, not that legal counsel is the magic has any magic tools, but but it's just, you know, so, um, at the very least I might be able to try to help you better than I've been able to so far. Um, and so, but part of the pro part of that process, uh, or part of that draft letter that we, um, are going to be sending is that time is of the essence, um, for the city. I mean, we have a pending application that need that that the council needs to take action on. 1599 60-day clock is ticking. Um 60-day 120 days under that statute, you know, and so um we are going to ask Met Council staff, you know, please respond to us within X number of days so that we can schedule a meeting. And so we are pushing to get something done. Um when but and I want to also clarify one other thing. When you say there are things that are within the city's control that you have to do, go to planning commission, come back before this body. Um if the if the me council is is taking the position that um a comp plan amendment is is required um the from a legal perspective there's a possibility that they I fully expect that they would say that the A3 zoning is itself invalid and any action you would take to approve another or to approve a final plat under that zoning would also be invalid. So, while there are things that that this council and the planning commission need to do, the Met Council issues do need to be resolved first. Yeah. So, I mean, I I share your um desire for keeping this moving and so staff, we're working to do that. And does Met Council, my question I would have, do they have this so-called that we have to make this plan amendment in writing? some has anybody shown anybody that sentence that it's actually on some sort of a document or do they just pick it off the wall? Well, it's on a document um that that we have to make the amendment. Well, um Oh, it's within their authority to to say that. Yes. To say it. But is it actually on a document? What document we're going by? I mean, they've they have communicated from staff uh at this point, just from Met Council staff to the city um in a letter and so they have stated their position, you know, whether the Met Council as the decision-making body um it hasn't reached them yet. I think it would eventually get there if there were no resolution to the issue. So I mean it is within the Met C met Met Council's authority as represented by staff at this point to say this is how we interpret our authority as the Met Council. This is how we interpret what the city needs to do in this situation. Let's try to figure out how to make that work. I mean from although I haven't been part of the conversations with them to date the correspondent seems to me that they are willing to work with the city to try to reach some you know reasonable way to resolve it so that everybody can kind of get a little bit out of it. The reason for my question is at the last car show I was talking to one of the legislators and he's telling me they don't have any authority over this. I don't know who's right, but somewhere it must be in writing. Uh same thing with the the former three units per acre. Now all of a sudden we got to we got to go to four. No, we don't. It's going to be They just pulled that out of the air and we Oh, you mean so the next comp plan has to be three and a half. Yeah. But we don't have to meet that until we submit and they accept our complaint for the 2015. Okay. So, which also maybe why we don't want to push that. We may want to put that at the last minute because once they accept it, you're you're done. You're on that. And and you know, there's no one single sentence in a statute or a contract or a document that says, you know, the Met Council says Dayton has to do X. It's, you know, the memo that I gave to the council that kind of it's sort of a connecting of the dots. The legislature says that that this these are all the things that the Met Council has authority over and and so, you know, they under the authority that the legislature gives them, they develop their plans and their system statements and all that. And right now, the Thrive 2040 plan is what everybody has to uh had to base their 2040 comp plans on. And so when it comes to, you know, they have the authority to approve or require amendments to your 10-year plan, but if there are anything that happens in between the 10-year plans that require an amendment in their opinion, um then they then their authority is the same as it would be over your 10-year plan. Does that make sense? No, but kind of. I mean, am I explaining it in a way that makes sense? Not because it makes sense, you know? To me, it sounds like that they just kind of make up a rule as they want to go and they have the ability to do that. They develop their plans and their and their and their guidelines. And that makes sense because government can do whatever it wants. It's kind of the it's it's comparable to the authority that that this body has in when it comes to zoning to say you have to have, you know, setbacks of however many feet. You have to have a minimum lot size of however many feet. When you adopt your zoning code or your licensing regulations or any other things that that this body has power over, it comes to you just the same way that the Met Council gets its power from the legislature. That's in writing. How my deal is is their is their opinion in the writing. It is. It's it well their authority is is set forth is in statutes in chapter 473 and 473H and other parts of the of the state statutes. They have asserted we're out of compliance. We could make them prove that. We could say no and eventually it would end up in court and generally or at least in front of an administrative. All right. And what we're going to try to do I'm sorry, mayor. Go ahead. I I I know what you were going to say. Go ahead. You were about to talk. I'm sorry to cut you off. Um um but what we're going to do with in the meeting that we've that we're going to ask Met Council for is to get greater clarity on exactly what parts of the city's comp plan and the flexible the Met Council's flexible guidelines that they say the city is out of compliance with with this A3 amendment um or with this A3 zoning a zoning district. We're gonna have we're gonna really try to pin them down to find out exactly kind of chapter and verse what what they say is is really wrong. You know, kind of explain it to me like I'm a fifth grader kind of a thing. Um and sometimes I don't feel like I'm even as smart as a fifth grader. So, um I'm going to ask them to do that. And um and so that way we can know whether to say we the city continues to disagree with you or yes, we think we can reach a compromise or yes, we give in anywhere on that spectrum of of action. I think as far as I'm concerned, I think if we reach a point where we're negotiating with them and they somehow find a way to get at least these two to go forward. If we have to do an amendment, we have to do an amendment to to get that. I again, I've stated many times, I don't believe we have to do an amendment. The problem is I'm not the Met Council. And so, we just have to figure out how where Yeah. And we just have to figure out how to strike a balance. I haven't accepted their hammer yet. I guess that's the issue. Well, I'd tell him to go suck an egg myself, but it's just a matter of what risk you want to to run and if you think you're if you have enough confidence to say that that judge is going to rule in our favor. Well, and if we can get to if we can find a way that we can get what we're looking for and make my council happy, that would be the ideal. A win. Mostly win. Yes. As much of a win-win as possible or maybe a win. It might be a way just to move forward. Yeah. So, okay. So, for now, we're tableabling this, but we have based on that, yeah, I'll make a motion that we table this. So, second. Okay. All those in favor. I All those opposed say no. Good luck getting this done in the next 6 months. Motion's approved the table. Don't jinx us like that. We're going to get it done. Um, oh, and as far as those thoughts go, if if you know, it lets Zach know kind of what where do you want to go with this because she's going to be the one kind of spearheading the the negotiations. So, Okay. And and you you're also welcome to communicate it to me. Okay. So, I can might as well copy both. Yeah. So that so that I understand um fully what the what the council is looking for. Okay, on to item N. Okay, easier one hopefully. Uh, so this is uh approval for a conveyance and removal of a home at 15520 Lndale Lane. uh Three Rivers Park District has purchased this property and has offered the house uh to be purchased by the city of Dayton for $100,000 under the condition the city move that move the home within uh by October 1st. Um so the thought is we again we would purchase the house and either move it to another location or find another buyer. October 1st. October 1st. So, is that practical? I my concern is is if it can't end up where we think it's going to end up or where we want it to end up, do we have a staging area where we can plop a house? We'll have to figure that out. I've got room, but not again. Send the horse down there before you bring the cart. And oh, so the the thinking is is it would be what was that? Go ahead. Don't we have vacant land? The thinking is it would go to one of our one of the current lots that we own, right? And we don't see any that's one of setback problems, blah blah blah. Um, okay. I'm going to say there are several thoughts and and we don't have a a key direction yet. So I I want to explore all those different options before settling something or or publicizing it. Yeah. And I just know there were some questions about some of those and I don't remember all the questions but as long as we end up and this this will come out of what fund uh that I don't know. So that' be a question for Zach. So, I think we should just table this whole thing until we get some answers. Well, they want it by they want an agreement. When do they want an agreement? The Three Rivers. As soon as possible. Well, that's special. It's It was September, I believe. Kelly, can you come up? Kelly might as well come up. Sorry. Mayor, fellow council members. Oh, is it close enough? Okay. Um, the agreement is written that there is an opportunity for the council to request an extension from that October 1st date. We would just want to know by I can't recall if it was September 1st or September 15th, but a point in Thank you. a point in September. And that's to to agree to buy it, right? if you would know if you would like to extend the October 1 deadline and mostly that's because we want to be good neighbors to the adjacent properties and get that property cleaned up and everything back to just natural open space as well as that include the pool that does include the pool as well as we have grant money and that has an expiration date and so if the if the city of Dayton does not fulfill its obligations or decides that it doesn't want to partner in the transaction, then we also have a certain date in which to use those grant funds to do the demolition and return everything back to natural rural space. So, we're kind of trying to look at our deadline. We have to spend all that money by November 1st, and if you don't fulfill your terms by October 1st, then we have a very short window to kind of come in there and get it cleaned up. But if by oc by by by midepptember if you guys can tell us in real good faith like yeah we have a plan or we will have a plan just give us an extra six months. I think we're in a good position but it's it's absolutely up to the the council if you want to move forward. We have some other options that we can look at. This is an agreement to move the house or to purchase the house. The city would be responsible to you'd be purchasing the house and then you would also be responsible to move it and then to demo the basement. Yeah. But when is the purchase needed? purchase decision needed by that's what I was we would well so we would like to do that as soon as possible again because we have that grant deadline and if the council doesn't want to buy the house then we go through an open bid process and that takes us time and again we have to have all of our funds spent by November 15th um that's why we're trying to get on the same page this evening and how did we come to 100 grand oh mayor fellow council member The house appraised at 400,000 and so we are offering it to the city as a a first right of ref refusal I guess at a significant deduction and I know the moving cost do you remember what those came out at 40 it was pretty s I mean it depends on where it gets moved to but it was significant it just you know okay has ED even talked about this or no no when I talked to Zach about it My my my point was always the city has to come out ahead on this and he always he felt like he had options where the city came out ahead and and so I'm assuming if it's gotten to this point I know Zach's I'm not I can't speak for Zach but like I can't imagine that there aren't plans in place and that this isn't ultimately going to be fine for us and my understanding was there were options. So I think if we get stuck in a worst case scenario we do actually have a lot we can put it on. It might not be the best one, but it would work and we wouldn't be stuck in a position where we have to pay and demo the house ourselves. I don't I I don't see that happening. So, Zach has kind of done some preliminary numbers and just as you said, he's confident that we're not going to lose money on this. Yeah. Speak. I'm going to just say it. I don't think that this is a role that the city should be taking. I don't think we should be in the business of real estate in this like capacity. And so for me, like while it's really really great that Rivers Park wants to negotiate with us and give us a very nice offer as far as the house appraised for, I just don't think that this is the role that the city should be taking. And so for me, I don't have an appetite to purchase the home. I don't disagree with that. I It does let us move some of the other lots that we have um or help move it, but I I don't disagree with that. I I don't even like the city owning some of these lots. No, it it just it feels sticky. Yeah, it feels sticky to me and I don't like that feeling and I don't like to play in that area. So appreciate it. But yeah, I don't I don't disagree with you. It feels more to me like an an EDA Yeah. function. And that's where, you know, we're we're at the front end of this thing. I mean, we're making a purchase decision potentially, but we don't have the rest of the plan. There's really a part to to this, right? Who's who's doing the next steps? You know, where is it where's it going to be put? We've got it sounds like a couple of options uh floating out there. My worry with it is that that there is a hard deadline on this. I mean, I know there's language in there that says that we can request an extension, but then right after that it says if it's not moved by then, then you know, we're out the 100 grand and you take the house back because it's abandoned. And so, it's a little bit fuzzy to me in that we can request an extension. and it doesn't guarantee it. And then there's there's sort of this significant penalty that we don't get it done and and we we've spent the money and we don't have anything. You know, the hope would be that this can all happen. I think it would be a shame for this house to to be torn down. Um and we've got places in the city that it that it could fit. So, I'm I'm in favor of us doing this. you know how we do it. We've got to get going on pretty quickly to to make any of this come together. Well, if we don't do it, it's still going up for auction, right? We would we would still offer it uh for a public bid and typically house moving companies then put in a an offer and it goes to the highest bidder and it most likely wouldn't stay within the city of Date, but I I can't say that with absolute certainty. We've put several of the or we this is a new tool I think in our toolbox in Three Rivers toolbox that they used to do it quite often in the 60s and the 70s but it's complicated and it costs a lot of money uh to do it as you noted. Uh but in this case the way the public bidding laws work and that there's house moving companies now they take on that risk or that liability. So, we can put it up for public auction and then they buy it and then they move it and they uh they'll either move it to their warehouse. They'll have properties that you can then go and buy it right from their property or they'll have another lot that they move it directly to. So, that's an option. And if that doesn't pan out, the other options that we would be exploring is working with the fire department as a practice burn or doing a standard demo. And house is brand new. I know like no one is interested in in going down those roads, but there are certainly options and we've uh on the Sanki property that the council approved several months ago, that one we did a public bid and that house is going to get moved. That one's a lot more complicated because it's uh I forget what it's called, but it when there are different split levels. Thank you. Yeah. And then the most recently council approved property, we'll be looking at moving as as well to to try to keep the houses just in the inventory. So, it's likely to be bought. It's just a matter of who buys it. Y and and ultimately whether the city buys it or not makes no difference to Three Rivers. We're just uh the staff had indicated an interest and so we're we're here to present that opportunity to the city. To me, it's way too early to make that decision. I mean, we don't know none of the details and I don't see the big rush. Well, I don't I personally if there's an interest, we can look at it on the auction if there's an interest, but I want to know the details. I want to know how much it's going to cost to move it. How much what what are all the details? Where is it going to go? So, I thought we did have those details. Didn't It wasn't a weekly update that you received from Z. Yeah, those were ballpark numbers. Yeah. Yeah. But it didn't say where it was going to go for sure. And you don't have a need by when we need to make this decision. You're just saying ASAP. Yeah. Does two weeks matter? Really sooner kind of. Yeah. May what what does that put us at? Two weeks. July 25th. I think July 22nd. 22nd. That would be our board meets once a month and I Does anyone have a calendar in front of that? Yeah. All right. Um, so this is our our Yep. Our board would meet July 17th and they would typically want the council to meet it to authorize it first. We could move forward and approve it on our end with the terms as currently outlined or if you had suggestions, I could bring those suggestions back. What What questions does the council have that would bring you from a I'll say tableabling it to a yes or no? Or no. Yeah, for me there's, you know, there's some blanks to fill in. I don't think we've landed on well, who's going to do this this work, whether it's the council, the EDA, or just well, the staff through the council's authority, I guess, but the the lo, you know, where it's going. It sounded like there's a couple of options. And my concern ultimately isn't that that we find a place. I think there's some options there. It's it's a tight timeline to get this thing uprooted and moved somewhere by October 1st. And we do we do shoulder some risk in this because of the way that it's written um that if we're not if we're not there. Um, I think ideally we'd want to have it done by then because winter's coming, but can can we identify a location, get a foundation built, uh, you know, and all that to get this house moved by October 1st. All that happens by chance, but I don't see how anybody does it. You got to put a basement under there. You got to put a Yeah. permits blah blah blah blah blah. If it's getting moved, it's got to go somewhere. And I don't know, land owners or land mo house movers, you know, maybe they've got yard somewhere. They can pull it and park it somewhere and maybe we do too. I don't know. But there's the equipment there, too. So, it almost seems like we need more information. I mean, in general, either we're going to move it to a city-owned lot or we're moving it to someone else's property and they're buying it. I'll set it on Sarah's field. It's currently underwater. I have a lake, not a fuel. Well, I mean, if if all else it can sit somewhere. I mean, that's what a mover's going to do, too. But it just seems like we have some details that we don't um and a part of me also agrees, Stephanie. I I'm a little bit lary of us. Well, we can talk about it and stuff and get a general consensus and then let Kelly know our thoughts. I mean, I'd like to hear more more details on where it's going to go, where where are we going to put it? Okay. So, do we just want to table this? That's what I said. Until the next meeting. Well, she wants an answer by the 17th or she'd like an answer. You know, that's when that's what that's when our council meets. So, I I think what what I could commit to you is we won't take action to start our general bid process between now and the 22nd, but we would want to know on the 22nd whether we're we're going to be entering into an agreement. How about the 23rd? Because on the 22nd, we won't get done with it until 9 or 10 at night. There's also an option of a special meeting. Yeah, there is. So, yeah. So the 23rd if I get an email from staff that says yes or no, yes or no. And and again it's we're we're just here offering it doesn't matter to Three Rivers. Okay. And if there's language that what you would like to see changed in the agreement, you can certainly propose that through Zach or John and and I can route that through our general counsel as well. I'm good with that. So are we tableabling this then? I'll make a motion to table it till the next meeting till the 22nd. Need a second. I'll second it. All those in favor say I. I. All right. All those opposed say no. No. All right. So, the tableling. So, for my benefit, what questions would you like answers to? We're going to wait. Feel like what what information do you need to make a decision? Where's it going? Why don't we collect these and just mail them in? That's fine. I mean, he doesn't need to know today either. We'll just collect them and let you guys know, okay? Cuz I have a feeling Zach has 90% of whatever questions come up already answered. Whatever not like we need to get answers to. So, respond by on Monday or by Monday preferably. Does that work? Mhm. That work by Monday. Send in our questions by Monday. So, cuz Zach will be here on Monday and then he can answer them. Thank you. What? I just think it's Well, no, it doesn't matter. Okay. Can this hurry up when we want to? I guess we got to pick a duration meeting next week. Is that what was that? I I was just saying that there's an EDA meeting next week. Oh. And are we are we feeling like if we do this that that would be appropriate for the EDA to manage that real estate transaction. It would certainly be more appropriate appropriate for them than us. They are the the EDA slash HR acronym. Yes. H H although yeah which we don't however do much with but depending on what happens with you know the triangle money that just really means we're probably moving other money around so it's but still managing that it does seem like it falls under them better but I don't know or what is the reason that it EDA hasn't hasn't been brought into it yet. I mean, we're supposed to vote on something and nobody's told EDA about it, right? I mean, so that Yeah, I this is moving fast and it I mean, with these times timelines, it has to and I guess that's my point is, you know, are we are we comfortable with the EDA looking at that? And if so, can that be on the the next agenda? It it can if the council would like to give direction. I mean, you're you're this was presented to the council as this is coming from your budget. If you would like to forward it to the the EDA, then it becomes their budget. I'm not too hung up on the budget only because we know there's a there's a gap. There's a purchase coming that's or a possible purchase coming that's going to throw monkey wrench in that. Anyways, it's just who should be dealing with this thing. I think managing it, making decisions about it. I I don't know. Or at least that'll be that'll be one of another question is why hasn't it been turned over to EDA? It doesn't seem like it should have been. So the EDA meets once a month, council meets twice a month. Uh when I put the EDA packet together, it's typically the week before the meeting. So it would be right now. Um there's a whole three weeks where I'm working on planning commission items or council items. But we we have known about this for a while. That's I think that's what you're getting at. Yeah. Yeah. We've known about it for a while. We've known about this for quite a while. We didn't know it was going to happen right instantly like this. So would you like the EDA to direct provide direction on this? I'm not I'm not overly excited about the whole purchase thing anyway. So I don't know that it matters a whole lot. Do you have any thoughts? Well, my feeling is that this is the EDA kind of business and that's where we should be where it should happen. I would agree. You know, I I know we're not all on the same page about whether or not to do it at all, but if we were to do it, I think that's where it belongs. At least they can give recommendations to us and it just seems like it's in their in their back. I mean it's in there. It also gives another opportunity before we meet again for them to have some discussion about the mechanics of how this could actually come. When is their next meeting? Tuesday. Tuesday. A week from today. Oh. So my interpretation that the council has t already taken action to table this till the July 22nd meeting. You're looking for a recommendation from the EDA. So EDA is not going to act on it by the house next week. They're going to give a recommendation and the council may or may not take action on July 22nd and regardless we'll communicate on the 23rd. Yes. Yeah. So one way or the other on the 23rd you'll have Yeah. I think that does that seem reasonable? Yeah. Okay. Okay. We good. Yep. All right. If there are no objections, we'll be adjourned. We're ajourned.