I will call to order the regular meeting of the Dayton City Council for April Dates. Please stand for the pledge. I 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. Any Actually, I need a motion and a second for the agenda. I'll make a motion. Second. Um, we have at least one change. We're going to add uh ADA discussion uh after open forum. Any other changes? Uh, okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. All those opposed say no. Motion carries five to zero. Um on to uh consent. I need a motion in a second. Motion to approve. Second. discussion. Go ahead, Dave. I had a question on item F, um, final payment for the Dayton interchange project. Do we know how we landed overall on budget on that one? I I do not I'm not involved in the financials or poss dramatic effect. You're going to have to wait a minute. Sorry. And tell us where the trees are. I'll let you know where they're at. Find them. At the bottom of the hill. At the bottom of the hill. Do you want to come back to that question? I can gather up information. Yeah. Okay. That's all I had. Um, does anybody else have anything? I have one. Um, just a kind of a question. And I don't know if this is for the transfer for item G. Was that um was that a surprise or was that already worked into our our fund balances for pavement? mayor and then I'll also address council member Fashion. So that is the um offset of how much we were negative on that project in total. So that $57,000 transfer that's approved in item G was the offset of how much the project of Dayton Interchange project overall ended up being negative. Okay. Um, and all of that has to do with previous right-of-way acquisitions that the city did from 2013 to 2018 till the project was approved as a federal project and had dollars related to state and federal funding. Um, so we were able to offset quite a bit of that. So we acquired probably I think it was like $2.5 million worth of property in that time frame, those 5 years. Um, and we ended up just with a $500,000 um, essentially negative project overall. Um, it was not I would say it's it was anticipated to have a negative and overall just because of how many acquisitions we did before the project started, but we weren't sure what the end project number would be. So that's why we weren't sure of what the final actual costs would be of the project. So that $500,000 is the negative of the Dayton Parkway interchange from 2013 till today. Thank you. Yes. Um, and I know we had a right away they uh a challenge to that. Um, I know that was settled a couple years ago, but Yes. Was the sign the number was the billboard? Yep. Do you want to know the amount? I'm just curious. Yeah. 567,000. That's what the final settlement. That was the final settlement. Okay. So, that was kind of in the ballpark, I think, of what we Yep. Um, and I I assume that uh Okay, any other questions? I actually also have a question on G. So, and this is partly just cuz I'm new to these things. Don't the pavement management funds and storm water funds need that money? Yes. Okay. So, where is it coming from then if it's getting moved? like where like so um in order for us to complete the project we have to fulfill all the funding and so there's only so many sources of dollars we have available um I used my experience and said it's best to use pavement dollars since it is for a pavement project overall there's also cost related to storm water funding that we did and so that's why I split the cost 50/50 technically those funds yes need that money but um with the council's direction or discretion we can move around funds between any fund really okay um in total aspect but the idea was that it it's for pavement and for storm water use. So that's why those both those funds got utilized um in the repayment of that project. Okay. You could technically pick any other fund we have and if that's what the council would like to do, we could move money from the water fund or the sewer fund, but those funds typically have more immediate projects that are like necessary like a wellhead treatment plant or water tower. or as a storm water fund, you mean you'll need the dollars eventually, but as we get more and more storm water funds, uh storm water ponds, we'll need to replenish those and take care of those. But we don't really have a lot of those at the moment. So, I guess I guess that was my point like the the money is we it's there to take, but we're not like going to cause another further issue within a few months where we're going to have to keep shuffling money around. That's the idea. So, that's why payment management was also used as well, cuz this year we're utilizing MSA dollars for the projects that we have this year. Yeah. And so we do have new levy coming in and by utilizing MSA dollars, we're essentially saying we're taking the levy and putting it towards this project. So we're not going to defer a project. We're just going to be able to utilize the levy dollars versus carry on another project in another fund. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Y anything else? Any comments? Mayor, this is helpful when you repeat the motion and then get the final roll call. This is the time where it would be helpful. Oh, okay. Okay. So, we have a motion by Dave, second by Sarah for consent. Uh and uh and we have to actually So just all those in favor. Yeah. But by name. No. No. Okay. Okay. Nope. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. Motion carries five to zero. And with that we are to open forum. 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. Do we have anybody here for open form? Forward. Thank you. Hello. Hello. My name is Marcia Grover. I live at 1132 FM. I just want to say I have had the opportunity to attend many planning commission meetings in the past year or so. Quite often I see them bending towards the developers wants instead of the residents needs. Last last week was actually different. A developer wanted to build a huge warehouse on Dayton Parkway. The developer had planned all the roads and the planning commission finally realized that they had only one chance to get the new roads in the area right. They finally realized that what happens that night will impact the nearby residents quality of life. They finally realized that they will not be able to go back and change the roads off Dayton Parkway once they oayed the project. They discussed the road situation for quite a while. Finally, they realized they needed more time and research and so they decided on a short moratorum on the build until they could get it correct. I'm proud of them for trying to get this right and considering the existing nearby residents needs pertaining to the road problem. My wish is that you will finally see the light and consider the existing residents needs when you make decisions. It doesn't always have to be what the developer wants, but it does have to be what the existing neighbors need. Thank you. Thanks. Anybody else for open forum? Anybody online? Um, so if you wanted to speak in open forum and you're on the Zoom call, if you can use the raise your hand function. Natada. Nope. All right, we will move on from open forum with EDA EDA update council. We've got good news to share. We have secured the triangle and it is uh now underway to go to write up. I believe Scott, was that what the issue was talking about? Resolution. Resolution. Once the resolutions have been made, then we can expedite this and handle this. And this is now behind us. So, this is a done deal as far as I know. Well, it's not done till it's actually paid for. Oh, yeah. We got to run a check for it. Technically, I mean, there's an kind of an agreement, I guess, but So, anyway, it's uh it's done channelled. It's out of the out of the loop. Uh second thing is we were at the um Jason and Marty were and I were at this outlook today this uh stakeholder meeting for Dayton River this study and um I kind of think we should probably keep an eye on what they're doing because they're asking questions that kind of don't pertain to us but they do. They're more worried about trails and parks and as opposed to the traffic count and the safety of this traffic. You you agree with that? I think that that's part of it. I think that um as this uh feasibility uh the corridor study progresses all those things will be taken into account but they do you know I think it was good that you highlighted those today at the meeting. You concur Jason or what was your fuel today's? Yeah I think it was an information gathering session so I think they'll consider what was shared. We should keep our eyes wide open is what I'm kind of trying to say. Uh let's see here. I do have the talking points for this morning's meeting. The group that you did set up for us, uh, Dennis did a bangup job. I mean, we went in, we knocked it out, we made it happen. I I understand there would be some back negotiations uh on this. I don't know if I would do that. Matter of fact, I would probably stay away from that just as a chair position. Um, thirdly, I got this in the mail and there was a letter to Hoffman as you know that I'm pretty close with the guy and I want to make sure that what are we doing with this and what is this thing? You're the first guy to ask that question. No kidding. Lots of people have had that question. Well, it fly flies with honey. So, if I need to make sure that I make some contacts for certain things that we need to do, then I need to know that. And if I if we do, I will make this contact. So, yeah, it was just it was in reference to a couple of the bills that are circulating down at the capital. Okay. Which um we believe would be detrimental to the city control. Okay. I've set up a meeting next week with him at the shop. He's getting his oil change done and at that point we're going to have this discussion. If any of you want to I don't know what day yet. Want to be in that loop. Text me or text staff and let me know what you need. Two of us. Just the two of us. You only have two. Yep. Okay. So, that makes sense. Yeah. If you want in cuz because if if he's going to start answering question, we should get him in front of us and you know, hey, you know what are you trying to do here? Let's use our hands off now just for saying. Okay, we're good to go. All right. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Uh staff consultant council updates. Sack. Yeah. Good evening, Mayor Members Council. If you're wanting to sign up for any of the events that I had noted on two weeks ago's weekly update, please let me know as soon as possible. That's the first responders lunchon, the park district annual meeting or the LMC annual conference. I have heard from a couple of you, but I have not heard from everybody. So, I just want to make sure I get everyone included if they want to go or not. If you need more information, reach out to me. Give me a call. Um, and then before our next council meeting on April 21st, I'm not sure if you're all aware, but the city of Dayton will celebrate its 50th birthday of being a city. So, just a fun fact to share. Um, I don't have an update. Uh, just a couple of things. Um, Elsie Stevens Bridge, um, I was on site today. They've got footings and abutments going in. They're half completed. They should be completed by the end of this week or early next week. Um, from weather dependent. I know we've got some rain coming in, so that might delay it a little bit, but uh the bridge structure is scheduled for April 15th at this stage. Um irrigation systems, uh we're waiting for road restrictions to be lifted to get the last well drilled at River Hills. Um we're waiting dates from electric companies for them to run power to the sites. Um wellhouse 4. Um the well was videoed um again last Friday I believe and it appears that the uh the grow has done its job. Um we're analyzing test pumping data for if there is any production um impact and capacity on on those. Hopefully that's minimal. Um well head treatment plant the masons are working on the brick work. This is going to be the majority of what's going to be happening out there over the next few weeks. Good evening, mayor, members of council. Just a reminder, this week is severe weather awareness week. Uh the tornado sirens will activate on Thursday, uh once at 1:45 and then again at 6:45 p.m. Along with that, uh I announced a couple weeks ago, council our Hyper Reach, our emergency notification system, um received some training on that today. um they just want to let the community know that 2,340 um I guess phone numbers have been added to that system from public information, nothing from the city. Um we are going to be advertising this on in the communicator and then also at the open house. So, encourage folks to um sign up, have the ability to get text messages, phone calls, and or emails. And you also have the opportunity to opt out at that time um if you do not want to receive those messages. And then, Chief, I think you can also sign up on our website. Yes, there is a floating icon on the left. If you go to the website, you'll see that you can sign up there as well. Is that the system that we um signed into like a year or so ago? Uh it was an emergency notification system and there was a couple of tests. I thought that was through the county. Oh, that that's part of So that would be the iPod. Um they test that annually. Uh Councilman Fishant. Um with this system, I talked to Zach today too. Um the county has a iPod system. So what that does is let's say that there's a fire, active shooter, whatever it may be on Dayton River Road and we want to notify folks via cell phone. So if you get the um iPod notification, that's really a state and or federal notification to all cell phones. If you come into a geoence, you come across a certain threshold and then that will activate your phone and looking to get our own iPod so that if we do have something within the community, I don't need to reach out to the county to do that. So I'm going to go through that process and see what kind of red tape is involved in that for us as well. So that'll be more specific to Dayton so that if we do have an issue like we've had a structured fire on Dayton River Road where traffic can be um detourred or notified of that in advance of coming all the way down to the fire and have to be turned back around. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Uh nothing to report on behalf of the PD. John, uh thank you. The plan commission had recommended a moratorum on uh development on the area of 113th Avenue east of the industrial park. So uh this would come before the council on April 22nd. Uh we opened contractor bids for the South Diamond Lake Road project today. Um I guess good news. We were high bid on it. They came in considerably lower than expected. Um you were high. We were high. We were we estimated about 1.3 million. Low bid came in just under 800,000. So significantly less. We inflated prices from last year and they actually had a pretty good reduction on our our big ticket items. So that was good news. Um pavement milling and pavement. So yeah, pavement prices actually came in quite a bit lower than last year. Um and I don't know what happened to milling. It must just be a competitive market, but that was significantly lower as well. So, um, those will be brought to council for consideration at the next meeting. [Music] Scott, do you have any? I don't. Sarah, um we have been talking a lot about um having residents reach out to Kevin Anderson regarding Fernbrook and um have we done anything about like a a sample letter that they could send or um cuz I find just for my own personal if if someone says you should contact this person and that's it, I never know what to do. But if they're like here's a sample paragraph and I'm like okay, I can send that sample paragraph. So, I was wondering if that's something that we could do just um a sample paragraph that we could give to residents who either on Fernbrook or anyone else who's interested in to send to Kevin about um trying to get that roundabout on Fernbrook and Rush Creek, I believe. Well, it's the name change is confusing, but that one. So, is that something that we could do as a city or is there interest in that? We've talked about a ton. So, there's something else we can do, too. that we'll talk about in a little bit. There's I say there's something else that we can do. Yeah, it's up to Yeah. Um, council member Vaness, it's up to the council. If the council wants to do it, we can most certainly do it. Depends on if you want to do it by mail, if you want to do it by email, if you want to do it by um just put it on the social media website, just have a thing up. I mean my first thought is well my initial thought is to have one ready so that if if someone comes to us or says something like I can be like yes here's like if if someone comes to me and says I'm concerned about this in San Frick and be like great here is this here's this language that the city is recommending right so like it is a resource that we can give out I'm not sure we necessarily need to mail it to every resident um but it would be nice if we had like this these are the talking points to mention um and then you know we can choose or not choose ourselves to send it. We can have residents send it. Um, and it can go up on social media. I don't necessarily think it has to be a letter that goes out to anyone, but it would be nice if we had some standardized language. Um, particularly if there are certain talking points that we know are going to make more of a difference or more of an impact. Um, you know, if there are, you know, if we can reference accident levels or reference, we have that traffic study, right, that it's an F, like if there are certain things we Yeah. if if there are certain things that we could have residents reference other than there's too many cars like that's not like but if we can say no we've done a study and that's shown this and then residents can send it in we can send it in um and we can post on social media um or that would be my preference personally I don't know the rest of council yeah I like that I just um do we with the app um I don't know that I've ever received a notification of any. Do we push notifications through that? We can. We don't have a lot of them. We haven't I don't remember seeing one for a while. So something of focus for 2025 for us as staff is to really focus on because this seems like something that would be that thing for that. But yeah, I I agree. Having having some sort of a you know here's our issues with the road and and you know reference those. I I I kind of like that idea. Um I don't know where exactly it would go, but it could be. What I'll try to do, Mayor Council, is to send out some standardized wording this week on this week's weekly update, and you guys can take a look and chop and you know, whatever, and then I can put something together. Everybody else okay with that? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Cool. Thank you. I really appreciate that. Um anything else? That's it for me. I have nothing. Uh nothing for me. Although I I would say that they, you know, while this is not quite the same issue as the the legislation where it it should go to everybody, I I was pleased. I was contacted by several people and the questions were good um regarding what the impact of that legislation might be. And so I think that I don't know how many people will send them, but at least they're aware of what's going on. And I think that was great. Yeah. And then just to make it public, and we did put it on our website, but we did have a typo on the email address for Hoffman. Hoffman. So, um, make sure that we're checking for that corrected email address. It happens. Take full ownership. Happens. Any more, Dave? No. You have some. Nothing for me. Okay. On to item I. Who's got this one? Mayor, members of council, um we have Kelly Grisman coming up from Three Park District. Um she's a short small presentation and then we're looking for active feedback from the council on the engagement plan that was um work through with uh through park district staff and city staff on moving forward processes. Just handing out uh last time we were here was apparent that not every council member had a copy of the long range plan or formerly known as the master plan or was aware of some of the past agreements between three rivers and the city of Dayton regarding the West Mississippi River regional trail. So just have assembled it and put it all in a folder so that everyone has the same background information should you find that helpful. So, with that, thank you again, mayor, and fellow council members for the opportunity to be here tonight and to just give a very quick update since you've already seen me just about a month and a half ago and and Rexine is also in the audience and she did a quick presentation to your parks commission uh just a week ago on the same topic. So, as you know, the West Mississippi River Regional Trail follows the river to the best of its ability uh through the city of of Dayton, and it's consistent with many plans both at the national level, the state level, the county level, the regional level, as well as uh within the city's planning documents. So, it's consistent with the city's 2040 comprehensive plan, which the city would have adopted. It is consistent with Three Rivers 2016 uh long range plan and the city adopted that in 2016 and again there's a copy of that in your folder and then it's consistent with the 2018 regional trail cooperative agreement again copy in your folder and I just want to just pause in your folder in that long range plan the pages I've got I just attached a quick memo for you all the pages that are most applicable to the discussion that we've been having about the acquisitions and what's appropriate, what's not appropriate, what is the current vision of the city, what's the current vision of Three Rivers. The pages that you'll want to reference moving forward would be pages 23 to pages 29. And generally for reference, uh, the route through the city does follow the road. The exceptions would be between Gooden Park and that North Diamond Lake Road as we talked about at the end of February. In this area, the long range plan talks about the opportunity to pull the trail off of the road where there's a willing seller and there's an opportunity to connect with the river to preserve land to reduce construction impacts. So that is laid out in the plan and then that's further articulated in the cooperative agreement where it talks about property rights and acquisitions. So that again is in the folder and then it's outlined in this memo. So if if you're curious and you want to read that language in greater detail. Um those are pages again 23 to to 29. I miss and again uh we're talking about the section I think that everyone's most interested is from Gooden Park to North Diamond Lake Road and then through the historic village. We're not along West River Road. It is along Robins Robinson Street and then Dton Division Street, excuse me. And everything else is the Dayton River Road. And then just a couple of quick acquisition updates. Since the last time we were here, the properties on Lawndale we closed on last week. And then next week, we are planning on closing uh on 17020 Dayton River Road. That's B on this map before you today. And then there are two other acquisitions that we have had community members reach out to us in the meantime expressing an interest to sell the three rivers per the city council's direction. We are not taking any action on those at this time. We're just kind of mapping them and keeping tabs on where those opportunities are should the council be supportive in three river three rivers moving forward that we can connect back with those property owners or those property representatives and pursue those opportunities further. So, what we would like to do is continue uh working with your community and yourselves to confirm that that 2016, that 2018 vision is still current and that nothing has changed over the last eight years and that it's still appropriate for Three Rivers to continue to move forward in the city of Dayton with acquisition on a willing seller basis. And what we've proposed is we did a park check-in, parks commission check-in last week. We're doing this check-in today. Uh just confirming this engagement plan that we would attend the Henipin County uh corridor study openhouse that's scheduled for April 19th and we would just table at that event. It's certainly it's the county's open house, but we would be there because we would fully imagine there'll be some questions from property owners of, hey, talk about the trail, talk about the road, how are those two projects going to overlap, who's doing what and when and where. We would like to be there to at least uh provide a presence and information regarding the trail and share what we know to date. And then from April 15th, we're going to do a a mailing a mailing to everyone that lives adjacent to the trail within the city of Dayton and offer them an opportunity for a private meeting with Three Rivers and if Dayton staff is able to attend. And that could be a virtual meeting, that could be in person, or it could be over the phone. And that provides property owners that may be affected by the trail an opportunity to learn more in private without, you know, being at an open house where there's a lot of other people around and they can share any concerns or opportunities that they have that are private to their family or private to their property. We've done that on other projects and found it to be incredibly successful. Um, and just it's been really wellreceived in building relationships and sharing information and working through a lot of people's concerns and we can meet right on the property if if that's of interest to them as well. So, we would kind of do that between April 15th and April 20th. Uh we will also be ready to do uh online engagement starting next week. And then May 14th, we would like to table at your open house. Uh just kind of be in the corner and have information so that we can draw information from the greater community, not just the people that live along the trail corridor. And then we will host our own open house at Eastman Nature Center down park reserve on May 20th. And then we would come back uh June 20th and we would like to work with you on doing a city council and police commission joint workshop or work session where we can present all the feedback we got from the communities and show some potentially some different options for your review and consideration um at a future date. And if that works for you, then this will be the the plan that we would like to move forward with. But it's still a draft. So, if there's any tweaks or additional things you would like us to do, we would be open to that feedback at this time. To clarify, is that at the Eastman Nature Center? Is that May 20th or 21st? Oh, May 21st. Okay. Just wanted to clarify. I'm sorry if I misspoke. I may have misheard. Yeah. Yeah. So, right now from the mayor and the council, we're looking for from any direction. And if you'd like to have something differently in there, if you'd like to have an additional meeting in there related to conversations, if you'd like to have a different process, this is the time for us now to make those changes and then we can um kind of follow this engagement plan moving forward. So yeah, and I I guess I would like to also add like we all we started this planning in 2016. That's when the city council adopted its first resolution of support for this work. That's been eight years ago. There's been a lot of staff turnover at the city. There's been council turnover at the city as well. We've had staff turnover. Both Ann and I have been around long enough to see this project through. But um we're also open to meeting with any one of you on an individual basis and walking through any questions or concerns or the whole project kind of from start to finish and where we're at if that's of interest or of help to any of you. as well. We really do want to be very open and and transparent and make sure the direction that we're going aligns both with Three Rivers and the City of Dayton. I'm fine with the plan as you Yeah, I'm good with the communication plan. I'm And I don't know if you're going to get to this or not, but I'm concerned about the messaging. Okay. Do you have any thoughts about the messaging? The draft letter. Okay. is um is specifically where I have some concerns. Um it um it states that well both Three Rivers and the City of Dayton um the I'll just read it. The desire by both parties to p pursue acquisition on a willing seller basis on a wider more scenic regional trail corridor with greater Mississippi River connectivity. uh that and while Three Rivers works to ensure more information is readily available to community members and that the regional trail plan still aligns with the city's plans, it suggests to me that this has been the plan all along and I vehemently object to that. Okay. The trail itself has been in in play for almost 10 years at this point. It doesn't align with the city's comprehensive plan. it doesn't align with the land use plan. Okay. So, so I think it's very inaccurate to suggest that it does align with our plans. There's been a shift in the um overall goal of this that you know I don't know where that occurred but it wasn't in 2016. It happens sometimes since then that the approach has been not to acquire easements where needed but rather to acquire whole properties and ultimately um wipe out that entire neighborhood along the river. So we will look at those that paragraph or those few sentences and revise that for your direction. Thank you. Yep. Was there any other communication you were concerned about or you'd like us to revisit? No, I think that uh you know the number of opportunities that you have is good. Okay. And I hope people take advantage of that. I'm sure you want to hear from more people than just me. Yeah, we do. We want to make sure that it's the whole community has the opportunity to participate since the goal is to serve the whole community when it's fully realized. And I hope at some point we're going to come into some kind of alignment on what that what that goal looks like because I feel like we've got a pretty big disconnect now between what the city saw as the use for that area um versus what what's what you're pursuing. Yeah. what it is. So, what we don't have on here is uh a work session earlier in the process for the city to share any initial for the city council rather to share any initial thoughts of how the city council would like to see that. We're really approaching it on this plan as what community members want to see happen with that corridor. Would you like an opportunity to do a work session earlier in the process before the community visits this to share some parameters or some thoughts about your vision for the corridor because what I what I've heard is that you are not comfortable with or you disagree with the vision. I haven't quite heard that from the whole council and I'm I'm not sure. Um I I I would second those that I think our our understanding back then was seems to be quite a bit different. Yeah. Um, but what I'm not hearing is what your vision of the corridor is. And I want to make sure what we share with your community at the events then is consistent and acceptable so that when we come back in June, whatever we've shared with your community is something that's palatable for you guys to review at that point. So, I guess I'm looking for some direction of what may be on the table and what's absolutely off the table. To be honest, I thought that's kind of what we're going to be doing at this meeting was having that conversation about what we were thinking. Um, I had kind of hoped that it would be or maybe a work site a joint work session with us parks commission and and y'all. Um, when I read through when I read through the initial agreements, the vibe I got was a trail next to the road and that would be done through easements mostly. But the plan seems to be more as Dave said, wholesale purchasing of properties and destruction of houses. Um, and that that was not the vibe I got from from the agreements that that's not those two things don't mesh, I guess, in my head. Um, and so I definitely agree with you though. I don't I think if we are that far off from we have to we have to get that hammered out before we go to the public about this. Um, and so I kind of thought that's what this was going to be was our chance to do that. Um, but that needs to be more of a work session than necessarily a presentation. Um, so I don't know if if there is time to get, but we also have the other meeting that got scheduled for the half hour before the next council meeting. I'm not sure timing wise. Um, when does parks meet, parks commission meet? First Tuesday. Okay. So that has Okay. Um because I obviously I also think they should be involved in that conversation as well. Um I think in my in my head it's a joint work session between us parks and and three rivers um to figure out exactly what that plan looks like. But I do think I do agree with you. I think we need to all be on the same page before we go to the community at at large. I would very much appreciate that direction. What we've been working off of is the long range plan which has language about to work on a willing seller basis to acquire land for a wider corridor between Gooden Park and North Diamond Lake Road. So that's the d that's what Three Rivers has been doing. We've not been mailing letters or trying to drum up business. We've been receiving phone calls and as there's been a willing seller and someone interested in selling, we've been pursuing those opportunities and there's been more opportunities than we've certainly anticipated and a lot faster than we certainly anticipated. I think that's where we're finding ourselves today. Uh very much interested in furthering this conversation. tonight. But I do want to just make sure that at least I'm speaking for Three Rivers that we are consistent with what was laid out in the long range plan in that we're still parallel the road. We've only purchased land that the plan talks about where there's a wider corridor, so between Gooden Park and North Diamond Lake and only on a willing seller basis. So that um that is all still where the city council in 2016 where they passed their resolution of support and it's okay that plans have changed or the the council has maybe changed but that's where we need to just reconnect. Yeah, I think that's somewhere along the line that's the disconnect, right? what your plan has evolved to and what the city thought it was buying into uh back then is is different because it's in a number of city documents including the 2040 comprehensive plan um doesn't show this kind of uh change it the trail but not for this to have any chance of success I think it we have to be in alignment and I don't think I think we've been kind of left out of the out of that discussion so and I know how all long and that the the discussions were in general that there would be any been acquired along the road. In fact, there was some discussion for a while on whether it should be on the north or the south side of the road. Um, and so the concept of you know that, you know, an entire swad being within the city of Dayton, it's always been talked about on the north side of the road. Not not true. Yeah. No, not true. And in the comprehensive plan, and this is a document from uh 2017 shows it on the south side of the road. Okay. I can speak from our planning efforts that through that long range planning, the section that we've been talking about is been envisioned on the long or excuse me on the north side. Um, so I guess the direction that I'm still looking for is how would you like to be engaged and how would you like to give that feedback as to Well, we could have a work session with the parks. Yeah, that would be uh but that's May next May 6th. Otherwise, we can have a we can have it before the next council meeting at 5:30 is a start if you think that's enough time for the council to have put their thoughts down on paper. Um, we currently reconvene the local board of appeals at 6, so we could do it at 5:30 or 5:15 on the 22nd. I'm not sure if the park district can make it, but I'm assuming they can rearrange your schedules or somebody can be here, whether that's Kelly or somebody else. Let's say uh it's been an 8-year plan and I don't know that a week or two really matters a whole lot. It only thing it matters to is the plan up here for getting things we could and we could push that out to say the engagement part can go all push pushed out but um the date and open house is like our open house is already scheduled for May 14th and that would be an ideal time. So that's that that that to me that is where our prep time pressure is is I would like to get something figured out so that we can have at the open house that's our that's a really great opportunity. I don't want to miss that. But even at that open house, if we don't have a bunch of maps, it can just be advertising for an open house at a future date or towards a website. So, I I would much rather we get this right and get us on the same page and that we're developing a relationship and we're developing a partnership that we're all feeling comfortable in rather than rushing it. And even with the April 15th and the county's project, I think we would use that same opportunity just to say we we have a trail plan. We don't know all of the details at this time. We're going to be working with the city and we'll just have a a website up with information like with everything that's already in the past and more information about the future coming. So that was May. So yeah, does May 6 worth work for the mayor and the council for having a joint work session? I'm not It's got to be the whole parks commission meeting, but No. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. I think part of part of where that this whole conversation is going is the perceived plan was there was going to be easements acquired and right now if if you had willing sellers for the whole 300 I believe it's 38 acres uh it's about 330 acres but that's that includes a bunch of land that the city already owns the state already owns and Ray County already owns so I I don't have the numbers in front of me but I think there was like 78 acres ers over 30 private parcels, but the three rivers would buy it all right now if they had the if we had the resources and they were willing sellers and the city was supportive. See, I think that where that's going is is all of a sudden you're taking all of that land out of our tax ro also. Yep. And that's not what was talked about 8 years ago. Yep. And that's not in our 2040 plan. Correct. Yep. So eight years ago it was if we're building the trail now you do it with an easement and over time as there's opportunities you can acquire land and in 30 years when it's rebuilt or six years of the rebuilt you can keep shifting and bringing that trail and the the opportunities the there's residents here or family members here that um they they are call I cannot emphasize this enough they are calling us we are not calling them and we're just Certainly, we're parks people. We see it as a great opportunity to provide public access to one of the greatest national treasures right here in your community, an opportunity to also realize some of the city's plans and connect some of your park infrastructure to each other. Realize your water trail plan. Um, but it is important that we find that right balance and what works. So, um, any other questions? So anyway, so yeah, so Kelly, I think what we'll do is we'll hold off on those adjacent property owner meetings and the online engagement until May after May 6th just so that the engagement plan will be adjusted accordingly. Yeah, that sounds good. We'll we still plan on doing the April 15 just tableing is more to come. Yep. Yeah. And I think also if you can um if it's not already there, you know, there are some properties along that stretch where the the trail may be technically infeasible because of the ravines and the proximity to the road of houses. Um you know there there may be properties that you know sort of must be required for the trail to work at all. Yeah. and identifying those Yeah. um would be would be helpful and also identifying where an easement or just using the right away to the existing road. Um I'd like to direct you to two pieces of information that you now have in front of you. Um in the long range plan in the back there are um it will be appendix D starting on page 87 and again this was that the plan that was already adopted. It has two different line colorations. Blue line is a special construction and pink line is a an easement area where we absolutely knew if if we were if the if the trail was going to be roadbased because that was the only option. These are areas that we have a special construction or a easement area that we would know like you can't you just can't fit it in the road right away. So that starting on page 87, if you go through those maps, that flags all of those areas. And then also in your packet, you have an 11 by17 map. This is the map that was shared in February. And on that map, there are parcels that are kind of highlighted in a a dark pink with a hatch. Those are those same parcels that would be special construction or an easement requirement. And that again would be if if you were moving forward with just a try to get in the road right away. Those are the parcels that you would still have some type of private property impact regardless. So you're saying with those properties you need an easement for the entire property. So just a portion, not the whole parcel, but you need something. Yeah. The the current roadway easement is insufficient. Yep. or maybe like there's a significant redeem. So you'd have to each each property is a little different and that's why the ability to meet with each property owner separately and look at their parcel with them. It can be very helpful for some people. So what I think Dave was getting at and I kind of like to see is there are certainly properties here where you're you're probably going to need the whole thing because of topography. Yeah. And it'd be nice to to know what those were. Is that putting words in your mouth or is that kind of what you were getting at? Yeah. Yeah. I can just the fact that you need easement. I kind of assumed you need easement throughout most of this. Um but to know where you need more than just easement. Yeah. And please keep in mind that the county has a project now and we don't know the outcome of that project. So our stuff was from eight years ago thinking that the road is going to be how the road is today. Okay, we can anticipate that the road will change and that might give us opportunity to use the rightway more efficiently and we need less easement or the county might say actually you need a three lane or you need a four lane and there's less right away for the regional trail. Uh, so I can't predict those and the county won't be able to tell us that at this time. So that the map that I've shared is just with the information I have today. You guys have a lot of moving parts because your community is growing so quickly. When does the county plan to know that about I can't speak to Jason when they have an initial design? You need because my understanding is they're just replacing the pavement. I mean doing doing the the rebuild but they're not are they adding I'm sorry on what section? Yeah mayor mayor and council. So on the section they have multiple projects going on within the city of Dayton. Um 2028 2029 is their anticipated construction dates. Um so that will be that would they probably have plans in 2026 or 2027 for what their actual plans are. That's why they're doing the open house kind of studies at the moment. Um the idea is a full rehab from Vixsburg which is the um dirt road up just past LC Stevens down to north just past North Lake Road. That's a full reconstruct. So they're not that's not just ripping up and putting down new. They're actually redoing it. I don't know if that means three lanes. I don't know if that means turn lanes. I don't know if that means what that means. We may not know that. We will probably know that in around 2026 or 2027 dates somewhere in there. Um I think their projects are typically two years out. They typically do those. That's actually the study that was mentioned earlier. Um the corridor study. So they're identifying what the needs would be and what the the actual configuration would look like. I would expect the design to be over the next probably 2 to three year period. Yep. And then from south of North Diamond Lake Road to South Diamond Lake Road in Dayton, even though Dana Road technically is in Champlain, um will be redone in 2028. It's the same rough time frame, 2028, 2029, but that is not a full reconstruct. That's just a rehabilitation. Um there may be some small improvements related to striping or whatever else, but that's just going to be a pavement rehabilitation at this moment. Right. And that's really the third phase of this. Yes. Um of that stretch road, but I thought think I heard you say in the past, Jason, you've had conversations with them where they have said it's a a forever two-lane road, and that doesn't mean that they're not adding turn lanes, wider shoulders, etc., but that it's not going to four lane. That that is what they have said in the past actually. Interestingly, it came up today that they anticipate some of it will be at a threshold for considering an expansion. So that may change as of recently. The counts are much higher um in Champlain. So to the east of here and that might have been more of what they were referring to. Those counts approach about 17,000 cars a day, which is big. Um the highest in Dayton is probably between 6 and 7,000 right now. So quite a bit lower um traffic-wise. Okay. Just a question in general if if the park so to that point of we might someday get there. If we get this whole trail in um we all come to agreement, we're all happy. Yay. We build it. Yay. And then the county does decide that it has to be a three-lane or four lane. Would that part like does is the park and trail protected and they're going to have to go to the south side then. That's a great question and I think it's negotiable. Okay. Okay. Um, anybody from the audience want to come up and speak? Give your name and address. My name is Bruce Bibo. Longtime resident of Dayton, Minnesota. Um, can we get your address for the record, please? 14900 Brockton Lane North. Dayton, Minnesota. Lived here all my life, basically. Um, my mother-in-law passed away uh recently and she has property on the Dayton River Road 16560. Dayton River Road is the address and her property is on one of the highlighted areas where they want to put the trail on that side of the road eventually. And actually, Three Rivers has bought the property oh 2 years ago right next to my mother-in-law's house. Um, now the heirs of the property, there's four of them, four siblings, they are interested in selling the property. and we we actually reached out to Three Rivers and had a cordial conversation with them about going forward with it. Now, tonight now I learned a quite a bit. Uh Dave, you brought up some very good points here that I didn't wasn't aware that the two plans kind of conflicted a little bit with each other. But the property here that I'm talking about, my mother-in-law's and her daughter lives right next door, uh, used to be the mayor of, uh, not the mayor, but the fire chief of Dayton, uh, Jerry Jordan. Now, if the trail was to go through there on that side of the road, there'd have to be a lot of reconstruction on the bank of the roadway there, and that would cut into the mountain system of my mother-in-law's. So, feasibly, it'd be in our best interest if Three Rivers would go ahead with the purchase of it because it's going to impact it. And if we just and but we got a little bit I going to say a time crunch but there is financial obligations that the heirs have to take care of on the house. It'd be better for us just to be able to sell it. Now, the hardship comes in a little bit, if you want to call it a hardship, is if we're going to try to sell it to a private residence, you know, go through the rig Monroe of selling it, and they're going to find out there's going to be a 10-ft wide bicycle path or recreational path going in their front yard. Well, it's only about 60 ft from the front door to the road. So now you're going to put a bicycle path in there and then you're going to still have to they're going to have to do something on the Jordan property to get by that property. Now my mother-in-law's property is a acre and a half and a lot of it's down on the river side, but Jerry's property, well that that's something definitely is going to have to be done with there to put any type of trail. And the other side of the road, the what you guys call the south side, is uh not very convenient for putting a trail in either because it's on a hill. You ain't going to want to have a trail crossing on that nasty ass hill there to tell you the truth. So, all I'm saying here to you guys just to make the point of view that uh there are some people that are willing to sell because it's the the best of both worlds. And I agree with your guys's comment that people with their houses far enough off the road where if some people are walk bicycling by out by the road, if they're 250 ft from the the recreational trails, an easement makes perfect sense cuz I don't want to see the date city of Dayton lose all their tax revenue either cuz I'm a resident, too. So, I'm just wanted to make a couple points to you. That's all I wanted to do. I'm you guys seem to be on top of it, but time is of essence. I want it to, you know, I don't need you guys stretch it out two, three years or something. Oh, no. So, no, I think we need to get in to alignment. Yeah. Three rivers for this to move forward and I think we've been supportive of the trail for a long time. Well, yeah, there's a lot of money has been put into it by a lot of parties already. you know, the government, the agencies or pull tab money and whatever else, however they get their money. But and and yeah, those properties that we were mentioning that you have a a a special need, so to speak. Jerry's just Yeah. You need to take the whole thing. That'd be a Valley Fair bicycling down that. Right. Right. Right. Well, and even Joerger's next to him. Yes. Yeah. And there's another one further towards Dayton. a little further to the west there that the house is what 30 ft off the road, 40 ft off the road here. Right next to the good next to the old Gooden farm. Those those two are living on an island now because there three river zones both sides of it or or will soon. Yeah. So I Yeah, I think it makes sense for everybody to get aligned because eventually it's going to go through. There's been too much money put into this for it not to ever go through. What day it will go through? Yeah. God looks like. Okay, I'm Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anybody else? Are we good with this? Uh this one. And I just I I just also want to say I'm kind of grateful we're um going to have the further conversation because there's a lot of information here. I would like to read it and I can't possibly read it right here right now. So I appreciate all of this information. this is extremely valuable and will really help will help me a great deal. Um and so I'm I'm personally very grateful that we're going to have a little bit of extra time to process all of this. So um cuz I do very much value the parks and through like I bought we bought our house cuz we're across the street from the Al Creek Park Reserve. Like that's literally why I bought it. So I I'm very I think they're important. I just we need to be on the same page. Um, and I I appreciate this and I think um I'm excited to see what we can come up together and be on the same page on. Any other comments? Could you ask if there's anybody else? Yeah. Anybody else? Okay. On to item J. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh what we have before you is a recommendation to award park improvement project uh to custom builders. Uh this was presented to the uh parks commission. We had a long discussion about uh what we want to do for putting in uh the alternates um particularly with the LC Stevens project. Um ultimately uh the decisions that the park commission made uh in your packet um on the second page highlighted in yellow and those were the recommendations that they made. Um I've got Paul here tonight to uh answer any questions um on this. Um but they were unanimous in saying that they wanted the project to go ahead um all three parts um this year. And the project is actually under budget um by 262,000 with all the contingencies and everything else in place. Do you want presentation? Do you want to present? We can do the presentation. I I don't know if Paul wants doesn't matter. I thought you were going to do it all right. Well, not my style, mister. Um, ready to go. Yeah. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh, Paul Kangas, IOA, Inc. 14165, James Road, and Rogers. Uh, the bids were opened on March 27th. We had six bids that were received. one had to be thrown out because they did not did not acknowledge the agenda that had been received. Um the other five were very competitive. As Jason mentioned earlier, prices appear to have gone down uh over the last year, which is great, but they are still significantly higher than the most recent park um PIP project that we did in 2022. It's about a 18% increase if you try to compare apples to apples. So, uh, prices went down a little bit last year, uh, it appears, but over the last few years they've gone up substantially. Um, this is a complicated project in that the award is based on base bid plus any accepted alternates and what you choose to do could change who the apparent low bidder would be. Uh, most of the scenarios that you could run uh, have it still remaining uh, being awarded to custom builders. If you were to just go base bid, which included PSA improvements and ion gardens, then it would stay with beta contracting. As Marty mentioned, it was well under budget even with the uh proposed accepted alternates. So, it really comes down to uh whatever you choose to do tonight. I'm a little under the weather, so I try to keep this short and sweet. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Who wants to go? Uh, one question I got Paul, if you would go with only the alternates uh on um 21 in I own garden, are there any plantings other than the plantings as ultimates? On the second page, I see just a little bit of in the landscaping area, there's a little bit of like 7,000 bucks worth of uh ornamental grass, shrubs. No, not even that. It's probably 5,000 bucks. Both PSA 21 and I own Gardens had a very small amount of landscaping around on I own Gardens around the seating area. Uh the alternate for that was coniferous tree plantings that for some reason were not planted um when the development was done. There was some overstory deciduous trees planted but none of the coniferous trees planted for that park ever went in. I I don't know the reason why. Uh similarly with PSA 21 there's a small amount um up near the park shelter proposed shelter but there was two alternates for that. One was the significant seat wall and burned landscape area on the south side of the playground and the other alternate was for uh the majority of the deciduous and coniferous tree plantings scattered throughout the park. So yes, very small amounts but limited. And another question pertaining to as far as the base bids themselves, what is what's the number that I asked this question at the park meeting. Do we know for sure that it's 10% 11% that we can take off of the base bid without crazy creating a ruckus? I mean, it was somewhere between 10 or 11% or all the way up to 25. I don't think it's 25, but so there there's a couple things that should be clarified. Uh I highlighted them in my spec book. Uh in the alternates, it was clearly stated that for LC Stevens when we created alternate AA, which was all the work that was previously to be a base bid. Um when we created AA, converting all of that to an alternate, it very clearly said if not accepted, this is speaking about alternate AA. If not accepted, no additional alternates for ESP will be accepted. Meaning, you can't just take the parking lot. You can't just take the gate. No. Yep. To your other question. So, there's 22 pages of conditions of the contract. Uh, you should all be familiar with those. If you're not, I would encourage you to read through them. Uh, I highlighted some other sections in there. The owner reserves the right to increase or decrease by 25% of the original contract quantity any of the quantities shown. So once the base bid is accepted, any of the line item bids could be increased or decreased by 25% and the contractor still has to honor their unit price. But you cannot just take 25% of the entire base bid. It's per line item. You can't. And that's the specific quantities on the bid form. Say that we had 1,000 lineal feet of trail. You could add 250 ft or take off 250 ft. They would still have to honor their unit pricing. If you go beyond that, then the contractor has the rights to adjust their pricing uh plus or minus depending on whatever they see fit. The park board had a lot of discussion. They did get the pricing very late in the game because of the the bid deadline on the 27th and the meeting was that Tuesday. Um but they did absorb it. I think they made an educated and and wellfounded recommendation. Um it did align with my recommendation as luck would have it. Um but I thought that the proposed plan of action in front of you is is it's a good value right now. the the pricing was lower than we expected. Some of the alternates came in um underneath what I thought they might come in. Uh when you look at the total bids, we had estimated uh a little bit north of a million dollars. The base bid came in at 950. Um if talk about all the outcome, it's at 1.612 roughly. Uh 1.603 with custom U winning. Yeah, that's that's pretty good pricing. I guess to elaborate on my question then just say just say VA is the the the choice their their base bid is 951 9 almost 952 does that mean that there could be $95,000 worth of cuts taken out of that? No. No. Okay. That means that if you wanted to adjust quantities by 25% on any particular line. So many of the items are lump sum. There's only one just unit prices is what you're getting at unit prices. You could take the 25% off at the correct the base bid is the base bid. You are contractually obligated to accept that unless you were to reject all bids which is an option but typically not one that would be pursued when a project comes in under budget with responsible bids. That option would typically be if if we or staff had estimated 500,000 it came in at 1.5 then you might have to reject all the bids because it would be infeasible but uh we're under budget uh significantly under budget. Does anybody else want to go? I've got I'm I'm pretty ind depth here and lengthy on this thing. Um, why was uh this this is I I'm not making a judgment on this. Um, why was the LC Stevens uh items why were they all made alternates or when did that happen? Um, I myself and the contractors for asking the same thing by staff. It doesn't doesn't matter to me. So, yeah. So, um, mayor and council, the reason why the LC Stevens bid was changed to be addendummed to be an alternate is based on information that I heard from the council about, um, rejecting the bids related to LC Stevens based on the work that was being done. Okay. Um, my concern with doing that was that if LC Stevens was still within the base bid, we would not be able to we'd have to reject all bids instead of just being able to reject an alternate. Yes. um which means we have to redo the whole process of bidding which doesn't look real great on us as a city but also then also doesn't feel really well for the contractors. So I made an executive decision as a staff member to say we need to make that as an alternate that way if you do not want to do anything LC Stevens this year. You do not have to and we don't have to reject all base bids related to a project that in PSA 21 I know for a fact those individual homeowners are grasping at a park. Yes. And so by not creating that into an alternate, we could then not deny the alternate, go back to the master plan process, which you guys just approved last meeting or two meetings ago, I can't remember which one it was, to redo that master plan process, and then you wouldn't have to go through the whole process again. Yeah, I don't I I guess actually I appreciate that. I don't I a lot of these alternates I really don't support um at this time. uh LC Stevens stuff. It just seems like we kind of got this fairly quickly in these these um I I especially given that we're looking at replanting this thing. It just seemed odd to me that uh that we'd be putting this much work in into that. Um, also not sure I'm happy with what we were what we were looking at for plans for Elsie Stevens. Uh, some of the alternates, you know, the tree plantings. I'm not sure. I I guess I'd pull those two. I I don't know. I don't know where you guys at. Marty and I talked earlier today. We thought it would be important that we had this exhibit available. This was the original Stevens Farm master plan done July of 2016 uh by my old company, LS. Um it's really two park sites in a lot of ways separated by the ravine. It's all one contiguous parcel of course, but in many ways it it operates as two different sides. Um the property to the west of the ravine that has the barn runes. It has the the barn that's still standing. Um it now has a lot of areas that were filled that had trees um cut off. We had to get rid of a bunch of dirt in phase two. Uh the parking that's proposed now, although a slightly different configuration, has always been part of the master plan. It just is in a slightly different configuration because that road entrance is now on the west side of the ravine. The new entry um the proposed improvements in phase three, the bid that you're considering tonight really doesn't impact the ability to to master plan the remaining portion. Um most of that will be happening east of the ravine around a future event center or an expanded uh performance area. So, um I I honestly don't know u how that's being viewed by the council. Uh obviously, you've committed the money to have the new entity take a look at it. Myself and I think Marty agree, the park commission agreed that it was still worth pursuing the development to the west, but you are the ultimate arbittors of that decision. Does any of this conflict with the um the water trail plan for the canoe and kayak landing on that north tip of it? No. In a lot of ways it would uh enhance it. Um there's some parking available for that water trails, but on a really particular busy day, uh the new plan would certainly uh have a lot more potential parking and it would add uh a significant picnic shelter and an opportunity to to hang out that it's a little bit further away on purpose. Uh there's also talk about putting another shelter down farther, which I believe is part of that new plan. Um I can see this being a very popular destination for that water trail use. So, this popped into my head after the last meeting, but why did we so I don't remember when it was uh last fall or last, I don't know, September, August, sometime we had a discussion on buildings on the uh east side. And then when we received this one, we had we we lost those and we had a lot of money it looked like moved to the west side. What what drove that? So we we had at one time been talking about something around the stage and something um up towards the top towards the patio area. I think the the park commission decided that they wanted to spend their money on the other side. They didn't think that they would get the value, the bang for their buck out of a a a band shell because they felt like the um the picnic shelter would be more usable for family events and stuff um rather than putting the money into something to maybe use five times a year was their thought process. Yeah. And then uh mayor and council, you guys did see the plan after they had their recommendations. I think it was a month ago. Um saw the plans actually was I think it was the beginning of March. um council reviewed the plans and know that's what was in the plans at that time. So the change happened from parks commission. Um it could have been changed back by city council if it would um that was if that was needed or wanted but um at the moment that that's what park commission had recommended was to do more of the work on the west side of the ravine. I think personally I pushed to eliminate the band shell improvements once it appeared obvious that you were going to consider a new master plan. Um my opinion was it wouldn't make sense to expand the band shell now and further handicap the master planning opportunities. Um you know there is some infrastructure already built there but I I know Scott has different ideas about what that band shell needs to be to be successful. Um I didn't think it was money well spent to to further improve that now and do another master plan and potentially have an event center. So again, keeping the area west or excuse me, east of the ravine kind of more free of those encumbrances uh made more sense. So then we it's designed, it's sitting in my computer, we just pulled it out of the construction documentation and focused on the areas west of the ravine. So why is it that you don't think that the this this all base bed which I believe includes the uh the large cement area and the on the west side. Why would that also not be a hindrance to the planning or possibly? I think it's in general conformance to what has always been master plans. Now, not to say that that wouldn't change, but it's in conformance with the previous master plan and again acting as two different park sites east or west of the ravine. Yeah. We thought it made more sense to to push forward and the park board uh after much discussion uh agreed with that as well. Well, so we approved this replanning uh 40 how much was it? 40 grand 60 grand. Just seems like we need to give them as much leeway as possible to do what what what you know what might be um that's why I came on. I guess I'll I'll take off and throw my This is probably a whole dollar's worth. Um I personally don't have too much of a problem with the base bids for um 21 or I own. Um I don't like I don't like any of the plan at Stevens at all. Uh personally, I think the parking lot should be up in the be the southwest corner right along the right along the road. um kind of over by that the barn. My belief is the barn shouldn't be there. But um so I don't like any I don't like the fireplace. I I just it's too elaborate for for the for the whole deal. Uh I think it's just way overpriced. Um, all of the tree plantings though they though we need them, I'd like to give it take them out and give it to a a local tree grower. It seems that we just we don't and I understand why we can't. I mean, we we have local people that can do some of this stuff, but we never use them because we have to have a a complete contractor oversee it all. So, I mean, we never get that opportunity. Um, as far as as far as some of the things in the base bid, I don't have too much of a problem on the landscaping on area 21. There's $5,000 worth of um ornamental grass and mulch. Personally, it's not that big a deal. However, where I do see some issues. Now, I also don't feel that it would be that much of a deal to if we award the trees and all the plantings to a local person, they can probably handle the shrubs at uh 21. Also, um where I really have some some other issues is on some of the supplies, the the picnic tables, the benches, the bike rack, Jericho grills, the trash receptacles, all of those items for 21 and I own add up to about well not not about 20,540 bucks if you go online and I know they're not the same exact same park bench or the exact same grill. You can buy these for about 5,300 bucks. Now somebody has to set them down. I get that. I understand that. But public courts can handle that. It's it's a matter of taking the trap trash trash receptacle and setting it in the park or if Marty doesn't have time to do it, I'm sure I can find four or five volunteers in this city to do it. Not that the 15,000 is that great big of a deal on a on a million dollar or $950,000 project, but it's 15,000 and I can buy all them same things four times compared to that that bid. Um, and I have all the all the diagrams. There's the trash can. It's 600 bucks. And here they're 3500 bucks. It's it's a 110lb concrete trash can. Um, that's me. Um, as far as any of the alternates, I would scratch them all. And not to say that the uh concrete edge or around the picnic table or around the volley volleyball court volleyball court I'd give that to a local concrete guy and I know there's it's not a ton of money but it's another 34,000 that can come off that bill. Um, if I got really critical about this thing and I I'll be willing to give it up, the the two shelters, I also agree that there could be a shelter at Stevens Park ideally. I also agree it could be on the the west side. Um, but I don't like the number of 143,000 for two shelters when I got a quote from a company that'll put them up for 109. Uh, they're not the same shelter, but it's steel, powder coated, 10-year warranty, whatever. I'd give that part up. Where I really want to see some some different growth on Stevens is and I don't like the parking area in the in the design. I didn't realize that we kind of aligned the place for the plan and I get why you're doing it. I mean that's the plan you had to go off of. Uh I don't like the way we kind of buried some of the stuff to come up with the future plan that this might happen. I think the conversation should have maybe happened a while back. I think you know what it did periodically and that the parking lot being kind of laid right smack in the center of the thing has come up a couple times. It's just they this body never decided to replant it. And to me that's one of the things I'd like to see changed. So, I I just I'm lerary of doing anything at Stevens because I I just see us making changes to to this. The uh the amphitheater that was that's that we've got some work done on. It wasn't that long ago that and you and I both agreed that is the picture perfect spot for this thing. And I would personally elaborate on that before I did anything at Stevens. And this diagram, we can have this for 120 built. Now, that's plus concrete and plus electrical. So, you might have 200, 250 into it. I personally, I put the money there before I did anything at Stevens. We're uh trying to get a uh music in the park or some events going down there. And if it rains, the event's canceled. Not that not to say that if it rains anybody's going to come anyway, but it's just not it's not built for entertainment at this stage. That's me personally. I I would accept the uh the base bids, but I I'd have an issue with uh some of that the bike rack, the all that miscellaneous equipment that goes in the park. So, I would caution you against the value of the general contractor, the bidding process that you go through. I'm certain that you could hire ABC Concrete to come in and do a project for the city of Dayton and be within the $175,000 threshold and have to go through quotes and save some money. But somebody has to manage that. Somebody has to oversee the construction. Somebody has to be spending the time. So, you know, I don't think it's quite that simple to be honest. It's it takes a lot of work to put together a set of plans, to put together a set of documents, to detail everything to the way that it can be built in a reasonable fashion. So, I I I think you're minimizing the work that goes into putting out a set of documents and the bidding process that six companies took the time to go through to to put forth bids. None of them were happy with the decision to take out LC Stevens. There was a lot of questions. I don't care if they're happy or not. Well, I understand that's your point of view, but eventually you piss enough people off and you have trouble finding people that to do the work. So, I highly doubt that. Money drives the world. I think I think you and the park board need to be on the same page. I'm in a difficult position and that I have to respond to all of the comments that we get. You saw the planning since they went forward. Decisions were made. This is what we have. Reject the bids. You can do that. There's a lot of time and effort and costs that went into that. The parking lot will never be less expensive than it will be under this proposed contract. So Oh, my parking lot would be more probably twice. But it's probably twice that size. I mean, I we don't even know how many stalls are in this parking lot. You can't tell me. You I mean, I asked you last week and you couldn't tell me. Look at Look at the plans. Yeah. That's where I am. I think it's shortsighted. Shortsighted or not, I get it. We We're paying you to design what what you were asked to design. I get that, but I don't I don't like the plan. So, I don't like the plan on the east on the west side. Yeah. I again, that's kind of my hangup. I mean, we we we put this plan forward for a reason. Um cuz because there are a lot of things about this plan I didn't like from the get-go. Um, and I I' I've heard from residents that didn't like it. There's other residents don't have a clue what's in it. But, um, it just seems like the placement of some of these things I I question. Uh, can I ask a question? Yeah. With the repl, how does that fit into this? So, we say, "Yep, let's just play the game." We say, "Yep, this is fine. go ahead with all of the alternatives and then we tell them, oh hey, by the way, like to be in the plan or like so we're kind of locking in certain things. Whatever we put in is obviously locked in. So I think that that's um sorry my wheels are turning. My mouth isn't working. Go ahead. Um like I I appreciate all of the work that went into this because this is there's a lot of work here. Like I want to acknowledge that firsthand, but also I feel like we're they've got all these pieces that we're trying to shove into one puzzle which we don't know what the picture looks like. You know, you know what I'm saying? So that's not your fault. That's you're working off the plan that you had or that we had in 2016, but that was 2016. Correct. Then you probably got the right. Um that's a long time ago. And like again, the vision has changed and a lot has changed from even what we have today at OC Stevens. So I think I have a little bit of a hang up trying to again shove puzzle pieces into a puzzle that we're trying still trying to figure out what the picture is. Bas based on that mayor council, it sounds like I hear kind of a unanimous motion that I'm hearing in general. I'm just trying to keep the conversation rolling here. It sounds like we're okay with just doing the base bids at this moment. And all of the alternates, it sounds like we're all not going to be not okay with the alternates, which is totally fine. And we just need a motion in a second to accept the base bids and we can move forward. We do not have to accept any of the alternates. That's why they are alternates and that's why I made the decision to move LC Stevens into an alternate is because of that exact reason um that I'm hearing tonight. So, that's much appreciated. Are we I mean I have no problem with the alternates for um Ion Gardens and 21. It's going to get a better name, right, than No. 21. Um so I'm fine with the alternatives for that. I um but I I agree and I'm I I think Se like we're coming in late to this Elsie Steven. like dialogue. Um, but I'm also if we have dropped that much money to reinvision Elsie Stevens, it seems ridiculous to spend any money to do anything that we'd either either have to a pay to undo or b hamstring a group that we brought in to redo this. So, my personal vote is um to take the base bids plus the alternatives for PS21 and Gardens. That's my opinion. That's an important clarification that we need aan unanimous decision on because it would change the apparent low bidder depending on which alternates you accept or not. Um I'm trying to do some mental math here as we look at it because there's too many different scenarios. But I believe that if you were to take the orange highlighted I'm going to go back to your custom builder one. Sorry. Go ahead. Sorry. Yeah. If we took the orange highlighted uh above I don't see the cursor there above that point right there. So PSA A throughD and IOGA just the orange highlighted ones but the award would still go to custom build. I think it would go to custom builders without the alternates. I think without the alternates it's VETA. Yep. Um the low is highlighted in the green on each side there. So custom had seven out of the 10 as low on the alternates. A company that's off the edge of the page had one of the 10. And then Veta had the base bid and and just two of the alternates. So and both of those are on LC Stevens. So yeah, I think selecting most if not all of the alternates for PSA and ion gardens would be retained for custom. I'm doing the math here as we speak here. that so any direction with the council if that's what you want to do. If you want to do basement that's easy. So that I I have to say I'm I'm pretty conflicted on this because as philosophically we've talked about as a as a council, you know, putting more more faith and more um honest on on some of our commissions um and try trying I think at a higher level to stay out of um micromanaging and red revisiting every decision that uh the particularly parks commission makes but also the planning commission at times. Um but we you know so so this there's a lot of work been put into this. This is their recommendations are these highlighted uh alternates along with the base bits. And well, I think some of them are, you know, I I worry about too that we um are doing something at LC Stevens that that may in fact not uh be optimum for, you know, continuing that plan and and working on the east section of it or even revisiting the west west side of it. Um, yeah, I feel like we we've tried to put some faith in these people and to listen what to what they have to say and now we're we're kind of saying, well, not really. And so I I have a hard time with that that piece of it. Um, I do worry about us spending money that on LC Stevens in particular that, you know, that is going to be wasted money or not fit with the final plan. Um, so I guess my feeling is, you know, but then we lost a year too and that also is frustrating to me, uh, that, you know, we didn't get to where we wanted to be last year. And now by, you know, pulling those LC Stevens pieces out of out of this overall project, we're setting ourselves back another year, I would say, easily for LC Stevens. For LC Stevens. Yeah. Not necessarily because we can as far as this this can happen next month. Yeah. No, it can't. Absolutely. Understand? I I've already talked to the guy that we can buy the kit and put it up. I understand you're saying no. I made the call. Well, then the guy gave me bad information. Okay. And I I I do agree with your your you know, we did we did try to move uh more responsibility to these commissions. I just think on this one it it does behoove us to step in and say we're replanning this thing. Um I I don't know. I I'm confident that that pulling these out is is the right I'm not saying we're not doing some of them. I'm saying we're giving it to somebody else. The tree plantings 100% we can save 30% off of that 50,000 bucks. I as far as the park commission is concerned, nobody nobody made the call. I promise you nobody else made the call to talk to a local grower about what that number is. Sure. And so you're talking about PSA and IOGA. Yeah. Yeah. I'm still going to plan them, but we're going to use somebody else. Why wouldn't we if we can save 10 or 15,000 bucks? Well, because part of the reason the bids maybe I don't know. I I'm not the person who bid them, but you're looking if you're bidding and I don't know cuz I'm not used to this alternative bid, right? Like that's not that's the big difference. Yeah. But like I'm just thinking about when my dad bid jobs some things. Yes. Maybe like he was looking at the overall bid, not necessarily individual line items. since like so maybe they can in fact do it cheaper, but I don't I don't want to say padding is not the right word, but like that's why if you start pulling out every little individual thing, you're micromanaging to a point that I just like I get what you're saying, but I'm also with let's trust the parks and we ask these people to do this and let's just go. But that's why they're alternates because they're able to be pulled out individually. No, but and the biders know that. Sir, are you saying then that you would be in favor of removing the ones for Elsie Stevens but leaving the others? Correct. I'm just trying to make sure like I understand what everyone is saying at the at the root of it all. That's what you're saying at the bottom. Yes. Cuz I agree with Dave. I think we should like we asked the parks commission to make the recommendation. They had this conversation. They went through all this. This is what they said. And I my only hangup is Elsie Stevens. If we're replanning it, let's not spend money particularly because it's a lot of money to just redo it. But I want to trust the parks commission on their conversation. And yes, maybe we'd save 10% but at a certain point um it's not 10%. It's 15 20,000 bucks that can be spent somewhere somewhere else. I challenge anybody to to use your own billfold on that. What would you do? You know, not one of us in this room would spend that money if it was us paying the bill. So if we accept the base [Music] bids and include PSA and PSA B, does that change the uh vendor? Mhm. Yes. There's a $50,000 difference between beta and custom on PSA. um a smaller amount on PSAB. The park commission was very you're saying to keep unanimous and adant that trees were an important part of the parks of all the alternates. Those were the ones that they I believe unanimously said that they Yeah, I don't think that's the question. I think what Scott is saying is that that there's a local Can I just say something? We're getting hung up on you know the the replan of of the master plan and stuff like that. Um when we sent out the um RFP for uh you know the companies to submit for that u re rework of the master plan uh this phase three was included in that packet. So they're all aware of what was proposed in that packet. Um and particularly MSA who are working on the water trail with us, you know, know exactly what that's about. So um I think that the feeling is that they can work around it because it is pretty much in the original master plan. Um so that was yeah, if they're just redoing the master plan, why are we giving them $40,000? 60,000 almost 60,000 bucks. Cuz I can do that. No, you can't because I've already done it and nobody's ever going to see changes to that master plan. Yeah. Well, that's that's what we're going to see is I think that what the council was looking for was what that building was going to be and what was going to happen on the east side there because we didn't have any idea what it was going to look like, what it was going to cost or any of that information. So, that was kind of the key part. And the other side was the playground area that we wanted to have some idea what we're going to do with that and know those structures that are over that side. Are they usable? Are we not going to use them? We're going to knock those down. So there's a lot of other things there that still need to be resolved and get the I think that we only identified three phases on the original plan. So this is to finish out the phasing on that. The other the other thing that I'll point out on the uh retaining wall, it's uh I believe it's 28 of them. Same limestone blocks that we got over at That's right. It's $58,000 in limestone blocks that we're not have that some of us are not happy because they're all breaking apart at uh Stevens Park. Now, I'll make a motion to approve the base bid and that's it. And then you're going to award that to beta. But that would go to a different that would go to VA. Yeah, it would end up going there because that's the lowest bid. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, let me hopefully we've got the numbers resolved somewhat. If we keep PSA in there. You want all of PSA in there? All the alter. I'm sorry. PSA A. Okay. And say B. It's a small number, but Okay. Maybe. Will that send the bid to custom builders? Yes. Yes. Yes. And if we don't, it won't. Correct. Correct. Yes. So, if we did that, then we would get all the I'll leave the adjectives out. The the limestone and landscape and whatnot for 22k, which seems pretty significantly cheap compared to the other. Certainly $50,000 cheaper than the other Yeah, it is. It's significant. It's the area shown in purple here on the exhibit. Oh, yeah. That was a very good price. Yeah, it it just seems like the tree plantings are a very good price. I know Scott doesn't believe it, but I do landscape plans every price. The what? The tree plantings, the alternates for the tree plantings was Well, it might be a good price, but there's 25 to 30% cheaper local. That wasn't true the last time, but whatever. I made the call yesterday. So, let's see if we can sift through this stuff. Are you okay with leaving PSAA in there if it drives the custom builder? I can live with it. Can we do A and B? A and A and B. Can Can I take out the uh the bike the bike path and all that other kind of or the the miscellaneous equipment and we uh No. base. Yeah, that's the base. That's part of base bid. You don't have the ability to do line item changes. I bet if I call them up and say you got a deal, but this comes out, they take maybe% the contractor may be willing to work with you on some of that, but legally you don't have the ability to make line item changes legally to the you offered a project for bid. Y bids were received for base bid. those were part of the base bid. You are obligated to accept or reject those base bids. I think what he's saying is we either reject the whole thing or we suck that up. It makes absolutely zero sense at all. That's here we are. It's like the other day that's the stupidest thing. Cultic in the future. Let's make sure we look at those things when we're putting out the bid. Then if we don't want to do those little knacky things, we just got to make sure we take them out. But then we could do it in the future. I think we're going to need a lot more time to go through some of this stuff cuz I again the limestone thing just boggles my mind. Um, sure. But we'll see. It's 22k. So you're okay with leaving you saying A and B in there? Reluctantly? Reluctantly. Where are you guys at with the tree plantings? I won't be okay with that. I've lost before years. So is pulled out. But see, is the commitment that we're still going to plant all these trees 100%. Yep. We're just going to treat that as a separate project as a separate project contractor. And I think we have that right because it's an alternate. Yep. I'll say I'm not going to die on that hill. I'm okay either way. Yes, I'm okay with them out. I'm okay with them in Scott's gonna die. That Scott, you can die whatever money that you don't have. Yeah, if it's important, I get it. I'm just saying that I'm not willing to die on the hill. Yep. I understand why we do it cuz it's not our money. So So you It is my money. No. Well, partly. You want to pull them out? Is everybody else okay with pulling them out? As long as we're committing to still doing them. Agree. 100%. Yep. Okay. So basically of these alternates we would keep in PSA A PSA B. Are we all okay with that or three of us? Go ahead. So we're essentially dumping all of LC Stevens Park. I want to pull We can revisit it. I think I don't want to I don't want to lose another year on it. I guess that's my reluctance. I think it's ridiculous. What was the timeline on the master plan? There was none. There wasn't one. Okay. 6 months. It's going to be a while. Oh, like Oh, sorry. Sorry. I think it's roughly 6 months to a year. Sorry. I thought you meant the original 2016. You're losing this year. Oh, yes. Yep. But I would rather know what we're the direction we're going than do something and wish we hadn't. So, yes. To move things along. Yes, Dennis. I don't need MSA to tell me to build this. That's the problem that I have with this whole thing is we need we always need somebody else to tell us what to do and I've been used to making my own decision. That'll be another agenda item. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. So, I think where we're at is at least most of us are alternates. We're going to keep PSA, PSA, nothing else. Okay, fine. Does that make sense? Yes, sir. That's the motion. That is that your you want I'll change the motion to say that reluctantly. I don't like Well, yes. Go ahead. Go ahead with it. In my mind, we're spending 20 grand that we don't have to, but you guys don't care to spend on PSA. I'm confused. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Sounds like PSA and B. Yep. So, that would be costly. That would be custom builders builders. Yep. The bid is going to custom build. Okay. So, the motion is you're making this. Yeah. Is to take the base bids PSA and PSAB and awarded to custom builders. Not the alternate, not the rest of the alternate. So, it get awarded to custom builders. Yes. For a price of a million26,918. Okay. So, that's a motion by got a million what? 26,918 and 18 and I need a second. Second. Sarah. Any more discussion? Thank you. Uh all those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. No. Motion carries four to one. That was a motion by Scott and Sarah. Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh I have K side stuff. Okay. So, this is DCM Farms. As uh the council's aware, the project is located off of Fernbrook and 113th. Uh the application is for an amendment to the zoning map as well as a preliminary plan approval. The project includes uh 91 acres, uh 253 single family homes. Uh the net density is 3.16 units per acre. And just for anyone that can see this that it's specific to the area that is colored, not the area that is in white for the zoning map amendment. Uh currently the property is zoned A1 agricultural and again the request is to reszone it from A1 to R3 with a PUD overlay. Uh PUDs allow for flexibility from the code. So essentially there's deviations from minimum code standards in return for a public benefit. Uh the deviations are highlighted in yellow. Uh just to summarize this generally speaking what uh the developer is asking for is to decrease the minimum lot size as well as to have uh a higher percentage of narrower lots. Uh the R3 district allows up to 30% of the lots that are less than 62 feet wide whereas the developer is proposing 70%. Uh the minimum lot width would be 40 ft. Um so generally speaking ju just to summarize there's uh the majority of the project is going to have narrower lots than what the R3 district normally would require. And the image on the left is just a blown up version of and I have a hard time seeing this too of uh the different lot sizes or yes uh for the preliminary plat uh again we have uh you know deviations from the code as well as the public benefits. The public benefits that are are suggested for this would be uh the full funding of a roundabout at 114th in Fernbrook as well as contributions towards a future roundabout at 117th um HOA amenities and also parkland dedication. Is there parkland dedications over and above our normal uh yes so that is um that is one of the requirements of the R3 district. It's not spelled out probably as clear clearly, but with this project, the developer is uh dedicating 3.2 acres for area 21 as well as paying full uh park and trail dedication fees. So that's roughly about $1.8 million in fees. Critical issues with this are the deviations and benefits as well as the alleyway and storm water. And I'll just go through those quickly. Well, I I previously had discussed the deviations and benefits. Um the deviations again are are 70% of the lots will be narrower than 62 ft whereas the R3 district allows up to 30%. A minimum lot size of 4,000 square ft versus 6,500. Minimum lot width of 40 ft versus 55 and a front set or front and rear setbacks of 25 ft versus 30 ft. Uh the houses that are uh drawn here are indicative of the homes that would be in um I'm thinking these are the villa or just kind of the alley loaded garages. Those are the alley loaded alley loaded garages here. Uh so the question for the council is um are you supportive of the deviations and I can kind of go through these one or just wait till the end and just go to the end have a discussion. Okay. uh benefits for this uh the developer would spend or uh provide 100% of the um cost of the round bed on 114th. We're estimating this is roughly $2 million as well as contribute a proportionate share towards the future roundabout at 117th. We've not figured out what this um amount would be, but this would be decided or figured out as part of the development agreement. Um as well as HOA amenities. Um park commission had recommended uh I keep calling them pergolas but uh gazeos gazeos. Yeah. Uh gazeos that are located on this pond as well as uh this pond. Um the alleyways. So uh the these are the six homes existing six homes along Fernbrook. Um, if the roundabout is built as it is with a median, it's potentially that there these two homes would lose the ability of making lefthand turns. Um, so the the alternative to that is to provide an alleyway behind these homes uh where the six homeowners would have the option of uh putting in a driveway. They would not be required to do that. That's that would be an option. As it is currently, there's proposed to be a trail that's located on here. It'd be an 8ft trail. So if there's an alleyway, that trail would increase from 8 ft to 12 ft. Um I think it would probably impact uh the corner of these this uh backyard potentially to make the curve. Um I'll note that uh the roundabout has is supported by Henipin County. It is not designed the design itself hasn't been reviewed. So, it's possible that the roundabout may shift south, uh, which potentially could allow the the drive the lefth hand turns to stay. Um, this is a detail that's it's important. It still needs to be worked out. Um, however, that can be worked out as part of the final plaque. Uh, critical issues for storm water. And I I I got to lean on Jason to explain this, but so well it's something being looked into. There's a couple of the ponds that the outlets um the ponds are are landlocked in the sense that there's not a sufficient overland flow from them. So they're relying on a single outlet. So we're just asking for um a redundant system to allow it. So, it's just a a second insurance, if you will, to prevent localized flooding. So, that just needs to be addressed. Is that between all of the ponds or just the between two of them? The two to the to the south, the north to the south and then the I'll just point because it's easier. Yeah. Between this pond and this pond and then between the two of them. Okay. So, they're all connected then. Yeah. These are basically just balanced through a pipe. So, that one's at an even grade. And then there's a flow through here with an emergency overflow. So, it's something we're working through with them. We don't anticipate it to be a major uh concern, but we we need that revision. Is that when we do pond maintenance, I mean, I I would assume we kind of schedule that for the ponds that are under our control. These will all be citymained pond under their MS4 permit. Yeah. So, Is that something we check when we do pond maintenance to make sure that those overflows are clear? Mhm. Okay. Yeah. Questions? Questions? Yeah. Uh the roundabout. Do we 100% know that we can make that roundabout and allow a left-hand turn? No. What do you mean allow a left-hand turn into the two homes? Mhm. or for that matter any of them homes. Jason, um 100% no. Um we anticipate that they can be accommodated whether that's through a shortened median account the roundabout being shifted south or creating breaks within the median to at least allow that left turn in. So we anticipate there's design mechanisms to make it available to make those left turns. However, it is county jurisdiction. So, it's going to be up to their final approval for the design. And all of a sudden, the county says, "No, it's going to be a 200 ft median." We're stuck or they're stuck. Then we would have to consider either moving it farther south or doing a different configuration of the intersection. Does the county have the authority to landlock properties like that? I mean it would be diff I mean certainly to restrict accesses because it happens commonly. Um this one seems I'm just going to say my opinion less reasonable um to enforce because there's no mechanism for a U-turn or no ability for a reasonable U-turn. If there was a roundabout at 117th I would say absolutely that they would they could move forward with it. Um yeah, we anticipate it being able to be accommodated, but again with Henipin County as the f final jurisdiction on it, um we can't say with certainty that it would be allowed. So then my other question would be is a roundabout more necessary at uh Rush Creek and Elm Creek Road or here? Depends on who you are. Yeah, that would be my answer. It depends on who's which intersection is used by who. Um both are warranted in my opinion. Um this will be warranted for the additional traffic and to to be honest replace the current situation with the 113th connection. I mean that's going to be a relocated and provide another safe efficient connection. Um Rush Creek Parkway needs one as well. No doubts that that that intersection needs upgrades also. I I don't I don't know if I have a way of saying one is more important than the other. I would say they are both warranted. You mean the connection or the roundabout at 114? A a safe connection. Whether that's accomplished through a roundabout or other means, obviously a safe connection. I think it makes sense to to run that up there. Um, my concern is is that we're putting a lot of money into that as a roundabout or I shouldn't say we, but as part of the PUD process. I I don't see why we wouldn't put that effort, money into recre's a nightmare. Um, we already know it's got Fs all around and it just seems to me that, you know, this roundabout as far as the city goes, it'll slow down um, you know, it'll slow down speeds in the immediate vicinity, but it won't take long for people to get on the gas and get backed up to speed. I I just it just seems to me that that money should be put at at Rush Creek. um 117th. I don't know. I guess I don't know what the numbers are there. Um it wouldn't surprise me if that needs a roundabout, but I we all know that firm that Rush Creek is just a a mess. Um and realistically, we can do that, right? I mean, it doesn't matter where the money goes. It could be worked through the developers agreement, I assume. So, that was some of my questions is um I'm not even sure I mean what what happens with with 114 if you can't get the rightway for the roundabout. Um I'm I'm sure there's rightway needed there. I just I just have a lot of questions about doing the roundabout there. I have no problem. It makes sense to move 113th up there. I don't know that it makes sense to put the round money into a roundabout there instead of uh So you just went a regular just plain intersection there with a stop sign on I you ain't going to get a stop sign on there. No no like not cross I'd be okay with that if we if the money if if it ends up going to Rush Creek I would definitely be okay with that. Um, I mean there's probably all kinds of questions around that, but I you guys can I still got a whole bunch of questions. I think we that they're both needed. It seems to me like 117th is would be the you know the third most important one. I think ultimately they we need them all to have any control over the speed on that road. But yeah, I would say Rush Creek is more important than 117th to me. But I think so. I just and if it can be um built in a way that doesn't um you know block exits for those for those two homes and it seems reasonable that that should be able to happen then I then I think the roundabout needs to go there. Well then we're still left with we don't have funding for the Rush Creek one. So I mayor councel I'll offer suggestion just as an as an example. I think um we would be able to look at a state funding bonding request as well at a much, you know, more efficient rate for a Rush Creek Parkway um which where we have already have information about how poor it is for grades to be able to really push roadways because that is a typically a bipartisan issue at the legislature and we can really push some dollars for at the intersection at 114th because it's an unproven intersection and has no data. It's going to be really hard to push a roundabout at that intersection specifically for state bonding dollars and or from the county as well because the county knows that the Rush Creek Parkway and Fern access is terrible as well and they have no data for the 114th one. So that might be just something to think about as well for other funding sources. Not saying that that is not any more important because it is more it is important as well but just funding sources are only available for so many different locations. So you're just saying if you play the odds we'd be better off with Well, and then I mean do we do we then use this at 117th instead of 114th? I I I don't know. Um I don't I don't know that answer. Do you guys have traffic numbers for that? Um we do have counts at 117th or they're at least limited data. It it is I'll say farther from warranted at 117th than than Rush Creek Parkway. Certainly again 114th is a non-existing right but what what so we know you know that this is going to drive cars to 114th. Is it comparable to 117th? I wouldn't think so. But 117th will be a higher traffic load with the unknown of what will happen at the Sundance Event Center or or that I mean that could drive a lot of business. I mean there's also going to be a lot of homes in here. So I mean that'll be increasing pressure as well. 117th will probably stay a more heavily trafficked intersection. However, I do expect all of them to increase. Yeah. With with buildout. I agree. It's just a matter of it would be nice to have something in the DA that gave us an out. I mean, if there's no if right away couldn't be achieved or somehow, you know, the county said, "No, you're you're going to block those houses or something else came up." Um, I don't know what we do if the DA says you're going to put a roundabout in here and can't. Sure. So, I mean, right now we're just at preliminary plat stage. So, the intention is we're going to solve these problems before final plat. Yeah, it' be nice to maybe solve them. Yeah, I get it. Okay. Um, anybody else have questions? These will all be items that we will look at if preliminary plan is approved. Most certainly. Just want to make sure that that's clear to Mayor and Council. You know, the other thing I I I don't like about these roundabouts is the lighting. Um, anybody around there? It's lit up and I'm not a fan of lights as everybody knows. Um, you know, there again, Rush Creek. I 117th at least away from, you know, there's still houses there, but they're not nearly as close as the ones on 114. I just There's one that's very close on 117th there. Southeast. Oh, but they're Well, there's no it's just I think typically if and Jason if we have typically have two street lights on roundabouts there's the county is pretty it's a it's a pretty regimented lighting scheme. I want to say there's six. Yeah, it's lit up. Yeah, I think there's one on each approach and one at the junction of the major legs and then the um at least one on either side of the the other. Is that different than what would be required for a stoplight? Um stop light would be lighted would be illuminated as well, but it would probably just be two Cobra style um on opposite corners is what is typical. So hard to compare. I'd say maybe less area, if you will, to be illuminated. So, what you're suggesting is a roundabout at 117th because from an illumination standpoint, there's really only one house that's not necessarily just that. It's the traffic, too. Okay. I'm 117th is more traffic because it's that whole, right? And it's it's it's going to grow. Um although Jason's point 114 depending on you know what happens you know on 113 to the west it could increase. I think it's just a it's just a question we should we should look at. Um, I I thought that alleyway we beat to death a couple meetings back and chucked it. I can't remember if it was chucked or not. I I I'll say that the existing homeowners are opposed to having the alleyway, right? And I therefor the trail. Yeah, a trail or And then um the last question is water and sewer. Do you want to have the developer required to do that or just based on homeowner direction? That was one of the questions. You want to go back to that alley? There you go. So the last question in there is should sewer and water and alley be required? The alley obviously you had mentioned would go away but the trail is still going to exist. I like the trail. I like sewer water. I don't like the alley. Okay. But that might but again depending on the round if roundabout no roundabout design alley might be the only way. I don't think the alleyway helps them at all because their house is the wrong way. Oh yeah. Yeah. So that's why I didn't Yeah. Unless you want to park in the grass and you don't know that. It is possible to flip the garages. I mean it's not impossible. It's not fun. I'm not saying that's the right option. I'm just saying it is possible. And put a new driveway in. Yeah, that's a I'm not saying my language. That is a ton of money to put on home owners who don't want it. I'm not saying that that's what we want to do. I'm just saying that is possible. It provides an option. Yes. A terrible option. Um, better than no option. No. Sometimes you think it's better with no option. Okay. Nowhere. Well, it's more it's it's the sense of a false. It's a the people making the decision can make themselves feel better and be like, "Oh, I gave them a choice." When you didn't really like that that's that's where I get my that's where my hang-up is is we pretend like, "Oh, it's okay." Um when it's not okay. That that's where so like is it a choice? I mean, I guess, but not really. Um and so that's why I have a problem with that. Um kind of like accepting a million dollar bid and telling the guy I'm going to take 20 out. Yeah. It's going to take a couple meetings to break that loose, huh? Stupid. Um, why do parks want a trail instead of that sidewalk? Um, yeah. So, this is a trail that kind of goes through the neighborhood here and then there's a sidewalk along the street and then a trail along Whoops. A trail along 100 14th. So the idea is to connect this trail to this trail rather than along a sidewalk. And so you go from was it 5 foot? How long how wide a sidewalk? From 5t to 8 ft from 5t sidewalk to an 8ft trail. Okay. And there's enough space in there for that. It keeps getting tighter, but it's um go through my list here. Oh, the whole question about the I don't remember what the term was, but it was basically um this sequestered water issue. What's the term? Is that right? Perched water. Purched. How is that being handled? Question. I'm going to look to Jason. I don't know if he wants it. Well, I mean, perched groundwater is just infiltrated water from precipitation. So, um it just doesn't make it down to the actual groundwater. So, it's kind of a superficial stuck um at a higher level. Right. Yeah. there's probably a more compacted layer of soil somewhere that's trapping that water and slowing down um getting rid of that. Um in all honesty, and there will be some disagreement, I'm sure, but development generally reduces perched groundwater because they churn everything up because an impervious surface is put on the it's paved paved roads now. You're not letting any water pass through and it's instead collected sent to ponds and then it's discharged downstream. So, it actually allows less to enter the ground. So there it is actually in the end a reduction of the perched groundwater because not to say it can't exist and there can certainly be um cases where that continues even post development. So how do we know that this does get resolved? Are there any is it pretty easy to detect this purged water? Um no not necessarily. I mean you can install uh pometers which are just measuring wells just holes in the ground and you measure water levels um either using a transducer for continuous readings or manual readings but that's just a a spot check of where the water levels are but it fluctuates with precipitation uh quite a bit. So it it can vary a lot. Um not easy to track where it's coming from or how it's moving or anything else either. So you just know it's there. If your sump pump is running for example, you know there's water there. So intercepting it with drain tile is usually the highest success. If you can find somewhere to route that water, for example on one of the adjacent homes, um running a drain tile line um along the property line and then connecting it to a ditch or a structure or some other discharge point is intercepting the problem um or or diverting the water before it's a problem within the home. I don't know if that answered your question, mayor, but the answer is I don't think we can there was we we actually did uh have a geotechnical um engineer address it for this situation specifically this the site I'm I'm basically paraphrasing a lot of the findings from it. What did he address or did Oh, just to address the how the groundwater the perch groundwater works, how that is present. It's not actual groundwater. Basically, what I just kind of Yep. summarized. You just pro provided a memo outlining that and and I guess I I I understand how development can probably resolve the problem, but I don't know if you're going to ever guarantee the issue. Is that what you're looking for? Mayor, there's no solution there really. Maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't. I mean, it could be some kind of a sand seam or other through the soils. That's kind of an anomaly, too. So, it's not I don't know if there's any foolproof way to just blanket solution across the area by any means. There could uh there could always be situations that need to be addressed individually or specifically. What is the next step if you know just through the course of development this doesn't resolve itself? It sounds like there's a possibility that that that that would happen is terrain tiling along the property edges. The next logical thing to do there very well could be um I mean the monitoring wells would be another way. We actually started to um piece together the costs on it. It's however for the cost of monitoring to find the problem is probably going to be more expensive than the drain tile andor waterproofing of the structures or other means that seems like monitoring for us is does it make sense and I guess I don't know you know if if a sewer uh line is run through back there. Does it make sense to drain tile it at the same time or is that at different depths or um no it that's could certainly be done if there's storms who are available and deep enough in the area. Um and it's that it's not a excessively expensive um I mean I guess it does add up. You're probably looking at $30 a foot or so to install drain tile. Hopefully I'm not too far off on my guess. Definitely more than the PVC. What kind of excavating is going to go on here? Are we going to dig down 10 ft, 15 ft, 20 ft? I don't know. I have no idea. But where generally balance? Yeah. Are we ready? When you're ready, I can probably address some of that. Yeah. Go ahead. Come on up. Hi, Tom Dean 11261 Fernbrook Lane. Um, so I think uh towards the back of the homes uh we're going to we're going to grade right now. There's a lot of drainage that just runs towards the home, but we're not going to be in there digging out, you know, we're not lowering 10 feet behind their existing home, right? There's going to be a trail. we need to somewhat blend lend uh our lot into theirs, but we will have drainage. You know, we'll have storm sewer along the back property line. You know, we're going to we're going to try to take, you know, right now after all the years of a field and there, you know, just ground there's nobody really maintaining a ditch. You know, sometimes you get a burrow and it builds up other time, you know. So, we're going to have a swale in there. It's going to be established. Um, and and in those areas, I'm assuming somewhere there'll be a catch basin. Just I don't I don't know all the specs, but I know when we put storm through yards and it goes so far and then we get um we get uh uh you know, there's a catch basin for it. I'm sure some of it's based on the slope. Also, all the homes that will be built to the west adjacent to it, you know, all the homes in the city, they require city requirements is a drain tile in the backyard that everybody's sump pump runs into it. No sump pumps run out, you know, daylighted on a yard anymore. So, they're all they're all attached to that. So, it'll be that drain tile back there. Now going up the road there um to up to the other piece where we have have the alley load houses there is that's one of the main um that's the main trunk line that will go further north. So I mean somewhere through there in the middle I think that thing's running 20 30 ft deep. So somewhere through the middle we should be cutting a a pretty a pretty big ditch. I'm not I'm not a engineer to know if that's going to solve any of it. Right. I'm I'm just telling you I think there's things to do. I mean it's happened not even if I don't do anything right because it's a farm field. What we've been doing hasn't done anything to contribute to the help or to make it worse. I think just what we're doing is going to help. Um I mean I've talked to Lee many times. You know, I said, "Hey, if there is a problem and we got to get a drain tile or something to pump out and and I don't know the level of his basement compared to the storm sewer, storm sewer might not drain. It could potentially require some basket to come out just like all the houses do. Um, and I also offered to do just a water test. I mean, he's monitoring his well, saying it's not leaking, but it doesn't mean maybe a neighbor isn't. I I don't, you know, it could be other contributing things, right? It's under the ground. We we don't know. I'm not disagreeing with Lee saying once the development happened next door that's you know what what happened. But there are different things that could could cause it too and it it may fix it. Yeah. But I would agree with us digging a deep sewer pipe, putting storm water in back. Anything we're doing I I believe has to help the situation. I would certainly think if you dig down 20 feet, it's going to make some difference. Yeah. And and there isn't going to be any water. I mean, if you look where we're digging and if you said it all occurred when they were on the leaf farm, I mean, we're dissecting that. Does it does it change? I don't know. I know all our digging, you know, our soil boardings, we're not dewatering anywhere. We don't have to dewater. It's not like the water table's high. So, but beside that, I'm I'm I'm not a I'm not an expert on it. Yeah. I think ultimately and you're I think you're saying the right stuff. I think what ultimately we want to know is that it's you know that it's going to get resolved. Um and it seems like there's a pretty good probability that it will. But I just, you know, hate to see that the development goes in, you're all done, right? You're building houses and everybody is is moving on. And these houses um still have this issue. Well, I think we really have less is the problem, right? All of them may have regular standard water when it rains in a sun basket, right? It uh it it has those I mean, you know, those things were were in for a long time. I mean the drainage around it, you know, built in that time wasn't to the standards that things are built currently, you know, but I think I think everything we're going to do should should help to the back, you know, and if anything, we're going to have that drain tile if their drain tiles got it right now. I think they just free flow out into the ditch which doesn't move a lot. You know, worst case scenario could connect to the drain tile that we have uh you know going in the back for the new houses that gives it a a channel just to get away. I think the problem is it once it drains now there isn't a lot of you know I think the ditch in the county is filled up. They haven't done any maintenance and where does that water go? you know, yeah, gets that seemed to be as I understood it that that report that was done as part of the EAW with our additional questions um seem to suggest that there's a possibility that that water going into the ditch and it's just going right back down to where it was. Yeah. I mean, it could be. So, I mean, I'm willing to off, you know, solutions. I think I've been very open. I've I've talked to them. I've to the neighbors. I've not once said, "Hey, it's your problem and I'm not going to deal with it." I mean, I'm I'm going to do the the neighborly thing, but I I can't make the guarantee that we dig the sewer pipe in and the water is going to go away. I I don't know what the problem is. So, it's already there. It isn't something, you know, we've caused. Um, so did you say behind those houses to the west there's going to be a swell in the back? Yes. And then you will is that normal the drain tile that swale? Um well I think we're we're proposing to put a storm sewer in which all the time isn't necessary maybe in all of them but I think because of that area but the drain tile is I I'd let Jason speak to that a little more. But it it just seems a lot of these developments they get swailes put in the back. Yeah. And then they fill up with water because the drain tile didn't drain well because they didn't put enough drain on it. Yeah. Um, so just one thing with developments, they are required within the entire development area to capture the water and then route it somewhere for treatment. So often the outside lots, if you will, along the boundary, they do need those swailes in there to capture the water um such they're not shedding water onto the neighboring properties. Um, and as Tom had mentioned, um, the the sump connections, if you will, are required everywhere that there's not an existing pond or wetland that they can discharge to. And that is just for that exact reason that's being suggested here. Many of these sump pumps will discharge them and just come right back to the house. They're just recycling the same water over and over. Um, I mean, a lot of people don't even have a hose on it. They're literally putting it right down the side of the block and it's just pumping in circles. Um, so and and I'd say the other thing is on the finish house. So I, you know, out of this development, it's been a while since I've probably since nature's crossing that I've done any building in Dayton and the requirements in the city now are a lot more, you know, I don't know if you want to call it stricter or or rigid, but the, you know, they're they're all designed to eliminate that problem. So I did build two in Sundance Greens here this past year. And so before the side can go down, they call an asbuilt survey, right? And so everything is surveyed. Um not only do our engineers provide that, then the city, you know, Stantech, they're out and I don't know what do you what's your laser like every four feet or something. So, I mean, I had two spots where I mean, it was an inch fall and 8 ft, you know, but it still fell like this, but it kind of went down. They caught it, right? We had it, you know, you'd look at it by eye and go, it's draining, but there was just a little dip. So, it's just not like somebody's going by on a on a truck. Hey, it looks good from the the ditch. I will say that. you know, it was was actually um uh more more uh particular than I than I anticipated. You know, I'm not saying it's bad, but that'll be the same thing that will happen when these homes get built. And the other thing is on on the ponds, you know, Jason was talking about redundancy. We initially went and sized like a larger 36 inch pipe to think what's the chances of plug in a 36. I think if you know we don't have a problem changing the redundancy but what that really means is then there's two 24s you know I think is what it goes. So we were just thinking to tackle it in a different format um and that's probably difference of opinions of engineers but I guess at the end of the day right city engineer is the one that makes the final decision. Oh between the ponds. Yeah. So there was a question about 36 versus 22 24. It it it not such Yeah. Not as much a question of size. We just were worried about blockages. Yeah. And we were addressing that by having a second pipe in case one was blocked. And what Tom is saying is their engineers just said we're going to oversize it so there's less chance of blockage. You're right. It's a different angle point to the same problem. What's that? I would just I wouldn't I guess it wouldn't surprise me if one plug the other one. Well, kind of depends. Like if a critter is like, "This looks like a fun place to make a house." Yeah. Raccoon gets stuck in there. And that's where I mean, look, I that's where I look at the engineers. We hire them, too. So, I'm I'm not going to going to tell you that I'm the expert on it. Yeah. Other questions? So, one of the things that I've kind of struggled with kind of the whole time, um, because I have two things that I think are very important. One is um resident feedback, particularly residents who live nearby, and there's a lot of feedback about um you know, it's a lot of homes, particularly the smaller lot sizes, that that's not what Dayton like we're about larger lot sizes and that more rural feel. Um on the flip side, I do think um and Tom, I think you and I have tal talked about this like affordable like we need to have more affordable starter homes. Like if I looked right now when the if I was graduating college right now and looking to buy a house, I couldn't. like there's just no choice. Like I have no choices. Um and I have a lot of nieces and nephews in that position. And so smaller homes are inherently more affordable than larger homes. Um and so these two things and you know we were just talking about that bill last week, right? I mean, there's a reason why the state is trying to take decision making away from cities is because they feel like cities are not taking leadership in ensuring that we have homes that are at that starter price point. Um, on the flip side, they don't necessarily need to have tiny lots. Like, you don't have to build the house as big as humanly possible within the lot. You could make the lot larger and still build a smaller, more affordable home. on a slightly larger lot. Um particularly when for these alley loads like they don't have really a they don't have a private backyard. That's your driveway. You don't have a your front yard is inherently not private and so your only option is your sideyard and it's pretty tiny and like that's your only real option for any sort of privacy. Um so I'm just I'm I'm personally struggling with that, right? Like I I like this idea of and and to people who I got some comments about how smaller, more affordable homes would bring in people that they might want not live by. And I'm like, well, my house is pretty much the size of the houses you're talking about building and that's where I lived before I came here. So I'm like, so what you're saying is you don't want me to be your neighbor. Um is what you're saying to me, which is rude. Um like people not wanting giant houses don't make them inherently bad people. Um, so I really like the fact that you had a variety of product type, right? Like that you had smaller homes as an option because not everyone wants to live in a McMansion. Um, but yet, like I said, my job is to represent the citizens and they were they had a lot of issues with that. So, I'm just personally really conflicted on that one because I have those two things that are kind of at odds. Um, and I don't I don't have a solid answer to that, but I still am going to stay strong in the I appreciate that you have some smaller homes in this project and that you're trying to get some more affordable options in this project and that's really important to me and I value that. The question then becomes, is it possible to up those lot sizes a little bit and still build a smaller home within those slightly larger lot sizes? And I don't know if that's a compromise that we can come to, but well, I I think I've been here quite a few times already, right? Um and so I'll give a couple couple reasons because I do want to talk about the alley or not the alley a little bit back there, but on the roundabout. I mean, I would love to put a regular intersection in. I mean, I spent a half million dollars in Rush Creek, tried to put a tunnel in everything. problem is I mean we can sit here and and do a bunch but the county right you kind of got to build it you know a need but but I can't build bigger lots and put a roundabout in you know it just it you know so that was my deal I I see the other spots in the cities I'm like I want you know willing to come in with more dollars. Um, secondly, you know, the roads are are expensive, right? You guys look at just resurfacing a road, put a whole new road in. So now, I mean, you can talk 30 $40,000 a lot just to put a a larger lot in to put that small house on it. It just starts taking out of affordability. Um, and I just tried to give some different look. I mean, we could we could have put the the quads in, you know, they're all set in a bigger lot, but I think it's just a variety and it looks more individualist. Um, and I I think it's a difference on, right, we'd all like to see a kid playing a ball. You know, I I drove through the parkway at Sundance today and I seen a couple kids throwing a ball in the back. I'm like, I drove through this thing a ton of times. I never see a kid. I thought, great, you know, but I mean, I got a I got a stepson who's 23 years old. He lives in a town and he doesn't want to mow lawn. He doesn't want to do anything. He wants to go home from work, sit in his house, watch TV, and leave the next day. So I think I think there's a variety, right? The bigger lots, if you want if you want that, then you buy one of those homes. And uh and so I think that's I was trying to get get some variety. And I think the last would be I mean, if you look at low density home, right? I think what city has it's you know two to four or four four homes an acre or less. I'm a 3.1. So, I'm not even to the max at at, you know, what the city ordinance has. So, I think that that's a little bit where I was looking just some variety. And I and I'll I'll tell you there's other spots in the city that I would I would never bring this in. I mean, I think you you go around some of the lake, some of the things it just makes sense to have bigger lots, different, but but the bottom line is right now there isn't the parkway. Fernbrook Lane is the main road right through the city. You're going to have the traffic. Um and and I get it. There's some of the residents on Fernbrook, right? Right now I live at my dad's. I grew up there, so I'm a Fern Brook resident, right? Um and and one of the reasons I like a roundabout at 114th. I I get it up in the in the in the top. I I never approved. It wasn't my my desirable turn lanes and everything there, but that's the county's decision. Yeah. But I think as I go down, I mean, you get up on top of, you know, the parkway. By the time they get down past the restaurant, they're going 60 m hour and and you know, I have the same thing they everybody's saying. They're trying to back out, right? Get in the road. It's tough. Um, my family owns a business on on Fernbrook and then I own a business up the road, right, that I've been been trying to make it a good business for the city and make improvements and things on it. And so, you know, um I think I think everybody just wants to pay me as the big bad developer and and I do think I I do put some more concern and stuff in being a resident. And I'm a business owner, you know. I'm not I'm not a guy from, you know, other part of the city coming in and don't care about the city, you know, and so um I get it. If it moves to the south, maybe maybe it's got to go into even some of the commercial area. I I don't know, you know, but the the county count is going to have that that full say. And and I I I think just where you see them going, I could put turn lanes in. Countyy's going to come back and say we own a roundabout anyhow, you know. So, um have you looked at acquiring rightaway yet? So, I have not. Okay. I have not. I mean, go a little bit and I and and I think if it doesn't go I mean like they did in the in the uh up up on Rush Creek Parkway. We just had to bring it all west, right? So, I own all that property of the west for some reason. When you get in a roundabout, it's it's slowing down there. It was going fast. But if you notice um you know, when you drive, you know, you can really notice it when you're driving south. you know, all those turn lanes, everything shifts over to the west. We gave additional rightway to the west because the park district wouldn't give up an inch of their road. And and so one of the things back on uh you know, talking about do you put the the rightway um or the roundabout up on on Rush Creek, you know, um there that isn't an existing right intersection. There already are a lot of homes. Not only did the city collect taxes, but the county day, you know, gets taxes on those where here there's there's a new roundabout, right? And also maybe you got a little pull of however funding is because that serves the uh nature center, right? There's nothing serve there's no there's no public or no park district building or anything east of of Fernbrook at 114th. Okay. I don't know. I mean that's that's you got you know on grants but to me um you know and and I see a little bit you know I'll be honest the um you know one of the residents mentioned and I don't know how exactly it works so maybe you know I'll be honest I'm opening up a can of worms for myself but when before that roundabout goes in you know at least the traffic on Rush Creek could you know everything entering maybe has to enter up there come in you know so so truck isn't stopped on on Firm Brook trying to take a a left, you know, say say you're going north, right? And you got to take a left and wait for traffic. Maybe it's up at the top at the turn lane. I I don't know. And then we take that first right and come in and everything goes out as a right. Maybe it's just, you know, hopefully the development going in and the county will do something and we can, you know, get to the solution sooner than later. So, what does happen if we start down this road and find out that there's a problem with roundabout on 14th? I mean, what happens at the final plant? Well, we would solve it at the time of the final plan or we only plat a portion of it, you know. So, I think Tom, you're proposing to develop west to east. Yeah, I I propose on the west, right? I don't even see us down even the backyards of the alley. Maybe grading, but we're not going to be down putting any pipe in. I think what we're proposing is just to maybe put storm pipe in sooner just to relieve the the neighbors, but there's there's no homes going in there. Uh no streets going in there. Um so you're starting on the west side. Starting on the west. Yep. Yep. And then the other is that's kind of the reason why I said, you know, we we we talk about the commercial outlot, right? And it's like, let's just wait to the roundabout cuz maybe what we planned for a building on the corner isn't going to work because there's going to be roundabout, right? Take some of that round. Yep. And and if the road pulls south, um, you know, there's really like if you came into this this, let's just say the whole roundabout comes south. You know, I'm not going to put any houses in here anyhow, right? This is probably going to be a burum. I mean, if it was an alley, I'd project it to go up straight anyhow. you more bur? Well, we're going to have burming in landscape, but we might as well just make that larger because I don't I don't see any use to it, you know. Yeah. What about um construction cra? So until how far how far is the Lee development to the point where people can get north to 117th yet? Yep, they can. Okay. Yep. By the park. So the west hand side of of the Lee um Brayburn Trails East is developed and fully constructed. Um you will see Brayburn Trails third edition coming in here shortly. Okay. Yeah. And that will then finish up the further east side. And how do we So they're not going to want construction traffic through their develop. Nobody wants construction traffic. So and not but I still get Sundance traffic. You know what I mean? Oh yeah. Yeah. You know, so somewhere somewhere I think it's just hopefully we can get the county to react on it the quickest and get it fixed, right? But if we don't if we don't put anything in, they're not going to do anything, you know? So yeah, they wait until Yeah, it's backwards, right? But um I can't fix that one. Yeah, Kevin's answer is always, well, you got to build the houses first and then we'll effectively fix the disaster. You got to have Rush Creek that intersection and then say, well, gee, that doesn't work very well. We got to do something rather than anticipating. Anybody have any other questions or not questions for me? I overall I like I like the development. I think I've said that all along. I appreciate that you did increase the lot sizes based on previous discussions um you know not for this drawing but the earlier edition of it. Um I like those uh style of homes because I think that they they look good. They look better than town houses. They give people a little more sense of of owning things and of a house. And like you said, not everybody wants a big yard. You know, I grew up on a 40 foot lot and um you know, it worked just fine. Of course, we played ball in the street and nobody got Ryan over, but that was a different time. Um but it was, you know, I think overall I like the the there's a curb appeal to those that uh that appeals to me. Um, and I think having this a variety in this development is appreciated even if it's not on the big lots. I mean, our holy grail is to try to find, you know, a path to two plus acre lots in Dayton. And we're not going to get it here, you know, and the if any of that legislation passes in all of our say on any of this, then you're going to build eight lots per acre and and we've got nothing to say about it. So, I I think in that context, you know, this this meets what we can what we can do, and I think it's a it'll be a good-looking development. I think it fits the rest of the new neighborhood. Um, you know, we're we're not doing any favors for the existing homes, and, you know, we we've heard that loud and clear, and I I think we're trying to do what we can uh to preserve their dignity. I think, you know, the ideal plan for people would be to, you know, that you'd keep it a corn field and that's not that's not the reality here. But overall, I like the development. I like the way that this park is coming together, even if it's too expensive, Scott, in some places. Um, I think it's going to be a good I think it's going to be a good development and I and I appreciate the extra effort that you've shown in this. So I don't think this is new for you that you know you're doing u more than than what we require. We don't get this out of some of the other developers and we should but you know as you said you're you know you've got your family's got a ton of history here and you're and we'll continue to have this is not our our last visit with you. Well maybe you know the next election we all get thrown out but the Well, we're here for four years. That's right. We'll be here. You might be on the job in and I think, you know, fair enough. You know, if we're not doing what people want us to do, they should throw us out. But that's, you know, but to my eyes, I think this works and and I think we have, you know, everything's going to be LP. I mean, it just sits straighter on the wall. It It's more, you know, color varieties. I, you know, that's although as we're talking affordability and smaller, one thing that is, it's probably 10 grand for a minimum on each house. But I do think uh at the city at the longer preservation, you know, if we didn't have that ordinance, would you still do LP on these things? Yeah, cuz because you only have it on the front. Yep. I'm requiring it on all three sides or four sides. Three additional. So, no vinyl. I mean, there's no vinyl period on any of the sides. Three. Three additional sides. Make it chastise, but I don't mind vinyl. I'm all vinyl. My entire house is vinyl. I have a small cheap house because only because I I build houses with vinyl. I'm not criticizing, but you just get a wider variety of colors and so once you know we're putting more houses, more density, it it just gives more a full wrap on the LPA and you and it only adds 10k to the house. The the smaller ones, the larger ones probably 15. Okay, that's just curious. Okay. So, some of the other feedback from parks was about the gazeos and that's okay. No issue there. No issue. Um, and then the other thing though is about more parking for that park area. Um, there there was a comment about if as that park expands that those parking spots are not going to be sufficient. Y um can I just ask just more on that? It it's more on I'm going to say it's programming. If you have a ball field that's going to be used back to back, you need more parking than just say parents for two teams. Okay. And then are we is our thought then when that next spot over develops then we could maybe address the parking at that point in time? It might be possible to to just extend the parking lot north. Okay. And then shove the field over to the east a little bit. And that's part of the golf course, right? We just uh we're doing golf course improvements this year. Um, so I would say next year I would be be in here or you know maybe by fall for next year to do the last phase as we're um changing holes and stuff around uh you know a lot on our existing north side right now we had to change the fairway cuz balls hit into the houses right so we're we're realigning that and and and doing some other upgrades to it and then also I think at that point if you not only connect the parking lot it's the whole power line right you can park under that area too. So, okay. I just that was a question that came up so I wanted to ask about that. And and we do have the main trail, you know, our corridor that will connect to Sundance Greens and eventually go down to the to the Rush Creek and to the park. Anything else? Mayor, can I ask a question? Yes. Tom, I was going to ask. I know we've been all over the place with lot widths of lots. I probably already know the answer. Any thought process on fire sprinklers on some of these houses that are on top of each other? I probably already know the answer, but I'm going to be strong. Okay, that's and and they're 7 and 1/2 ft apart. You know, we didn't ask for we asked for narrow and we made the city change, but um I mean there is an affordability thing. Yep. I understand. you know, and I think probably from my position as a builder and you have great differences. Yeah. So, thank you. Y anybody have any more questions for Tom? No more questions. I'm just personally not in favor of the design is beautiful and so I just don't like anybody. Go ahead. Just have a couple questions. That's fine. This right here is this going to be a road behind the six houses. Can you trail? So it is just Oh, if you could repeat, please, Marcia. Okay. I'm looking right here. Is this going to be a road between the behind the six houses? Like a a single lane road? It's a trail. Yes. A walking trail. A walking trail. A walking trail. Okay. And then um something nobody asks, the roundabout is going to have four medians. Correct. Yes, probably. So this property here, the Bruns property, their house is right here. You can actually you can see a little bit of their garage there. Are they going to be able to access their driveway with the roundabout? They're Yeah, they're on 114th here. They don't come out onto Ferna. Yeah, their driveway is there. Are they going to be able to access their driveway? Mayor, may mayor call. We would ensure that they're able to get they'll have the same issues. Okay. The the mean again, this this is a basic design of the roundabout. The the median on eastbound 114th is very very small comparison to what it is on the other three lines. The west side is much longer though. East side is not very long at all. Again, just general designs and general design. Also, their driveway is right there. Yeah. Oh, yeah. They're fine. Name and address. Keith G over 113 in Fernbrook. Um the you were just talking about the medians. Um you saying that the medians would be longer on Fernbrook than they would be on 114th. Eastbound 114th would be small. So, yeah, westbound on 114th would probably likely be a lot longer. So, we can inhibit taking a left turn into that commercial area long term if that's what we were able to do. Okay. Just to block off any left hand. You keep saying commercial area. You shouldn't be swearing at us. I was going to say outlaw out. It's an outlaw, right? We all know what's going on here, but the uh there's a couple of things that that that bother me. Number one, I'm not I'm not in favor of the smaller lots. I mean, and I hear you guys are and you think it looks beautiful. I think it's ugly, but Well, not you. All right, that's fine. But we have a difference of opinion on what we want the city to look like. Um, when I was a kid, I lived on a 40 foot wide lot, too, but I don't live on one now. And you couldn't pay me enough money to live on a 40 foot wide lot. That's why my house is on 150 foot wide lot that they probably put three houses on now, you know, with what they're doing there. I think that's ridiculous. But back to what we're talking about here. Couple of things. The traffic issue. Um, I realize Henipin County is a real roadblock here to us figuring out how to make this all work, but 113th Avenue is not a road you want all that construction traffic on. I've been watching this, you know, for a couple of years now. you know, while they're building out on the on the south side of 113th, they have Rush Creek Parkway now that they can get in and out of, but there's a lot of that truck traffic that turns in front of my house. And it's almost on a constant basis. Now that I'm old and I'm retired, I can nothing to do but watch the traffic in front of my house, right? It's a boring life. But it's dangerous out there with all of these trucks going in and out of there. Some of them are delivery trucks for, you know, for for the manor and some of them used to go into the manor parking lot. None of them do that anymore. They're seems like they're always going in and out on 113th and the ones that deliver product back to the golf course. Um, same thing. They're a small portion of the truck traffic going in and out of there. Most of it is construction. A truck will come in with a whole house on it, you know, hour after hour after hour, you know, whether it's uh the plumbing and heating truck, whether it's the excavator trucks. All those trucks are trying to turn in front of my house. I am scared somebody's going to get killed in my driveway. I hope it's not me or my wife or anybody else that I know, but that is just dangerous beyond belief. There are no turn lanes there. You have horrible visibility to the south because they have the dip that goes down south of the manor on 121. When you're sitting in my driveway in a car, you can't see vehicles coming from that direction. And when you're on the road, it's almost as bad. That's a horrible situation. I don't hear anything addressing that prior to the problem. I hear, "Well, we'll build this out and we'll hope that the county will let us fix it in the future." That's not good enough for me. I That's not good enough. I mean, you need to figure out a way to route that traffic for that area, you know, where they're going to put these 260some houses or whoever it is on and figure out how to how to get the construction equipment in and out of there without going on that single lane 113th with no turn lanes. Trucks take the whole highway coming out of 113th. They take the whole highway going going into 113th. She said, "I watched the problems that Bob and Brad have just trying to get out of there with their grain trucks from the existing farm. It's a dangerous intersection. I don't hear anything addressing that. That road to connect to 114th. That road should be the first thing on the agenda. Not building 150 homes on the other side of the property and hoping something gets fixed on this end. Going in and out on 113th and hoping nobody gets killed on 113th. That road needs to get fixed. You need to figure out where that roundabout is going to go. You need to figure out whether the countyy's going to help pay for it. And there's enough room in that 10acre chunk that he wants to make commercial. I still see that gas station and the every time I look across the road with all the bright lights shining at me and the noise and pollution and all that. Move that. Move that. move that whole thing far enough to the south so it's not in the not affecting the people that live on a or live on Fernbrook Lane to get in and out of their driveways with the median. It's down past where the medians, you know, end and put it in that area where that you mean you got a nice big square there where the gas station is on all the maps, right? Put it right there. Move it away from all the houses to get that done. I think that would be a huge huge step in the right direction to get people in and out of there, to get the truck traffic in and out of there without somebody getting hurt at that intersection on 113th. It's just not made for that. The other thing that's an issue for me is the storm water pond that's directly across from my house. that holding pond. Um I'm not sure I know where the that the water from any commercial that could potentially be in there um is going to run into that holding pond. If not, why would you have a hauling pond there? I mean, if it's going to if the whole area is going to be storm sewed, why do we need a hauling pond? Run it into the storm sewer and get it the heck out of there to wherever it needs to go. And like we say, get it treated. Nothing's going into that hauling pond's getting treated. I know that. But it's right across the street from my house. And that holding pond, the elevation of that field across the street from my house is probably five or six feet above in elevation from my basement. Lee has problems now with water. It's clay in that area. It's a It's horrible when you get a ton of water. My sump pumps are running right now. They've been running since before the snow started melting. Every few minutes the pump comes on. I have one at each end of the house to keep up with the water. If they put a holding pond across from me, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to keep up with that. Is that pond a an impervious pond where the water can't go into the ground? What's the purpose of the pond? I don't I honestly don't understand that. Is it to hold the water till it gets high enough and then it runs off over the surface into the natural drain which is north of my house under 121? I I I get I guess I'm I'm confused. I watched what happened to the holding ponds coming off from the other edition there. There's two of them there behind behind uh the manor and behind Tom's dad's place. Two big ponds, but those things run water almost all the time. When we were in a drought, for crying out loud, when we had rain for for months, those ponds were still running water underneath 121. Where it was coming from, I have no idea. But I fear that the put the one across from my house is going to put more groundwater into that layer that you were talking about where the water comes through because I'm sure water comes goes down into the ground across the street from me and in Bob and Brad's field and comes our way and migrates that way. Heck, it's downhill. You know, stuff runs downhill. That's got to be where it comes from. I don't get all that rain in my yard. It's not that big of a yard. How do we make sure that the water that's in that holding pond doesn't permeate through the ground and come across and and cause me as much of a problem with water runoff as what Lee is experience experiencing currently up in his house. I'm not sure what the answers to those are. I look at what you did before and what you approved before and what that groundwater did and it's not supposed to have any more water coming off the property than what it did before. But that's not the case. That water is running off from those two holding ponds that you currently have there almost all the time. And I'm scared that the one across the street from my house is going to do the same thing. And it's going to cause me flooding in my yard because my house is between where the pond is and where the water needs to go. The little creek that runs across under the road. It's coverted under the road about 200 feet north of me under Fernbrook goes around behind my house and into the creek and then off back into Powers Lake and on into Hayden Lake and into Elm Creek and into the river. That's the direction it goes. I think you need to take all those things into consideration. Thank you. Thank you. I was really hoping we could get through tonight without the word gas station. Come on out. Kathy Powers. I'm at 11461 Fern Brook Lane. I'm one of the six homes that everybody keeps talking about. And I'm really kind of perplexed about this roundabout at 114th. And you know, the more we talk about this, the more I kind of get a pit in my stomach like really, why should there be a roundabout there and not on 117th? And you push this county to put one on Rush Creek. I mean they they are far enough apart where it would slow the traffic down or put a stop sign that would slow the traffic down. But I just the more I look and then I listen about this 114th and about the two end houses. Now why am I worried about the two end houses? Because they're my neighbors and how they're going to get in and out of there without significant trouble. If you guys lived there, you would have a heart attack. And I know you would have a heart attack because you didn't like the trails by your house. So if any one of you lived on Fernbrook Lane on those six homes or even where Marsha and Keith live, you would have a problem with how this is being developed. I I just don't understand. I think we need to step back and look at put a stake in the ground and really prioritize what we're trying to do here. Try to slow the traffic down. I don't deny Dean to do any of the building. I've resigned the fact that I'm going to have homes behind my house and I'm okay with that. But the main concern that I have is this road traffic and and all the people that live on Fernbrook Lane in this small area that really isn't being addressed by anyone. I know you sit up there and Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But just put yourself in one of those homes. And I think Marsha has made a lot of good comments about it and has facts and stacks facts um about, you know, the gas stations and all that. And I I just think we need to think about it a little bit more instead of, you know, just rushing to the fact of pushing this roundabout. I I mean, I like a roundabout. It's going to slow the traffic down, but I'm concerned really what it's going to do. and maybe push it towards the south and maybe that'll be a better solution. And I know that Tom, you and I have talked about that, that pushing it more towards the south would be a better solution than just having it right where it is now. So, I won't complain anymore. I've said my piece. Thank you very much. All right. Anybody else? Sure. Hi there. I'm Lee Hawquist. I live at 11471 Fernbrook Lane. I'm the northernmost house in that row of six and the one most affected by water right now. Um, first point just just to make you aware, I don't know a lot about holding ponds, but the holding pond that if you if you cross over Rush Creek and come back up that hill, Southbond on Fernbrook, they have a sump pump in that holding pond. Why is that? And the sump pump runs down to the drain in the ditch and it pumps water into the ditch and ultimately into the creek. I seems to defeat the whole purpose of a holding pond, but that's Maple Grove, so we don't have to worry about that one. Um, anyway, just want to get that out. uh Rush Creek traffic that that intersection that should have been a roundabout. People treat it like a roundabout now. I I Dennis, I talked to you about it uh last month and people just don't even stop. They just slow down and turn right and I've had a couple times that I've had hit the binders cuz people are pulling out in front of me. Um I think the speed limit is too high on that road for what it is now anyway. So, um my sump pump is cycling every 90 seconds. So every minute and a half I'm I'm emptying it out. I pump my water all the way down into Cathy's culvert. So they have four to five inches of water from the two houses down just south of me and and it doesn't drain very well. The countyy's not draining the water. Uh water drainage is a huge issue to me obviously. Uh I've done everything I can to keep my basement dry and so far it works but it's not cheap either. and my sump pump's running a a whole electric bill on its own. Now, uh, whoever thought of just putting an alleyway in the back that we could just put cars out and turn our driveways around doesn't think about what it cost to do that. But the the back end of my property line is about 5 ft higher than my garage floor. So, that's not just that's moving a lot of dirt. Uh, what else? Noise from the construction equipment. 70 hours a week, guys, you're going to have construction equipment 75 ft off of my back door. And I think that's wrong. I'm I'm all for reasonable work, but weekends I like to use my backyard. I don't want to be watching some guy in a D9 cat or something just out there moving dirt. It's just not reasonable and it's not fair. And you wouldn't allow it in your house. I can see that now. Um if you look at the new homes that are going in this Braver Hills project, they're about 4 ft higher than the existing ground level. So they know there's a drainage problem out there. If you you can drive down Fernbrook and look out, they're raising the ground to put these houses on. So, um, my big fear is that my son pump once they start digging in this row behind me is just going to get overwhelmed. I say I'm pumping every 90 seconds now. And all this excessive pumping started with this newest uh, Braburn Hills, is that what it is? Brain Hills development. True. U, that's when it started pump. I've always had pumping in the spring. I've got a drain drain tile system to kick your butt. I mean, it works great. And, uh, I'm afraid it's just going to get overwhelmed. You're going to hit something else. I mean, it's like mining for water here. Um, and I think that boring that letter you sent me on the boring sample was done before they started that second part of the project, but I don't remember and it's not dated. So, I was able to get the date. Jason, you remember what the date was off top of hand? I know you grabbed it for me, but I know there was a date. I was going to get that to you and I failed to apologize. Okay. Interrupt, but I thought it was November November of this past year. So, um, and I still have construction garbage blowing through the yard from this western part of the project. And it's, you know, I understand it's construction, but these guys get they're they're big grown-ups. They should be able to pick up behind themselves. Um, it blows across Fernbrook. There's a bunch of it sitting across Fernbrook from my house now. Uh, I frequently see Elm Creek Park has people out pulling county county people out picking up garbage out of that. Um, and we'll come back to that. Uh, yeah, which let's talk about this assessment thing. I mean, this is going to cost all of us like 21,000 bucks a piece plus buying this $5,000 water shut off valve. And I think that's what you told me. Yeah, I can't remember what that number was, but that's So, so you're going to hit these six houses about $150,000. You guys are going to make over $5 million in the same fees for all these houses going in there. I think you should be able to wave that fee for us without batting an eye. It's not a big deal to in that kind of money. It's more than $20,000. So, and and I don't think that's unreasonable. What fee is that? The assessment, the permit that I have to have to hook water to my house before you put water to my house. Trunk fees. That's the Oh, if you hook up. No, no, no. You're going to assess me that whether I hook up or not. Oh, no. That's only if there's a So, we had talked and I think this was brought up a while ago. City staff agreed to a 0% interest rate for um a dollar amount to have the ability to go behind the lines up behind the house. They have available access points for water and sewer if and when their well or septic fails because some of these individual homes are on their second well site or on their second septic site. They don't have a backup for another well, right? And so um the idea and that's why the question I asked earlier in the meeting was do you want the water and sewer in the alley or the trail to be required um for by the developer because currently that is not being required by the developer. Well and we talked about Tom has been really cooperative. I mean I'm really impressed with he's he's not my enemy and deans have been great neighbors. They're my kind of neighbors. They don't bother me. I don't bother with them. But uh but anyway I think that's something the city could pick up. I mean you guys are forcing this on us. It's not like we all of a sudden decided to, you know, if I was the first guy to build buy into this new construction, I know there's going to be construction around me until this project's finished. But I live here already and the these houses are just going to be built. And that's not reasonable to me that I have to pay for it and endure 70 hours a week of construction noise and everything else. You know, uh we are literally getting screwed by the city in this. And I understand Tom's developer and this is and he's doing a great job for us. I'm not kicking about that. I hope too much. Uh John at the planning meeting in March said that there this is going to add about 10,000 car trips a day when this project is done with the commercial. Pardon? If there's a commercial, yeah, but but 10,000 car trips a day is going to triple the traffic on Fernbrook. More than triple it. Uh you know, it's just an insane amount of traffic. And I and the reality is like is I don't feel like you guys have done a whole lot of infrastructure planning. You know, you want to get to the development part, get people paying money and taxes and all that, but you got to build some roads and some drainage. Drainage particularly is a big thing. Um well, let's see. Yeah, my personal feeling is Tom could afford to put in the sewer, too, but we've talked about that. So, I think that's most of what I got. My big concern is drainage. You guys aren't doing anything about the drainage. In fact, you haven't solved any of the problems that people have brought up to you. Uh you haven't solved anything with the infrastructure. You just that's the reality of it is nothing is any different than it was two years ago. It's kind of like when you had six meetings about what we're going to do with 121 and at the end of the last meeting we decided it's a county road. It's not my problem. You know, do something for crying out loud. I just trying to get that. I mean, uh, Councilman Fishant, is that how he said it? Okay. Very passionate when they're talking about putting a a trail through his neighborhood and it wasn't even going to cost him any money. This I I because you're the second person to say that. My objection is not the trail. They're bulldozing all the houses. Well, but you were saying the neighbors should have some say in it. That you did say exactly that. The neighbors should have some say in it. Absolutely. Yes. That's what we're saying, too. The neighbors here should have some say in this. Um, anyway, if I say anymore, uh, I think I covered most of what I want to cover. And like I say, every 90 seconds I'm pumping water into the ditch, and I move it all the way out to the ditch. So, in fact, I move it into Cathy's ditch. So, I think Tom did I did I think Tom did mention this. If the construction thing doesn't fix the water, he's willing to do some drain tiling. But even if he does drain tiling, I'm going to wind up having to run my pump every 90 seconds or whatever to pump water to his drain tile, right? Tap into the storm drain. So I would think, yep, that's the pipe that goes in the back. Now does you know what's going on in the basement? Like an expert, but I I do think we're So providing options to make it better. And I have to build a storm drain because you got water going in your basement. I got water that would be going in my basement if I wasn't cycling every 90 seconds. I understand that, but I don't think the construction created the problem. I do. Especially if he says it's perched water. Something's filling that perch up because I would think within a couple days I could drain out a perched area as much as I'm pumping. So, something is refilling if if there is a perch, a pond, an underground stream, something is refilling it. Or if there's a well leaking or not, I'm not saying yours. Yeah. Uh my my pump's not running, so I know my well's not leaking. My septic sank tank was checked last September. It's nice and tight. Um they sent you a card telling you it's still water. Some things going on, but yeah, we don't know what that something is, right? I don't want to have to be paying for it. Somebody else's uh like I say, I this started mostly with the the latest building project over in Braburn Hills, and I something has changed and I hate to I feel like I'm sitting on deaf ears like you guys just own. It's not my problem. Well, did that development create a a field tile that got killed up? I we don't I don't know. I don't I don't know either, but I shouldn't have to be pumping water out because of it. I mean, the developer should be taking care of that then, right? But the developer is working on a, you know, a permit that you guys have approved. So, anyway, I don't get arguing or anything else. I just want you to know where I stand on it. Uh, I do expect that you guys are going to fix that water problem. So yeah, appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? So, um I think just the only thing I'd say and Lee and I fine. I'll I'll do what I can to help him. Um and hopefully it solves the problem. I think more I just want to address um the pond, you know, along Fernbrook. I mean, those we just don't dig them, right? They're all engineered, you know, and put in and uh and for a reason. They go everywhere, right, to to to control that. But, uh so yeah, I just clear we're just not digging a hole to dig a hole. So, but it's our friends into it. That's it. Thank you. Um I've been thinking a lot about the the various roundabouts and one of the things we we're proposing a building um moratorum by the cubes that area right um but that's on 117th right and we've heard from those neighbors that they've had issues with the the pick the traffic on 117th So, if you I mean, if I'm zooming out, I'm looking at the city from a slightly more zoomed out position. To me, the roundabouts need to be on 117th and the El like the Rush Creek. That's where those roundabouts need to be cuz that's those are just the bigger roads for the whole city. Um, so I kind of I do agree that that's really where those roundabouts need to be and that the other intersections need to be addressed, but not necessarily like I don't think a roundabout is the answer. I think turn lanes, you know, to to the point of getting the traffic or giving people who are turning a place to wait safely. Um, as far as the I mean, I don't know what to do about the water because surface water is easy. Well, not easy, but you can see surface water. You can see it's coming from point A and it's going to point B. Ground water, you can't see where point A is in the first place. You're like, it's like or where point B is. Um, and I don't think it's that we don't care. It's that we don't we don't know what to do. Um, I don't know what the I don't know short of a time machine to go back and say no development here. I don't know what to do to fix it. And um, and I think the hope is that maybe actually some of the work that will happen will whether it's purposeful or accidental will address some of those issues. Um, but it's I don't at least from my point of view, I'm not not doing nothing because I don't care. I'm I don't have an answer. Um, I do have a question about this though to your point about the construction hours. Is there a way to limit construction to Monday through Friday and so that there isn't construction happening on the weekends? I think we'd have to do it as part of the development agreement if you wanted to do that. I think that is possible. I don't know how much push back you're going to receive from that, but it's possible. I mean, could we change your city ordinance, though? So, like it's not just this development, but like period construction work happens Monday through Friday. Well, not realistically. So, if you're doing work on your own house, you cannot do it on the weekends. I mean that's I guess that's these are my questions like where this this comes. I think that could lead up to a bigger okay question not saying that that's wrong or or the thought process isn't right. I just think it could lead to more questions and I think steady staff would like to look at you know if that's something that you're proposing. I think we just like to look at other options of what that will cause problems with if you can't do any construction work on Saturdays and Sundays. Yeah. You know, I know when that development went in next to me, it wasn't so much, you know, the hammering. It was really the cats, the big the grading and and that is god awful load. Um I don't know. I I I don't know that I know we've we dealt with that with the cubes. I don't remember what you know. We allowed them extend we allowed them extended hours. That's different though. That's in industrial area. You you have you have houses just across the street from that, too. So, I mean, it wasn't like it's no different than really here. I mean, you you have homes across the street or right next to it. The bottom line is if you if there's something going on, there's you can't stop it. You you can in the development agreement, you can limit hours if you're looking for a grant to 7 to 7. I think it is 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Yeah. So it's also Monday through Saturday. Yeah. Um no, Saturday is 9 to 9 to 6. It's 8 to 4. April 4 on Saturday. So yeah. Um I was just going to say you got to you got to it. But the it is reduced on Saturdays. Yes. You know, and I know neighbors do do follow up because you know there is here's the the worst thing about grading, right? It's seasonal, right? We're in Minnesota. We can't can't do that. And if it rains all week, you know? So, so there there is some of that, but I do I do know the uh you know the neighbors and even a couple times it's been raining when we've worked in Sundance, right? The Simon I I don't think we've ever got extended hours, right? By 4:00 on a Saturday, you're they're shutting down. And guys have tried starting early when the equipment's cold, you know, and we've had, you know, at 6:30 to warm up to go to 7. It's like, no, it does, you know. So, yeah. Yeah. Actually, for me, it wasn't the problem running late. It was at 7:00 in the morning. You hear the machines. Yeah, but they do except have those guys. I don't know how all those grading guys do it cuz they they sit in that equipment 12 hours a day when it's good weather. You got to get while the getting's good, but but I just want to say there it is reduced on Saturday and no Sunday work. No work. Um it does almost seem like we need an extra I don't know if it's a discussion session or something wrapped around this roundabout. I think I'm a little bit worried that we'll come to the final and we get this answer that we're not too happy with. And I mean, I think the city staff isn't going to bring back a final plat unless the council's ready for it. So, I mean, that's the idea. The idea to get the preliminary plat put in place so we have an idea of what we're planning for so we can have those further conversations about what that roundab looks like, whether that's at 117. So if you run Brush Creek roadb blocks, you'll we're going to we would have to I mean we're not going to bring back something that final plat's not ready to go for. That's not going to be a wise decision either. So Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. I hate to belabor the 113th thing, but it is right in my front door. Right. The uh Sarah to to what you were talking about. Um, Rush Creek Parkway with all the improvements that Tom made down there, you know, with all the turn lanes and stuff did make that intersection safer, but it's still scarier than heck. Oh, yeah. I mean, we all know that, right? It's because of the way people drive. 113th, you can't do that there. I mean, that that's five lanes wide down at Rush Creek Parkway. Five lanes wide. Picture five lanes wide. I'd be standing on my front steps and I could high-five you when you drove my drive by my house. Five lanes wide would put it almost to the old front door at the man. There just isn't physically room there to do that kind of a a safety improvement on that interchange. So, you just got to keep that in mind. Oh, you physically cannot do that. And there there are there's four houses right directly across me. keep talking about, you know, Lee and Kathy and up the street, but at 113th, there's four houses all along there. And for whatever reasons, when those houses were built back in the 50s and 60s, they built them close to the road. Our wells and at least my house and the house to the south are in our front yard. If you did that lane switch that they did did down at Rush Creek Parkway, that takes two of the four wells out. It just isn't room to put that in there. You're talking about buying all four of those homes in order to do to make the improvements that Tom made at Rush Creek Parkway. Just it's just food for thought. Thanks. Yeah. Okay. Um, yeah. I I guess that that would also be interesting or a discussion item is how we're going to deal with the traffic on just all all of Hurbrook. Well, no, at least for this thing on 113th, what what we can do to make that safer because I I agree I it's not going to be pretty with Okay, go ahead. Um, just to share this might help. Um we're in process of putting a proposal together for a corridor study of this segment of Fernbrook just to look at these um that we are looking at the right kinds of connections at the right locations um primarily at these three intersections Rush Creek Parkway 114th 117th. We've been reaching out to the county as well to try to get a partnership with them um to go forward with a funding request hopefully at a state level or higher even um on that. So, we will be coming back to you with that. That hopefully will help that study will help clarify, you know, some of this and give some direction on what the best solution might be. Do you have any a timeline for that? Um, in 4 days, it'll be a month since I've been waiting for a response from the county. So, um, we would like to talk with them on it and make sure they're in agreement because we want to make sure things are covered on their end, too, being they're in jurisdiction. So hopefully soon is the best I can do if I can get a response from them and then move forward on it or two. And that's with people at the county that can make those decisions. It should be high enough. Yes. Okay. Yeah. It's three from the top. I think we're close enough. Yeah. Okay. Anybody have any other questions, concerns? [Music] Okay. Um, I will welcome a motion. Mr. Mayor, I still have questions for the council. Oh, go ahead. Um, oh, I suppose. Yeah, we still have to get to them. Okay, so questions of should there be an alley trail? No. No. Yeah. Okay. Should water and sewer be extended along the trail behind the six homes? Who's paying for it? That' be the developer. If you make a require, it's the developer. Yes. Yes. I would say yes. But for me, it's going to be immaterial. I'm not in favor of the development. Yeah. Those are my questions. Yep. You okay with that? Yes. Okay. The floor is your me. Oh, that's the only one. You you Yep. Easy. Okay. Any motion? I would I guess I would make a motion to approve, but I and I don't know quite how to say this, but the you know the big the biggest um contingency for me is that the that the roundabout at 114th gets solved with the county and that's why we are in this weird position where we don't hold all the cards. But I I think that that has to has to work out work out in a way that affects the fewest people if any um for this whole thing to fly. And so I don't know if I can make a motion that's somehow contingent on that because it's or that that gets solved before I uh maybe that's the way to say it. I would make a motion to approve contingent on that the the roundabout gets resolved before a final plat comes back to us. You could do that one. Yeah, that one you could do. Okay. Could I make a friendly amendment that is the three the three intersections are like like 117th 114th and Brush Creek or at least we have a plan not necessarily we haven't like it's not done but like we have a plan for all three of them or is it just the 114th 113 thing? I think as it relates to this one it's 114th but I think what Jason said I mean I I think we have to be committed to solving this whole stretch. Yes. Right. Absolutely. And and I certainly am supportive of the study and and so on, but Yeah. And I'm not so much I mean to me if if the the DA comes back saying that, you know, there's an agreement to to just put in stop signs at 114th and around about 117th, I'd be okay with that, too. That somehow that there's some solution to to uh some some control of of traffic. Again, I prefer Rush Creek, but I just want to be clear. I'm I'm not like pro roundabout, right? You know, it it can be turn lanes fine. I don't care, you know, and if it slides over and leaving the commercial piece. Um, but uh I do know from when we did the Sundance Greens, they're going to want 113th and 114th as one. Yeah. You know, they were very clear about that. Yeah. Um, and so I'm asking whether we route traffic, but we're, you know, if we're going to lock that, it has to figure out if there's going to be a roundabout finish before I plat something further to to the west. Um, you know, I guess I that seems to be pretty limiting and whether there's other ways to route traffic. 117th, you know, Rush Creek, I I see that as alternative hopefully by the time, you know, but but I think somewhere um a little bit of it's just out on on the county's time frame, but I think the biggest thing is they got somebody coming in willing to pay, right? It's not the other intersections where where you're, you know, you're asking for funding. But is a little if I I can't put houses in then I have nothing to pay. There's no way. Right. Yeah. So then then we're just at where we're at today. Yeah. And that's not what I was trying to say. I I want to what I'm trying to say is that there's a solution for it. Not that it's built. And I'm I'm willing to to work on that. I I don't you know I just see that seems to be roundabouts everywhere. We just threw it in. Right. So an answer. Yes. Some answer that that makes sense. Yeah. Okay. By da time. Yep. Final plan. Final. Yep. Okay. Where are we? So, uh, we got a motion. Yep. We got a motion. Need a second. I'll second it. Any more discussion? Are you a known because of the lot sizes? Yeah, that and 70% of the homes are over 62 ft or under 62. It I I understand we're doing all this for the for the roundabout. I I get that. I am just not in favor of the entire development is 7 and 1/2 ft apart. We have a I mean Yeah. Uh certainly I I understand Gary's fire question and I'm surprised he didn't bring that up two years ago or a year and a half anyway. Um I I'm just not there. I didn't I don't want to and I'll say it public. I don't want to build Minneapolis or Brooklyn Park. I'm just not there. If one of these burns, they're all burning. But it still goes. I mean, so the PUB, you just don't think there's enough for the city here with that the money for the roundabout or the I would rather go down to 200 homes and pay for the roundabout or so. Me personally, I mean, that's me. But if it's 4 to1, so so be it. I've learned to accept that eight years ago. Okay. Uh, so any more discussion? All right. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. All those not in favor say no. No. You convinced me, Scott. All right. Pass. 3 to two and hopefully by the time we get we'll get it figured out some good answers. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We're not in Minneapolis. I was very happy. Someday it will be, but I move to Dayton. All right. On item L. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um I apologize right out of the gate. I did not start with a picture of this area to make it simple. So bear with me the first couple slides, but just hopefully you got a chance to look at the information in the packet, including the figure that we're talking about 113th Avenue out off of County Road 81 um in that area and uh the sewer extension through there. So just to note the history, there was an extension completed between Territorial Road to its curtain current location, which is just south and east of 113th again off of 81. uh that was included or uh um sorry um that was completed in 2010. Um that line is to be extended further north um up to and beyond 117th Avenue in the future. This next uh picture is uh quite busy, but hopefully this will help where we're talking about. The yellow area is the the land to be serviced from this extension. So the the dark green line is the existing sewer um and its current location um near the number six in the circle. The circled line is the extension being considered with this project and then beyond that would be con completed in the future as development occurs. And just for reference that red hatching is what's known as the DDL property where the opedin development has recently been proposed as a concept. So that's the area that's being referenced tonight in the project at hand. So again, the scope of this is to extend the sewer up to the southern limit of the DDL property. The sewer would then be further extended at a later date, likely by the developers as the property continues to develop to the north. Our preliminary cost estimate for budgetary purposes is between about 1 million and one a.5 million. Um, part of the reason for the range is we're looking at addition uh alternate alignments and we expect one to probably cost more than the other. Um, you'll see that on a future slide. The anticipated funding sources for this would be the city sewer fund and then there would be developer fees due with the opinent development um or the DDL property development as an entirety and potentially there could be a direct contribution from that developer as well. that has not been discussed or uh determined at this time but I anticipate that could become part of the discussion as that proper or that proposal moves forward or that application moves forward. Uh timing the preliminary engineering we'd like to do now um to determine our preferred alignment that would be completed this spring or maybe even early into early summer. Final design, if authorized, would be later this summer. And the hope would be that we could do the construction uh either winter of this year or first thing next spring. And again, the reason that a winter construction might be advantageous is if one of the alignments, and this will make sense on a farther further slide, if one of the alignments is selected, it's predominantly through wetland. So the frozen conditions would actually make the construction easier of that. So, this should have been the first slide. Um, here's an aerial of the aerial um that we're talking about. The green line is the existing trunk line u down on the south, say the southeast corner of this. The two alignments we're considering, I'll just say one of them is generally directly north from that up to the DDL property. The alternate alignment is to extend the line west and then north. Um you may recognize uh this was proposed to council as part of a utility extension project with 113th some time ago. It was selected to not move forward with that project um based on the lack of commitment from the developer to the north but also from the feedback from the property owners along 113th. They just didn't really have the interest for bringing utilities through at the time. So, um, this project is a portion of that project, if you will, um, being brought forward because this would be required for support of the development on the DDL property, which is highlighted in yellow here. So, the next steps with the process would be to authorize the engineering proposal included in your packet for the preliminary design of this. Um on the screen is a list of the general activities that would take place with this. We'd we'd get a lot of field data, evaluate the alternative alignments and then based on our findings um select what is the preferred alignment to pursue and then complete the preliminary design with it. At that time it would be brought back to council and the request made for final design of the project before going out for contractor bids. So that's all I had. If you have any questions, we can go through things in more detail. Any questions? Not really any questions. I mean, this obviously has to happen before the DDL thing goes in. Um, do we know what the sewer trunk fees for the DDL property are or how much of that how much of that we're going to get from them? I don't know if that has been I don't know. Have you caught those have not been calculated? I don't know. I curl slot. I do not know that off the top of my head. I guess that's one of my concerns as well is that, you know, we're extending this to allow that development, but we other than the customary fees, we're not hearing a contribution from the developer or or them covering this cost, which has been more typical on some of our other projects. And certainly that concerns me if we're footing the whole bill um for these guys. The second thing is the the discussion at the planning commission about a moratorum while this area is studied to make sure that the the zoning and the roads and all of that are um make make the most sense which they don't today because we've already changed some things from when that was done. And so what is the um likelihood that this planning would change if that planning changes? Yeah, we have looked at exactly that with the same concern. If the land use does change, does this design change? And our thought is no, it actually goes in exactly as is. Again, our intent here is only to get it to the southernmost extent of the boundary. And the moratorum is essentially looking at all the property to the north. Albeit it does include some to the east of this, but we would be staying west of that line if you would anyway. Or maybe this is a one comment to address your first question to cumber um fashion is that the we would require the developer to extend it all the way to 117. That wouldn't technically be required by the development, but we would require them to move it up to 117 to not impose the next sort of part of the development. that would be their contribution. Instead of pulling it from the south to their property, we would have them pull it through their property to the north. Yeah, I I would just add on we have not we have certainly not ruled out participation from it. Yes. Um we're we're looking at different options and as Zach just suggested. Um another one is they will be extending this line with their development. Um, what we would normally do is credit back any of the trunk fees that they expend for the additional oversizing or overd depth necessary for that line. That could be another contribution that they pay full fees. They don't receive credit for it. So, there could be a number of scenarios where they would either directly or indirectly help compensate for the expenses incurred with this project. So certainly on the table and and will be part of the discussions as we move forward into an agreement assuming they're the application does move forward and at this point we're doing the design. Yes. So it would probably help the conversation that the whole the whole reason why we put everything on building pause was for so we can answer some of these questions. Yeah, I think planning commission was looking more at transportation, but nonetheless, all of this does better inform the decisions while putting together the DA. Um, and to that point, this effort will, I mean, just selecting the alignment is going to allow us to refine the cost estimates. So, we'll know we'll have a much better handle on what the actual cost might be associated with this and who might be responsible for those costs. So, you don't see um pretty much any of this being throwaway work. I I don't to be honest the roads won't affect it. Um I mean I I I I suppose the only thing that I don't even know if it's that I was going to say if the building configurations changed maybe we'd want to bring it to the site different but I I don't know if that's even true. I I don't we'd still need I mean right now I think there's a conflict with the building how they have this showing is the I'll call it the straight north alignment. So the easterly extension north, they bring it to the property, then jog it east to avoid their building and go north, which is fine. If for some reason it made sense to go west, they could do that, too. So just getting it to their site allows them to move forward with their project and um they can make adjustments on how they get it from here to 117th as they build out. To me, the timing works out really well, actually. So, we'll make a motion to approve the second. Okay. Uh motion by Scott, second, Sarah. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. All those say no. Motion carries five to zero. All right. on item M. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um, the item before you tonight is to approve a water trails project for bidding. Uh, this is a project that I've been working on since 2020, 5-year project. So, it's uh moving along. Um, this was a a uh shown to the uh parks commission at their last meeting. Um and they were uh their recommendation was to uh uh put it out to bid. Um there's quite a lot of information in the packet about that the the project. Um the overall plan, the layout is probably what you've seen several times. We did add a shelter to the uh west of the project. Um this was an effort to um make sure that we spent all the federal funding that we had. of uh so I've included that it's been included on Can you reward that the bid sheet it's been included on the bid sheet as an alternate uh so we've got a bit of flexibility there are several alternates on this project as well um the electrical if we don't put the um the park shelter in then the electrical is not not needed so that's out there um picnic tables as an alternate as well and then tree replacements say there's uh considerable amount of tree replacement required on this. Um so that's an alternate as well. Um the thought being that um this area is probably going to be inundated with trees if we put all the required trees here. So as part of the master plan, we could probably you know spread them out around this the site. So that's why we've got that in as an alternate as well. Um this is just a roof. That shelter is just a roof. Yep. There's another picture we got. I got some I got some uh some visuals of it here. Um so this shows um what this would look like. Uh this the steps going down to the uh uh the canoe uh kayak launch. Um they're ADA compliant. Um so that they're safe for people to use and it gives a flexibility when it's high tide um for the you know you still be able to access uh the water with your canoe. So it's got a pretty good reach. Um it goes up to the high water level of the river. Um there's overlook seating area. Um a walkway with retaining walls. Retaining walls are are required because of the drop off there. So there's a substantial um retaining wall as part of this. Um then uh the other slide here is the proposed shelter. Um and there's a seating area um proposed just by the the guard rail and then the step launch shown again there. So those are all the the key items in this. Um then the pricing the engineers estimate here. Um the construction subtotal is 490 some contingency and the design engineering is currently under contract. um construction admin. Um the total base cost is 701,215. That's the engineers estimate. Um and then with the alternates, um I think I don't know what the total is with the alternates. I haven't added it up. Is that nine something? Yeah, it's 9 something somewhere in there. So that's kind of at the top end of our our budget for this project. Um we have 850,000 from federal fund. Today we have 100,000 from uh National Park Service for this project. Um the other area um in the old village is being uh uh funded from DNR. Um they've got $530,000 allocated to that project. We're doing that design too, right? I mean or I should say the C we're handling the whole project. Yeah. They're just paying for it. They're just paying for it. Yeah. So, we're doing a design and construction of that and they'll they'll refund us on that. So, I I thought a lot of this had already been designed. Um do you know what the bulk of this design work is? This 118,000 that's I don't know what that percentage is. Well, that is that's just design work. It's already been designed. So, this is just to go out to bid. So, it means all the design's all done and everything. It's just to go out to bit. Question. Can I have if we don't I understand it's it's grant money and I get it. If we don't spend it all here, can we use it somewhere else or we can't? The only other place that we can do it is good in park because that's where the funding was for those two parks. Um initially we applied for 3.9 million uh dollars and we only ended up with $850,000. That's why we had to scale it back to this project. Um, is there any Maybe I know you can't answer me this. Why are these retaining blocks only 250 bucks and the other ones are 1,600? Um, I think they're a different type of retaining wall. This is a clearly Yeah, this is a a more of a a concrete structure that slots together to hold. It's more of a retaining wall than a decorative wall. And if you go back to MSA designed this, right? Go back to that picture that shows the whole layout. Not that one. Not there. Right there. I like the whole design. I mean, I got nothing to critique about it, but And maybe this is I don't know why they chose this spot, but and this shelter that right in here. Yeah, that seems a little Now, in their other picture, all these trees block the view of the river. So, that was over here. Maybe they better view. That's the whole idea of having a shelter there, but you can sit by the It's a shelter for the kayak canoe guys. So, they can leave their canoes there and then just walk down to the the Oh, it's not meant to be like a picnic type shelter. No, it's just somewhere where those guys can get out, get their kit all together. Um there's a canoe uh stand. It's not right underneath it though, is it? Huh? The canoe thing is not right underneath the No, it's over to the the left. It's in this area here. Okay. Picnic would be in the way. There's was a picnic show a com uh plan for this area over here. So that's where on Paul's uh plan that um that's where that was going to go over that that side. That's more of a a family picnic area with the uh volleyball court and that that stuff there. Why would you not want to kill two birds in one stone and and put the shelter? If you want to move it, you can move it. I think the reason why it was put in that spot in the original location is because of the other stuff related to LC Stevens Park that we had planned on. So if you want to move it now, I know you could because you just denied all the alternates on the earlier bid. Makes sense to me. Yep. But that's just it said that's why it was put over there is because they we anticipated it being approved in the other side. And then the other question I have same question on the last deal. There's 78,000 bucks worth of trees here. I knew you guys. Why wouldn't I? I know. Why wouldn't you? I mean we can probably save 30 grand here and spend it somewhere. Take it somewhere. Well, it's an alter in the bid. So that's I mean that's something that we can do and it's Yeah, we can look at the same thing. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Outside of that, I'm in favor. Yeah. So, I feel like I'm coming in two. I don't feel the same way. I feel like this this I feel like you all are here and I'm just like, what? Um, but I feel like we just said no to all the Elsie Stevens stuff cuz there's this new master plan and now we're saying yes to LC Stevens stuff. Is it because it's MSA and they're the ones doing the master plan and so therefore everything is okay? Is it because it's grant money and we kind of don't have we don't really have the option to say no. Well, I I think it's it's some one I mean it's the same group. Okay. Um but um and it's some of both. I mean MSC did this MSA they're planning around it. I mean this looks nice. Part of it cult Vanessa I think is as well is that there's nothing else to do in this area that you could do alternatively like there's nothing um so if you were to put if you were to put a parking lot somewhere now you can't put anything else there. Oh yeah, exactly. If you put this water trails in here, this is where there's nothing else that you could put there instead of We also looked at where from a river flow standpoint where best to have that launch study on where the good putting points were and this on this park was, you know, one of the key areas. This is where it goes. Yeah. And I mean, we were limited to, you know, where where good spots were. I mean, the other spot was down on Stone Ridge by the disc golf course, but that's nowhere near ideal. Okay. Um, and Good in Park was, yeah, another option. And then the DNR thing just came about. So, okay, like I said, I'm I'm not against it by any stretch. I just I feel like I'm coming in late to the story. I missed the first 10 chapters and chapter 11. I'm trying to figure out the plot. So, and that launch is really where I think what eats up probably 80% of the money is 500 and some,000. So, no, but I'm I'm for it. I'm fine. I just, like I said, trying to trying to pick up the plot. I feel like I'm buried. I would like them to move the shelter in that spot and then uh to me you get couple tables under there and a couple of outdoor grills. And we're not putting those in the bid though, right? Those are not in the bid. We just doing I'll take my postal dig. So make sure they're on the bid. No, we'll buy those extra. 200 bucks. What is Sorry. Yeah, I'll wait for Maria. I have Christian from MSA's on the line here. He's been waiting all evening to have this conversation, so we better have an opportunity to speak. Yeah. And Christian, can you hear me? Okay, awesome. All right. Sorry about that. The chat was disabled, but yes, I'm available to answer any questions here. Marty Marty pretty much covered it all um better than I could. Okay. Well, it did. So, directly south of the of the launch stairway on the other side of the trail, there's there's some kind of outline of blocks or something. Yeah. There. Right there. What is that? It's a drainage swap. It's an overflow swap. Okay. It's not a feature. No, that's that's existing out there. Can I make a motion to approve the watertail project for bidding? You can. I'll second it. Any more discussion? All right. All those in favor say I. Taking the trees out of I. They're uh the line the alternate thing. They're an alternate. The trees are the alternate. Yeah, they're alternate. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. All right. I'm good. All those in favor say I. All those oppos say no. Motion carries five to zero. I don't know what we're doing next, but I need a bio break. Let's take a break. We have to close it anyways. So, thank you. Take a five minute recess. [Applause] Council's in recess. Thank you. We should be done with this in a from our break and now we need to go into close session. Uh I have to read this. Okay. The city council is closing the meeting to the public pursuant uh to Minnesota statutes 1305 subdivision 3A which allows a public meeting to be closed for the city council to evaluate the performance of an individual which is subject to our authority. During this closed meeting the council will be evaluating the performance of the city administrators act out summary of our conclusions regarding this evaluation will be giving at our ne will be given at our next open meeting. Motion and a second. Motion. Oh, yeah. Need a motion. So moved. I'll second. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. All those oppos say no. All right. Okay. We are in close session. session. So, all right. So, if there no are not any objections, we will be adjourned. So, moves and we're adjourned at 11:59.