So, as you get a little bit of a delayed start here from some work we are doing upstairs. So I think Director Benarot, our communications director, let all of you know that we've been doing these meetings in a hybrid fashion since the start of COVID and folks are being able to watch remotely and call in with matters of concern to them. We've got several different public hearings tonight that they may call in on and they may call in with concerns of residents and one part of the agenda that involves community comment. And I just noticed we've got many scouts here tonight and probably working on merit badges and and scout leaders with them as well. So welcome to all of you. Would you all want to stand up real quick and give us a shout out as to what troop you're from? Are you all from the same troop? Yes, number one, you've got one. All right, where do you meet? Shepherded the hills. Shepherded the hills? Yes. Okay, good. Are you going to ask me any more questions? All right, let them sound. I'll let them say what troop they're from so the record can. One, two, three. All right, and where do you meet? Shepherded the hills. All right, thanks all of you for being here this evening. Oh, another scout? Oh, a different troop? Yeah. Okay. All right. I'm from troop 3089 out of Christ the King of Minneapolis. All right, good. Yeah, welcome. Thanks for being here. All right, so as I mentioned, we're doing these meetings in a hybrid fashion. People can tune in remotely. We talked a little bit about the scouts being here. Folks that are here will call on first for community comment or for the public hearings that we handled this evening. And now we'll call the meeting to order and I'll ask our clerk Sharon Ellison to call the roll for the council. Council member Agnew? Here. Council member Jackson? Here. Council member Pierce? Here. Council member Risser? Next is a Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Happy United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We've got a form of meeting agenda that's been published for the public and for the benefit of the council members. Is there anyone on the council or on staff that wishes to modify the agenda in any form or fashion? Is there a motion to approve the meeting agenda as published? So moved. My second. Member Jackson moves. Member Agnew seconds. The adoption of the meeting agenda is published. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adopting the meeting agenda as published? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. The meeting agenda is adopted. We have a guide for the meeting this evening with that agenda. And now we are at community comment. And so we're going to ask folks in the audience to come up first if they have a concern they wish to address to the council. And they'll have three minutes. And this first gentleman up is a familiar face for all of us. And he knows he's good at remaining at three minutes. He's got his talks well organized when he comes in his thoughts. Good evening, Mayor, council members. My name is Ralph Sicker. I live at 4311 Cornelia Circle. My question for the council tonight is why? Are you not crowing cockadoodle do? About having reduced next year's projected tax levy from 17% down to 11. Why is everyone around the dais not high-fiving and doing their little happy dance for a job well done? Why? Good at B because there's no reason to celebrate. Last December following the final 2025 budget vote, the sun current published my letter to the editor and I quote, unfortunately the harsh reality is that 15% levy increases may be needed to dig our way out of the fiscal sink hole created over the last 10 years. This past week when interviewed by a KSTP channel 5 reporter, I'm quoted as saying, it is likely that we will need 15% property tax increases for the foreseeable future. And as the interview ended, the KSTP reporter asked me, what could be done about the looming double-digit levy increases? And I replied, stay informed and vote. The slight of hand and lack of transparency of this year's budget process has only reinforced my view. Unfortunately, manager Neil, together with this council, makes staying informed almost impossible for the average voter. Sorry, Mayor. Rather than focus on waste and inefficiencies, this past year your focus has been on the optics in a dina. It's better to look good than be good. 9% you look marvelous. What's worse, even when the council asks manager Neil to do something, he refuses to share the simplest of schedules. So council, let me help. $1.7 million is pushed off to other taxing authorities. $2.9 million deferred to future periods, the details of which have not been shared, adding to the $70 million backlog of deferred maintenance. Now do the math. The leadership like this confirms that 15% levies will become a reality. It is not if but when. Only an electorate that chooses to stay, only an electorate that chooses to stay uninformed who posed this message. But then maybe Mr. Neil was correct. It will take political change. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zichert. Anyone else in the audience that wishes to address the council on a matter of concern to them? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. My name is Dan Calzo, and I'm the 52.5 brand new square. I've been here before to talk about the replacement project in Randi Square that wasn't necessarily a replacement project. I want to thank very much the council members who did take me up on my request to come for a visit about 9 o'clock one evening and council members Agnew, Carolyn Jackson and David Pierce did come over to view the situation. While there, one of the council members remarked that there was some light in the area that we were talking about in front of the building where I live, and I remarked that it was because of the lights on our building. In other words, the building's lights. So the answer is that the light from our building, the electricity that the residents pay for, was lighting the street. So that's a little wrong, but there's a bigger wrong that I really want to point out. When council member Pearson and I were walking through the area, he remarked that the street light replacement was also an opportunity to cut costs. As I look back through the information that had been provided about this replacement project in Grandview Square, there is indeed a cost savings for the city. 46 lights had been there, 28 were going to be replaced. Great, 18 of them are going away. My question is why of those 18, seven were removed from in front of our building and three were removed from the park that faces our building. In other words, 55% of the lights were taken away. 100% of our lights, 55% of the project's lights, 100% of our lights. So the area is still dark, it's going to continue to be dark. And my question is, ladies and gentlemen, what are you going to do about it? Thank you. All right, thank you. We'll see if we can find out. David Trankall, 4510 Lakeview, Dina. I just found out today actually out biking that the Roslin Park pedestrian bridge is hit again. It has a sizable dent in it. Does Mindat know about this? We do. Have they inspected the bridge? They do. Okay. What is the schedule for that bridge replacement? There's two different dates on the city's website. We'll get to that. The other issue is the other pedestrian bridge, the Grandview pedestrian bridge. When the bridge was approved at an HRA meeting in 2021, Bill Nune-Dorf emphatically talked about the golf ball test. That test evidently came from the railroad, Canadian Pacific, that all the openings on that bridge cannot allow a golf ball to pass through it. Well, that bridge violates the golf ball test. I don't know if that test is true or not, but it sure would be nice to get an update on what the reality is that. I talked to another person who works for another railroad, and they do use that golf ball test. That's an easy way for people to understand the size that is required for openings. Safety, obviously, is a huge issue for railroads. I'd like to make another comment that the press release the city put out, I think, on September 11 regarding the agreement with the US Department of Justice on that bridge. Mentioned the city consulted with a number of ADA consultants, experts. I got a list with data practices, requests from the city of Idina, and one of those experts was the Minnesota Council on Disability. I emailed them, they did not, I repeat, did not say that bridge would be ADA compliant. So I'm not sure there's some confusion here. It seems like the only people that claim this bridge was ADA compliant were paid consultants. I talked to two experienced consultants, two experienced architects. I talked to the Minneapolis ADA planner, the US Department of Justice. Not to mention the Minnesota Disabilities Office, I'll agree that bridge was not ADA compliant. How did this go through as being ADA compliant? I don't understand it. I haven't found anybody that would say that bridge is ADA compliant. Regards to the fire department, the ECMO truck, evidently the agreement with the University of Minnesota has elapsed. And heard the fire chief a couple weeks ago say they don't have the staff to use it anyway. So why is that truck still sitting in fire station one? Not being used contractually, they can't touch it. I'd emailed the University of Minnesota Medical School and they don't have anything to do with it. They're the ones who own it. Also I found out yesterday at the Minnesota Cup there's a company, a startup called ECMO data analysis that's working with the City of Idina fire department. They use data to determine where the calls are going and the peak loads for the data fire department. The city evidently purchased it last spring. At first I heard about it. I don't know why the city never put out a press release that the city was using the software. But the point is it'd be nice if the fire chief or the company they bought it from or both did a public meeting to talk about the software and how it's being used and what they're going to use it for. There are plenty of real experts in Idina that understand data analytics. I'm sure it'd be interested in seeing how the software package works. The last thing is, CVDina currently has two fire stations that you go into GPS. Mr. Pranko, your way over time. Okay, we have two Idina fire station number two's. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Come on up. I think if you just have remarks to make it's best to use the side podium and give us your name and address. Yeah, my name is Jim Bej. I'm a small business owner right across the bridge, the UPS store, 5021 Vernon Avenue South. And I was sent a letter from my landlord saying that there's a special assessment that's going to be due, I guess, starting next year for $5,639.18. I feel like as a small business owner, we've been hit with a double whammy. That bridge being knocked out for the past what? Seven, eight months. Excuse me. I think this is going to be the subject of a public hearing later. Yeah, so hang on, we're going to have to take this up later. So usually, if you listen to Ms. Benarot, she said that if it's on the agenda. I've been right after she made the announcement. If there's a matter that you want to talk to the council about that's on the agenda or schedule for future public hearing, you can't talk about it in community comment. So you have to stick around for the public hearing. It's never going to have later on on this very topic. No time that will be. I don't, I'm sorry. But we'll take your written materials if you've got a submission. Mr. Beish, yeah, if you can't stick around. Anyone else? Okay, and let's go to see if we have anybody online here while we're waiting for Director Milner to talk to Mr. Beish. I do that sir. You can move forward with the agenda. Anyone else wish to address the council? Okay, our practices that we take the comments that were made at the prior meeting and we answer those online by Friday of that same week of the council meeting. And then our city manager undertakes the responsibility for also responding to those comments at the following city council meeting and he's going to do that this evening. And then we may be able to address some of these issues that were raised this evening as well. I'm not quite sure, but we can try. Thank you, your honor. We had several questions at our January, excuse me, at our September 16th meeting. First question was, why does the Dina Fire Department not have adequate staffing to single handedly fight a small house fire? Our response was that national standards indicate that 16 firefighters are needed to safely fight a fire of a 2,000 square foot house. More are needed for fires if it's a bigger house than that of course or even a multi-family building. Staffing decisions are locally based. We try to use standards as much as we can in our policy making. Although it's not a guaranteed response, mutual aid companies count towards those national benchmarks. So that's where we are on that particular one. We're continuing to work through fire staffing both on the firefighting side and on the EMS side. Second. Well, hold on to that. I think it might be beneficial for people in the audience to understand what mutual aid is. What happens if there's a fire here or in Minneapolis who got a young scout here from Minneapolis? Mutual aid is a practice of cities or other local governments kind of sharing between over government borders. So we have mutual aid agreements with many of our surrounding fire departments. If there's a fire that's too big for our department to fight on its own, we can always count on people from Bloomington, St. Louis Park, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, etc. to come and help us and we in turn help them as well. All right. The second question is what is the status of the advanced flasher for the Eden Avenue crosswalk? And I think we're proud to say it's working. It's installed. Question number three was did US Internet get a permit to work in a Danish right away? Now that T-Mobile is acquired US Internet, who is responsible for right away restorations, utilities are required to get a permit to operate in the right away, the area kind of behind the curb and between the sidewalk for most homes. That's right away, city right away. And USI, the US Internet, is putting in community broadband, so they get the ability to be in that space, but they have to cooperate with city practices and standards in order to do that. And yes, we get after them when we need to so that they fix any bad restorations or non-restorations that they do after they put their stuff underground. The third question was will the city consider a variance for the tree protection ordinance? There currently is not an appeals process, but as we have talked with council, we think there's interest in that. And when we bring back a package of ordinance changes for you, we will make sure that we have something in there regarding that issue. Finally, how is the Danish bike infrastructure paid for? Can it be built any faster? We have a utility franchise fee that residents and utility folks who use utilities, particularly only gas and electricity pay a small surcharge on top of their regular bill that goes into the city's pedestrian and cyclist safety fund, and we use those monies to improve bike lanes, street markings, all things related to sidewalks and trails in the community as well. And could we increase the funding there? We could, but we always try to balance those charges with our taxes and our other utility kind of payments as well. Okay, here we go. All right, let's see if we can address some of these questions that were raised this evening because there may be some folks in the audience that are curious about what our response might be. So Mr. Zicert, that was the first speaker talked about our levy increase last year, which I actually think was about 8% at the end of the time we got done working on it. But we talked tonight about the preliminary levy being set at a little over 11%. And you might want to explain for folks in the audience what that means. What's a preliminary levy? Cities in Minnesota are required to establish a preliminary levy in September. And the preliminary levy is an estimate of the tax revenues that we will need in the upcoming year, so in 2026. We adopt a number, we share that number with the county, all cities do. The county uses all of those numbers, and it's coming from schools and watershed districts, all kinds of taxing bodies to put together the truth and taxation notices. So notices get mailed to individual taxpayer homes. And that's when you can see what your share of that tax burden is. And then the council adopts a final levy in December. And again, that's what all Minnesota cities do. So I can tell folks in the audience and those that are watching at home that we set the preliminary levy higher this year because we're doing with an issue of a number of firefighters that we're going to be authorizing, be hired. So we've got some different studies that have been done. We wanted to make sure we had enough flexibility to be able to do what we thought was important from our community standpoint. But I can tell you that with the preliminary work that we've been doing all year, if we, but for the firefighter issue, the preliminary level would have been, levy would have been around 6.5%. So as we deal with this firefighter issue in the time to come before, we get to the final levy in December. We'll be thinking carefully through with a lot of input what we're going to be doing from a final levy standpoint. Also, manager Neil, at least this is me personally, I feel like the inference from Mr. Zichert was that we weren't very financially or fiscally responsible. And I just want to remind folks that for the past, all the years I've been on the city council, I'd say 20 plus years, we've had a double AAA bond rating from the two rating agencies, Moody's and Standard and Pores, and there are probably three dozen cities in the United States that have double AAA bond ratings. And we get countless numbers of awards, it seems like at least one a year from some agencies saying that we're fiscally excellent in the work that we do. And we're proud of the work our fiscal people do, our finance directors in the audience this evening, she's going to be presenting later. They do a terrific job of making sure that the citizens of Edina are well represented in terms of maintaining fiscal responsibility. And it's an important thing for all of us. We all live here. We all live here. We all pay taxes here. And so we're trying to make sure that we make the best decisions that we can for everybody in our community and all of these issues that we engage in. So Director Milner, anything more about this lighting issue, and I don't know if some of my colleagues have been over there, have any thoughts on that lighting issue at Grandview Square? Well, we'll take a look with the projects complete as it was designed and bid out, and we can take a look like I've mentioned at this podium before. We can add lights in the future if the council directs us to add more lights. We can get the levels that are out there today and then we can address it. There's anything we can do about wattage? You know, increase the brightness? I know, but we've got suggestions for the owners of the buildings. There's a lot of vegetation blocking their current lights that could help the situation. So we've offered that suggestion. It's something I didn't get a chance to go over and see, but I want to go over and look at it too. Member Pierce sought, sir. Yeah. So the way I look at it, there's two issues. One is the park. And so I think that could be probably a separate issue, how dark the park is at night. But if you go over there, there's the square, and there's one side of the square that has no street lights. And so there are two, what I'll just call, kind of post lights that are on the sidewalk. But that's it on that whole street. And so when I look at it, it does look like, I don't know if you want to say a configuration or a design, like a miss, if you will. And so if you go over there, you go to the street that's in front of 52-25. It's the north interest, I think it was. Yeah. You'll see it, for sure. And it is dark. When we were there, there were people walking their dogs, and everybody had a flashlight, which actually is good that you're at night walking a dog with a flashlight. But it was quite dark on that one street. One leg of square. Yeah. Member Agnew, any thoughts? I understand that in this specific situation, I think part of the concern is that there was a change, right? At one point, there was more lighting, and now there is less lighting. But it also made me kind of question, like when we look across the community, like what is our kind of approach or stance on the level or amount of lighting that we create. Versus where we have lighting that's driven by the individual residents. I look in my street and think about the amount of lighting that is city-based versus just front porches. So I think it might be worth us even having a conversation to more broadly to make sure that we're kind of in alignment from a policy perspective. But I do understand here, like the bigger concern is they had one level of service, I'll say one level of lighting that is no longer being supplied. And so we need to just think about, you know, are we okay with that? Or if not, how do we rectify the situation? Your action. Well, I'm going to merge my two colleagues' comments. One is 5-2-2-5 is much darker than the other buildings at Grandview, and that doesn't feel fair. But it's as dark as my house is. So in that sense, it does feel fair. So it's, you know, what are we comparing? And so, you know, it just doesn't feel fair for that one building to be so much darker than the other ones at Grandview. And that's kind of the experience. You asked the question, Mayor, about I'm going to rephrase it. Like, I think you said wattage. Is that what you said? Yeah, wattage. Yeah, so I think when Excel, I shouldn't blame it on Excel, someone said what we're replacing the new lights have more lumens, and they cover more. And so that may very well be that you need fewer posts than you would of the older posts. But there just are no posts on this street, on that one side. Yeah, so that's, that was kind of the way I internalized it, your question about wattage. So could we think about adding some more lighting adjacent to the building that doesn't have any lighting of the same type? And just seems like the wiring is probably there, or it wouldn't be that hard to add the wiring. We can add lights to this system. I'll go check out the lighting levels and report back to Council. And I'll be able to do some night, whether you're around or not. I'll go check it out. Thank you. Thanks for coming. Thank you all. I know that Mr. Franco, who was here, sent some emails in earlier in the week. And I don't know if you guys, you guys, I mean, manager Neil and director Milner had any chance to look at some of those comments. That he made by email that were same as what he made tonight about the bridge. You know, wondering, well, we said that we had relied on. ADA experts to tell us that it was a compliant. And he said at least the Minnesota Council disabilities says it's not a compliant or didn't know a fine on it. I don't know if you've had a chance to follow up on any of those. You're going to have a work session next meeting that will have a full discussion on this matter. Okay, it's probably it's not appropriate for us to talk about it before that. Okay. All right. And then the ECMO. I'm working with the fire chief and we'll get back and answer that question. Okay. Anybody else have any thing that they picked up from the conversation that we wanted to deal with tonight? All right. Let's move on then. We've got a consent agenda. We've got a number of items on the consent agenda. Those items are usually handled in a single motion. So there's in this case, there's 26 items, 27 items that we can handle in a single motion. Is there anyone on the council wishes to remove an item from the consent agenda? All right. Is there a motion to adopt the items on the consent agenda in a single motion? So moved. Second. Member Jackson moves. Member Agnew seconds to the adoption of the items on the consent agenda in a single motion. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the motions? Did it say aye? Aye. Opposed? Carried. All those items are adopted and approved. And then we will move on to the next portion of the agenda which involves our public hearings. And this is a night for the Boy Scouts that happens once a year. You're going to see a kind of a rapid series of public hearings on assessments. So if we've had to go out and do weed mowing in somebody's property, there's a request by the people that did to work in the city for an assessment. If we have to remove a tree that's diseased or a neighbor wants us to remove a tree for them. Instead of hiring a tree remove a service, we do that and then they get charged back. So this is all that kind of activity tonight. Some people don't pay their utility bill on time. And so there's a collection of folks that get lumped together with respect to a public hearing on that as well. So you're going to see that coming up right now. And Tom Swenson, our Assistant Director of our Parks and Natural Resources Department, is going to take the first one which is the weed mowing. And I think you're going to have the next one as well. And maybe more after that. Excuse me, Mr. Mann? Before Mr. Swenson starts, I just wanted to remind the Council that we are seeking action on these individual items tonight. Normally we don't do that, but we are getting close to the timeframe in which we've got to have things filed to the county. So that we try to give everybody as long as we possibly can to pay. And then here we are tonight and we need some action on each one. So to folks in the audience that aren't familiar with our processes, since COVID for the most part, we've been taking public testimony at a public hearing and then postponing a decision on that for a couple of weeks until our subsequent meeting. But some of these items we can handle, I think efficiently, the same night that they're presented as long as we give people the opportunity we heard. And so we're going to proceed now. The first matter is a weed mowing special assessment proposed weed mowing special assessment. Thank you, Mayor. Members of Council? In general, the weed mowing, when weed succeeds 12 inches in height, in someone's yard and the yard is not mowed, then action must be taken. An action suite is defined by the State Commissioner of Ag. She'll be eradicated. When weeds exceed 12 inches in height, the weed inspector attempts to reach the property owner and eventually sends a certified letter. The owner has 10 days to comply. If that doesn't happen, park maintenance staff will cut the weeds and assess the property, the cost of labor and equipment. Nine different properties in 2025 were cut by maintenance staff. And here's the list of the property IDs with the various amounts. A couple more pretty large because they really hadn't been mowed all year. So they required a lot extra labor to get them back into shape. And we received no comments on the weeds. Okay. So unless there's any questions. Any questions for Mr. Swenson on these particular items? All right, I'm going to open it up for public testimony right now. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this matter regarding the proposed weed mowing special assessment that Mr. Swenson has discussed in his presentation? Lori Grotz, 5513 Park Place. I took a look at what was on the agenda here. And as far as weed mowing goes, a lot of these properties are owned perhaps by rental or corporations. The city's charging $75 an hour to send out a crew plus the equipment. And the time to mow a property. $75 an hour. It's not enough. It doesn't cover the cost for the taxpayers to pay for this. And it's far cheaper for the property owner not to hire somebody to cut it and to let the city do it. Plus you take into account the time before the city cuts according to the memo here. First they're contacted at their place. Their residence or their property. Then they get a phone call. Then they get a certified letter. Then we send out a crew. $75 an hour. Does anybody get their lawn cut? And know what it costs? City's losing money on this. You need to double the fees. And then people will be cutting their own lawns. City's got some financial problems. And you've got to be more respectful to the taxpayers. You know, it's cost in this money because people don't want to cut their grass. You've got to make some changes. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Grotz. Appreciate the thoughts. Any other folks in the audience who have to testify? Do you have anybody online that wishes to testify? Do not. Okay. One last chance. Anybody else want to testify? Is there a motion to close the public hearing in this matter? So moved. A second. Mr. Jackson moves. Remember, I get a second. It's a motion to close the public hearing in this matter. Any further discussion? All those in favor of closing the public hearing? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. We've got a motion that Mr. Swanson has prepared for us and bodied in Resolution 2025-95, which states the properties for a weed mowing special assessment in Improvement Number WD-25. Is there a motion to adopt a Resolution 2025? So moved. That's 20-95. Second. All right. Remember, Jackson, again, moves. Remember, Agnew, again, seconds. Adoption of the motion to make those weed mowing special assessments to the group of folks that are identified in Resolution 2025-95. Also embodied in Improvement Number WD-25. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the passage of the Resolution 2025-95, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. And then in terms of the issue Ms. Groats raised, manager Neal, you might want to talk about how we have to go about the process from a state law standpoint about making sure that our charges align with the value of the work. I can assure you that we're as frustrated about some of the aspects of this process as Ms. Groats is, but we do need, there is a standard of process that has to happen here. There's due process along the way for the property owner involved. We observe all of those. It's a plotting process that has stops and goes to it, but we comply with it, and that enables us to pass all the legal muster to receive to get payment for this ultimately. And Mr. Kendall, if we were to take a look at whether or not we could raise these fees, what would be the process? This is our city attorney sitting here for the scouts. Yeah, I think it would just be, I mean, if it's on the fee schedule, it would just be a discussion for the next approval of the next fee schedule. All right. Okay. Very good. Director Swenson has the next matter as well, and that is some proposed special assessments for tree removal at certain properties. Director Swenson, go ahead. Yep. So this one's tree removals. If the tree inspector finds, if the tree inspector finds our choice, the spread of disease trees. The city force are also. Detects safety trees and notifies the homeowner by 31 days to comply with disease trees or public safety trees. Home owners have the option to remove and dispose of these trees on their own or hire their own contractor. Six properties in 2025 or four did not five did not do this. And the city contracts out the removal and trimming of the trees nine tree nine trees in total at six properties. The city force or secures quotes from private contractors. The cost per tree varies greatly as you can imagine based on the size of the tree and where it's located on the property. And city staff does not do this work. It's all through a contractor. Recently we updated the payment schedule because some of these trees are fairly expensive to remove. And this is the list of property ideas and trees that we're asking to assess the value back on. Okay, very good. Questions from council members for director Swenson. All right. Let's this is another public hearing matter. Let's open this up now for potential public testimony. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to testify regarding resolution 2025 dash 96. Which would provide for special assessments against six properties for tree removal. Hearing nothing seeing no one coming forward. Is there anyone? I don't have anyone online sir, but because there is a slight delay in the broadcast I would recommend we wait a minute before moving on. My clock shows it at 743. I will come back to you when I have a caller or 744 whichever is first. Thank you. Thank you. Assistant Director Swenson has withstood the awkward one minute of standing time and I still don't have a caller. So I think it's safe for you to move forward. All right. Very good. So we had nobody testifying live nobody testifying online. Is there a motion to close the public hearing in this matter? So moved. Second. And Reagan moves member Pierce seconds to closing of this matter from a public testimony standpoint. Any further discussion? All those in favor of closing the public hearing. Proposed resolution 2025 dash 96 for tree removal special assessments say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. The public hearing is closed. Is there now a motion to approve resolution 2025 dash 96 for tree removal special assessments embodied in improvement number TR dash 25? It moved. Second. And the motion to approve resolution 2025 dash 96 for tree removal special assessments improvements number TR dash 25 is approved and adopted. Next public hearing matter involves the certification of delinquent utilities in our finance director that I mentioned earlier Patau is here to approve resolution. And our finance director that I mentioned earlier Patau is here to talk about the folks that have been delinquent and dependent on their utilities and discuss certifying those delinquent utility bills to the county for collection. Good evening, mayor and council member. That is correct. So tonight I have in the packet listing of delinquent utilities. These are all utility accounts with any of our utility services for water sewer and storm drainage and recycling with balances over $50 and delinquent for 30 days or longer. They have been notified in writing of the pending certification and the data today's hearing tonight's hearing. In addition to the delinquent amount, $35 administrative fee will also be added to these delinquent accounts after tonight. Customers does have until November 21st to pay their overdue balances, which includes the $35 admin fee until November 21st. And then after the November 21st date staff would then send the delinquent list of any remaining accounts as well as the resolution that we ask you to approve tonight. To the county for certification on December 1st, which will then go on their tax roll for next year payable in 2026 to the property owners. So with this being said after December 1st, if any residents or any customers wishes to make their delinquent utility payments, they'll have to make it with the county. Certified amounts will also have an interest rate of 6.5% that will be added once sent to the county. And all of these assessments are all a one year assessment. Here are some stats for in terms of the utility certification history over the last couple of years. That letters go out the first couple of days in September to the initial poll of delinquent accounts. And then we always see a decline of amount and accounts by tonight's hearing date. And I anticipate that by the certification date of November to the county, this amount will be in trend with previous years as well. So tonight we have 642 accounts and in the amount of 664,998. And as tonight is the public hearing, I will stand for any public testimony. And I request that after that council adopt resolution 2025-100 certifying this year's delinquent utility bills to the county auditors for collection with the 2026 property taxes. Any questions for director. Kyle. All right. This is a public hearing matter again. I'm going to now open it up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to testify regarding this matter and propose special assessment? As Ms. Groats again. Lori Groats, 5513 Park Place. This year there were 11 pages of property owners that chose not to pay their utility bills. There was just a work session today. And the consultant is discussing what the increases will be for water in sewer next year on rates. Looking at 5.25% on the water, 9.25% on the sewer. We have 11 pages of people that have chosen not to pay their utility bills. The city needs the cash flow to operate. So when it's said in the packet that after it's certified, there will be a 6.5% interest that's charged. Is that going forward? So in other words, are we floating alone to all of these people at no interest? Two properties in particular stood out. 7401 York Avenue. It's the Yorkdale town homes, limited partners. It's low income rental. Their outstanding utility bill is $43,485.72. The property taxes, $57,035. The water bill is almost as much as the property taxes. The other one is at 3400 Park Lawn Avenue. And these owners are from the Hennepin County property tax website. Common bound communities, common bond communities. Low income rental properties. The money that they owe the city for their utilities, $43,598.78. Their property taxes, $31,886.54. Their property taxes are $12,000 less than their utility bills. So what does the city do to try to collect these bills? Or do they just let people float along? There's a lot of people in there that have $1,500, $2,500. There's $1,500. Why aren't they paying their bills? We need that revenue. So what's the city process? Do you just wait until the end and then certify it? And then you get the 6.5% fee? Seems to me, I don't usually look at my water bill too much because it automatically comes out of my checking account. It used to be if you didn't pay on time, there was, is there a 10% fee that goes on to that? Yeah, might be a 10% fee. But we can't be footing these bills. How do you make the people pay their bills? Thank you. Thank you for that. Anyone else who has to testify? Okay, check. Nobody waiting online to testify. Did Ms. Grotzer's comments cause anyone in the council to have a question for Director Tal? Okay. This was a public hearing matter. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? No moved. Second. Any further conversation on that and closing the public hearing? All right. All those in favor of closing the public hearing say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. And then the motion that the director of Tal has requested is that we approve resolution 2025-100 for certification of delinquent utilities bills to the county for collection. Is there a motion to that effect? Aye. Second. And regular moves. Remember, pure secondcy adoption of resolution 2025-100, which would certify the delinquent utility holders to the county for collection of their utility bills. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the resolution of state of say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Second. 25-100. Certifying the delinquent utilities bills to the county for collection is approved. And Director Tal, before we start with Ms. Wilson, why don't you come back up for just a moment and talk a little bit about what kind of success the county has with assisting us in the collection once they go on to the special assessment roles. Good question. Once it goes over to the county, they then put it on the property tax owners property tax to be paid in 2026 or the next year. And like I stated, it's a one year assessment. So that is charged on top of the 6.5 percentage fee at any time if the property owner doesn't pay this delinquent utility, it will be part of the payment due to the county at the time of the sale of the property. Okay. And then with respect to that 6.5 percent penalty, I think the inference from Ms. Groats was, could you, what the implied question was, could you charge 6.5 percent from the time it goes delinquent as opposed to the date it gets certified? We charge the 6.5 percent when it goes to the county. So that is when you're legally allowed to do that. We know. Statutory. Statutory. That's when you can start charging interest. Mr. Kendall. Mayor, I think you can charge late fees prior to that. And those late fees can be included in the amount certified. And then once it's certified, the interest kicks in and that becomes part of the property tax. All right. Makes sense. And I assume we charge late fees. We do. So until the payment is fully paid, we assess. We don't assess. Sorry. Wrong word. We do charge the late fee onto the customer's account until it's fully paid. Okay. You might think about coming back to the council to let us know. I think you have in the past, let us know how effective the county has been. Yeah, I can certainly do that. Okay. All right. Very good. Oh, Jamie. Thank you. Oh, yeah. Jamie Erickson. I'm the special assessment person here for the city. Yeah, it's. Hold you. It goes on their property taxes. And so. Even if we don't have very many foreclosures in the city of Edina. But, you know, if a property were in forbearance or foreclosure. We believe the taxes are collected through the mortgage company. So I think you were right, Jamie. It's ultimately 100% effective. If not close to that. I'm pulling some background from my title experience. So that's where I'm getting my reference point there as far as that piece goes. But yes, it is 100% effective as far as it. On sale. Yeah, I would. It's not even upon sale. It's upon taxes. On October 15th and May 15th. So good. Thanks. Thanks for that. Okay, Miss Wilson. Thank you. I know this is quite simulating for all of you. But we're halfway through. Good evening. Jessica Wilson, water resources manager and I have aquatic vegetation improvement. 25 resolution 2025 dash 85 this evening. This is the same one you see every year for aquatic services management. This is a city coordinated service. And these are elective services that are requested by residents and aligns with the policy and the water resources management plan. There are four water bodies. The first arrow head lake and that has services assessed this year for 2024 services related to. The water resources. And that's for the water resources. And that's for each of those lots that is adjacent to the lake. At Indian head lake, there's aeration services and. In our water use fee in 2024. They're part of that assessment for all those water bodies adjacent to the lake. For a lake Nancy that is vegetation and algae control with. Some cost share with the city there for the algae portion of that work for lots adjacent to Lake Nancy. And then at Mill Pond, it's for mechanical harvesting and then also the Browndale ramp repair. This is the second of a two year split of that repair work. There's a tiered assessment here and the cost is split among those tiers. It's kind of described at the bottom of that itemized role there. And the Browndale access ramp was replaced in 2024. That was partially shared with the city and split over two years. So the recommendation is to adopt the resolution 2025 dash 85 for the amounts shown for those water bodies. It's a one year assessment. Excuse me. Any questions for the Wilson from Council? Alright, standby. This is another public hearing matter. I'm going to now open it up for public testimony. Is there anyone that wishes to testify regarding this proposed series of special assessments on these lake properties in the data? Alright, see no one coming forward will turn now to the potential testifiers from the virtual world. I don't have anyone hanging on the line with me right now, but I'd really like to give them an opportunity to call in. Okay. So because there is that brief delay, I would recommend we wait one minute. My clock shows it at 7.59. I'll come back to you at 8 p.m. or when I have a caller, whichever is first. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. It is now 8 p.m. And I still don't have a caller, so I think it's safe for you to move forward with the agenda. And I think that also signals the scouts time, right? Stay on the line. We'd love to have you. Yeah. Alright. Alright. So this was the potential assessment for aquatic vegetation removal on some of our dino lakes. Those property owners that live on the lake or the beneficiaries here. Is there a motion to close the public hearing in this matter? No moved. Rejection moves. A repair seconds, a closure of the public hearing in this matter. Any further discussion? All those in favor of closing the public hearing in this matter? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. The public hearing is closed. And then the proposed resolution is resolution 2025-85, which establishes the aquatic vegetation special assessment role embodied in improvement number 8Q25. Is there a motion to adopt that resolution? So moved. So I can. Member Jackson, a motion to approve. Piers seconds, the adoption of resolution 2025-85, which is the aquatic vegetation special assessment role embodied in improvement number 8Q25. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the resolution of the stated say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. That resolution is approved and adopted. And we are on to the next matter. Now we are switching over to Derek Otten, our facilities manager, who has a couple of matters for us to address in terms of maintenance of 50th and France district and the Grandview district. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. As you mentioned, yes, I'll be talking about two separate districts today. They're both our special services or maintenance districts. The first of which is number G25. That is the Grandview district. Just for some identification purposes, this district mainly lies to the west of highway 100. With Vernon Avenue to the north and I guess also to the western side of the border. So it's mainly retail businesses. The city does have some vested interest in there with parking ramp, water treatment plants and a police in Pongeraj. And then there is also the old public work site that's part of this as well too. It's highlighted by that map, just some landmarks areas. We also have a shared use space with Hennepin County that's our, their library and our senior center in that area. Really quickly, the accessible costs for 2024. So these costs are cost that occurred a year prior, the city up front, those costs, then we assess them back to the businesses. It was $64,276.97. You'll see below that the accessible square footage. That is mainly the footprint of all those businesses in that district. 433,887 square feet. We then use a calculation to break that down as a per square foot cost to assess back to these businesses. You can see it's just about 15 cents per square foot. And below we listed the 2023 cost. So you can see that the entire 2023 costs were about $5,000. The question is, is why the large increase from 23 to 24. We're trying to activate the area again, right? So members of our Addison Lewis, one of our business development coordinators, myself, Chad Miller and others met with number of business owners in 2023, 2024 and talked about the district about improvements that we could make that we wanted to make. We kind of centered those around some landscaping improvements in 2024. So you'll notice that we replaced a lot of the plantings on the areas that were adjacent to the Wells Fargo Grand Utire and Auto and then a little bit in front of the Walgreens and a Dina liquor area. And then we made some improvements to the parking ramp. Some people call it the Grandview ramp, others call it Jerry's ramp amongst other names, but we had some improvements and some structural work that we had to do, investigate it. And we had to do investigative on that to make sure that it was still operational. So a large real take. This is something we talked about with a number of the businesses. We reached out to all of them. A number of them met with us personally or met through zoom with these groups. So you can kind of see that there wasn't enough taking cost and we're expecting to see these costs kind of, you know, plateau at this level. We're going to continue to make these improvements, spend a little bit of money every year as we move forward to continue to try and beautify that area. So with that, I'd like to recommend that we approve resolution number 2025 92 and improvement g 50 or g 25 for that area. Very good. That'll stand for questions. Yeah. Yeah. Questions for Mr. Rotten. Yeah, rejection. So this is a we're assessing for work done in 2024. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Other questions from Mr. Rotten at this point in time. All right. Let's open this up for public testimony. This is another public hearing matter. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address this proposed special assessment? Yes, sir. No. Come on forward. Mr. Bish. Yes, sir. Yes. You're welcome. Again, my name is Jim Beish. I'm the owner of the UPS store right across the bridge. I don't think I had a chance to attend. I'm reaching 70. So I'm trying to retire. I don't think I got to any of those meetings that they had back in 2023. What concerns I have as a small business owner is that with the bridge being out, obviously it's impacted our business quite a bit. Then I felt like when I got this email from my landlord, it was like a double whammy on top of the bridge being out for about eight months. Really affecting our business, which I thought, okay, come November, it'll be open. Hopefully we'll get back to normal. Then I get this email saying there's a special assessment of, I think, for our property, something like $5,000, which the landlord will obviously pass on to the renters. As I heard about what the special assessment was for, the landscaping improvement. I'm going, again, I don't quite know exactly how that money was spent, obviously the ramp and the landscape. But it seems like it's a bit excessive, especially to the small business owners that's been deeply impacted by the closure of the bridge. And requesting the city council to take some of that into consideration and figure out a way as far as alleviating some of that cost, maybe spread it over. Maybe four or five years, taking into account what's happened the past year in 2024, where over half the year, all the businesses were impacted by the closure of that bridge. Thank you. Yeah, are you in the jury's office building? I'm in the between the booze and the drugs. They don't look at the water in the Walgreens. Okay, you're in the little strip mall there. I've been operating that business for 20 years, and we've been deeply affected this year. The first one I heard it described as booze and drugs building. That's a good way to remember it. But again, my thought was, we'll just suck it up and bear. The bridge needed to get replaced, we'll hang in there, and hopefully things will get back to normal. But when I got this email from my landlord, like I said, it felt like a double whammy. And when the city makes these plans for these assessments, whether they're taking into consideration, the impact of a major closure like that on the small businesses, that on top of that coming back to them saying, we've got a surprise for you. Here's another special assessment, which I don't mind getting a special assessment and making payments. I don't know how much improvement my business will have because of a ramp improvement and landscaping. And yet, when the city decides to make these special assessments, I wonder what considerations are taken into place to say, here's expenditure, here's what it's going to do for you. So this seems fair. And from my standpoint right now, it doesn't seem fair. I'm asking the council to reevaluate and maybe find some ways to extend the payments over a period of time. And then to, in the future, when we're looking at something like this, where you have a bridge that's going to have a major impact, maybe a road closure, whatever. To figure out, again, get back to the businesses, what impact will this have on you guys? We're going to do some special assessments to figure out can these small businesses handle that? And right now, it's an nip and tuck trying to handle these fees as my expenses go up, my rent increases, my sales goes down. So. Yeah, thanks for that. And that $5,000 bill is not the bill for the whole strip from booze to drugs. It's yours, part of it. That's what I'm. That's the way you're reading it. Sumizing from the email that I got, obviously, I have to talk to my landlord as to the specifics. But again, when I hear about the ramp improvement and the landscaping. Again, I don't see what kind of impact improvement that it's going to have on my business. I know the impact that the bridge had on my business. Understood. Mr. Rotten has it maybe I thought there too. All right, go ahead. Dans to that question. The $5,000 that he was referencing this letter is to the entire strip mall. It's not just his business. So we, we assess the building owners, right? And however they work out their lease agreements with their tenants. That's between them. We really don't have anything to say with that. So I think that that question about how much of his portion is has to go back to his land. Okay, that's helpful. Yeah, thank you. Anyone else who should testify regarding this proposed assessment. Anyone online? Okay. All right. Is there a motion to close the public hearing in this matter? So moved. Member Jackson, moved member. A second. The closure of the public hearing in this matter. Any further discussion? All those in favor of closing the public hearing say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Public hearing is closed. Interesting issue. Mr. Bay raised. We know there's been impact there. Impact at 50th and France. Typically we'd collect these in one year. But we've also done things over time in the past. Like with street improvements, you know, people have put us up to 15 years to pay off a street special assessment. So it's probably not a conversation to hold tonight in detail. But member Jackson. Yes, I have a question for Director Hatton. You said that this would be an ongoing is it going to be about $64,000 every year for the next couple of years or what will the ongoing costs be annually? We're tracking actually a little less than that this year in 2025. The biggest portion of this cost, as I mentioned before, is the landscaping improvements would be it's really our annual operating permits for those parking ramps. We have to have those inspected annually. That cost fluctuates a little bit depending upon what kind of maintenance we have to do. 2024 was a high maintenance here in order for us to get our annual operating permit through the city. 2025, the inspections were just done two weeks ago. So we'll have a better idea of that here in the next month or so. So this is going to be not just a one time thing, but the business owners will be seeing it next year and the year after that. Yeah, and it kind of predates me, but I believe that these assessment costs were much higher in the past, you know, not to the level they are today, but they were reflective of the times and the, I guess, cost inflation of the whenever they're assessed. And a lot of the businesses were really, you know, happy about being part of that maintenance district and those improvements trying to activate the area. So we're just trying to bring it back to what it was before. So a lot of those tenants, I don't believe were involved in some of the engagement process, but the building owners and the property owners were those that chose to be anyways. Okay, thank you. I'm just curious. So the liquor stores in that same strip. And so when you say the costs is allocated to the landlords of the strip, how does that. How's the liquor store. The liquor store is assessed as well too. So we are not a tenant in that strip mall. We actually own the condo. So that that is a separate. From the rest of it. But yes, the city does pay their assessment costs for the maintenance district there as well as the one we're going to be talking about in a moment. Any questions for Mr. Rotten director. When to have a conversation, a peer post motion. And you're Neil, little guidance from you might be helpful. I, you know, because I think regardless of whether you're a tenant and you've got a. Traditional lease where you're going to pay your pro out of share a special assessment. So he's the owner eating it. We know that there's been impact over there. For those folks. And if the council were so inclined to take it into consideration as member Jackson points out, it's not just 2024 it's 2025 and it's 2026. Might we think about some kind of a program where we can we can help relieve some of that stress that they've been under because of reduced sales due to the bridge closure. So I think it's worth remembering that the discussions that Mr. Rotten noted happened before the project happened, right? So there's discussions that are going on about what level of additional service they want to see in their maintenance district. We add that to sort of the obligatory piece on the parking ramps and we move it forward in good in good faith, right? We expend public dollars in in that concentrated area with the with the bargain that we we assess it back and we get paid at some point in the future. And we do the same at 50th in France as well. I don't recall a time actually where we have delayed them. We've had that discussion. But then they pile up because I don't think we've ever delayed them. Maybe spread them. I mean, I guess it's not always saying spreading it over time. But, you know, but our recommendation, I think, is to continue to operate this maintenance district. It's been it's been it has been one that that Mr. Rotten noted was high kind of relatively for a number of years and then didn't go quite dormant, but the cost went way down. Now we have a set of property owners that are more interested in kind of collective collective benefits and the maintenance district tool is a really important one for us. Give any sense of that strip mall that we're in there on a condo basis. We're going to pay our first year, but the rest of that strip is all owned by a single owner. You know, I believe so, yes. Yeah. And do we know the square footage of it? And so most of those between Walgreens and liquor store, most of those stores seem to be about the same size. Square footage wise. I don't off the top of my habit. I can get that information. Just thinking about his pro radish here, what that might be. And I think you made a fair point that it's less than 5000. Yeah, it's going to be something less than 5000. Maybe maybe 1000. You know, I don't know. Remember Jackson? Yes. So because these funds have already been expended and we're getting reimbursed, I think that the question is we need to re-inverse. The cost. But is this something that the spark funds might be able to go for to maintain these businesses? I need to talk to Mr. Newendorf about that, but I don't think so because I think that's connected to job creation. It was connected to capital improvements. I don't know if landscaping is a capital improvement. Not typically. No. Yeah, I think you're making a fair point. Yeah. We cut the deal with the building owners. One of these improvements. We advanced it on our nickel and it's got to be repaid for at least 2024. We can think and have a lot for 2020. Right. Some sort of relief for these guys based on what happened in 2025 with the bridge closure. Okay. Well, let's let's see if we've got a motion here. No, I'm sorry. The public hearings closed. Sorry, Mr. Bish. Just up here now. Okay. So we got a resolution that's being proposed by our facilities manager, Derek Cotton. And that is to adopt resolution 2025-92. The Grandview Maintenance District Annual Assessment Improvement, Embodied and Improvement Number G-25. Is there a motion to that effect? So moved. Sorry. Member Jackson, moved. Member Pierce, second, the adoption of resolution 2025-92, which is the Grandview Maintenance District Annual Assessment by Square Foot. Embodied and Improvement Number G-25. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the resolution stated, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Resolution 2025-92 is adopted. Okay. You've got the next one too, Mr. Rotten. That's correct. Yeah. So this is the second of our Special Services District. This is the 50th in France Avenue Business District. It's Maintenance Improvement Number M-25. Again, kind of a orientation for you. All of the areas that you're seeing there that are highlighted in that pinkish color are private businesses. The areas that are kind of outside of those private businesses. The the upper portion of that photo or the north is the north, the north parking ramp that is a public parking ramp that the city owns. And then there's also a large kind of gray box in the southern area. And that is what we consider the south parking ramp. So that's the one that's next to Luns and Fireleys. So those are both city owned properties. And then all of the sidewalks, obviously, the streets, public pedestrian pathways, things like that are all private owned businesses. And there's a two other kind of oddities there. There's a strip of parking in the Luns, Fireleys parking lot that the city owns. And then much like the Grandview District, we own the condo that the liquor store resides in. So just kind of identify the private business footprint. Same formulation that we have for the Grandview District where we charge these businesses for maintenance in the district. The difference here is in 50th in France, we actually have a dedicated staff person down there. The dedicated staff person does a number of things. They remove trash from the site, aid to the overall general cleanliness of the spaces and the pedestrian and public walkways. They deal with all the snow and ice removal during the winter months, which is kind of a large portion of the cost for this. And then they're really act as a liaison between the city and the businesses. You know, if the businesses see something, they want to be addressed. You know, they have a person that they directly can go to down there. And so that's a big benefit to that area. Accessible costs in 2025 or 2024, excuse me, $522,950. And about 37 cents, you know, the rounding area there. And the accessible square footage of this is 452347 square feet. Again, we're only looking at the footprints of the buildings. So if it's a multi-story building, it's only really the footprint of that building. It's not each individual story. And residential units do not count against this too. So there are a couple of apartment buildings and condos down there that are not assessed through this process. Proposed assessment for 2024 is $1.15. And you can see actually there's a decrease from what we came back here in 2024 and assessed. That was about $570,000. And that was really, you know, attributed to a large repair project we had in the South ramp where we had some structural deficiencies. If you remember, we had to actually shut the parking ramp down for a number of weeks and months in that summer to make those repairs. And we finished that workout and finished paying for that work in 2024. So some of those costs are from that. So I guess our recommendation for the night is to approve the session assessment for resolution number 2025 dash 93 for improvement number M25. And with that, I'll stand for questions. Questions for May, your. You caused me to think of something when you talked about the apartment buildings. Some of the apartment buildings down there have retail on the first floor. That's correct. I assume those are getting assessed. Yeah, so that's where that footprint comes in. So the Nolan mains area that is all retail on the first floor is, I think, the FIBO France building too. Also where there's some cooperative apartments above, but it's all retail on the first floor that gets assessed. Okay, good. Well, this is another public hearing matter. Let's open it up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to come forward and testify regarding this matter? This proposed special assessment at about $1.15 a foot, I think. Hearing no one see no one coming forward. Do we have anybody online? I don't have anyone online yet. I would recommend we wait one minute. My clock shows that it's 824. So I'll come back to when I have a caller or 825 whichever is first. All right. Thank you. Thank you. It is now 825 and I still don't have a caller. So I think it's safe for you to move forward. All right. Very good. Is there a motion to approve resolution 2025-93, which is the 50th of France maintenance district annual assessment role embodied in improvement number M-25? Close the public hearing? No? I'm waiting for online people to go. Oh, sorry. Okay. I got ahead of myself there. Is there a motion to close the public hearing in this matter? So moved. I second. I got a motion to second to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? All those in favor of closing the public hearing say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. The public hearing is closed. The motion requested by Mr. Rotten, our staff is that we approve resolution 2025-93, which is the 50th of France maintenance district annual assessment role embodied in improvement number M-25. Any further discussion? Is there a motion to that effect? So moved. And rejection moves. The approval of the motion is stated. I second. A member appears. Seconds. Resolution 2025-93. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the motion and the resolution of stated say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Resolution 2025-93. The 50th of France maintenance district annual assessment role embodied in improvement number M-25 is approved. And then we are on to a couple of matters. Thank you, Mr. Rotten. Thanks for being here. And our engineering director, Chad Milner, has the next couple of matters, which involve some potential street reconstruction special assessments in some neighborhoods that we've reconstructed. Thank you, Mayor. We're here to talk about two 2024 neighborhoods street reconstruction projects. First, we'll say, what do we do to try to keep these mounts as low as possible? So we publish these maps well in advance so people can start to prepare financially for these things. We have meetings in advance. We try to do our bid documents and the production of that to get them out first. We want to be the first city out there bidding every spring. We know we create quality bid documents because it ensures less confusion and we're getting these really tight bids. So we're doing something really well on our bid documents. And then the contractors know we're going to manage our contracts fairly. If there's errors or stuff that's different that they find in the field, we're going to treat them fairly and all those things lead to lower assessments mounts, which you're going to see now embodied in a couple of resolutions. So we'll start with the Concord B and C neighborhood road rate reconstruction resolution numbers 2025-88. Improvement number BA 464. This is the project map. It was south of L.E. Road, north of Highway 62. There are multiple funding sources within our street reconstruction projects. This is the list of those amounts within the street is the assessments. Right now with our change in our assessment policy a few years ago, we're at 63.12% is what we're assessing residents for the street reconstruction portion of the project. Have the public hearing. I'm going to interrupt you for a moment, Director Miller. I'm looking at the agenda here. And it looks like the Concord B and C neighborhood on the agenda is reflected in improvement BA 465. But we're talking about 464, which on the agenda is shown as being related to the South L.B. neighborhood. Do we have a mistake on our agenda? We can check that out. I think the most important thing is the resolution number for the application. If you go along here, it may come clear. Let's just keep that in mind. We talked about the project costs at the December 11th, 2023 public hearing. We estimated the assessment at $13,400 per residential equivalent unit or REU. On December 19th, the council authorized that project and tonight we're asking for an assessment amount of $9,873.69 per REU. After the packet was published, we received one voicemail, giving some feedback about the assessments. We would recommend approval of the special assessment embodied in that resolution number 2025-88. And I'd stand for any questions. And I'd like to check those numbers. The resolution that's printed up is 465. Then I'd make a motion to that effect. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Remember Jackson? All right. So what you're looking for is approval of resolution 2025-88, which is related to the Concord B and C neighborhood roadway reconstructions. Improvement. But there's a public hearing first, Mayor. Yeah, I know. And thanks for the reminder. And that's embodied in improvement number BA 465, not 464. Thank you for that question. All right. So this is a public hearing matter. Good work on keeping costs down. It's still a significant amount of money. We know that. And as we're did you want to talk about our transition period or 16 year transition period, we're taking pressure off people over time? Well, I mentioned that council approved the assessment policy for years ago. And the current amount went from 100% assessments. We are now at 63.12% of the assessments. The other 36.88% is covered by the general tax levy within the city. So we are reducing those numbers based on that policy approved by council. All right. So I'm going to open this up for public testimony. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to come forward and address the council on this proposed assessment? Yes ma'am, come on forward and give us your name and address, please. And pull that microphone down so it's a little bit easier to hear you. Thank you. Linda Sonic. Say that again, please. Linda Sonic. Okay. We live at 6212 St. John's Avenue. And my main problem with this assessment is I don't think the work is done. Our water shut off is still six or seven inches above the ground. And it's my understanding they're supposed to be buried in the ground. And then also they had to undo part of the retaining walls along our driveway. And those haven't been restored either. So we've called, I called the project manager. And of course, they have plenty of time to finish this before the bill is due in November. But I'm just sort of, it's not done yet. Where's the punch list to make sure that everyone else's projects are done? If you get a red dress, Director Milner. And do you thoughts on that? Okay, yeah, we'll do that when you're done. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Linda. Okay, anyone else? Good evening. My name is Chris Gerten, 6109 St. John's. My calculation shows if we were, so we're, as you know, assessed $9,873. At the 5% over 15 years, I'll end up paying almost $17,000 for this project. Certainly not saying it didn't have to be done. We're new to the neighborhood. So we got, this is pretty surprising to us. And just want to say in general, the amount with having three, having three kids in college right now and trying to figure this out is pretty tough. But anything you guys can do in the future to help keep costs down even more. I know you guys did a great job keeping costs down this, but to just every day, my wife and I own a small business, city diner. This is real money. And it's again, not saying it didn't have to be done, but this is not going to be easy for us to pay at all. That's what that kind of reflected in the record. Thanks. Thanks for coming in and see you in this. Anyone else? Let's go to online. Nobody online. Is there a motion to close the public hearing in this matter? So moved. Is there a second? Second. If we got a motion by member Jackson, second by member appears to close the public hearing in this matter, which deals with the proposed special assessment for the roadway reconstruction project that was done in the Concord B and C neighborhood. We had a couple of issues that were raised and go back to Director Milner now to address the issues of the two concerned residents that came forward to address the council. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor, members, council, the first matter of the water shut off in the retaining wall and driveway. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. We got a two year warranty. This area was that for this area or was it for the Southdale B? Because I... We received one we... Like I mentioned, this one we received after the packet was published. We received it either late yesterday or early this morning. Okay, so I... So we couldn't get it in the packet. Okay, and I have not heard that. And it wasn't assessment related or objections. It was just a comment on the overall project and similar to what the comments you heard this evening. Okay, now if memory serves when we were talking about the assessment and we were about to approve it for the morning side neighborhood, two residents came forward and said the work was not finished. And we ended up delaying the charges for that whole neighborhood. I believe that was, I think I'm remembering it correctly, but Paul Thompson and Mindy Ehlers came forward. If I've got her name right. And it demonstrated that the work was not finished. And so the billing got delayed. I'm wondering if we should be considering that in this case. I would say not, respectfully, because that project that was built in half of it, remember, was part of the flood risk improvement project in Weber Park. And literally the job wasn't completed in that case. There was restoration that needed to be done. There was a two year overlap on 42nd Street. So in that case, I think it did make sense for the council to decide to delay it. And it was multiple projects over a much bigger area. These are, these are punchless items that we do on a normal basis that we would come back and fix and it's on our list to fix. You have any idea when it will get addressed? I do not. Hopefully this year yet. Brandon's aware of it and he will work with the contractor to get it done as soon as possible. It's something that can be done yet this year. Any other questions? Other questions for Director Milner? All right. Director Milner is recommended that we approve resolution 2025-88, which is the Concord B&C neighborhood roadway reconstruction special assessment embodied in improvement number BA-465. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the motion of stated say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Abstain. Abstain. One. The motion to approve resolution 2025-88, relative to the Concord B&C neighborhood roadway reconstruction special assessment role embodied in improvement number BA-465 is approved and adopted. Mr. Mayor, you may ask for clarification and who made the motion and who seconded it. I'm sorry. I think it's number Jackson. Oh, that was for closing the public hearing. So we need a motion for closing. I'll move the resolution. Yes. I thought we had a resolution. Okay. Second. Do we want to vote again then? I thought we did. That was Jackson and Pierce. I'll vote again. All right. We'll vote again just to be clear. All those in favor of approval resolution 2020. We've got a motion to second motion by member Jackson. Second by member Pierce to adopt resolution 2025-88. The Concord B&C neighborhood roadway reconstruction special assessment embodied in improvement number BA-465. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adoption of the motion of stated say aye. Aye. Seconded. Carried. Resolution's adopted. One abstained motion. Obstention. Still got the abstention. And that's and we've got a carried motion. And then we've got the next matter is proposed special assessment regarding the South L.B. neighborhood roadway reconstruction special assessment improvement embodied in BA-144. Director Milner. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Mr. Mayor and members of council. Please note again the BA number on the presentation is off. It should be 464 like you just read. So we'll talk about the South L.B. neighborhood roadway reconstruction completed in 2024. This project is just north of 66th Street and south of highway 62 as shown on the map. Again, there was a variety of funding sources with this project. The street reconstruction portion is what we're discussing tonight at 63 plus percent. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. We have a number of funding sources. Thank you for that. This was the public hearing matter. We need to think about closing the public hearing. Is there a motion to close the public hearing in this matter? So moved. I second. We had a motion by member Jackson. Second by member Agnew to close the public hearing in this matter. Any further discussion? All those in favor of closing the public hearing say aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Next, Director Miller has asked us to consider adopting a motion to approve resolution 2025-89. The Southdale B neighborhood roadway reconstruction special assessment embodied in improvement number BA-464. Is there a council member who cares to make that motion? So moved. A second. A number of Pierce moves. Member Agnew seconds. The approval of resolution 2025-89. Which is the Southdale B neighborhood roadway reconstruction special assessment improvement embodied in the public hearing. Embodied in BA-464. Any further discussion? Yes. Yes. Member Jackson. Mr. Bolts wrote in to us, or he called and this was transcribed, about some pretty serious water damage in the course of, now I know this is the assessment, but in the course of the construction, his unit experienced some expensive water damage. How is that handled? Is that liability or what kind of relief is available to him? So when a comment or concern comes in, such as they think damage occurred because of construction, we review it at a staff level, then there's option to submit it to the contractor for their insurance to check it out. That's why we have insurance through the contractor. In this case, it wasn't, it was deemed that it wasn't caused by the construction project. It was just unfortunate timing that it happened when our project was also happening in the street. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion or comment? We've got a motion and a second in front of us. All those in favor of adoption of the motion and I can restate it which is resolution 2025-89. The Southdale B neighborhood roadway reconstruction special assessment embodied in improvement number BA-464. All those in favor of the adoption of that resolution say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. How much time would it take us to do, well I guess I'd say it this way. I wouldn't want to go through the process of adjusting the zoning in like an arbitrary fashion. Like we should take our time and do the due diligence, make sure what we really need in that space is what we recommend. And so I actually wouldn't necessarily want to tie it to this particular project either. And so if you think about it in that time frame that we don't want to time box it to 30 or 45 or 60 days, how much time do you think we should be taking to do the due diligence on the zoning side? We could put our heads together and think of kind of a process of how we'd want to do that. At least a few months if we're going to engage with the 50th and France businesses. Yeah, that's not why we'll do it. Analysis, maybe three months is more reasonable. And then really take the time to visit with the district to figure out what do we really need and then bring that back to, well that would go through planning, right, yeah, public hearing, and come to council as well. So that's what I also would be recommending. We do. Back to member. Is that it for now? Yes, I'm done. Thank you. Back to member Russiara and I think member Jackson. Okay, I have a visual and part of this is because I was not engaged in the parking conversation that happened and because 2022 was before my time on council. But I grew up in Minneapolis near the 50th and France area. And so I know this I even ate at the red barn, which was on France Avenue. And I don't know if any of you other people did. But you know, when we think about the 50th and France area and just the changes that have happened and we think about the small area plan for that France region on the very last page page 80, it says modify zoning code to codify and revise longstanding policies regarding shared parking at 50th and France. Okay, so it was not just codified, but it was also to revise and the image it's not coming up. But what I have is an old picture from the Edina Historical Society that shows the street car coming through 50th and France. The reality is that gets ripped out in the 1950s. Very briefly, you know, we end up having these large cars. We don't start making compact cars in the United States until about the 80s. Okay. So in the 78, you've got this desperate drive and you don't have the parking facilities that we have today. You've got larger cars. You've got the transportation system that was ripped out, you know, a few decades ago. And so you really do have this situation that calls for putting on controls. But now we've got people living in the 50th and France area. We've added all these new apartments. We've got people who will just walk to restaurants who live there. We've got the new bus line coming through. So we've got a lot that is happening that is really mitigating the need to have the policy that was created back in 78 literally taken and put into law. And so I really feel like this is so frustrating to me because I feel like there were so many opportunities to try to get this the actual code that we have that we're wrestling with today done in a much better manner. And I know there are other municipalities where they have set up their parking codes so that they can grant variances. And I really do think that we need to do that. So I got to stop there, but that is what I. Although I am really torn on this because I do not want to approve something that is not. There is that anyway. Thank you. I'm rejection that I'll make a few comments. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What's the what's the dimensions of this lot? Approximately. Do you know I was paging through. I can't say it's about 40 feet wide. I don't know if I have I don't know if I have a it's about 40 feet wide. So I'm thinking this is a really narrow lot and it's not particularly deep. I just think as a business, maybe it does present a unique piece of land that can't be accommodated. I can't accommodate parking on it. It's it's very small and it's a high profile place. So I think you could make the case that it is a very unique piece of property and would be pretty unusable if we had to put 14 parking spaces right that we're looking for 14 parking spaces. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, I think I think that you could make that argument that it really doesn't you couldn't have a business of any size really and accommodate the parking that's required. You couldn't have a two story building there and it's just it's silly to require it to be one story in a business district. So it's it's a pretty unique piece of land and in that respect. Yeah, and we did put together a resolution of approval for you and did include findings in there and one of the you know findings we had with respect to the uniqueness factors that this parcel is actually adjacent to another property that has has a parking lot available with another use where the hours do not conflict. So it's actually a great you know situation for shared parking. That's not a situation that I guess you would say is super present throughout the whole district at least not where the parking is right adjacent to the building. So that's another thing that's a little bit unique about this one as well. Well, and there's no way you could bury parking or put it up. It's just it's just too small a piece. I'm not going to go with the neighbor next door because I think the idea that the parking has to run with the land. I kind of like that requirement, but I think we could make a waiver of the requirement of the extra 14 spaces. And the agreement with the neighbor is wonderful and I hope they go through with it. But I wouldn't make a legal decision based on that because it isn't it isn't the type of requirement that a variance should because a variance runs with the land. The decision should run with the land. But I think this is just such a tiny piece of land. There's no way you could accommodate a reasonable use. And have those extra 14 spots. So I think you could make the case that that this is caused by the piece of land. That's all. Thank you. When you think about this area, I thought member Richard reminded me of the he wants you to talk about the red bar. And I don't remember the red barn, but I kind of remember Arby's being down there. Maybe it was the successor to the red barn. I am not sure. But I do remember a time when there was parking down there adjacent to buildings and that historic sort of obligation that people had to have parking next to the store that they operated. And of course, people that came before us and planners that were before carry wisely thought back in the mid 70s. Hey, this isn't going to work anymore. This whole area is unique unto itself because we're going to be able to build out this entire area. And what we're going to do is we're going to hide parking behind the retail. And I've seen some old articles with that. Whoa, that's really European. I don't even know if it is European, but somebody down at the start to be on thought. It was a European model where they hid the parking behind the stores. And so there were three ramps to accommodate all the the unique features of the entire neighborhood. And I think you've done a good job of trying to capture that in the in the motion that's in the affirmative. Of saying that the property owners secured access to additional parking through a private agreement for shared parking with the adjacent property owner. The property is unique in that it is adjacent to another property with surface parking. And the hours of the adjacent used to not conflict with the hours of the proposed restaurant. I thought that was that was clever on your part. So I mean, for me, I feel like it's arguable as to it's arguable that they did in fact meet the standards for variance. That there are practical difficulties that the the standard required to look at practical difficulties includes as member Jackson noted. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. I think we all concur with that. We got the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. I think we all concur on that and where we got hung up and where we were at maybe at variance here is that the third prong of that test was the land owners problem is due to unique circumstances of the property. The whole area is unique is what I would argue. And it's it's a problem for every property because of the uniqueness of the entire neighborhood. And fortunately, in this circumstance, he's got an agreement for parking with the guy next door. And so I think member Agnew hit it right on the head. I think we go with the we go with the variance. I'm comfortable that they meet the standards for issuance of a variance myself. And then we go back and we look at the code and we try to figure out what would be as she stated eloquently. I thought. Ease. What was the word you use? Relax. Relax. Relax. The parking requirements to make sure that it applies to everybody. I mean, it may be at the end of the day. We say there's no F.A.R. involved on here because of the nature of the parking circumstance. We're overlying on public parking and its first comfort served. And in particularly at night, we know there isn't any pressure on any of the ramps. There's all kinds of empty spaces available at night. Plus we're going to have these other forms of transportation available. So I think the best thing to do is to is to approve this matter tonight on an affirmative vote. You know, approve the variance and then get after the code and do it in a logical way. And I thought your notion of engaging the business owners down there and the tenants on how to address that. That parking requirement that exists just based on tradition when people are trying to be fairer is something that we can resolve. And so I would support, remember, I don't know if you want to move that resolution 2025-80, which approves the site plan. Review and variance at 5036 France Avenue South. So moved. Second. And remember, peer seconds for the discussion. All those in favor of adoption of the resolution 2025-80, which would approve the site plan review and variance at 5036 France Avenue South. Say aye. Aye. Opposed. Nay. And that was a very reluctant nay. Matter is approved. Resolution is adopted. Thank you. Good to go. Yep. What's the schedule? Sorry soon. All right. Thanks. Thanks, everybody. Thanks for being here tonight. In case we needed questions answered. Okay. We don't have any more action items. Oh, let's throw it. You want to. You're right in there. Yeah, let's confuse the mayor one more time. So we're up to we're down to manager's comments. I don't think we've had anything come in. Claire Carlson that we need to be mindful of. All right. Manager's comments. Thank you. I got it. A couple of minutes. I'm going to go ahead and get a couple of questions. I'm going to go ahead and get a couple of questions. I'm going to go ahead and get a couple of questions. Okay. We don't have any more action items. Oh, let's throw one. You want to be right in there. Yeah. I got a couple of things. One is just to give you just a reminder to council that we are having a close session with the council scheduled for five o'clock on Wednesday. October 22nd and we'll do that up in the community room. We'll start in close session. When that's completed, we'll go right into the work session scheduled for that night. And this is a work session. Excuse me, an attorney, a client meeting to discuss legal strategy for our ongoing discussion with the DOJ on the Grandview, Grandview ADA compliance issues. So that's what we have tonight. That's what we'll have on that Wednesday night. I also wanted to give you a quick update on just where we are with the aquatic center project. It is moving forward. They are out there with heavy equipment and digging a hole in the ground. I think that's part of it right there where you're looking down this. So this area is the area that used to have the cabana on top of it. They're excavating that out and that's where they'll build the new, the new pump room in that area. Just another look at it. This project started immediately after the close of the pool season and is on track right now. And we are looking for another group of contractors to come out yet this year to begin getting sent to do sandblasting on the other pools so that they can be coated, painted, or whatever we're using for that. So more updates on that to come. Finally, I just wanted to let the council know of an award that former resident of a diner received his name is Jim, excuse me, Jim Nelson. And he's been recognized by the National Association for Industrial and Office Parks, NIOP, a very important kind of business real estate group. That's a national group. It's selected Jim posthumously to receive the 2025 President's Award. Nelson was chosen in recognition of the exceptional service and inspirational leadership to the commercial real estate industry. Selected from nominations submitted by fellow NIOP members, the President's Award is the highest individual honor and celebrates Nelson's enduring legacy and profound impact that he had on those around him. I count myself as one of those people. He was one of the first people I met professionally when I came to Adina in 2010. Such a kind and important man who did a lot of great things for the Twin Cities, not just Adina, but he was an Adina guy through and through. And I miss him. Well said. Thank you. Mr. Richard. Well, I just want to thank Lieutenant Schultz who is wearing the pink patch for October and breast cancer awareness months and just really want to do a shout out to the efforts to raise awareness of that and waste my appreciation. If you haven't gotten your mammogram recently, go out and get it. It's an important thing. Early detection is the best way to have a positive outcome. So I really appreciate the awareness raising the police department. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So I have something happy and something serious. On Friday afternoon, we all got to three of us were there and we were all invited to four of us. Yeah, we were. And we got to go to a groundbreaking ceremony for the New Southdale Library and it was a super exciting day. And I just wanted to highlight two things that stuck out to me. And one is that the county actually worked on this for 15 years. I was talking with the former county administrator. He's like, yeah, we looked at the whole center and knew we had to either put a whole lot of money into changing it or replace it. And so for a former administrator, Huff, it was a big day because 15 years of his effort. And then it was 18 years for the Arts and Culture Commission. Several people have come in and out of the commission over the 18 years time and they all wanted to replace or repair our art center. And so this project is going to be a long time, an accomplishment of a long time effort of a lot of people, which was really exciting. The other thing is I've been having lots of conversations with people about our proposed levy. And they've been really thoughtful conversations. And in talking to this one gentleman, I realized I've got sort of a perfect storm going on. We've got three things that are happening. One is our property values are increasing because we've got a shortage of homes for sale. And that's caused by a lot of things primarily because of high interest rates. People don't want to relocate and get a high interest mortgage when they have a low interest mortgage. But that's caused the shortage of homes, that's caused our prices to go up, especially in 2024 dramatically. At the same time in our complicated Minnesota system of property taxes, the weighting of different property types changes over time. And currently the weight of the property tax burden has shifted from commercial to single family homes. And that makes the tax burden heavier on our single family residences. And then thirdly, we have these generational expenses in the city. And they really are once in a lifetime or generational sort of things because our city was developed initially between 1958 or mid-1950s and the mid-1970s. And the mid-1970s were 50 years ago. So in the last five years, I just want to talk about some of the big expenses because they're big. One is the shift to street reconstruction from the assessments. As the gentleman said today, these assessments are real money and they are extremely onerous on single homes. And now we're pushing that onto the general fund, but that's been over $2 million in the last five years. We've hired six firefighters in paramedics. Originally through a safer grant and we're absorbing that cost, that's about a million dollars. We have six new employees in the police department. We are building a new fire station that has been identified for a long time and it's happening. And we're replacing the pool pump house, which we've talked about, but that goes dates back to 1958. We've spent between $2 million and $3 million for the construction fund and park construction fund to address asset preservation and deferred maintenance. And those are all expenses that are pretty unavoidable and they've been increases in the time I've been in office. But I just want people to know, I don't quite understand why the critics are talking about transparency. All of our budgets are available online. You can compare them year over year. They're written according to national standards, the ACFR standards. All cities follow these accounting standards, so it's completely transparent as to where our money is going. And anyone can analyze up and down what we're doing and compare to other cities. But these three things together are the perfect storm. We have control over the city expenses, but we don't have control over the increase in property values because of the shortage of homes or the shift of the property tax burden from commercial to residential. And I take this all very seriously. It's a squeeze. It's a big squeeze. And unfortunately, it's all happening at the same time. Yeah, thanks for those thoughts. Important thoughts. Also, Member Pierce. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So last week, Breimar hosted the adaptive golf open the first ever in the state of Minnesota. And if you're not familiar with it, it's a two-day event. I guess it's a three-day event, I suppose. So I think it's a practice round, but there's two rounds of golf tournament style. And all of the individuals have some type of disability, whether it's neurological or physical. And it's pretty awesome to be out there and see these individuals golfing 36 holes. And Breimar has quite a history in this space. I believe back in 1979, if I recall, we've got clinics out there on a weekly basis where we're able to help individuals that need some assistance to enjoy the game of golf. It was really cool to be out there to experience that. And one of the... I didn't know this, but one of the spokespersons is a fraternity brother of mine. And I'm there walking around and I see him, and he's on the poster. And he plays golf in what's called a Viracat, because he's paralyzed from the waist down in this Viracat, which is actually made, I believe, in Minnetonka. He's strapped into it, it elevates him to the right position to swing the golf club, and that's how he golfs. So it's really great to be out there to spend some time with those athletes and just looking forward to hosting that in years to come. But just a shout out to the Breimar staff. Everything they do out there is really top notch. And so we have quite an asset out there and really great people running Breimar, and so hats off to them. And we look forward to those athletes coming back again next year. And then the second thing, I just had a couple of comments on the budget. I've been thinking a lot about just the difference between being in the private sector and the public sector. And one of the things that I'm really challenged with is in my day job, there are forces, right, that are natural forces that cause me to have to operate within constraint. And so I've never had a job for this one where I had P&L accountability and I had no true market pressures to force me to make decisions in a more succinct way. And so if I need to spend $600,000 to buy a new printer or whatever, which is true, printer costs $600,000 in a manufacturing plant. There's market pressures, there's revenue, there's margin. And I could borrow money to buy that printer, but I still got to pay that through increase in revenues. And so I have that type of a conversation for everything. Now that's simplified in government. We don't have those kinds of pressures that are just natural market forces. And so I like for us to try to figure out a way to have some type of an index that helps us really understand what those forces are. Because I think a lot of what we do, and for this year for sure, it hats off to staff for taking the year to say these are the projections for the levy. And then us saying, well note, we want that to be different. That is a pressure that the council placed. And I feel confident that we're going to come in under 10% for that levy. But that's work that we've done for the whole year to get to that. We could do that every year, which we should. But I also think it'd be great if we were able to really come up with a way to put some pressure on the system that forces us to have a different level of conversation around do we add this service or do we add that service? Or do we say no? That's one of the biggest challenges I have found in this job. And so I have a bunch of ideas, would not surprise anybody. And then we'll be having that conversation because I, with Mayor Janille, because I feel like I need to learn more about it as well. But that is one of the things that I've been thinking about. But I don't want it to go, I don't want to gloss over it. The staff did do exactly what we asked them to do. And I could make it personal as I feel like I specifically said, this can't be. Right, we need to make a different, we need to set a different course, we need to sustain our levy. And we spent a lot of time talking about how to do that. And so I think we're going to achieve that. So hats off the staff there, but there's going to be more work to be done. So that's it. Thanks, Joe. Remember, I know. Thank you. So I'm in my last month now of maternity leave. And all I do, other than like City Council and groundbreaking ceremonies and going to look at lighting at night is walk around our city. And I'm going to look at all of our amazing trails and paths and pedestrian ways. And I've noticed over the last, I don't know, like two or three weeks, there are these large like stickers or labels of like, hey, yield to pedestrians and kind of helping better orient bicycles and pedestrians. And I think that's a great addition. So just want to do acknowledge that and thank you because I've seen them at multiple locations across the community and they're fantastic. That's it. So some really nice budget observations as we continue this process. Both of you, I think, describing pressures in a different way. I think we're sensitive to them because we know what other units the government are facing. We know what our residents are facing. And we know what those federal pressures are, those downward pressures that businesses and people are facing. So we've got to be, and I think I know we will be, just because of this group, I know we'll be really careful and mindful of all of that as we go through this. As we go through this final stage of trying to figure out how to make this town run the way it should run as effectively and efficiently as we can. So that's just one of their tag long observation there. On the adaptive open, I was really grateful. James was able to go over there to help kick it off. And they said, I was over there on Sunday for the awards. And they said he just did a great job of teeing it up and they were really proud of them. And I thought the observation you made about our staff. I heard that on Sunday too from so many people from the Minnesota Golf Association people to people that were participating. And they were there from all over the country. And then the young guy who won the overall was using one of those chairs. I think he'd lost the use of his lower body and his skiing accident about three years ago. And he was a real strong young guy and I don't know what he shot but he was a national champion. So here he was at the Minnesota event. And as James says next year they'll be back. And I think they're believing now that they have the ability to host a national tournament or we have the ability to host a national tournament. And why not? I mean he died as going to be the host for the US Women's Open in 2030. He is a little teen for the Ryder Cup in 2029. Maybe Bremar for the US adaptive open and some in the foreseeable future. So it was really enjoyable being out there on Sunday afternoon too. And Jack Rice's wife Edie who is so involved with the MGA was out there and right immersed in the middle of everything. I put up on the middle screen there. I don't know Jennifer if you can tee that up a little bit or show it. When Scott Neil was talking about Jim Nelson it made me think he was also talking about John Harris. Any of us know who played golf. He's driving to the golf course and says John Harris drive. The reason it says John Harris drive is because John Harris who spent most of his adult life in our community won the US Men's Amateur Championship in the course of his golfing career. And really quite a feat. Ended up being a member at Augusta for some period of time. And in fact at his or was it his visitation in the beginning of the funeral had to run to a meeting with Scott Neil and our congressperson. But somebody told me there were even flowers there at the funeral at Mount Olivet from Jack and Barbara Nicholas. We must have gotten to know during his days being a member at Augusta National. Another guy I mean the reason is that there's only a cross on this program is because he wouldn't want his picture up there. He'd be like Jim Nelson just kind self-effacing gentle humble. Just a wonderful wonderful guy and just a tremendous personality that cared so much about our town and the people that live here gave us a lot of advice. Just kind of voluntarily about Braemar when we were redoing Braemar and the years I know him and got a chance to play golf with him several times because I knew some of the guys he played hockey with. In fact as I was standing at the visitation Bruce Carlson came up who did the display that we have on the day in hockey it was over several years ago at the historical center. Bruce Carlson was on the first state championship team for Edina but he was also on the national championship team at the University of Minnesota in 1974 I think it was with John Harris and some of the other people that were at the funeral including a buzzy Schneider who was here but was on the 1980 Olympic team the miracle on ice so a great athlete a humble human being a wonderful wife Jennifer our thoughts are with the family. So thanks for all you did John Harris for the city of Edina and all of us that live here. All your friends and family miss you greatly and rest in bees. Thanks for that Jennifer. And then the reason that James had to cover for me on Friday night was because I was down at the leadership meeting of the US Conference of Mayors and Oklahoma City the current mayor of Oklahoma City David Holt is the president of the US Conference of Mayors for this year. And our first stop on Friday morning was over to the Oklahoma City Memorial which was the old Murrah federal building that was bombed. Timothy McVay you remember back in the 70s and 168 people killed there and it's really it's really quite a special memorial has a wonderful peaceful feeling. And then David Holt who's also the dean of the law school at Oklahoma City University Crafts and Oklahoma City Declaration basically human rights declaration that many of us signed off on it. I'll get a copy of it for Jennifer to put on online. All the mayors there I think there were probably 50 to 70 of us that signed that Oklahoma City Declaration. And then we had we went to have conversation at one of their taller buildings in Oklahoma City and we had a I think two and a half hour session with US Senator James Langford from Oklahoma who if you recall before the presidential election was working on a white partisan immigration bill. And he was a real gentleman I thought and real sincere and honest guy and discussed housing and and FEMA and policing and immigration variety of different topics that that we walk through with him and ask questions on cities are really keen on working with the legislative branch with Congress to try to get some of the things done that cities need done. Just I see a note here to myself Jennifer the mayor of Hartford, Connecticut came up to me and said I've been looking at your website. I really like your website and I'd like to talk to your your tech person about your website. So Hartford Connecticut is admiring our website. A lot of conversation as I mentioned later that day on a variety of topics and paincaster to Mayor Tampa who was a former police chief there did a FEMA review. We looked at a road bill with Andy Guenther from Columbus, Ohio. We looked at and talked about at a working lunch the impacts of the House and Senate bills on expanding affordable housing in different communities. And we tuned on that Karen Basso is there from Los Angeles who's chair of the homelessness task force. He gives an update on homelessness and of course they've got a remarkable number of challenges up there with their homeless population I think approaching 50,000 people city onto itself. Remarks by Wells Fargo about small businesses which important to all of us here in the data with small business being the key to our success economically. Crime survey as some talk about a new seeking new partnership with the White House and Congress. There the mayor of Providence gave a report on that. And then Charles Ramsey who is the advisor to the US Conference of Mayor is a former police chief of Washington DC in Philadelphia. Wanted to talk a little bit about mayoral and city council member personal security. And so I think we're going to see some things coming in the future here about how to you know maybe a playbook for maximizing the protection of your elected officials. Because even locally people are facing some challenges so it's something that will be mindful of as well. And a video presentation from the mayor of Chicago talking about the impending National Guard situation. I wrote down a comment he made he said when we respond with care and not force we are saving lives. And that's been their motto in the city of Chicago. So those are those are some of the things that we talked about the rollback on climate protection. And there was women's mayor's leadership alliance update. We had some Brazilian mayors there that we visited with for a while and of course there in the midst of all this tariff business. In public health we talked a bit about public health and vaccinations as well. So I won't go into any more detail on that. Also one other thing I did want to cover was data centers both the mayors of Phoenix and Mesa have embraced these data centers that require a huge amount of energy and water. And the mayor of Mesa in particular some of the hiss are cited in neighborhoods that maybe are near residential neighborhoods but they're commercial industrial neighborhoods. And the noise factor is really quite significant. And they I think they wish they would have thought these things through a little bit more effectively but it was interesting to listen to them. So we should be thinking about that. And then there was one other. Oh, Phoenix knows how to fight a lithium ion battery fire. They've got a special team that does that work. And so I thought we should have our folks contact them. I can ask their mayor for information on who to contact on fighting lithium battery fires in case we ever have any of those here in town. And I thought because we may see and request some of these older buildings are being converted to data centers. You know, like you think along how we 100 South of 70. Some of some people come with the idea converting some of those data centers. We need to know what the capacity of Excel is. We know kind of what our water situation is over there but it might be something that we want to look at in advance. And I did get a copy of the Mesa revised ordinance on just data centers that we should take a look at as well. So that's it for me. That caused anybody else to have anything they wanted to talk about. Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Motion by member Jackson. Second by member Pierce. That we adjourned the meeting of the United City Council this Tuesday, October 7th, 2025 at 9.48 PM. Any further discussion? Those in favor of adjournment say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Carried. Please stand adjourned. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.