[0:21] folks I'm just waiting for a green light there on the main podium [0:31] we go well good evening everybody and welcome to the uh November uh December [0:39] 17 it says November 17 on there December 17 2024 meeting of the Dina city [0:47] council um yeah that was quickly taken down I thought wow we're we're on the [0:53] wrong holiday here coming up um so before I call the meeting to officially to order I just wanted to reiterate what [0:59] dire benro said is that some folks are listening in um in a virtual way several [1:05] different ways they can do that there's a couple different opportunities for them to call in tonight uh we've got [1:10] public hearings and we've got community comment if they're calling in if you're calling in for Community comment I remind those in the audience as well [1:17] you'll have three minutes and you'll get a yellow warning light when you have about 30 seconds left and then we'd like to have you wrap up your comments so [1:23] that we treat everybody the same uh way here and that same will same rule will [1:29] apply to those that are calling in uh that are tuning in online and if you're [1:34] um here for Community comment remember you can't uh comment on something that's on the agenda this evening or scheduled [1:40] for a future public hearing uh otherwise we'll be more than happy to hear your [1:45] your comments and then uh the city manager is going to comment on remarks that were made at the prior city council [1:51] meeting that were concerns of residents um and so having provided that information uh I'm going to call the [1:56] meeting to order and ask our clerk Sharon Allison to call the role council member agnu here council member [2:03] Jackson here council member Pierce here council member Risser here mayor huin here uh next matter before us is the [2:10] Pledge of Allegiance Pledge ALG to the flag of the [2:15] United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation [2:22] under God indivisible liy and justice for all [2:31] we've got a form of meeting agenda that's been published uh pursuant to our rules to the public and to our council [2:37] members uh is there anyone on staff uh or on the council that wishes to modify the agenda in any form or fashion [2:45] hearing nothing is there a motion to approve the meeting agenda is published so moved second member Jackson moves [2:50] member egg new seconds the adoption of the meeting agenda is published any further discussion on that issue all [2:56] those in favor of adoption of the meeting agenda is published say I I I oppos carried the meeting agenda is [3:01] adopted uh and now we are at Folks at Community comment I'm going to have the [3:07] our staff put that phone number for call and information on the screen and then we are going to go first to uh residents [3:14] that are here with us this evening uh that wish to speak to the Council on a matter of concern to them and um and we [3:22] have one of our fellow residen is already up and looks like he's maybe brought holiday treats for all of us or [3:29] something something I'm not quite sure but we'll find [3:40] out leing mayor and council members my name is Ralph ziker I live at [3:48] 4311 Cornelia Circle residents of Adina tonight let's talk about tax increment [3:56] financing in terms a resident can understand Tiff [4:01] 101 a Dina's unwillingness to share for all of you who've heard about [4:08] Tiff and the pages and Pages upon presentation material shared with the HRA and the city council the way ad [4:15] currently uses Tiff comes down to this Tiff is a din's cookie [4:21] jar that's a statement so fundamental to understanding a din's current use of Tiff that I'm going to say it again Tiff [4:29] is a d 's cookie jar and it's a big cookie jar how big let's look at just [4:36] three of a Dina's 15 Tiff [4:42] districts in compliance with state law each of these districts was decertified and therefore stopped collecting the [4:49] so-called incremental property tax dollars yet each remains open with $27 [4:57] million of property tax Revenue still sequestered solely for City use property [5:03] tax dollars that long ago should have been rightfully split 1ir 13 one3 as [5:09] acknowledged by City [5:17] staff however as you can see ad's view is that these dollars should not be shared use it or lose it is the rallying [5:24] cry the message to Residents that these funds are A din alone haven't forbid [5:29] they be shared with the county or the schools however Minnesota state auditor reports show that municipalities across [5:36] the state decertify 70% of their Tiff districts early and when they do all [5:43] property tax revenue is once again shared with the county and the schools as was intended by state [5:50] law Adina doeses No Such Thing Adina keeps collecting Tiff District incremental property dollars well past [5:57] the date when a district might might be desertified hooked on the flow of hidden property [6:04] tax revenue and even once desertified ad Dina continues to view the funds as a [6:10] din's alone and now in the rush to use it or lose it Adina is offering a $3.8 million [6:19] forgivable loan to a developer in addition the city's budget includes [6:24] spending $500,000 of Tiff funds in 2025 for the [6:30] tunnel under France a $30 million project these are but two examples of [6:36] the lack of vetting associated with the din Tiff District spending an issue [6:42] worthy of a future Tiff 102 discussion residents of Adina I hope I [6:49] found Tiff one you found Tiff 101 helpful and my question for you is this [6:54] are you listening and more importantly is the next mayor listening [7:00] thank [7:08] you all right uh anyone [7:15] else concerns of residents okay anybody online all right um our practice is to [7:23] um uh discuss some of the issues that were raised in the uh prior council meeting by res president um and U Mr [7:32] Neil you want to turn your attention to some of those issues I think U I've got notes from the prior meeting but go [7:39] ahead thank you honor we had uh one question that we responded to there were there were comments offered and and [7:45] other things but the question that we were POS that was posed to the council at the last meeting was when an [7:51] apartment building does not have a manager or or on duty overnight how are [7:56] the people that live there or in the adjacent neighborhood imp acted when there's an incident in the building um [8:03] our response is unless the building had provides uh skilled nursing care or offers assisted supported living uh law [8:11] the current state law does not require Around the Clock Staffing there so there are many apartment buildings in the Dina [8:18] uh that do not have in fact most do not have on-site Staffing um in in U some [8:24] don't have it even in business hours but most do not have it 247 [8:32] all right um I've got there was actually another Resident I think you were out on medical leave but [8:38] um um she was Janie Weston was wondering [8:44] at least I have this question down is uh is there some possibility we could discuss the use of Tiff UPF front and [8:51] I'm assuming that she means when we're in that site plan approval stage as opposed to the sequential stage uh that [8:59] we use now where we go through this potential site plan approval uh and then move on so that might be one you want to [9:06] take a look at from a from a structural or statutory standpoint yes that that is an option I think communities where that [9:13] is the practice um there's often discussion around the council is selling [9:18] their regulatory approvals to the highest bidder or to the developer because that exchange is happening so [9:24] early in the process um that's why that's why um I would say most cities [9:30] probably do what we do at the at the end stage but but legally we could do it like that and and for people in the [9:36] audience and those that are listening at home but do you want to explain the circumstances under which our city [9:42] contemplates the use of tax in governement financing on a particular project and how often we use it we do we [9:50] contemplate using tax financing when uh there is uh New Growth or new tax base [9:56] that's created and we can use uh a segment of that growth that's going to be created uh to to produce some sort of [10:04] public benefit um and we have we we take applications for this um I would say on [10:13] most of our projects but we don't give it on on most of our projects either and [10:18] we do uh uh there's a there's a a process there's a public hearing process [10:23] that comes before the council uh before awards are made we have uh legal staff [10:28] and and financial advisory staff that also advise us on when and when is and when is appropriate and how it how it is [10:35] done all right and as I recall from our economic development director we use at about 10% of the projects that we that [10:44] we review and uh in terms of its role in our tax capacity it represents about [10:52] 1.8% of our tax capacity when many of our neighbors are [10:57] up in the 8% range that's right so we we don't use it very often and we use it carefully that's [11:03] right and we do use it okay all right and it always has to have [11:09] a public benefit I think that's the key test so um okay I think that uh that was the [11:16] only other supplemental question I had so we now on to um uh the consent agenda [11:23] and I think member rer wanted to remove item 6.3 from the consent agenda uh and we can do that and is [11:30] there a motion to approve the balance of the consent agenda first of all let me ask is any other council member wish to remove an item from the consent agenda [11:37] other than 6.3 okay uh is there a motion to approve the items on the consent agenda and a [11:43] single motion with the exception of item 6.3 which will take up separately so moved second member Jackson moves member [11:50] U uh seconds the adoption of the items on the consent agenda in a single motion with the exception of item 6.3 which [11:57] we'll handle separately any further discussion all those in favor of adoption of the motion of stated say I I [12:03] I opposed carried uh the items on the consent agenda are adopted with the [12:08] exception of 6.3 6.3 has to do with a potential [12:14] ordinance Amendment to the city code uh which sets fees for [12:20] um potentially sets fees for 2025 I'm going to turn on to member Risser so we [12:25] can understand her her concerns member Risser I wanted to pulled because we voted on this at our last meeting and it [12:32] was a split vote and so now it's back and so I thought we could just take it off and do another vote to see how that [12:39] went okay uh thank you for that I would add Mr Mayor that that that's consistent [12:45] with Council pass practice on the issue if there's something that had to had a previous divided vote we we typically [12:51] don't add it to the consent agenda so all right uh with respect to ordinance 202 24-12 proposed ordinance 2024 12 [12:59] which would amend chapter 2 of the city code uh and adopt a fee schedule uh [13:05] therein for 2025 is there a motion to adopt that ordinance so [13:12] oh yeah yeah are you moving it yeah I am okay all right we got a motion by member rer second by member Pierce to adopt [13:19] ordinance 202 24-12 amending chapter 2 of the city code setting fees for 2025 any further [13:25] discussion all those in favor of adoption of the uh motion motion is stated say I I I opposed Nay n carried [13:33] ordinance 202 24-12 is adopted the those fees are set for 2025 that are contained [13:40] therein all right uh that completes our work on the uh consent portion of the [13:45] agenda and now we're on to special recognitions and presentations which is always a a nice portion of the meeting [13:53] and um tonight we've got a conversation around tree recognition campaign Awards [13:59] something new in our community and our sustainability manager Marissa bear has [14:04] uh the introduction on this matter and we've got uh John Hogan with us uh the [14:11] energy and environment commission chair Vice chair yeah see in my I [14:16] thought it was vice chair in my head and it says of chair on the on the agenda yeah uh just jump at the momentary [14:23] opportunity here and uh and we're going to talk about some of the awardees here so [14:29] Miss bear great thank you good evening Mr mayor council members again Marissa bear sustainability manager um excited [14:36] to have the first inaugural award presentation for the tree recognition campaign as the mayor noted I'd like to [14:42] invite uh eec the energy and environment commission Vice chair John hgan up who will walk through the award presentation [14:48] and then we have a lot of folks in the audience tonight that will invite up at the end for a [14:53] photo thank you hello everybody and then would you bre you [14:59] introduce yourself please sure John Hen uh energy and environment commission Vice chair thank you forgive my casual [15:06] attire came in hot from a basketball practice with my second grader here all right so this was a new [15:13] initiative um we wanted to talk about trees in a way that was more celebratory [15:19] recognize uh some of the wonderful trees that we have in Idina um we sort of put [15:24] a solicitation out for nominations and we received 23 and we have nine trees [15:30] that we've recognized for awards uh this is the list not going to [15:36] read it because there's photos on the next slides that are more interesting so there are two that are in [15:43] the best Oak category um one at 4916 [15:49] ardan and another at 5410 York um I [15:54] actually know this tree and both of these uh are just spectacular specimens [15:59] with Incredible um incredible Trunks and and limb features all the way up and so they [16:06] were they were both uh really it was really hard to pick one of the one of them and so we picked [16:12] both this one is a landmark for anyone that knows this neighborhood 5724 code Avenue um it's such a [16:22] striking uh White Pine it's our best coniferous tree and he D it for 2024 [16:30] the best city Tree on city property is a cottonwood in we Weber [16:36] Park the best tree story uh and I don't remember the specific so I won't attempt [16:41] but it was a very moving story um involving multiple generations of a family that had planted this at York [16:48] Park it's a crab apple I also know this tree it's in my neighborhood It's a Wonderful tree the biodiversity award goes to the [16:57] gko tree at the AR acres park because it's not a very common species found [17:04] in this one speaks for itself the Fall colors award somebody I believe wrote in [17:10] saying they get to look at this outside of one of their windows and I'm very jealous because those colors are just [17:18] amazing this is my favorite tree in Idina it's a won the climbing tree award for anyone that's seen this at citin [17:25] Park it is amazing and very climbable um I defy you to not climb it if you go [17:32] there we've got Bob cotin with us tonight I'm going to find out if he planted that [17:39] tree the fullest canopy award was uh went to this one which I mean if you [17:46] just look at it I I don't think I've ever seen a more complete canopy on a maple tree um symmetrical it's got limbs [17:53] everywhere it was one of the more striking trees that was submitted in my opinion [17:59] and then we grouped additional trees that we felt deserved an award into honorable mention which we split between [18:07] mature trees and young trees there were several that were um very young trees or young trees that will be very promising [18:14] or are promising now it will be very spectacular one day um so it was really cool to see all the submissions and for [18:20] anyone here thank you for participating in this celebrating the trees that we have in Udo yes Mr Vice chair thank you [18:27] for doing this it's a it's a wonderful new Endeavor I think um do we have folks [18:33] that are the proud owners of those trees with us this evening that are ready for a group [18:40] photo I think that's what we want to do next isn't it get the council down there with the council come down with [18:45] everybody and take a group photo and the first annual tree Awards [19:00] I don't know where to go [19:57] you [Applause] [20:17] thanks for Le okay [20:38] well that was uh enjoyable thank you again uh Mr Vice chair as you leave the [20:43] and thank the um energy environment commission as well for coming up with this idea um so that concludes this [20:50] portion of the agenda and now we're going to move on to the public hearing portion of the agenda we have three public hearing matters this evening uh [20:57] one that is being recommended for taking testimony and deferring the decision uh [21:03] until our first meeting in January uh the other two we can potentially resolve [21:09] tonight uh the first one is an appeal by uh Scott and Elizabeth Jo uh in southvw [21:17] design relative to a uh decision that was made by the Planning Commission to [21:22] to deny them a variance uh request uh on their property at 5605 guire road so uh [21:31] Chris AER our assistant city planner is here uh to make the city portion of the presentation and then the appellants I [21:38] assume are here yes good thanks for that and their um their sou view design [21:44] partner they're landscape architect and then we'll hear from them for a bit too and then open it up for public [21:52] testimony Miss AER go ahead thank you mayor members of the city council this is an appeal of a surface covered [21:58] variance for 5605 Maguire the homeowners are appealing a [22:04] denial by a 53 Planning Commission vote for a 2.8% [22:27] [Music] Avenue and just north of properties that are fronting along West [22:34] 7th the property was originally built in 1956 with the tear down rebuild of a new [22:40] home in 2015 consisting of a two-story home with an attached three-car garage [22:46] an inground pool and Patio located behind the home was added in 2019 or [22:53] 2018 there there is an access driveway you can see that right here that um goes [22:59] behind and bisects a portion of four properties that are fronty Maguire two [23:05] of the properties at 5601 Maguire here at the very end and 5600 West 70th [23:13] Street have their primary and only access from that private driveway and [23:19] then 5604 has this through driveway that goes from 70th to that access driveway [23:27] um but it's it can be a the property can be accessed by either um that driveway access or [23:34] West 70th Street so this is the house that was [23:39] rebuilt in 2015 two-story home three-car garage fronts uh faces North fronts [23:47] Maguire so this is looking East along that driveway access that's behind the [23:54] home and the other three homes that are along Maguire um what is not very [24:00] apparent is that this fence is not along their property line their property lines [24:05] are actually on the other side of the driveway access this is looking at the back of [24:11] the home um pool is at grade patio deck [24:16] there's also a shed that is uh on the Westerly corner of the lot and this is the adjacent home that [24:25] has their primary access that um off of the drive driveway the end of the driveway access uh coming off of Tracy [24:33] the home um here front Maguire and this is the other home that has their primary access at the end of [24:40] that long driveway um from Tracy uh it fronts Maguire but the driveway loads [24:48] off that driveway access then this is looking West um down [24:53] the driveway access and then this is that through Drive driveway that um is [25:00] the other house that has access to that [25:05] driveway this is an existing conditions aerial view of the backyard and as you [25:11] can see there's house porch uh driveway driveway that goes up and back um along [25:18] that side of the garage uh patio inground pool shed um [25:24] there's also the um AC pad and the pool equipment pad on the East [25:32] side this is an existing condition survey very similar to what was showing in the aerial photograph and then this [25:39] is the proposal of what they would like to accomplish which would include um in addition to the inground [25:47] pool um they would like to have and the the existing patio they' like to expand [25:52] the patio have P um extension and then also some [25:59] uh walk pads they'll be moving the shed over to the easterly portion of the lot [26:05] so that will be removed from this side but moved over to the easterly [26:12] side so this is a landscape plan showing um a colored up version of the new [26:18] improvements that they hope to accomplish now the ordinance requires that the maximum coverage limit is 50% [26:26] of all um structure hard cover um on the [26:31] lot which would include this driveway access um along [26:37] the backside or bisecting the back of their lot it's quite long so it does um [26:43] add a lot um of square footage onto the amount of of uh coverage that is [26:49] currently there so this is the existing and proposed coverage and it gives you an idea of um what the existing [26:57] conditions for surface coverage uh the maximum standard is 50% the surface [27:03] coverage currently and that includes of course that long um access driveway is [27:08] nearly at 50% it's at 49.9% um with the addition of that [27:18] 627.428 per increase they would be at [27:23] 52.8% and if you were not going to count that driveway um the existing coverage [27:29] would be at 38.4% um that would allow an additional [27:35] 971 square feet above and beyond their proposed improvements that would bring [27:40] it up to [27:57] 41.370086 Planning Commission on November 13th the contractor submitted a revised [28:02] plan on November 18th um for a lscape permit through the engineering [28:08] department to remove the access driveway that's highlighted in red to allow for [28:14] additional coverage opportunity to accommodate that patio that they're hoping to [28:19] accomplish upon reviewing the appeal letter and the decision to remove the shared driveway engineering staff did an [28:26] in-depth review and established the that the Shar driveway in the rear yard is within 30ft service Drive easement per [28:34] an original lot certification so removing the shared driveway will not be allowed without [28:40] further documentation on vacation of the easement from all parties listed in the [28:45] easement and it appears the work being processed would trigger a storm water management plan as well so the landscape [28:53] permit to remove the access driveway is currently on hold [28:58] with that um a case for denial and approval was made at the November 13th [29:04] Planning Commission meeting with a 53 vote for denial the finings for denial [29:10] um to for the request for 2.8% [29:21] 647.6 05 Maguire Road is based on the following findings that the proposed [29:27] project does not meet the variant standards of chapter 36 for impervious surface uh the [29:33] cumulative amount of proposed surface coverage is beyond the 50% of the lot [29:38] area and cannot be justified based on the lot shape or the size or other [29:44] unique characteristics not found in other Lots The Proposal does not meet the standards for variance with no [29:50] circumstances unique specific to the lot given that there are four other properties with the same driveway access [29:57] crossing their Lots that are subject to the same maximum coverage requirements [30:02] the property currently has reasonable use of the property including a house with a three-car garage with an inground [30:08] pool sidewalk driveway shed deck and patio uh the pro the project does not [30:15] correct ex correct the impact of the driveways hard surface all along the [30:21] back of the lot due to the proposed increase in coverage the patio improvements conflict with the goals to [30:27] limit coverage on properties and the policy to change uh the policy to policy [30:33] change that was recently amended in 2023 to protect half the lot area for open [30:38] and uncovered space the proposed project will alter the essential character of the neighborhood the new improvements [30:45] will cover over one half of the lot or more than a half of the lot the property owner situation is not unique with four [30:52] other properties with the same circumstances that may require similar variances for improvements [30:58] now there were also findings for approval um that were presented and discussed at the Planning Commission and [31:05] approval is based on the following findings the proposed project meets the variant standards of chapter 36 um based [31:14] on the Practical difficulty caused by the existing driveway access that Services other property and does not [31:21] provide service to or needed by the applicants the Practical difficulty is [31:27] caused by the ex existing driveway access that Services other properties um and it presents opportunity um to [31:34] correct the impact of the driveway access along the back of the lot that is not used for the property the access [31:40] driveway benefits neighboring property which is a practical difficulty that is unique and extraordinary circumstance of [31:47] this particular property the proposed project will not alter the essential character the neighborhood the new [31:53] improvements will be behind a fenced in rear yard do visible from The Front Street and are at grade surface [31:59] improvements that will not contribute to additional visible uh building coverage [32:05] any approval should be subject to the plans dated October 15 2024 the engineering staff memo and [32:13] compliance with the tree ordinance Planning Commission action and [32:20] recommendation the Planning Commission denied the variance request on a 53 vote at their November 13th meeting based on [32:27] findings as listed in the PowerPoint presentation and on the resolution of packet [32:33] applicants and representatives for the um are present for questions I believe the homeowners are present as well as um [32:41] the contractors and with that I will stop and answer questions that you may have yes thank you Miss Zer uh questions [32:49] from staff yes member Risser um I'm curious how many of the houses that um [32:58] have this drive as part of their property actually access it and use it [33:03] why you go back to that first slide that's very helpful I [33:09] think it's hard to tell if um the applicant is actually using the [33:15] driveway if there's connection to it well the applicant doesn't use the driveway the only properties that use [33:22] the driveway 5601 at the very end they front Maguire that's the their only [33:28] access uh 5600 that that property fronts [33:33] 70th and they access that's their only access they access access the driveway [33:39] uh from their garage here and then 5604 has a through driveway it goes from uh [33:47] 70th to that access driveway in the back so I I guess they they use it I don't [33:52] know they also have access off of 7 I I'm more concerned with like 5609 do [33:58] they use it 5613 I they don't have a connection to [34:03] it okay who maintains the driveway it's a private driveway I think [34:10] that's probably a good question for the applicant thank you city is not okay maintaining [34:16] it other questions for yes council member U thank you and thank you planner [34:21] AER for a comprehensive overview of this so if we could go back to the compliance [34:27] table I just want to make sure I understand how it was calculated um for [34:34] the surface coverage without the driveway access surface included so are you removing the area of the alleyway [34:43] driveway um from both the numerator and the denominator in calculating those [34:50] percentages it's removed from it's just that portion of the driveway that's [34:55] covering or you know by in the back it's not if I'm understanding your so you're [35:02] completely removing that area of the land from the calculation and you're only [35:08] calculating the percent coverage with the smaller portion of the land no it's [35:15] it's removal from the entire portion of the lot because that is their lot I did [35:21] not look at you know trying to calculate that portion out of it [35:27] the the portion of lot out of it it's just taking the driveway off that [35:34] property in the calculation the lot area Remains the [35:40] Same in the calculation the lot size stays the same in both calculations that's the question yes okay just taking [35:46] the impervious off just taking the impervious off okay the lot size has not changed we're not change we're not [35:52] looking at a difference in lot size okay um so I'll probably do some [35:59] quick math do we know what the area is of the alleyway cuz where I'm going with [36:04] this right is I want to understand what the calculation would be not saying this is a possibility but if they were to [36:11] sell right that piece of land so if that piece of land were no longer a part of [36:16] their property um what would these percentages be is what I'm trying to understand [36:31] yeah and I don't I do not have that information in terms of I mean the lot [36:37] area currently is over 22,000 square fet and I guess it just depends upon what [36:43] the width of that driveway is and the length so I see [36:50] 1346 square fet is the percentage of the driveway but that might just be the red [36:57] area and not the entirety of the driveway sorry that's just really small [37:03] it is is so 2547 I think is the [37:11] driveway in totality correct and then I think the [37:16] red portion is what they're highlighting in the Box okay and so then the [37:22] property total impervious surface okay I'll do some calculation in [37:28] the background youall can ask other questions that you might have other questions from Council [37:35] Members sir misser okay yeah you were heading in an [37:41] interesting Direction here in fact I was going to ask um the City attorney um [37:47] couple of different questions related to that one related to the same issue M AG was Raising and that [37:53] is uh when you have an easement that's serves a neck lot like [37:59] this at least I'll call it a neck lot because it only that that that roadway only exists to go to the next door [38:05] neighbor what is that 5601 correct um so everybody else has got an [38:12] easement on it but it's a privately owned driveway over somebody else's property they've got the easement I [38:19] guess they hold the easement over there over 5605 property if 5605 were to deed [38:26] that portion of the roadway behind their property or that sits on their property to [38:33] 5601 is that that's a possibility isn't it I think it could be yeah yeah I mean [38:42] mayor I don't know all the details it's possible that you know it sounds like a number of parties have rights to this [38:48] easement so you'd probably need consent from a number of those parties to modify [38:54] it or extinguish it but it it it would be possible possible I don't know whose consent would be [39:01] required are you saying that they would need consent to even sell what's behind [39:07] them well from may not they were going to maintain the easement in in place I'm just saying that any number of these [39:14] properties even though it looks like a lot of them don't necessarily utilize it [39:19] they may have rights to utilize it so if they [39:25] were still to have those rights in the after condition after a hypothetical sale then it would probably be [39:32] possible um with respect to this is a a broader sort of question because I I'll [39:38] call this I don't know if director Teague would call this a neck lot or not but I've seen this a few times in my [39:44] time on the city council where uh a long drive is imposed uh you know off of a [39:51] off of a main city street to serve a lot that's way interior uh to a develop [39:58] uh and the only real beneficiary of it is the entity that holds the ownership of the neck [40:04] lot and so they've got an easement to go over everybody else's property to get [40:09] back to their property [40:14] and I don't even know where I'm going with this but are there are there any um [40:20] are there any issues around uh neck lots and the creation of driveways to serve [40:26] neck Lots that may be influential on our decisionmaking process here that you can [40:32] think of based on your knowledge of the case law around situations like this [40:37] well mayor I so I think you should apply the standards for variance and that [40:43] would include uniqueness so you know uniqueness has to deal with the physical [40:48] characteristics of the property one of one of the physical characteristics of this property is that it has an easement [40:54] on it that serves other proper properties so you can take that into account uh for the uniqueness factor of [41:01] the Practical difficulties test for variance [41:08] okay that helps thank you member a that cause you to think of anything else a [41:13] follow on from what you were asking about or did you get your math work done I have like one more calculation to do [41:20] okay um thank you m AER and we've got uh [41:26] the applicants with us evening Mr Mrs join Scott and Elizabeth join from [41:33] uh 5605 Maguire Road and uh please come [41:38] up either you folks come up or come up with your landscaper and uh we can talk about um [41:46] your appeal and hear your presentation do you have a presentation no I was just [41:52] going to use uh the same one that Chris had something that we had before so I'm Josh with selfie design so I put the [41:58] plan together here um a couple things on this if I can move the slide show real [42:04] quick and I can answer your questions on the hard cover even though I don't I brought my computer I won't open up the cab program but um a couple quick things [42:12] here one to me this is the exact definition of what why you would have a [42:18] um you know why we could get something like this past it's because this is a you know this is a county easement this [42:24] wasn't something that the homeowners use we don't use it at all but to answer a quick question on the math if I go to [42:31] the plan here I got 47% I did these [42:36] calculations um from the first time we met so this is the client's property is [42:43] this fence right here right and then the the road goes across their property line and it goes all the way back to this [42:49] white fence so when you look at that if they own they have the property here and [42:56] this whole Road was on even with the added uh surface I think we have 2500 squ ft or something close to that is [43:03] what that road is we're talking about adding 630 or 640 squ ft so if they own [43:10] the property and the road wasn't there CU they don't use it they don't need it they don't want it then we'd be well [43:16] under the hard cover um if you just because we just did this cuz I was curious let's say they just their [43:23] property ended at the edge of this road we would be under the 50 50% hard cover [43:28] if their property just ended and we did our new patio portion so let's just say [43:33] it just stopped kind of where their fenes right there and then that wasn't even theirs not to say that that's what [43:38] they want to do but we would be under the 50% so to me this is the most unique situation I do a ton of these variances [43:45] all over the Twin Cities I don't I don't for me it's a difficult to understand how this isn't considered a unique [43:52] situation due to that there's three people access it and if I go to the survey here also so if you oops sorry so [44:01] even the property on this side where they just have a through driveway just for Access purposes they have a good [44:08] chunk of their driveway even goes onto uh my client's property just to access [44:14] the alleyway so again it's it just seems to me like there's just a number of [44:19] things and then a couple of other things I know that when they when they did the rebuild of the house there was a setback [44:25] which then required the driveway to be even extended longer than if the if the house was pushed forward so you can [44:32] imagine if the house was pushed forward a little bit they would have such a long driveway which in turn would then allow [44:37] us to have a little more patio space for their pool and it might look big on the plan but it's a fairly small pool deck [44:44] when you consider you're trying to just walk around it and by the time you put a table on here there's a lot of room here [44:50] so everything you know on this end of it that's what we were just trying to improve but again just going back to the [44:57] what we're looking to adjust you can see the neighbors driveway that also goes on [45:02] to our client's property here and then also on this corner and then this whole road yeah just so those were the when [45:10] you were asking about the the hard cover questions yeah if the property ended right at the edge of that road and we [45:16] still did this Improvement we would be under your hard cover yep all [45:22] right questions for me yeah that's any questions [45:28] for okay yes please folks come on up hi I'm Elizabeth this is Scott uh and [45:37] we are the owners at 5605 Maguire we've been there for 12 years and we are here tonight because we want to appeal the [45:43] decision by the Planning Commission that denied the variance request for our property we were discouraged by how the [45:49] Planning Commission made its decision we feel they lost sight of the main issue and instead offered personal opinions on [45:56] what we have what we need or how to store and arrange items in our yard they [46:01] failed to adequately consider the Unique Reality of our property that our neighbor's driveway crosses our lot and [46:08] accounts for over 20% of our not their allowed Hardscape coverage every aspect [46:15] of our house yard and lot is both constrained by and in compliance with city codes and ordinances in 2023 the [46:23] city ordinance for Hardscape coverage was changed no longer are the types of Hardscape considered rather each [46:30] property is simply given a flat percentage allotment 50% this new ordinance [46:36] disproportionately affects our property in several key ways first the driveway [46:42] we have a long driveway but like Josh said the length of that driveway is dictated by City setback rules some [46:48] homes in Idina have very short driveways we happen to have a long one because the homes on our block are set back quite a [46:54] ways from the street we had no choice but to match that setback driveways were [46:59] formerly not included in Hardscape totals but they are now so our property is more impacted than properties where [47:06] homes sit closer to the road second our pool deck we added a pool to the [47:12] property in 2019 a 4ft surrounding pool deck was required by the city for safety [47:18] we added a modest amount of additional patio space with that pool deck but we always plan to add more once we had the [47:25] pool for a few years and could how we really used the space the required 4ft [47:30] pool deck was formerly not included in Hardscape totals but now it is finally [47:36] our neighbors driveway this is the Unique Reality that makes a variance necessary as you've seen two of our [47:43] neighbors have a shared driveway that cuts across the lots of several homes on the Block this driveway though private [47:49] is their only public Street access the span of their driveway that traverses [47:54] our lot covers 2,500 74 Square ft since driveways are now included in Hardscape [48:02] calculations our particular property is disproportionately affected because our neighbors's driveway accounts for [48:10] 22.8% of our allotted Hardscape coverage our neighbors driveway is the Unique [48:15] Reality of our property that the Planning Commission failed to adequately consider in the decision to deny our [48:21] variance request that driveway cuts across our lot and yet is not at all ours we neither use it nor maintain it [48:29] but over 20% of our allowed coverage is consumed by it we are looking for a variance to allow for only 2.9 of [48:37] addition 2.9% of additional Hardscape coverage without a variance we're faced [48:42] with the Absurd choice of determining whether or not to dig up a portion of our neighbor Street access in order to [48:48] comply with the city ordinance if a variance doesn't apply in this situation we can't imagine when it would ever [48:55] apply we urge you to overrule the planning commission's decision we want to be able to move ahead with our [49:00] project to add value to our property to plant a variety of new trees and plants on our lot to increase our ability to [49:07] continue to host family friend and Community Gatherings we also want to continue to be good and considerate [49:13] neighbors please approve our variance request and allow us to [49:19] proceed thank you m Jo Mr Jo what she said but uh we we can answer [49:27] any questions you might have for us also yeah thank you smart [49:33] guy oh member iser my question was answered when you said you neither use [49:39] nor maintain it um so who does maintain it two that two end houses thank [49:47] you brag do any any questions no um no thank you you want to [49:55] follow up on your question with they entertain they ever entertain selling it I don't how would they sell it like I [50:01] just don't know that way that's already infringing on them yeah I don't know he's but and in my calculations I did [50:08] and I conferred with um director Milner as well it was 47% so if we remove that [50:15] portion of the property it would be under the 50% so just wanted to close the loop on [50:21] that okay uh yeah member Jackson has a question yeah so tell us a little bit [50:27] about the um the runoff Basin that you're proposing because I think the [50:33] purpose of having the previous surface is not to have the water run out and flood the neighbor's property and so I [50:39] was um and and Miss Aur you spoke about um the visual and the the Aesthetics of [50:46] what it looked like but we didn't talk about um the effect of the water so tell me what the change would be for the [50:54] runoff um if if we approved this will there be more runoff will there be less runoff well you would you would sorry [51:02] yeah yeah you you would add a little bit of hard cover so I suppose there would be a little bit of runoff but I've got [51:07] Landscaping surrounding the whole area as well so we can also always mitigate [51:12] Water by adding some different basins we've done that in Edina quite often um [51:17] on other projects there's obviously a cost to that um but and there's different Wells and things that you can [51:23] do for that but in this particular instance I mean everything still is surrounded by softscape so I mean you're [51:29] still allowing water to percolate down into the water table around the entirety of the pool and the pool back remember [51:35] Jackson I can add to that this would require a storm water permit through the engineering department and we sent an email to the applicants and that we [51:42] actually already land keeper so we'll work with them on addressing that that question of yours okay so so it won't [51:48] increase the storm water within standards or they'll have to address it some kind of mechanism like he just [51:54] mentioned okay good thank you that answers my question question other questions at this point [51:59] in time for the applicant or their landscaper or staff okay stand by folks [52:05] thank you uh this is a public hearing matter I'm going to open it up for public testimony and see if there's [52:12] anyone in the audience who wishes to testify regarding this [52:19] matter all right I'm not hearing anything or seeing anybody come forward do we have anybody online that wishes to [52:25] testify I don't um but because the the hearing just opened I would recommend we [52:31] wait a minute before moving on to give people a chance to dial in if if they're so inclined my clock shows it it's 7:55 [52:38] so I will come back to you at 7:56 or when I have a caller whichever is [52:55] first for [53:43] it is now 7:56 and I still don't have a caller so I think it's safe to move forward all right thanks uh and misser [53:50] your um suggestion as as staff as lead staff on this matter is to close the [53:55] inperson portion of the public hearing this evening uh but keep the online public input portion of the matter open [54:02] until Sunday December 29th 2024 and continue the action item to the January [54:08] 7 2025 city council meeting is that correct that's correct all right thank [54:13] you all right very good is there a council member that wishes to make that motion so moved second member Pierce [54:21] moves member U seconds the uh closure of the in-person portion of the public [54:27] Hearing in this matter this evening and keep the online public uh portion of the hearing open uh portion of the matter [54:33] open until Sunday December 29 2024 and continue the action on the item [54:39] to the January 7 2025 city council meeting any further discussion on the motion is dat all those in favor of [54:45] adoption of the motion is dat say I I I opposed carried motions uh approved and [54:52] um folks can uh submit anything they want including the applicant to the council and we'll take the matter up at [54:59] the January 7 2025 city council meeting for a decision uh and now we have the second [55:05] of three public hearing matters the next two our director of engineering Chad Milner has them and um they both involve [55:14] uh potential vacation of rightaway easements one over on mate Lane and one on France Avenue thank you mayor May [55:21] mayor members of the council yeah you'll have a consideration of 5805 mate Lane this evening being embodied in [55:26] resolution 20 24-17 so this was an interesting uh [55:32] findings on this one the property was for sale recently and during those negotiations they found that the [55:39] previous owner had submitted an application to vacate some easements and create new easements they were signed [55:45] but never approved by the city council and never recorded at Henman County in the early 2000s when they thought they [55:50] were done they built the pool structure that you see in the right hand picture where those easements go right through the pool structure that were never [55:56] officially recorded at the county so then now the new owner says can we get this all cleaned up and that's why we're [56:02] here this evening so um they're wanting to vacate that easement that's shown on the leftand graphic or shown in red on [56:09] the right hand side we have no issues with it we got no utilities there private utilities have no problems and [56:14] the owner is going to provide new easements for those private utility companies where they exist today where [56:20] there's no easements so we would we didn't receive any comments on Better Together EO and we would recommend [56:26] approving this easan vacation and approving that res resolution this evening resolution [56:39] 2024-the matter stand by director Milner uh I'm going to open this now up [56:46] for public testimony is there anyone here from uh from that particular property or the joining properties on [56:52] mate Lane wishes to comment [56:57] okay um the public hearing is open it's open anybody that wants to [57:03] testify regarding this proposed matter I'll turn now to director benro see if we have anybody online I don't have [57:09] anyone online again i' I'd recommend we wait one minute just to make sure that no one is trying to call in uh that's a [57:16] lot of numbers to key in on your telephone keypad um my clock shows that it's 7:59 so I will come back to you at [57:23] 8:00 or when I have a caller whichever is first for [58:37] it has been a minute and I still don't have a caller so I think it is safe for you to move forward with the agenda all [58:42] right um thank you uh is there a motion to [58:48] close the public Hearing in this matter involving resolution [58:55] 2024-25 member U moves member Jackson seconds the closure of the uh public [59:01] Hearing in this matter involving resolution 20241 one7 any further discussion all those in favor of closing [59:07] and public Hearing in this matter say I I I opposed carried public hearing is closed uh director Milner you would like [59:14] us to approve this evening the adoption of resolution 202 24-17 which would vacate the RightWay [59:20] easement at 5805 mate Lane running through those folks swimming pool that is correct all right very good uh is [59:28] there a motion to that effect so moved member Jackson moves second member [59:33] Pierce second the adoption of resolution 20241 17 which would vacate the RightWay [59:38] eement at 5805 mate Lane any further discussion all those in favor of [59:43] adoption of the motion is stated say I I I oppos carried resolution 202 24-17 is [59:50] adopted uh director Milner thank you mayor we have another vacation here request at 7250 France [59:58] Avenue embodied in resolution [1:00:05] 2024-the along the north property line it's a 10- foot easement that was part of the original plat and as you have [1:00:12] aware that you guys approved a project there a development project and that easement now is in within that project [1:00:18] and they are nearly ready to pull permit so we need to consider vacating that easement so they can move forward with [1:00:23] their project we have no issues we don't have any utilities in there we don't see any future utility needs there and the [1:00:29] private utility companies agree that they don't have any concerns with vacating that easement we're also getting new easements with that [1:00:35] development project we received no comments on Better Together Edina and again we'd recommend vacating the [1:00:41] requested easements and approv resolution [1:00:50] 2024-25 d116 involving 7250 France Avenue [1:00:56] okay stand by director mner we're going to open this matter up for public testimony is there anyone in the [1:01:01] audience who wishes to testify regarding the proposed matter potential vacation of the [1:01:07] RightWay at 7250 right see no one coming forward [1:01:13] hearing nothing is there anyone online that wishes to testify no sir I really [1:01:19] need to get some like music going um I would recommend We Wait Another Minute [1:01:24] my clock shows it it's 8 03 I'll come back to 804 or when I have a caller whichever is first thank [1:01:54] you for [1:02:34] it has now been a minute and I still don't have a caller so I think it's safe to move on all right very good um so [1:02:41] director milder is requesting that the council approve resolution 2024 1116 [1:02:46] this evening uh which would vacate the RightWay easement at 7250 France Avenue is there a motion to that effect so [1:02:52] moved member Jackson moves member Pierce seconds the adoption of resolution [1:03:00] 2024-25 France Avenue uh any further discussion all those in favor of adoption resolution 2024 1116 say I I I [1:03:09] opposed carried the resolution is adopted and the RightWay uh easement at 7250 France Avenue is hereby [1:03:17] vacated all right very good thank you director Miller thank you um next matter [1:03:22] we have is uh something that we're fortunate we have every couple of weeks and that is we have donations to the [1:03:29] city that we need to accept from these generous donors and those uh those donations are [1:03:37] embodied in resolution [1:03:45] 2024-25 on behalf of the city of viina so moved member Jackson moves member [1:03:51] Pierce second the adoption of resolution 2024 1118 which certain Define donations on behalf of [1:03:58] the city of udina any further discussion all those in favor of adoption of the resolution 2024 d118 say I I I oppos [1:04:06] carried resolution 2024 d118 is adopted and uh I can tell folks that we will [1:04:13] post these donors names up on the uh City website uh the ad Senior Center got [1:04:20] some very generous donations um $2,000 some friends of the Adina Library ECT [1:04:26] those are proceeds from the book sale that they run I think a couple times a year uh one of our former employees [1:04:33] Donna tilsner worked for the city donated uh money as well as Susan and Thomas Gart uh Janie Hayes uh and [1:04:42] moments hospice gave some in kind donation uh and then for the juneth [1:04:48] celebration Friends of the library also donated $1,600 which was terrific and then the D of fire [1:04:54] department got a generous donation from Troy and Susan Pereira um so thanks folks for those [1:05:02] generous donations and we will move on to the next matter in this portion of the agenda and we are back with Marissa [1:05:09] beay our sustainability manager who wants us to think about approving an ordinance which would amend the [1:05:15] efficient building benchmarking uh ordinance that we have in the city of Viana good evening again [1:05:21] bear go ahead thank you Mr mayor council members um so I'm here tonight to talk through the efficient buildings [1:05:27] ordinance update um and recommended changes to continue to offer benchmarking any as well as align with [1:05:33] uh the new state program that will be coming out next year just briefly I'll give you a little [1:05:39] bit of overview of ad's existing program the forthcoming Statewide benchmarking program and then the alignment that [1:05:46] needs to be made between the state and local program to continue to offer benchmarking so just briefly a [1:05:52] background on 's current program the ordinance was adopted in 2021 to establish a benchmarking program which [1:05:59] supports our climate action plan goals to increase building efficiency the ordinance covers 268 buildings in Edina [1:06:06] of those 268 there are 19 City buildings that are affected and what the ordinance does is it requires buildings 25,000 ft [1:06:13] and above to annually Benchmark their energy and water use they do that through Energy Star portfolio manager [1:06:20] which is a free software to report that data and then we are able to gather that data as well and part of the ordinance [1:06:26] we also require an energy assessment requirement which says for buildings based on that benchmarking data with [1:06:32] demonstrated Energy Efficiency improvements we require them to get an energy assessment which is covered the [1:06:37] copay is covered by the city VI that assessment provides information on efficiency opportunities but doesn't [1:06:43] actually require those upgrades it just provides that information to them in 2023 the Minnesota Legislature [1:06:51] passed a Statewide benchmarking bill which creates a Statewide program to annually Benchmark buildings across the [1:06:57] state of Minnesota this program is going to be launching next year in 2025 it applies to buildings in henpen [1:07:03] County that are 50,000 Square ft larger as well as other Metro Area Counties and then some Greater Minnesota cities of [1:07:10] certain population size and certain building sizes as noted it applies to class one properties which are defined [1:07:16] as 100,000 ft and above and then class two properties 50,000 to just under [1:07:22] 100,000 square ft what statute also allow is for local governments to continue to implement their own local [1:07:28] program but gives power to the Department of Commerce which is the managing state agency to coordinate [1:07:34] local programs and what it does is it says if you are going to offer a local program you have to be equivalent to statute or more stringent than the [1:07:41] Statewide program and so what needs to be done is amendments to local programs to align with that state [1:07:49] statute as we look at the effective building so I use kind of class one class two just to provide some context [1:07:54] so there are three building classes in 's ordinance which are class one 100,000 [1:07:59] ft² those are larger buildings Class 2 50,000 to 100,000 and then class three [1:08:05] which are those smaller buildings 25,000 to just under 50 the class one and class two buildings have a state program [1:08:11] participation requirement whereas those smaller buildings class 3 do not have to participate about 95 buildings in Edina [1:08:19] fall into that class three categorization so to continue to offer [1:08:25] our local program the state of Minnesota does require ordinance to be amended to offer that program there are some as [1:08:32] documented in the ordinance Redline changes we worked with the city attorney as well as talking with the state of [1:08:37] Minnesota about changes that need to be made the Major Impact for a din ordinance would be that we have to now [1:08:43] provide building disclosure materials for those buildings to publicly display if they so want we have to update our [1:08:49] exemption criteria which includes additional exemptions for properties that have been slated for demolition or [1:08:54] haven't received energy Serv services for at least 30 days also includes requirement for [1:08:59] sellers to provide bench marking data if the property is transferred um or provide um login tool for those new [1:09:06] owners and then also include a civil fine as an alternative penalty for non-compliance with benchmarking and [1:09:12] these are items that we currently do not have an ordinance that are documented in that draft as noted we have to make [1:09:18] these changes if we want to continue to offer a local program there are other cities do offer [1:09:24] local programs so as part of my work here I've talked with the other communities so there are five cities that currently offer local benchmarking [1:09:31] programs Bloomington St Louis Park St Paul Rochester and Minneapolis four of [1:09:36] those cities so Bloomington St Louis Park St Paul and Rochester have decided to hand off their program to the state [1:09:41] of Minnesota effective next year and will no longer manage any local benchmarking program Minneapolis will be [1:09:48] maintaining their local benchmarking program which currently only requires buildings 50,000 ft² and above to comply [1:09:54] and they're working with the to similarly update their ordinance to comply so they continue to offer that [1:09:59] local program in this we've also chatted with the energy environment commission this [1:10:06] is an initial idea that came up from them before it came to ordinance and at their November meeting shared with them [1:10:11] the forthcoming changes they've expressed a desire to continue to require those smaller buildings so that [1:10:16] class three less than 50,000 ft buildings to Benchmark and participate in a program which aren't covered by the [1:10:23] state program and they are supportive of the State managing those larger building classes which are class one and class [1:10:30] two so what the recommended ordinance amendments that I've documented the first is removing class one and class [1:10:36] two from local ordinance which would allow us to hand off the management of benchmarking to the state agency so it [1:10:41] would be the Department of Commerce who would then manage the benchmarking for those buildings that change if approved [1:10:47] would result in budget and staff time changes because our scope would be smaller with the current vendor that we work with and then also would be [1:10:53] creating some consistency with buildings of this size across the metro area where we know some of our peer communities who [1:10:59] today currently Benchmark we know next year that they're not going to be required and will be also benchmarking with the [1:11:05] state the second change is amending the ordinance to include state requirements for class three buildings so this is the [1:11:11] alignment that we need to continue to require class three buildings to participate and then also would allow [1:11:17] them to continue to Benchmark because they're not covered by the state program they're not allowed to go to the state [1:11:22] so they would have to stay locally or just not Benchmark at all if there's no local ordinance and then that would also [1:11:28] if we do move forward with this change continue AI of sustainability leadership as we would be the only city in the [1:11:33] metro area currently to continue to require benchmarking for that building [1:11:39] class so the recommended action in front of you is to approve ordinance 20243 which would amend the efficient [1:11:45] building benchmarking chapter Grant first reading and wave second reading and I can answer any questions [1:11:52] about the benchmarking program thank thank you major be I think um there's a [1:11:58] few questions up here I'm going to start with member Jackson so thank you Mr Mayor thank you [1:12:03] manager bear this is a very thorough and um interesting to [1:12:09] see the state following what we've done it's pretty exciting um but I do have some questions um you talked about um [1:12:16] non-compliance in your report that um of the buildings that we've got I can't [1:12:22] remember now I can't find a percentage um we have a certain percentage of [1:12:27] buildings in Ord not in compliance with our benchmarking currently um of those buildings how many of them are in the [1:12:35] class three that would be continue under city um guidance yes so of all buildings [1:12:41] so of the 268 we have a non-compliance which is they didn't Benchmark their buildings of 10% that's about 28 [1:12:47] buildings of that 28 16 of them are those class three that's smaller less [1:12:53] than 50,000 foot building and that represents about 17% of just that [1:12:58] building class so 17% of the 95 buildings in class 3 had were [1:13:03] non-compliant with the benchmarking policy last year okay thank you and um [1:13:09] one of the things that I caught in your presentation that I didn't catch in reading the report is that the change to [1:13:15] the ordinance would require us to have a fine then or a penalty for people who [1:13:21] are non-compliance is that correct yes um did we reach out to these class three buildings and talk to them at all about [1:13:27] what their reaction to this would be both positively do they enjoy having the Hands-On local treatment to help them [1:13:34] figure it out and then also there a reaction to this uh proposed fine we did [1:13:39] not engage the building owners on their reaction to the program or the fine possibility and and what does the fine [1:13:46] look like um so the statute requires um if you are to operate a local ordinance [1:13:52] you have to have ai civil penalty civil penalty as a um one of the enforcement [1:13:58] mechanisms for non-compliance our current ordinance does not have that so that was one of the required additions [1:14:04] we had to make um the F would be $1,000 as set by Statute $1,000 each year each [1:14:12] year of non-compliance so if they were non-compliant for five years in a row the city would have the option to be [1:14:17] able to enforce that fine if we would so choose okay and right now it's just basically counseling them on on [1:14:24] opportunity to reduce their energy use yep okay um I remember when we did that we [1:14:31] didn't have the authority to have any sort of um other types of compliance [1:14:36] tools um so what would happen to we've to you said that there'd be some cost savings [1:14:43] um what currently we're paying $42,000 a year for the contractor um so it's [1:14:49] approximately 54,000 total for the this program what would that look like after [1:14:54] um we had adopt this ordinance as written we don't know the exact scope number that would be available in 2025 [1:15:00] but we can assume it would be less than the 54,000 we paid this year because it's a smaller scope we'd be removing [1:15:06] about 2third of the buildings that would be covered that would need help desk support energy assessment support and [1:15:12] that's where the majority of that funding goes is towards that help desk um so because they would only have to cover a much smaller set of buildings we [1:15:19] can safely assume the total contract amount would be less but we don't know what the fee would be yet but but that would be something we would bring [1:15:25] forward next year and and is that charged on an as used basis or on an on [1:15:31] estimation of how much Services they'd have to give us so it's a I'm going to make up numbers to service class three [1:15:38] buildings and D it's going to cost you $20,000 now instead of the 42,000 because it's [1:15:44] fewer and whether they have to service them or not it would still be $20,000 correct okay it's a flat fee that we pay [1:15:50] to make the help desk available and then that also covers the review of all of the property data as well okay um and um [1:15:59] so when they review the property data that's for compliance that's not we don't get a report out do we on um how [1:16:06] much energy we've been saving we do so we um in addition to the Touchstone IQ which is the vendor they review the data [1:16:13] they do all of the data quality checks so if there's a trend to say hey building a your energy use is 10% lower [1:16:20] than it was last year is there a data issue if not can you explain what happen [1:16:25] to justify it so they do have a pretty thorough data quality data Assurance process that they Implement for every building and then once all of the data [1:16:32] is submitted reviewed they submit an basically a total output of everything that's been entered to the city so we [1:16:38] can see the data that buildings are submitted we can slice and dice it as we can see for that total consumption and [1:16:44] can can compare year-over-year to see if there are opportunities or Energy savings um so yeah they do provide that [1:16:51] information to us and then do we upload that information on to our environmental dashboard at any point in time yep so we [1:16:57] can make we make available the compliance the data and then there is an online map as well so you can enter a [1:17:04] property address who has to Benchmark any Dina and you can see what their energy score is how they Benchmark to [1:17:10] other buildings and you can also select multiple buildings to Benchmark to each other so it is all publicly available to [1:17:15] the community okay thank you thank you uh member Pierce thanks Mr Mayor um [1:17:22] member Jackson covered um many of my questions um so I have two just to [1:17:30] clarify uh for class one and class two buildings it sounds like the the benefit [1:17:38] of that program with the state um actually managing the data the [1:17:44] difference to us for class one and class two is negligible we still get the same [1:17:49] data we can still make the same recommendations that we would um [1:17:55] we can still follow up with those businesses to um request that they make [1:18:01] changes um so I think that's good is there are are there any fees from the [1:18:07] state back to the city for that there's no cost to cities for the implementation [1:18:12] okay and then the last uh [1:18:19] question the in the the staff report um we you talk about um handing [1:18:27] off the program to class one and class two then you list the um the [1:18:34] change um all of those changes um to me are more kind of procedural or process [1:18:42] related um so my question is are are there any benefits uh from us an [1:18:48] environment perspective by moving to this new by accepting this ordinance and [1:18:54] moving class one and class two to to the state none measurable right away I think [1:19:02] what we potentially could see it's a new program with Statewide management there's additional State resources to [1:19:08] support those buildings engage with buildings um but there's currently no measurable data that we have to say if [1:19:14] we hand off to the state we will increase energy efficiency or save a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions but we can assume would be [1:19:21] consistent continued benchmarking okay thank you [1:19:27] all right good I don't think we have any other questions up here um let me turn [1:19:32] to my colleagues on and see um with respect to the recommended changes in uh [1:19:37] ordinance [1:19:45] 2024-the building uh orance that we presently have in place with respect to [1:19:51] the notion of benchmarking uh is there anyone who cares to make a motion to adopt the [1:19:57] ordinance 2023 2024-the visent building benchmarking [1:20:05] and and wave second reading so moved second we got a motion a second to [1:20:10] approve ordinance 202 24-13 amending the efficient building benchmarking uh uh ordinance and Grant [1:20:18] first reading and wave second reading any further discussion all those in favor of ad [1:20:24] option of the motion is dat say I I I opposed carried ordinance 202 24-13 is [1:20:31] approved and first reading is granted and second reading is waved thank you major bear [1:20:40] okay all right um now we got a few more things on the [1:20:47] agenda that uh have consequence and significance for us uh from a from a conversation [1:20:53] standpoint uh then next matter we have is director teags and it is going to be [1:20:59] a conversation amongst council members about um uh the proposed use of the [1:21:04] property what we know is the Kevin Kei site and uh it's embodied in the a [1:21:10] couple of different forms of resolution one uh form of resolution requires a comprehensive plan Amendment on a 4 [1:21:17] fifth vote uh and then uh if that were approved we have to address the resoning and site plan with variances all of this [1:21:24] uh at the official address for Kevin Keys property at 616 Vernon Avenue I'll turn now to our community development [1:21:32] director K te yes thank you mayor members of the council this request is made by Jake Schaefer of Station Pizza [1:21:39] they have an existing restaurant in minetonka The Proposal is to remodel and expand that existing Keys Auto auto body [1:21:46] that's hasn't been in use for a couple of years now to a little over, 1600 [1:21:52] square ft 20 seat restaurant they would also have takeout and delivery this [1:21:58] request requires a comprehensive plan Amendment from medium density res uh medium density residential to [1:22:04] Neighborhood commercial which would be a new uh classification in the comprehensive plan a rezoning from [1:22:11] planed commercial District 4 to planed commercial District 1 there are a number [1:22:16] of variances uh first along with that rezoning to allow a restaurant under an [1:22:22] acre in size and a site plan uh with a number of variances this is a project [1:22:29] that the council has complete discretion to approve or deny there are resolutions to that effect for both approval and [1:22:36] denial before you to consider there's been a lot of feedback [1:22:41] on Better Together just under 200 comments I usually don't tally them up and when there's that many Just for [1:22:47] information I know you're not making a decision based on number of votes but there were 127 for the project and 60 [1:22:55] against those opposed to the project probably live a little closer in proximity though there are some in the [1:23:01] neighborhood that support the project as well those in favor again number of [1:23:07] comments but you just summarize um those for the project feel it would be a good [1:23:13] fit a neighborhood Gathering space a walkable place to bring their family for a restaurant um and there's a void of [1:23:20] restaurants in this part of Edina those opposed would like to see housing on the [1:23:25] site that this is not a good site for commercial uh there potentially would be [1:23:31] a lack of parking traffic concerns noise odor concern about future commercial use [1:23:37] of the property again um two Alternatives in front of the council for consideration [1:23:44] both the staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval the Planning Commission vote was 8 to Zer [1:23:51] and again as the mayor mentioned it's a they're two separate motions the first for the comprehensive plan amendment [1:23:57] that requires the four fifths vote uh the applicants are here this evening as [1:24:02] well as the architect to answer any questions you may have I'll turn it back to the council for your discussion yeah [1:24:08] thank director te let me first of all check to see anybody has any questions for you on a council basis member Risser [1:24:16] has a question so does member Jackson I'm um curious it I thought that um [1:24:22] people who are opposed were also concerned about safety and that was not [1:24:28] something that you noted and I'm just wondering if that was there yep that's certainly true safety in regards to the [1:24:33] traffic pedestrian movement that was a concern yes thank you that's it m rer that was [1:24:41] your only question okay member Jackson so Mr Teague I have a number of [1:24:47] questions about the types of conditions that we might may or may not be able to add to this um the first thing I want to [1:24:54] do is you've had experience um in approving restaurants and and analyzing [1:24:59] them over the years and we used to have a standard of how many seats in a room and now it's the square footage is there [1:25:07] any way um how how would you if we were looking at this um from a square footage [1:25:12] how could I translate that is with the the image we saw was for 12 but is that [1:25:19] reasonable it would it be bigger how can I think about that [1:25:24] yeah I I in terms of that um I don't recall what they label label it on the [1:25:31] plans but the kind of that party room off to the side I believe they showed 12 seats there I checked with our fire [1:25:38] marshal to find out what the seating capacity in a space like that would be and he indicated it would be 15 or 16 so [1:25:45] not much over the 12 that are indicated um on that plan okay thank you um so I'm [1:25:52] just going to go through a list of possible conditions and tell me whether this is something we could ask for I did [1:25:58] some um asking with um uh attorney Kendall and we can't um if if the fire [1:26:06] department and police department go in and say it's okay to have a liquor license we can't really turn it down um [1:26:12] but can we if they were to apply for a liquor license later on could we limit it to wine and beer [1:26:25] yeah I'm not sure but if they if they wanted to apply [1:26:33] for a full liquor license could we limit it to wine and beer or could we put that as a condition of [1:26:43] approval uh council member Jackson my land use and Zoning [1:26:49] standpoint I don't think that would be a condition that you could impose I think uh I don't know if clerk Allison [1:26:54] wants to weigh in on on different types of liquor licenses and whether they'd be [1:27:00] available in this location um but generally I would not [1:27:07] recommend you know denying a liquor license that they would otherwise be eligible for just based on concerns [1:27:14] about potential problems I mean certainly if there were actual problems related to liquor service on the [1:27:19] property the council could take action spend revoke their license their police calls or other issues but um I wouldn't [1:27:26] recommend preemptively denying a license that they would otherwise be entitled to I don't [1:27:32] know if they'd be entitled to a full liquor license on this site clerk Allison seems to think they would they [1:27:37] would be entitled to a full INX license or a wi license okay thank you um my [1:27:44] next question is is there some way we can limit um the noise outdoors and and [1:27:50] prevent music from being played outside they would be subject to our noise [1:27:57] ordinance um I might turn to attorney Kendall to [1:28:03] see if that is a condition that we could place on this just given it's we do have other similarly zoned properties in [1:28:12] close proximity to residential as well yeah I think they'd be subject to [1:28:18] you know the noise ordinance any nuisance standards that applied um if it were conditional use you could require a [1:28:24] fence as a condition of approval this I don't think this would be a conditional use this would be a permitted use if the [1:28:29] zoning is changed to allow this use um [1:28:35] you could certainly ask them to put up a fence to mitigate noise but you know the whatever noise [1:28:41] ordinance requirements would be for hours of outdoor Amplified music that's what they would be subject to and there [1:28:48] are there is a 6ot cedar fence that's proposed wood fence along the north and [1:28:54] West lot line that is one of the conditions of approval that they follow through on that okay so that was one of [1:29:00] my other questions is to keep the fence along there okay um can we put a [1:29:05] condition to have the lighting going down only we can it it's in current of city [1:29:13] code our lighting standards require that but that would would be a condition that they have to to meet city code to [1:29:20] emphasize that point okay um let's see so we have a problem over at 50th in [1:29:27] France of uh neighbor not appreciating the fan um that's across the way that uh [1:29:34] from I think it's uh bellur um is there a way we can put a condition on this to [1:29:41] have a a high-end um type of fan so that smells and sounds don't go out into the [1:29:50] neighborhood I believe that we could do that that um typically when we've gotten [1:29:56] those complaints in the past staff works with the property owner um the [1:30:02] restaurant and they're usually um come into compliance or do some [1:30:07] things to minimize those but I believe that's a condition that we could add okay thank you um uh can we make it a [1:30:15] condition that the Ingress and egress is only off of Vernon I know that's what they're [1:30:21] planning but um if we we could prevent it from being changed in the future that seems a reasonable condition [1:30:28] as well okay mean as opposed to having a driveway or access of Eden prair correct [1:30:34] yeah yeah [1:30:41] oh um putting a condition that the driveways remain on Vernon and not be on [1:30:46] Eden Prairie Road yeah um can we require them to put in [1:30:52] bike racks we do have a city code standard for that [1:30:57] um they are proposing bike racks on the north side of the building okay so that's taken care of then member Jackson [1:31:04] I just want to address that previous one I don't know if they they're not currently applying to receive any access [1:31:11] off of Eden Prairie Road I don't know if they have even the potential or the [1:31:17] option for Access off Eden Prairie Road but okay I don't know that you could make it a condition that they could [1:31:23] never apply app for that um if they if indeed they potentially could have legal access if they did apply for it the city [1:31:30] could look at whether it would be appropriate and whatever standards apply and could potentially deny it if it's [1:31:35] not appropriate but I I don't think you can require them never to apply for okay [1:31:41] that that makes sense um so um hello pizza is able to operate without a [1:31:48] liquor license and and turnover is that by operation of their business or is [1:31:53] there any kind of zoning restriction on on how they run their business there's no zoning restrictions on that one okay [1:32:01] all right those are my questions thank you actually can I add one clarification [1:32:07] if I remember from the presentation that they're only planning on having 22 seats [1:32:13] in the restaurant that would not qualify for a full int INX because our [1:32:18] requirement is 30 seats in a restaurant so I wanted to add that clarification [1:32:24] okay that's very helpful thank you yes yeah beer beer and wine they could have [1:32:29] liqu beer and wine would be the same too yes it's a minimum of 30 seats have any [1:32:35] kind of liquor yes oh okay that's very helpful thank [1:32:40] you member Pierce thanks uh Mr Mayor so we also had [1:32:48] um exchange um and I think again member Jackson cover of few of the ones that I [1:32:54] had asked um but I wanted to um maybe put a finer point on um a couple of [1:33:03] those asks um and so if a variance can be applied uh for for some of those um [1:33:13] differences my question is do we have [1:33:20] grounds or denial and are we as a council are we at [1:33:27] risk if we were to deny a particular [1:33:33] variance um whether it's with station pizza or a new restaurant are we um at [1:33:40] risk um of being sued I guess is the the question yeah I can take us a swing at [1:33:48] it and um attorney Kendall can add but we couldn't bind a future uh Planning [1:33:54] Commission or city council to not Grant variances they would have the ability to [1:34:00] come in and make that request it would be up to the Planning Commission or Andor councel at that time to make that [1:34:07] decision on a variance okay but member Pierce uh with respect to this [1:34:12] application you do have discretion on this both to deny the comprehensive plan [1:34:18] Amendment uh you have sure why discretion on that and also latitude to deny the variance applications as well [1:34:26] well and so it's an example for the um liquor [1:34:32] license um would we have grounds for denying a liquor [1:34:39] license well there would be separate grounds that not related specifically to this [1:34:45] site but if the if the the council felt that there were enough liquor licenses in the city [1:34:51] or in this area that no further licenses were warranted for any applicant not just for this site you can deny it on [1:34:58] that basis potentially uh you can deny the individual variance applications you [1:35:04] know regarding setbacks and other aspects of this property if you don't feel they meet the Practical difficulties legal [1:35:11] standard and I I do understand the point you made earlier about binding a future [1:35:18] Planning Commission or Council so if those issues did come before Council [1:35:24] um as variances then the council would have to deliberate and decide what they [1:35:31] think is appropriate and so I think the um the list of questions I sent earlier [1:35:37] all geared towards um trying to strike this balance [1:35:43] of hearing what the most immediate neighbors some of their concerns and [1:35:49] actually the the original restaurant and and so I'm kind of thinking in totality [1:35:55] across all of these and trying to think about how you can um strike the balance [1:36:02] of providing a need that or a desire that many of the neighbors um [1:36:09] expressed and then trying to strike a balance in terms of protecting the needs [1:36:15] and desires of those that are are most impacted um and so I think that was the [1:36:20] the gist of the the questions that I had asked um and so you covered the one on number [1:36:27] of seats um you covered the one on [1:36:32] size the last one I had which was [1:36:37] partially covered was Eden Prairie Road um but I had a different ask there and [1:36:42] so there was a a another Resident who was concerned about overflow but the way [1:36:51] they articulated overflow was that the uh condo had parking and I think I think [1:36:58] she said there was just one parking spot that was available for that condo and they were concerned if there's overflow [1:37:05] and someone parks there that now it impedes access to guests uh that are [1:37:12] visiting um and so my question there [1:37:19] actually would would be almost outside of the context of the this project right [1:37:24] it seemed like that was something that U maybe we should look into to ensure that [1:37:30] that doesn't happen whether we're we're able to use permitting or something like that but for sure if this goes forward [1:37:39] um kind of protecting um on Eden Prairie Road that uh parking um for the condo so the [1:37:46] question there would be what options do we have um to do that yeah I think a couple of options [1:37:54] you it you could require or um request that the city post no restaurant parking another [1:38:02] option would be if the project gets approved and it becomes a an issue in [1:38:08] the future it could be referred to the Traffic Safety Committee and they could um take a look at the posting no parking [1:38:15] type signs um okay and then the the last [1:38:22] question um member Jackson asked about protection against smells and loud music [1:38:31] um are you aware of how the smells are going to be [1:38:39] mitigated I don't know specifically it probably a question that the applicant would I would assume have an answer to [1:38:47] okay y let's let's have the applicant come up and and answer that [1:38:56] uh good evening mayor and uh council members uh Jesse hyr with momentum Design Group the architect for the project I'm not a mechanical engineer so [1:39:03] I can't tell you exactly how these things work uh we'll be looking at equipment that that can mitigate odors [1:39:08] um what that rises to and what if you put a requirement on the uh for for [1:39:14] approval based on that um presumably there be some language in there where we'd work with uh uh Mr T to sort of [1:39:22] figure out what what that requirement would be because honestly I can't I can't tell you [1:39:27] exactly like what systems would require there's probably a range of products that are available at different levels [1:39:33] of efficacy so well perhaps describe what those products are well my [1:39:40] understanding is that effectively they are uh filtration systems that are attached or uh to the mechanical systems [1:39:47] that would otherwise circulate the air from inside the the restaurant to the outside and so they would have filtration requirements and filters [1:39:54] and I I've used the word filter a couple times already effectively that's my understanding it revolves around various [1:40:01] levels of filtration okay um and then anything on sound soundwise we have no [1:40:08] plans for outdoor uh service that's been uh discussed in in in in the past uh so [1:40:14] you know we are going to build the fence on the both the North side and the West Side um obviously beyond that we're you [1:40:20] know we're we're open to whatever suggestions you guys have I [1:40:26] guess um but I don't we don't foresee a problem there but obviously that's what we're going to say uh so you know if [1:40:33] there's a problem in the future we' clearly want to work with that uh with with the city with the neighbors to figure that out okay thank [1:40:40] you just stay there for a second what which which way would the equipment vent off the building oh I I I couldn't [1:40:47] answer that again a mechanical engineer would have to look at it and tell you I could tell you we plan on it to go east [1:40:53] but they could tell me why there be very good reasons why it couldn't so I okay I wouldn't want to say all right good [1:41:01] Lu thank you uh just to get a point of clarification all clerk Allison um what [1:41:08] one of the questions member Pierce asked uh caused me to think uh that I thought [1:41:14] I understood you to say that if you don't have at least 30 seat capacity you can't apply for any kind of wine or beer [1:41:21] or liquor license that is correct Mr Mayor it is 30 seat minimum in our [1:41:26] ordinance okay to have either um if this overflow parking were [1:41:35] indeed an issue uh would there be anything that would prevent the applicant from putting [1:41:41] a gate in The Back Fence that they intend to put up so that would facilitate the movement of people [1:41:47] parking on Eden prair Road to make it easier for them to get into the pizza place I believe the intention was to not [1:41:54] put a gate in there um based on concerns from residents could that be a condition [1:42:01] no gate or not no gate in the fence um I believe we could over time it might [1:42:10] become something I mean the resolution gets filed on the property so it should be a condition [1:42:18] that that continues with the property um someone walk from the neighborhood could [1:42:24] just walk to the east around the fence and into the site could just walk to the east or walk to the West around the [1:42:30] condo and go around the condo property and cut that way yeah okay all right [1:42:36] thanks Ember Risser could we um call up the image that shows the buildable area [1:43:09] thank you um one of we we have been talking about this project a lot but [1:43:16] there are things that we have not addressed and uh question for director [1:43:22] Teague putting up no parking signs um it's it's not working on Valley View in [1:43:30] front of you 44 people routinely Park um [1:43:35] in front of the entrance on top of the bike trail or bike path and there is a [1:43:40] bike path along Vernon right I believe that's correct okay and [1:43:47] it is on the North side okay why would and in a way this situation is very much [1:43:54] like the um view 44 site on Valley View because you've got this long stretch of [1:44:00] road there's no way to turn around easily or go around a block you have to continue down for a long period of time [1:44:07] and I have a hard time believing that people even if there is no parking um [1:44:12] signage they will probably Park along run run in pick up their Pizza um what's [1:44:20] there really isn't anything to stop that correct parking on Vernon [1:44:28] right it's currently signed no parking but it's an enforcement mechanism at [1:44:34] that point right I'm just people don't follow the rules then you can call and [1:44:39] ask for some enforcement on any of the streets of no parking signs but the [1:44:44] actual ability for that to have an impact is minimal because you have to [1:44:50] call you have to get the police there there at that time and they have to catch the person parking where they [1:44:57] shouldn't be I mean this happens all the time on Valley View you've got trucks [1:45:02] stopping in front and that was actually part of the design the architect for view 44 said people will park on the [1:45:10] bike um path and run in and come back out and acknowledged clearly during the [1:45:16] public hearing that that stretch of road would function as short-term parking and [1:45:22] I think it's very likely that we will put it's going to be the same thing we're going to have no parking signs but [1:45:29] it will functionally be short-term parking you can have your bike path when it's not being used for short-term [1:45:36] parking the other concern that I have is um maybe somebody could walk me through [1:45:41] if if people don't have a gate to get through to the site or even if they're [1:45:46] coming along and the sidewalk is going to be closer to the lot line true could [1:45:53] somebody tell me how people are supposed to get to the restaurant when they go [1:45:58] around the fence like where's the safe pedestrian pathway getting through the parking [1:46:09] lot are you thinking coming from Eden Prairie Road yeah just maybe use your cursor you go around the fence how do [1:46:17] you get to they would come this way um and then connect up with the new side [1:46:23] walk here and into the site okay so and the sidewalk would be closer and they'd go [1:46:29] and this is the same kind of thing when you're walking along France Avenue in front of the US Bank site and you're [1:46:36] heading in a Northerly Direction you've got your back toward the traffic that's coming up behind you so you can't really [1:46:42] see well um you have to turn and look to make sure you're not going to get hit [1:46:48] and so the sidewalks and I would really request that for future plans especially when we get to this stage they're [1:46:54] accurate the sidewalk is not going to be that close to Veron it's going to be right up near where the cars are parked [1:47:00] and then you're going to have people having to go across in front of the entryway where [1:47:09] the cars are coming in there's also the tandem parking those three blue um lots [1:47:15] that are for delivery so they're going to be coming in and coming out those are [1:47:21] in front of employee parking so there's probably going to have to be and I had to work at a place where we had to park [1:47:27] behind each other and it was this constant car ret kind of thing that we had to do but you have a lot going on [1:47:36] here um and so that was why I asked whether people were concerned about [1:47:43] safety and I am very concerned about safety and that um leads me to another [1:47:49] concern that I raised and I did do it in an email and this was is about spot [1:47:54] zoning and we're not concerned about spot zoning is that [1:48:00] true correct the the property is currently zoned commercial okay if we [1:48:05] could go to the map that shows zoning [1:48:23] um yeah the next one okay and I totally understand what you're saying that it is [1:48:29] currently zoned commercial okay it is currently zoned um for automotive use [1:48:37] pcd4 what was it 50 plus years ago this was a gas station and this is what gas [1:48:43] stations look like and I mentioned a dissertation about gas stations and you know how how complex it is and how [1:48:50] routine it is to find these really small or small triangular shaped spaces [1:48:56] um when we talk about rezoning and we talk about current zoning one of the [1:49:02] things we can talk about is you know how it fits today and I would say that you [1:49:09] know this is an unusual situation and the reason why it's guided in the comprehensive plan for residential use [1:49:16] is to make it become like the surrounding land use which is all [1:49:23] residential and so I think it's useful just I did contact the league of Minnesota cities to ask about you know [1:49:30] and they did not give me a specific answer but pointed me in the direction of a lot of information and said there's [1:49:37] a general definition spot zoning usually involves the rezoning of a small parcel of land and this is rezoning um that has [1:49:47] no supporting rational basis that relates to promoting public welfare and [1:49:52] that's up you know everything is Up For Debate you know that's why there's an option to approve or an option to deny [1:49:59] but I think when we look at this site and just all of the movement and the [1:50:04] potential risk um to bikers on the bike trail the very likely possibility people [1:50:09] will be parking there um how you're going to get into the site as somebody walking um I think there is a lot of [1:50:17] safety risk um the other point is establishes a use classification [1:50:23] inconsistent with surrounding uses and creates an island of non-conforming use within a larger Zone district and I [1:50:30] think that is what we're seeing here and then the final Point dramatically reduces the value for uses specified in [1:50:37] the zoning ordinance of either the reone plot or a budding property and we did [1:50:43] hear from people and I really I remember the person I can't remember her name who [1:50:48] will be who lives right directly across from this site and I think it's [1:50:54] important to recognize there were parallels that were made um with other [1:51:00] Pizza establishments in and hello pizza specifically it was noted that that's near residential hello pizza does not [1:51:08] front onto a residential lot it fronts [1:51:14] onto an intersection that's slightly a skew but across from it is commercial [1:51:19] property and then you've got it's part of a large commercial node and this is [1:51:25] this is not a commercial node this is just a 38 Acre Site um surrounded by [1:51:32] residential property so I just want to ask again we don't think there's any possibility this could be viewed as spot [1:51:43] zoning I don't I don't believe so unless the City attorney believe he had answered that at the last meeting as [1:51:48] well so it's currently zoned commercial this [1:51:54] would be a rezoning to another commercial use so I if if you feel that [1:52:00] I would say based on the definition you're establishing it's currently spot zoned so I don't think you'd be changing [1:52:07] anything continuing a commercial use um but yeah the surrounding use is is residential and the comprehensive plan [1:52:14] has a guided residential so that's all understood and acknowledged thank you [1:52:25] Ru are we okay to just start general comments now or do we want I I think so okay I think so [1:52:32] yeah Mr Kendall answered the question I was going to ask him so we're all good [1:52:37] to go I think uh on comment thank you um so my my general reaction to this is [1:52:45] looking at the site and it is an awkward site it's a triangle and it's difficult [1:52:50] to find what is going to be the right use for that kind of a site uh I know that member Risser often refers to the [1:52:57] Valley View in Woodale um the the condominiums that were put in there and I live really close to that as well and [1:53:03] it is a really similar site it is smaller but it is quite similar and so I [1:53:09] bring that experience into this site in particular I don't think that housing [1:53:17] will work well on this site and the prime reason for that is and I think member R are had a a graphic um this [1:53:24] last time that showed how tight it would be even for four units um I when we look [1:53:31] at that buildable area I don't understand how something as many as like [1:53:36] four units would work well on this site so then I asked myself what what could [1:53:43] work or what would be a better proposal um you know a lot of different ideas were brought forward by community [1:53:49] members you know at one point I heard a a coffee shop or a dut shop or a barber [1:53:54] I think was thrown out there a florist a shooting range I don't think that one was serious but it was mentioned and the [1:54:01] reason that none of these businesses are being brought forward as a proposal for [1:54:07] this site is because they're not financially viable and so that's where again we come to this dilemma of what is [1:54:16] the right thing for this site and I think the reality is we don't know that a pizza shop is necessarily the right [1:54:22] thing for this site either but I do think that it is something that could be a viable solution and it moves us [1:54:30] forward in where the site is at today so then I look at other proposals [1:54:37] we've received the Westside Cafe and in my opinion that one was too large for [1:54:42] this site I forget the exact number it was over 50 seats and that felt like a [1:54:48] lot it felt too imposing for the neighborhood but what we have in front of us and based off of calculations [1:54:55] whether it's the 16 seats Max in that party spot plus the eight kind of counter seating 24 seats maximum to me [1:55:05] feels like it's the right fit for this site we do see that it can be [1:55:10] appropriately parked within the parking lot attached and so I'm viewing the proposal that's in front of us as a [1:55:16] compromise because again I don't think that there is a perfect fit for this site um and so anytime we're making a [1:55:23] compromise I want to look to and I I think a lot of fellow council members thought about this what are the potential impacts to [1:55:30] the neighborhood and how can we mitigate that you know what levers if parking does spill over onto the neighborhood [1:55:37] what are the levers that we can pull whether it's permitted parking whether it's no parking signs um for the [1:55:43] restaurant I think that that we have a lot of options at our disposal um even [1:55:48] as we heard you know Mr Teague mention where we get complaints from Neighbors whether it's because of sound [1:55:54] or smell the city works with developers to help mitigate those impacts on the [1:56:00] residents um we could also you know potentially work with the the county or others to think about should we reduce [1:56:06] the speed on Vernon I think that there are so many levers that we have out there um and I do truly believe that [1:56:13] this could be an amazing benefit to the community I think that this is where kids in the neighborhood are going to get their first job um I think that this [1:56:21] is where people are going to connect with their neighbors and where the book club is going to meet on Wednesday [1:56:26] nights um we did have someone from the neighborhood resident emailed in and said you know and I'm quoting here I [1:56:33] know some of my neighbors are concerned with increased traffic but in my view the benefits of having an amenity like [1:56:39] this small restaurant within walking distance easily outweighs the negative impact by increased [1:56:45] traffic and you know I think I also heard some mention that this would be an eyesore well using the same building [1:56:52] that's already there so and it's revitalizing it it's making it a positive impact on the community and I [1:56:59] think that that's that is an improvement um and so my vision just in conclusion here is that yes we know that [1:57:07] there's a offence that's going to go along that back wall um and I know that the ask from the community right now is [1:57:12] that there's no gate there's no entrance into the community but my hope is that [1:57:18] in a year's time the community is asking for a gate to be put in in because they're going to want to go there [1:57:24] they're going to be the ones that are accessing it the most and so that's that's how I believe um this will be a [1:57:31] positive impact on the community so thank you thanks member ago well [1:57:36] said member rer um I I do want to say that yes I do [1:57:43] think there's too much housing on the similar site but that doesn't mean residential property can't be built I [1:57:50] also want to note that we got figures on what the land was you [1:57:56] was estimated to be worth when it was sold and I believe it was in the $400,000 range it was purchased for [1:58:02] $900,000 and one of my big concerns is that land [1:58:09] values are being pushed up because we are giving so much so many variances and [1:58:15] going so far that it does impact safety and I do think we need to really acknowledge the fact that [1:58:23] um the dollar the price the what was paid for this lot um was and and also [1:58:31] that happened with the other site and in a way these are very similar and so you end up in a situation where oh we have [1:58:38] to allow more development than is logical and safe for the site in order [1:58:44] for it to be financially viable and I think it's our job not to be here [1:58:50] figuring out how sites can become financially viable when they're purchased for more than they should be [1:58:57] it should be our job to push back on that you know and and not be promoting [1:59:02] artificial land inflation um costs I I don't I don't think that's the way to go [1:59:09] and I do think there could have been a double dwelling unit on that site if it [1:59:14] had been you know looked at and approached in a way that made economic [1:59:20] sense but it really does um make me very concerned to think that we might be and [1:59:27] we have been um zoning or allowing planning based purely [1:59:33] on um decisions to purchase land that may not really have been that wise so [1:59:40] that's something that I want to push back on [1:59:46] um and I think it is going to be very challenging um um for it to work the [1:59:54] other thing is as was noted there's no guarantee we we reone this to pcd1 we [2:00:01] don't have any control of what goes in there and you could put a second story stay within the legal buildable area uh [2:00:09] you could you know easily if it doesn't work out there could be a very different restaurant um [2:00:16] with 30 seats and then you're talking um the right to get the liquor license there is we don't have control over the [2:00:24] site once we rezone it um it can be anything and they're not just [2:00:30] limiting um what they're going to do to the building that's there they want to expand on it and I think that's [2:00:36] important to recognize as well so um those are my concerns thank [2:00:43] you thank you pierce or member Jackson thoughts [2:00:54] thanks thanks thanks I guess yeah yeah yeah um [2:01:00] so just a a couple of thoughts I um to member Richer's point about um the [2:01:08] market and I promise I won't get on the soap box but I do think that that is a [2:01:14] primary one of our primary issues that we have with housing affordability and [2:01:20] so we do it all over the city where we take a lot that was has an x [2:01:26] value we tear it down in within 7 months that same address that same plot of land [2:01:34] is now instead of 500,000 it's a million two um and so I do think we escalate the [2:01:45] the value of land in Edina um but I do believe the market [2:01:51] does what the market does and so we are setting that not as a precedent but um [2:01:59] as long as we continue in that way um like we'll see the market adjust in in [2:02:06] the same way um so I I definitely get that um I don't think to put a finer [2:02:13] point on that I don't think Council uh we should be um seeking to [2:02:19] artificially control the market and so the market for this piece of property was set by the person who bought it and [2:02:28] the person who sold it and so that sets what that piece of land um is worth um [2:02:35] from a sale perspective and I don't think we can control that as a council [2:02:41] nor nor do I think we should um so for for this I I actually do [2:02:48] believe that um um this is a a good use [2:02:54] and an appropriate use of the the lot um a lot of the comments that member agu [2:03:01] made I agree with um and so I to double [2:03:06] down a couple of those when the uh Westside Cafe um was a [2:03:12] potential we all thought that was too large we thought it wasn't the right fit [2:03:20] for a neighborhood to have have a rooftop bar and open [2:03:27] till later hours in the night maybe I'll just put it that way um much larger [2:03:34] restaurant we didn't feel like that was really a neighborhood Family amenity um and so even then we talked [2:03:42] about well maybe if it was a quick serve or if it was a coffee shop um we gave a [2:03:50] few examples of what we thought might work and at that point the the owner or [2:03:56] developer wasn't interested in in doing um something like that and [2:04:03] so we didn't approve that um and then we had the green drop uh come through and [2:04:10] we didn't approve that either um and so I do feel like uh Station Pizza is a a [2:04:19] definitely more in alignment with uh neighborhood family um [2:04:24] amenity um I think it will be a Gathering Spot we live in [2:04:31] Highlands we get pizza every Friday um and um now we're I think I [2:04:39] said this before we now go to uh we have been going to Gina Maria all the way in Eden [2:04:47] Prairie because we lived there um and then they open one in Cahill so now we [2:04:53] go there we'll be going to Station Pizza cuz it's I mean it's not even a half a [2:05:00] mile away from the house um and so I think we will use it I also believe that [2:05:08] it is incumbent on City staff and um and we are a part of [2:05:15] that as the council to figure out ways to find the right balance and so I made [2:05:23] that comment earlier you're hearing that from some of us that we want to make sure we're striking the right balance um [2:05:31] and in this particular case even for the Westside Cafe we had a lot of support [2:05:38] for that and so we we saw very similar numbers Westside Cafe versus uh Station [2:05:45] Pizza for and against um and so I I think it is um it is something that I [2:05:51] would support but then I would continue to urge us uh to think about what is the [2:05:58] right balance to help this become an even better amenity for the community um [2:06:06] and of course we have to do that in a from a legal perspective um but I but I [2:06:11] I would encourage us to continue to try to to think about ways um to strike that [2:06:17] that balance thank you member Pierce member Jackson yes thank you Mr Mayor so first [2:06:23] a follow-up question um Mr Teague um would they require would there a [2:06:29] variance be required to add a second story to this if they built within that [2:06:38] triangle they would not need a variance unless the square footage goes over the [2:06:43] parking requirement so they might need a variance for additional square footage [2:06:49] but any building outside of that triangle in the the buildable area would [2:06:54] require a variance so if we approve this building and they want to put a second [2:06:59] story anything that goes outside that triangle they'd have to get a variance for correct okay so it's not automatic [2:07:07] correct all right um so I I told people that I talked to [2:07:13] today that I have been 100% on the fence on this um and I I I hear the neighbors [2:07:20] and their concern very deeply and very personally um this is one of the quietest roads in Edina [2:07:27] and I appreciate the change that this would bring to it [2:07:33] um I have to say I'm a little um stunned by member [2:07:39] risser's comments because she's often bemoaning the loss of commercial property in our city um for residential [2:07:46] purposes and and I'm I'm I'm kind of surprised um that that's where she's [2:07:52] falling on this um residential makes perfect sense [2:07:57] here um and so that's it it's zoned for that it's [2:08:04] logical it makes sense on the other hand there's a strong desire from people in that part of town [2:08:12] where I live as well for something to do and something to walk to some place for [2:08:17] kids to go potentially have their first job but to hang out to to go on their own power and [2:08:24] um so I asked uh you know around I think [2:08:30] there are ways to make residential work um for this property it's not a it's not [2:08:36] a straight path um but it is [2:08:44] possible um you know had the had this been the first proposal that came forward it would have been yes um I and [2:08:53] I think the difficult um times that we had you know with the first round go [2:09:00] round um was just so over the top that it really built a strong opposition to [2:09:05] it um but in the same breath from a lot of people who posed that first one said [2:09:12] gosh couldn't you do something smaller if this would have just been the drive up pizza place I would be a [2:09:19] yes um I honestly I just I is 50% on either [2:09:26] side um I don't think that we owe a certain return on any piece of property [2:09:31] but by the same token I think we owe a usefulness for a piece of property [2:09:38] um so I'm leaning in favor of this and I know that's very disappointing to to [2:09:44] people um in the neighborhood but it's a very quiet use I [2:09:49] would absolutely if this goes forward um look for the fan system that would not allow smells and sounds into the [2:09:56] neighborhood I'm very concerned about the bellor um option [2:10:02] but I think that um that we have to allow a use for this property and if [2:10:07] this had been the first proposal that came forward we would have voted yes um and I'm thinking of of Kevin ston who [2:10:14] said well what's the outcome you know that that that had you started from scratch and you didn't have any history [2:10:21] um we did that with the um Street reconstruction and I thought that was a wise way of looking at it and um and I [2:10:28] just I wish I didn't have to make a decision honestly this is just tearing me up but I think um that I would be in [2:10:34] favor of this thank you member Jackson [2:10:39] um none of you know this because we weren't with us upstairs uh but we spent [2:10:45] about well over an hour uh on our zoning code and [2:10:53] discussing that the um infirmities in a 54 year old document and um one of the [2:11:00] things that we talked about was the fact that our comprehensive plan provides for [2:11:06] medium density residential as it does here is the way it's guided on this particular [2:11:12] site but we really don't have anything in the code that matches up with the comp plan and this this is a small piece [2:11:20] of my think but this does give us an opportunity the way this property is guided to [2:11:27] potentially achieve some of that Medium density residential why do I why do I say that if everybody's up here thinking [2:11:33] about what an odd piece of property this is and it is but we know from the public [2:11:39] hearing that there were owners of the condominium building [2:11:44] in the condominium building next door that were telling us that well you know [2:11:49] maybe there's a possibility that we could sell some of that land to be able to create a bigger [2:11:55] footprint so you can think about that in a couple different ways you could think about actually the condominium expanding [2:12:02] to the East and you could think about the condominium selling some property to a [2:12:08] developer that could build to the West a little bit closer to the condominium so that's at least one thing [2:12:15] one element of this that's roiling around in my head but of course we have a project in front of us that we need to [2:12:20] ACC on and that's somebody coming forward with an idea of uh having a commercial use there um [2:12:30] and so here I regardless of whether it was the other restaurant idea or that uh [2:12:36] I remember was what was that called green green drop greenop uh or this this [2:12:42] uh this proposal I I kind of tend to look at them all the same way and other [2:12:47] parts of town the same way I look at uh you know I have a a little B ing tests that I use and I first of all I ask [2:12:54] myself the question does the proposed use have a potential benefit to the public I'd say yeah it probably does uh [2:13:01] but then I have to ask myself the question is there a potential adverse impact on the immediate neighborhood and [2:13:06] if so does that potential adverse effect outweigh the potential benefit to the broader [2:13:12] public there's only one way I can answer that question I say yes the potential adverse impact on the nearby [2:13:19] neighborhood to me is more significant than the overall benefit to the [2:13:25] public so I worry about several things I worry about the fact that we'd re on it to pcd1 and we got no Downstream control [2:13:32] over what happens in pcd1 this is a total outlier piece of [2:13:38] property we've all talked about it in different ways if for 54 years it was a gas station then just an automotive [2:13:44] repair place remember rer mentioned it's not a commercial node it's not valy viw Wooddale it's not 70th in Kill it's not [2:13:51] Sunnyside in France 44th in France it's just this outlier piece of property [2:13:57] sitting in the middle of a residential neighborhood on a busy street and yeah a pizza place is a one [2:14:04] potential use there but it got guided as residential for a reason in the comp [2:14:11] plant and I think that guiding it as MDR as residential use was the right thing [2:14:18] to do and I continue to think it's the right thing to do is to continue that exploration of [2:14:24] housing on this site I appreciate all of the time that all of these applicants have put into this this site to try to [2:14:31] figure out what to do that would be good for their business good for good for uh [2:14:37] the town um and and of course um the gentleman has proposed it even lives in [2:14:43] our community uh but nonetheless we all have I think articulated the way we are [2:14:49] analyzing this up here and um uh I'm led to the conclusion uh using [2:14:56] my test my methodology that um I would join member Risser in saying that I [2:15:02] would not approve a comprehensive plan amendment to this project and so that um [2:15:08] I think because it needs a for fist vote my my sense is that we were we're [2:15:15] 3-2 member rer um it is hard to make decisions to [2:15:21] member Jackson's point about how I am so passionate about preserving commercial [2:15:27] yeah it'd be cool but I look at safety risks I look at the ask I look at the [2:15:34] context I brought up concerns about what we say in our code about through Lots um [2:15:42] there's a lot that concerns me and you I can't just stick to the I will always [2:15:48] support commercial no matter what and and I I did it is hard on that but I [2:15:54] didn't talk about that but the um there's just too much going on here [2:16:02] and I look at that entryway I look at the tandem parking I look at the you know it just I I can't see approving [2:16:10] this thank you yeah so one other thing I forgot to mention was I hearken back in [2:16:16] my mind to the uh when we approved the apartment building at Sunnyside and uh [2:16:21] France Avenue the laan their first notion was to put a a really nice restaurant on the first floor but of [2:16:28] course uh and even though they had some public parking in the garage there and they still do today by virtue of the way [2:16:34] the project was approved folks in that neighborhood were worried about people parking in the neighborhood and I I I [2:16:41] think it it's it's um inevitable that there would be people parking on Eden [2:16:47] Prairie Road and going in the back way to this um to this restaurant and I [2:16:52] think it would be uh adversely affecting the quality of life for people that live over there so that was another reason [2:16:59] that um I forgot to express earlier that has influenced my decision on this so um [2:17:06] I do believe there would be a negative impact on the neighborhood so [2:17:14] um I don't think there's probably any sense in voting on a comp planine Amendment you need have to otherwise I [2:17:21] think it yeah we have yeah okay yeah we do yeah we have to vote on the compain amendment all right yeah very good point [2:17:27] Fair Point you think the old May would know that by now um okay hold on let me pull this up [2:17:38] here so um is there a [2:17:44] motion on the right one here is there a motion to adopt [2:17:50] resolution 202 24-17 which should approve a comprehensive plan Amendment uh and um allow the um change [2:17:59] in the zoning from pcd4 to pcd1 so moved egna [2:18:06] moves yeah you your first vote is on the comprehensive plan that's what I said [2:18:12] didn't I say the comprehensive plan I thought you said the zoning say that [2:18:18] again I thought you mentioned the zoning and not the compreh you started with the comprehensive plan started with the comprehensive plan did I switch over to [2:18:25] the zoning yeah okay [2:18:32] um there there is uh so the resolution 2024 107 is the comprehensive plan [2:18:39] amendment is that correct correct all right well is there a motion to adopt [2:18:45] the comprehensive plan Amendment so moved remember AG moves [2:18:53] approval we have no second okay the motion was for approval yeah [2:18:59] motion was for approval so I'll second so member Jackson seconds could the [2:19:05] approval of resolution 2024 -107 which would uh approve the comprehensive plan [2:19:10] Amendment as proposed yeah we're voting on The comprehensive plan Amendment comprehensive plan Amendment and it takes a four fifths reques a four fifths [2:19:17] majority to pass we got a motion and a second any further discussion on that okay all those in favor of adoption [2:19:25] of resolution 2024 107 which would involve the uh comprehensive plan Amendment as recommended by staff say I [2:19:33] I I opposed I nay three [2:19:39] two motion fails so we because the comprehensive [2:19:46] plan Amendment failed we would recommend that you make a motion to deny the [2:19:54] rezoning there would be no point in approving the rezoning if you're not going to Grant the comprehensive plan [2:20:00] Amendment so I'd recommend you deny the rezoning all right even though the the [2:20:05] failure of the comprehensive plan obviates the need for the you still want to vote on it [2:20:12] okay [2:20:18] um is there a motion so you wanted in a form of a denial oh mayor you can you [2:20:23] can do it whatever whichever way you like um but approval takes three votes [2:20:28] yeah with three fist vote we're going to get in the if I do it yeah we're going to we're going to be in an odd spot here [2:20:39] yeah um so even those who are in favor of of [2:20:45] amending the comprehensive plan I'd still recommend they vote against the resoning because at this point the comprehensive plan amendment has failed [2:20:51] so there's no point in pushing to for the resoning so the question is whether to move for approval or move for [2:20:58] denial we would recommend you move for denial move for denial that's what I was intending to [2:21:04] do uh is there a motion to deny resolution 2024 108 which would approv [2:21:11] their preliminary resoning and site plan with multiple variances so moved second jaction moves member Pier seconds the [2:21:18] denial of resolution 2024 d 108 which would approve the preliminary resoning [2:21:23] and site plan with multiple variances any further discussion all those in favor of adoption of the motion St to [2:21:29] say I I I opposed nay motion carries the [2:21:34] resolution 202 24-18 uh seeking preliminary approval of resoning and site plan approval with [2:21:41] multiple variances is denied okay [2:21:54] and now we are on to another one of director Milner's [2:22:16] projects and I think before folks we get to the uh [2:22:21] discussion on the final Pro the final Levy for 2025 we might want to take a [2:22:26] short break that's a good idea you want to do director Milner first first or do [2:22:32] you want to take a break now you already lost one member for a break go for it go for it well we [2:22:38] already lost one member to a break if you wanted to do it now [2:22:54] comfortable mayor yeah you can go ahead go ahead and start thank you mayor members of council uh we're back after the public hearing from last week on the [2:23:00] president's A&B neighborhood roadway reconstruction so we took live public [2:23:05] testimony on December 9th we received eight comments uh we received eight comments on Better Together din as of [2:23:12] this morning and I sent you that report we offered a variety of options to participate we got comments against the [2:23:18] shared used P sidewalks roadway narrowing the maintenance burden for those paths and sidewalks the owners [2:23:25] tree removals lots of parking we had some comments about Alden Park and the traffic and parking there heard about [2:23:32] vehicle speeds and traffic volumes on Washington Avenue semi-truck volume on Washington and then we also heard [2:23:38] support for the general infrastructure Replacements within the neighborhood the living streets plan we [2:23:43] go just want to touch on that a little bit why do we have our standards we've had standards to reduce Street widths [2:23:49] for 20 plus years we've done Street reconstruction reduces construction cost assessment costs reduces future [2:23:55] maintenance cost uh reduced Lane wids encourage slower motor vehicle speed so [2:24:00] it's safer reduces environmental impacts by reducing impervious surface and often [2:24:05] preserves trees and protects trees and other plantings and infrastructure within that RightWay uh I'll just touch on a few of [2:24:11] the comments we heard so last time we heard about concerns with snow maintenance um and I want to have the [2:24:17] council remember our work session October 15th where we talked about snow maintenance operations Staffing [2:24:22] equipment and budgets um the proposed multimodal facilities the sidewalks and chair use paths in this neighborhood do [2:24:29] not meet our current practices we would not recommend adding more maintenance to staff they already have more than they [2:24:35] can handle to meet our two days level of service if we keep adding sidewalks we're going to either do one of two [2:24:41] things right we either going to reduce that level of service to three days and if council's comfortable with that if [2:24:47] directed we would maintain it as best we could otherwise eventually we're going to need more [2:24:52] staff and equipment to meet that 48 hour request so we just wanted to throw that nugget out there for snow maintenance [2:24:59] parking at the park parking is currently prohibited on the north side of Belmore [2:25:04] Lane right adjacent to the park we're estimating a potential parking demand during events it's uh just a general [2:25:12] guidance that we found 30 to 80 potential Vehicles depending on the event it's a lot of soccer events for [2:25:18] kids uh we talked about Washington Avenue why don't we just push Washton over closer to the highway this is why [2:25:24] we got electrical Transformers we got aerial 169 sound sign foundations and [2:25:30] lights so that green space is pretty much full uh along that barrier of [2:25:36] 169 we are starting to begin cons discussions with UNFI and their trucks [2:25:42] because we heard about that concern right now the graphic on the left shows the trucks some travel up that [2:25:48] Washington Avenue in that's a more of a residential feeling Street the graphic on the right hand side so shows where [2:25:55] they could access that same facility from the west side of 169 that's more of a commercial Fu area so we're having [2:26:01] those discussions now with them to hopefully shift some most of the trucks uh to that other route Washington Avenue [2:26:09] parking there's 18 Parcels on Washington Avenue there's discussions of how many driveways 11 driveways access Washington [2:26:15] Avenue three access the alley two have driveway access on Belmore Lane and one [2:26:22] on Maloney and one on Third Street um if we go with the recommendation of the ETC [2:26:28] to put on street bike Lanes we'd lose 15 parking stalls on Washington so just to [2:26:33] give you that heads up and then ajacent map showing all the amenities that we're trying to continue to build connections [2:26:39] with sidewalks and shared use path there's Harley Hopkins Park our own Park in town we have the family center and [2:26:45] the Blake school and Hopkins right at this location is like mul Regional Trail intersection we have n [2:26:53] Mile Creek Lake minaka Regional Trail the Cedar Lake Regional Trail and also the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail so [2:27:00] they all come in the Hopkins at that area and then downtown Hopkins also has amenities that people most likely want [2:27:05] to get to and then there's various Transit routes along that uh exceler Boulevard [2:27:12] Corridor multimodal streets with the boulevards that we're recommending that provides some flexibility for us so the [2:27:18] 3 to 5 foot Boulevard provide snow storage and design flexibility so we can [2:27:23] be uh respective of mature trees and minimize other rway impacts where we can [2:27:29] go down the zero if we have to around various features if we design with the Boulevard in mind at the start but then [2:27:35] we also always Flex that space to save and protect different things we do want to make two changes to [2:27:42] our recommendations one is on bmore Lane uh right at the park so on if you remember Stow Park on 62nd Street we had [2:27:50] the same concern and we built a bump out for Park users so we talked to the parks we're suggesting to widen that street [2:27:56] section to create a parking bump out on the north side of the street so users can park on both sides of Belmore right [2:28:02] by the park this would add 13 to 15 parking stalls right there where the highest demand is that would reduce the [2:28:08] need of people parking down the streets in all the other directions we also heard comments about [2:28:15] uh Third Street and why not create a buffer along that 10ft shared use path that currently exists in Hopkins so we [2:28:23] and changed our proposal from 24t wide Street to 27 so we could provide a 3ft buffer the buffer the users of that [2:28:30] multiuse trail that's already there today that's existing from the vehicles driving uh westbound on Third Street [2:28:37] recall we wanted to put the parking on the South Side adjacent to the homes that are on Third Street [2:28:43] there so those are the two changes otherwise we believe it's feasible cost effective and necessary to improve the [2:28:49] public infrastructure we're recommending uh approving a sidewalk on Monroe and a shared use path [2:28:55] on Belmore and Washington um assessments require a four fifths Council vote in favor of to [2:29:01] approve so the the portions of this project that are assessed in that approval if we get into a discussion on [2:29:08] pedestrian and chared use pass which we've done in the past that only requires a minimum of three out of five [2:29:14] Council votes if we get into a discussion on some of those metrics so just want to remind the Council on a couple of those voting things with what [2:29:20] we're dealing with I'd be happy to stand for any questions yeah well done and I think we all really appreciate the fact [2:29:26] that you took to heart uh so much of the public testimony that occurred a few weeks ago and and and and tried to think [2:29:33] about solutions to some of those concerns and and you did a really nice job of addressing some of those member [2:29:40] Risser thank you for that um I do have a concern about the protocol we're going [2:29:47] to put in place for the 8ot wide um path along Washington and the idea [2:29:54] that residents only have to shovel 5T of that pathway um just looking at standard [2:30:00] protocol for clearing sidewalks what Minneapolis asks for and you know what you can see online is you really need to [2:30:07] shovel the entire space otherwise you get snow compacted down you get ice you get tripping hazards and so that's a [2:30:14] concern I'm not saying it's a blocking concern for tonight but I think there needs to be a little more reflection on [2:30:21] that policy I'm also I have a specific question if if we're going to say it's [2:30:27] okay to just shovel only 5T of an 8ot wide path does it cease to be a path for [2:30:34] bikes and pedestrians and is it in the winter it is only for [2:30:41] pedestrians so I heard a lot of questions let's start with sidewalk sidewalks people can walk walk and bike [2:30:46] on it any time of the year whether they're 4T wide or 8 ft wide that's a city code thing sidewalks you can bike [2:30:52] on okay so that's doesn't matter if there's four to 8 to 10et wide we on all [2:30:59] of the state aid routes and active routes of school we only maintain 5et our machines you saw the picture it's 5 [2:31:04] foot wide we make one pass that's all we have time for to meet the two-day level of service that's required by city code [2:31:12] so we mostly just maintain 5 ft with the snow and we plow 5T every time it snows [2:31:17] um the only time we would police people not uh snow plowing sidewalks to we would require 5 ft personally I think we [2:31:24] would hold ourselves accountable we should hold residents that same thing we do it by complaint basis so if there's [2:31:29] somebody that's not maintaining sidewalks and we'd go review we' talk to them and see what the issue is and try [2:31:35] to work with that owner to correct that situation okay thank you um I'm also wondering with Alden Park the park um [2:31:43] people are going to clear the pathway in the park true yes cuz they already see [2:31:49] if I can got they already clear that trail that goes on this graphic they already go through there that with a [2:31:55] pickup the parks department plows that so we have differences of Public Works [2:32:00] plows all streets and sidewalks on public streets anything within Parks that's the park facility guys do that [2:32:06] maintenance so they would be doing this Trail and the trail along Belmore Lane [2:32:11] adjacent to the park okay so they would be doing the sidewalk yes okay thank [2:32:17] you Jackson yes thank you um just it went by really [2:32:23] quickly um the Washington Street um can you go back to that slide and I just [2:32:28] want to understand um where the driveways are again please oh okay [2:32:35] yeah okay so 11 driveways are off Washington Avenue okay three driveways [2:32:41] are off the alley the gravel alley yeah two are off [2:32:46] Belmore and one off Maloney over here and one off Third Street way up here oh [2:32:53] I see you've got two pictures side pict we should have put a line down the middle yeah I went by so quickly [2:32:59] um okay so you know the concern um I remember when the Han County was looking [2:33:06] at France Avenue in St Louis Park and and T putting a bike lane and removing parking and they said the neighbors were [2:33:12] like I can't get deliveries then that you know if I'm going to have dinner delivered they don't know where to park [2:33:18] and everything so there are three for sure that wouldn't have parking in front of their street in front of their house [2:33:26] if we got rid of the um if we made it a bike lane and got rid of on street parking and the ones on the corner looks [2:33:34] like the Maloney and two on Belmore would um is there park they're parking on [2:33:41] Maloney and Belmore correct there's no parking on money but they would all lose any parking on Washington right but they [2:33:47] could pull in the driveway the delivery truck could or the delivery car could drop in the driveway and and run dinner [2:33:52] up to the door but if there's no driveway they can't do that that that was the concern that was raised on [2:33:58] France Avenue um a million years ago okay um so yeah so I'm I'm good with [2:34:05] staff recommendation on that because I I think they need that flexibility and then there was a question about um on [2:34:12] Belmore Lane um how it's oriented so that [2:34:17] currently the south side of the street doesn't wouldn't lose um any land but [2:34:24] that the north side of the Le Street gets the sidewalk and the um and the [2:34:31] buffer is there any way to Center Belmore as you reconstruct it so that [2:34:36] it's equally lose a little bit of land on each side or does it have to be designed this way first I want to make [2:34:43] sure we're using the right terms nobody's losing any land right it's sit right away so we have right 60 ft that's [2:34:49] right the it is centered today the issue on the south side is there's power poles 2 feet behind that curb the whole length [2:34:55] of Belmore okay excel's not going to move those for us for the project so we're designing with that south curb [2:35:02] line so the impacts to the grass area on the North will be more than to the grass [2:35:07] area on the south okay thank you um I I needed to hear that and then finally [2:35:12] just for the public for a final reassurance when you're in this process of reconstructing the streets and you [2:35:18] come across a mature tree you do everything you can to preserve it unless it absolutely has to go down but you you [2:35:25] watch it and um and Luther takes a look at it so that we can try and preserve those mature trees whenever possible is [2:35:32] that correct correct so if we get approval tonight we'll start our design in Earnest and figure out which trees [2:35:38] potentially are impacted right we know there's going to be some removals we'll work with those owners but then there's going to be some that are close can we [2:35:45] use an air Spade can we work with Luther to identify the species and the health and maybe it makes sense that the tree [2:35:51] is already having some issues and we could take it out and replace it anything we replace or we remove we [2:35:56] replace for the owners and we work with them on where that goes and what type of trees and stuff so okay thank you um so [2:36:03] those are my questions thank you thank you the pr anything else from any of other council [2:36:08] members all right the recommended motion from director Milner is that we approve [2:36:14] resolution [2:36:19] moving on the president's A and B neighborhood roadway and Alley reconstruction project that's embodied in Improvement numbers ba 466 and a [2:36:29] 293 is there a motion to approve the resolution and the um improvements so [2:36:36] moved a second second member Jackson moves member U seconds the approval of [2:36:41] resolution 2024-the moving forward with the [2:36:46] Reconstruction of president's neighborhood A and B roadway uh area and [2:36:52] the LA reconstruction in that area as well embodied improvements numbers ba [2:36:58] 466 and a293 any further discussion yeah just briefly yes I want to say thank you [2:37:04] for reaching out to UNFI and their truck route and there's anything we can do to help you in that effort let us know [2:37:09] we'll do okay thank you anything further all right all those in favor of adoption of the motion is stated say I I I [2:37:17] opposed carried uh resolution 2024 115 is adopted thank [2:37:23] you and uh now let's take a little short break before we start [2:37:29] in five [2:37:48] minutter [2:38:18] e [2:38:48] e [2:39:18] e [2:39:48] e [2:40:18] e [2:40:48] e [2:41:18] e [2:41:48] e [2:42:18] e [2:42:48] e [2:43:18] e e [2:44:15] all right [2:44:23] it is um I'll let you introduce topics here [2:44:30] I think um you want to do a little bit of an ARP of uh spending up a plan update first and then move into the [2:44:37] conversation about the proposed final Levy for 2025 uh thank you your honor members of [2:44:44] council uh item the item that is in front of you right now is item uh 9.5 [2:44:50] uh the action requested is we' like you to adopt the updated spending plan to transfer approximately [2:44:57] $300,000 in unspent arpa dollars uh into the city's general fund as pre as [2:45:03] previously recommended um by a spending a previous spending plan a phase one spending plan the city council adopted [2:45:09] well the city received around 4.9 million in American Rescue plan act uh [2:45:16] Federal uh dollars in in um excuse me in 2021 on July 21st 2021 [2:45:23] the council adopted a phase one spending plan that distributed about 2.6 million [2:45:29] of that of that 4.9 we held on to a bit of that almost $2 million and we [2:45:36] redistributed that in phase two phase the first phase money was distributed [2:45:41] mostly to uh local nonprofits um uh groups that were trying [2:45:47] to mitigate some of the the the impacts the negative impacts of the [2:45:52] of of Co the second was uh to fund a number of different infrastructure and [2:45:59] Equipment uh funding uh for our city and that was that was adopted in December [2:46:04] 6th of 2022 in both of these agreements the understanding was that there was a [2:46:11] time by which uh the recipient had to spend the money and if they didn't spend [2:46:17] the money by a certain date we had the we were going to uh we were going to uh [2:46:24] aggregate it aggregate all kind of the unspent money and sweep it into our general fund and that was uh that was a [2:46:30] decision of the city council um so this is the process of doing that we're doing it today because this is the last [2:46:36] council meeting of the year uh we KN we know we've got a couple of weeks where people could spend their money they know [2:46:43] that this is happening tonight uh and we would and and they might take the final action to spend the money if they don't [2:46:49] then we'll we'll have that money come back to us that's why when we say transfer about 300,000 we don't know [2:46:56] that that number is going to be 300,000 or 100,000 or 30,000 it kind of depends on what happens in the next week but uh [2:47:03] this is the action that uh the council uh asked us to take and so we're asking for an affirmation of that [2:47:10] tonight very good questions for manager Neil member [2:47:15] rer can we get an update in January as to what the amount actually ends up [2:47:21] being okay for sure and are there any restrictions on the use of this [2:47:27] money uh there there are there are some restrictions on it the our proposal is to uh use it um uh for uncollected [2:47:36] revenues Don is that what that was that what's the term that we use for that excuse me L Reven loss revenues [2:47:44] yeah there's a formula within the act itself that allows cities to uh [2:47:50] calculate their unspent money or their their lost revenues we were way under [2:47:56] that so we're comfortable doing that and so it goes to the benefit of the general fund and so uh might we tonight as we [2:48:04] have the budget discussion think about moving net money into Levy reduction [2:48:10] well we we using it for Levy reduction we had some discussion about that today that's going to be difficult to do [2:48:17] because for Levy you got to pick you got to pick a number tonight and this we we [2:48:24] don't know what this is going to be so it's hard to make some kind of estimate for us okay um whether it's 300 or 30 [2:48:31] right if we knew that it was going to be 300 and we were 100% sure of that and we're going to move it into the general [2:48:37] fund we could we could do we could do that kind of move but um it's not going to work out like that what number are [2:48:45] you fairly certain of I don't know that we what are we I'm not sure we're fairly certain of a [2:48:57] number arpa is that mik on okay so just a [2:49:03] couple of comments Bas in regards to the funding that remains from [2:49:10] arpa the expenditure deadline is the end of this year so December 31st so from a [2:49:18] procedural standpoint we need to expense that money on existing expenses so how [2:49:25] we would do this technically is Public Safety salaries and benefits [2:49:31] are an eligible use of arpa funds so we are going to expense this whatever [2:49:36] remains we're going to expense this back against police and fire expenditures so [2:49:43] when we talk about um having funds left over to [2:49:49] possibly assist in the budget we're as Scott mentioned we're really not going [2:49:54] to know that until year end um and so technically what would happen is well theoretically if we [2:50:03] expense against police and fire wages and benefits by some dollar amount let's [2:50:08] just say it's 300 there should be a budget surplus of [2:50:13] $300,000 because we just added 300 to their budget so in terms of impacting [2:50:19] this year's budget pretty challenging um but you know for the next year's [2:50:26] budgets with the budget surplus there could be an opportunity you know I feel [2:50:31] fairly comfortable that there's going to be 150,000 or so left over some of the [2:50:37] projects that were included in the government operation spending just didn't come to [2:50:42] fruition and one of those projects was the EMT to paramedic firefighter program [2:50:48] there was $150,000 allocated to that uh that is [2:50:53] according to Chief Slama that program will not be implemented by the end of [2:50:59] this year it is something he would like to do um so um there could be an [2:51:05] opportunity for that to continue with the budget surplus but otherwise I feel fairly comfortable there'll be [2:51:12] $150,000 okay that's helpful but it needs to be expended by expended by the end of the year calendar year correct [2:51:20] okay so you're recommending that we adopt an updated spending plan you and manager Neil to transfer approximately [2:51:28] or about 300,000 to the city's general fund as previously recommended in the phase one spending plan that's the [2:51:34] motion there a motion to that effect so moved Jackson moves second number eight [2:51:41] new seconds uh the adoption of an updated spending plan to transfer about 300,000 [2:51:47] to the city's General fund as previously recommended in the phase one spending plan for the American Rescue plan act uh [2:51:54] funds uh any further convers any further discussion on the matter all those in favor of adoption the motion is stated [2:52:01] say I I I opposed carried the motion is adopted uh the transfer is [2:52:11] approved and now we are going to move into the conversation around setting the [2:52:17] um uh final tax levy for the 2025 calendar [2:52:23] year and adopting a budget and potentially approving a 2025 2030 [2:52:28] Capital Improvement plan thank thank you your honor uh I'll [2:52:34] give the the the uh introduction and then Ari uh lens will take it from from [2:52:40] there and we'll answer questions at the end um as we uh look to uh final budget [2:52:46] approval and final Levy approval for 2025 I think it's helpful to to think of [2:52:52] the timeline that got us here um we did most of the budget work in fact almost [2:52:58] all the budget work that we're presenting to you tonight was done in 2023 and it was done in 2023 as part of [2:53:05] our regular two U two-year budget cycle uh the council uh saw this and approved [2:53:12] the the tentatively approved the budget for 2025 in in December 19th [2:53:19] uh we had we went through the next year where we did primarily this year excuse me we' went through this past year where [2:53:25] our budget is primarily looking at um our Capital Improvement plans and so we spent most of our most of our time in [2:53:32] our energy this year uh working on our Capital Improvement plans uh we did uh [2:53:39] when we got down to the September when we had to approve our preliminary Levy there's a lot of discussion at the [2:53:45] council level about uh the the size the magnitude of our preliminary Levy uh [2:53:50] Council gave some direction that it was not satisfied with with the uh magnitude [2:53:56] of that proposed Levy increase uh staff uh took that uh Direction went to work [2:54:02] talked with talked with our team um and we really took a hard look at what what [2:54:07] were the expenses that were driving uh driving that number up and we're going to talk a little bit more about those [2:54:13] tonight uh but that took us from from September 17th uh to December 3rd where [2:54:19] we had our our work session excuse me we had a work session and a and a public hearing that night on the proposed CIP [2:54:27] and and 2025 Levy and budget uh that brings us to tonight we we had the same [2:54:33] kind of direction from the council uh on the evening of the 3 that takes us to December 17th uh we're going to we're [2:54:41] going to give you the similar kind of presentation that we've shown you before uh but we need to approve a proposed [2:54:49] Levy and budget for 2025 at tonight's meeting U because we are out of time so [2:54:55] uh what we want to do tonight is kind of review where we were we want to review uh some of the feedback that that we [2:55:02] have for you on on the proposed budget uh I do want to tell you that we have uh [2:55:08] two we we'd like this to be separated into two votes Mr Mayor one on the [2:55:14] budget in Levy itself the other on the CIP they're they're different enough [2:55:19] structurally and and um from a system standpoint that we want two different votes for those um that's where we are [2:55:27] tonight and following this regular council meeting we have a very brief HRA meeting where we propose to approve the [2:55:35] uh the HRA board would approve the HRA budget and Levy for 2025 as well uh so [2:55:41] with that I'd like to ask our assistant city manager Ari lens to uh share the [2:55:46] presentation that we have for you tonight and we'll be happy answer any questions good evening mayor and council [2:55:52] tonight I'm going to run you through a couple slides and then open up for discussion and adoption I do want to [2:55:58] note that if you're tuning in at home or in the audience uh I really hope that you go back and watch the December 3rd [2:56:05] meeting this presentation is going to be an abbreviated version and there's a lot of context that Finance director Tao [2:56:11] provided that would be really great from a um budget process and services perspective so if you are tuning in for [2:56:17] the first time time please go back to that December 3rd presentation and have a chance to take a look at it as manager [2:56:23] Neil pointed out we've gone through quite the process in order to get to this point tonight um he covered most of [2:56:30] this but the most important part is that tonight we need to adopt a budget and certify the [2:56:36] levy the T the 2025 tentatively adopted budget for December 2023 is shown in the [2:56:42] middle column the preliminary Levy budget is shown in the last column the slight reduction is due to bond o [2:56:48] issuance being lower than anticipated tonight's budget represents a major investment by the community and the [2:56:54] council towards Public Safety with 5.46% of the increase going towards the new [2:56:59] fire station and Public Safety Staffing before you councel are several [2:57:07] options for you to consider the first option is to adopt the budget as proposed that is a [2:57:13] 13.14% increase the second option is to reduce the budget by using reserves to pay for [2:57:19] the zoning Amendment and the design of the cold storage site this would reduce the levy to [2:57:26] 12.13 the third option is option two plus Council asked us to review our [2:57:32] equipment and to see if we had any other opportunities to reduce the amount in 2025 staff reviewed and there was one [2:57:38] smaller safety related project that once we started reviewing it we said we should just do that right now and take [2:57:44] care of it and we found some funds to do that in 2024 the other two priorities are the in the plan were Public Safety [2:57:51] related projects that we were able to actually move into some of the state provided Public Safety funds in total [2:57:57] this is $112,000 that staff was able to identify without impacting service levels or [2:58:03] delaying capital capital this would reduce the levy to 11.92% [2:58:08] option four is option three plus deferring Lewis Park shelter to a future [2:58:15] year staff would need to reprioritize the Future Capital if this option was selected it would reduce the levy to [2:58:23] 10.27% option five is option for plus delaying the hiring of the paramedic [2:58:29] firefighters to 126 January 2026 currently the firefighters are slated to [2:58:35] be hired in July of 2025 this R reduced the levy to [2:58:40] 99.44% the final option will be to do all of the reductions above plus a 1% general fund service reduction due to [2:58:48] the timing constraints reductions would need to be made by management to implement on time the goal would be [2:58:54] across the board but some areas may be cut more or less depending on contracts um and other [2:59:00] obligations my final slide before opening it up to you guys for discussion [2:59:06] um shows you all of the discussion items laid out before the cost the impact on the levy and then the impact on the [2:59:12] median value home if you were as were to act on those options [2:59:20] good thank you for that yeah that um it's nice to see those numbers too so you can jump back and forth between [2:59:26] those slides um I know we've got it in a prior hard presentation as well I think that [2:59:33] um came from early December um thoughts from Council Members about [2:59:41] the um you know we talked about the 13.2% proposed increase um [2:59:49] that staff came forward with I think un fairness to staff it was something that [2:59:54] we talked about when we worked on the two-year budget but for me personally and maybe shame on me I thought we'd get [3:00:01] 2024 set and then we'd have time to work on 2025 even knowing that that was what [3:00:07] staff was anticipating was around a 133% increase and I found myself mentally [3:00:12] thinking no it's not going to be acceptable and maybe I should have said something earlier so it could start work [3:00:18] on this earlier but I don't think then it was until August when we when we when [3:00:23] we saw this number again at 13.14 proposed and uh I think all of us [3:00:29] had uh heartburn about that so um for those in our community that have been [3:00:35] thinking this this is too high a number and it's not [3:00:40] sustainable if we're thinking about doing something like this year over-year we agree and and we've been working on [3:00:47] this for a longer period of time than we've been getting notes and emails about it so uh we have those same [3:00:54] concerns in fact I jokingly told my uh colleagues uh yesterday that you know [3:00:59] when you start dreaming about property tax that's probably not a good thing but thinking about how to how to reduce the [3:01:06] burden on everybody and we've all looked I think at all kinds of of of data uh [3:01:12] over the last decade to to try to figure out what's the best pathway forward and it seems like just to set the stage a [3:01:18] little bit more we've got this I'll call it more of a short-term problem the the 2025 budget but then we've got to have [3:01:26] this conversation about sustainable budgets over time uh this notion of you [3:01:31] know what what should be a relationship between property tax increases and [3:01:37] property value increases um what about the services that our residents uh want [3:01:42] to make sure that we deliver these highquality Services how do we do that in the most effective and efficient way [3:01:47] way possible on Service delivery how do we continue to maintain what we own together uh in our community and make [3:01:54] sure that we keep up with it and how do we go about expanding from a capital Improvement standpoint because there's only so many things that you can do to [3:02:02] reduce the budget and and and then still have a pathway forward where you're doing some of the things that people [3:02:07] think are important and the Lewis Ridge park building is probably a good example of that it was in the CIP for 2025 and [3:02:16] and for me personally it it's something that can wait and the reason I think it can wait is because we reacted to what [3:02:23] our residents were telling us is that they wanted more police and fire protection and and and that makes up 5 [3:02:29] and a half% of the proposed Levy so if that's your floor then to me you got to start thinking about ways what are the [3:02:36] different ways that we can cut back on some other things might service be a cutbacks be a possibility you suggested [3:02:42] that at 1% uh might we defer some of the capital Improvement projects or equipment purchases into the future [3:02:49] years um for for reasons that we're going to talk about so I think you [3:02:54] should probably keep that that slide up on the screen because I think it's easier for everybody to work off of [3:03:00] because I think people have been thinking about uh the the the suggestions that you've made to bring it [3:03:06] down from 13.1 potentially all the way to 8.44 and and if we could figure out a [3:03:12] way to use some of that arpa money or the or or the Surplus that might that it might help create for 2025 we could [3:03:20] probably even get it down a little bit lower than 8.44 if that's a direction that the council wants to go but I think [3:03:26] everybody's been thinking about this everybody's concerned about it on the council everybody lives here we all pay [3:03:32] taxes too and we're sensitive highly sensitive to no matter what income bracket you're in or how much your house [3:03:39] is worth at all levels we know that people are concerned about uh property [3:03:44] tax increases and and uh how do we make sure that they're manageable into the future and let's not be uh naive about [3:03:51] this we're in competition with other towns for people that are moving in from the coast or other places and they're [3:03:57] going to be no matter how much money they have to spend on a house they're going to look at property tax as a as a significant issue and so I think that [3:04:05] lies in the back of all of our minds as well so I don't know if anybody would care to to lead off on some of their [3:04:10] thoughts on on these proposed uh reductions may maybe some of [3:04:16] you feel totally comfortable with the recommended increase at 13.14 but I didn't sense that but I certainly don't [3:04:23] want to presume anything either member Risser um and we are going to probably [3:04:29] view this differently but I really have a hard time with deferring the Lewis Park structure because it will [3:04:36] ultimately just be more costly I also think about the reality that that [3:04:43] building is there for people you know who live in house that we put up that's [3:04:48] affordable and it looks so it's not just how it appears they can't use the [3:04:54] building when it's too hot when it's too cold um it was built back in the Nixon [3:05:00] era um we we and it's really disheartening to think that that is [3:05:06] something that we wouldn't move forward on and I did send an email last Friday [3:05:12] asking um you know and this is related to the CIP but we have 500 th000 that is [3:05:19] being suggested to come from the Centennial Lakes Tiff district for the [3:05:26] potential pathway across France Avenue and that hasn't been vetted by the [3:05:32] public or anything and I'm I'm thinking that got me thinking how much money is available um in unspent Tiff and I know [3:05:42] I believe what is it December 31st 202 um 5 we have have to that's the end of [3:05:48] the spark program but you know could some of that money be released now we'd [3:05:55] get a third of whatever and and I think you know we need to so I'm kind of getting into a lot but we need to look [3:06:02] at that unspent Tiff not just as an opportunity to invest but also as money [3:06:09] that you know many people do feel should go back well we had a person come and [3:06:15] speak to us but go back into those three buckets so I I don't know if it's too [3:06:21] late to consider that but if there would be some way I've been trying to think how do we find that $900,000 for that [3:06:28] park building so you and I are on the opposite yeah yeah I'm certainly open [3:06:35] mind the the way I'm going to have manager Neil speak to that issue of the Tiff and I think it has some [3:06:41] um it has some limitations on how it can be used it it does um it unfortunately [3:06:48] we can't do Park projects with tax increment financing dollars it's not what I'm saying I'm [3:06:55] saying return it to the general give it back don't to it decertify it it's been [3:07:01] decertified stop keeping it and turn it in and we we get it in the general [3:07:11] fund not sure that's works as cleanly as that sounds but let me let's we'll talk [3:07:16] about think about that that so member rer what I what I calculate here just roughly off these uh this chart on the [3:07:23] screen is that that that building is 1.45% of the proposed reduction so if we [3:07:32] added that back in we'd be if you went to the bottom line uh and went worked [3:07:38] off to 8.44 you'd add back in 1.45 we'd be at 9.89 I don't know if that was A [3:07:43] hurried up piece of math but I don't know if that's right or not or whether you've made that calculation possibly I [3:07:49] did and then I also divided but I left my math at home but case remember um we'd have over a 100,000 if [3:07:58] we took the 500,000 from the Centennial Lakes Tiff District that's earmarked for [3:08:04] the underpass so that that money is there and so if if it just went to the [3:08:09] city the county and the um schools we'd have over a 100,000 to cut off of that 9 [3:08:17] and that's not everything but it would at least bring it down a little bit not sure that could be used that way [3:08:23] either but not quite sure manager NE any thoughts on that or you don't have a finance director here tonight yeah I [3:08:31] don't know Don if you have any thoughts about that I'm just thinking about how that process works sometimes it it's it [3:08:38] works over a couple of years so it doesn't quite get as instantaneous as we'd like but um mayor members of the [3:08:46] city council so I've been away for a while so let me try to recreate my [3:08:51] thoughts on those so whatever money that from a decertified tiff District that go [3:08:57] we would have to send it back to the county they would distribute it based on our tax percentage you know as council [3:09:03] member research said you know 500 we'd get 100 plus or minus back my [3:09:09] understanding is that fun that money could go into the general fund which would allow it to be used for other uses [3:09:19] Jackson Pi I believe what member rer is talking about for the The Underpass is [3:09:24] that in the CIP there was a dollar set aside as a [3:09:30] placeholder um and and member or director Milner um maybe you can help us [3:09:35] understand what that money what that figure represents and would dropping [3:09:41] that off of the CIP then free up that $500,000 for um Lewis Park so yeah bill [3:09:47] nondorf and I when the CIP was being developed last April and May remember that's when all these projects got put [3:09:53] together it was a discussion about a potential underpass so we added projects in there and one of the funding sources [3:09:58] was 500,000 from Centennial Lakes Park was just a placeholder it may or may not even occur um so I think when I hear the [3:10:06] term placeholder that's all it is right now until we continue those what we heard from Council recently is keep [3:10:12] looking at grant funding opportunities and build some better graphics of this idea so that's what we're doing because [3:10:17] that's what we were told to do member Pierce were you done okay [3:10:24] member Pierce U thanks Mr Mayor so I I um just have a couple of comments the um [3:10:33] I think we do have to kind of step back from this [3:10:39] um I when I look at the options I am I would Advocate because of where we [3:10:47] are in the cycle I would option six I do everything [3:10:53] above and I asked for a 1% general fund reduction to get us to [3:11:00] 8.4 8.44 [3:11:05] um I would I understand the conversation about Lewis Park I understand the [3:11:13] conversation about the paramedics but but at some point we got [3:11:19] to look in the mirror and make the tough decision um and so the the way I would [3:11:27] think about that um is if there are projects that we [3:11:33] still want to get done then we got to find a way to fund those and so I don't know if all the [3:11:40] vehicles that member rer just talked about are viable or not but I think it [3:11:47] warrants looking under every Rock to figure out if there are additional funds [3:11:54] that we could use but I think the for me the [3:12:00] 2025 Levy I I think we should be looking at [3:12:05] 8.44 um and I would um I just think it's a hard conversation and a [3:12:12] half now I add to that that's actually not my biggest concern [3:12:18] my bigger concern is that the 2026 projection is [3:12:26] 177% and so I think we I've always felt like U and mayor you said it we thought [3:12:33] 13 was too high I kind of always figured we would have a conversation we end up [3:12:39] somewhere between 8 % somewhere in there [3:12:44] and what we're doing is applying everything that we know of that we can actually get done in two to three months [3:12:52] is how I view that maybe it might be plus or minus a few months but it is a [3:12:57] short Runway um to really um reduce that number any significant amount and so [3:13:06] then to make a dent in the 2026 because we can't come back with [3:13:13] another double digit increase so then it's all right we got [3:13:19] to have the tough conversation and do the work starting now to contract our [3:13:27] expenses and it's hard work we got to make tough decisions but we have to do [3:13:33] that with the community and if we're talking about as an example making decisions on reducing a service [3:13:42] quality then we got to talk about that with the city and say here's what it [3:13:47] costs we're going to recommend we're trying to hit a certain Target to get our cost structure aligned um and here's [3:13:54] what that means um we just we have to do that work and I think that will take us [3:14:01] almost a full year to have those conversations so that when we come into [3:14:06] August of 2025 we have a really good idea of how [3:14:15] um we can um adjust our expenses and service levels and what have you to have [3:14:22] a projected Target um that is more [3:14:27] reasonable so that's kind of how that's how I am uh thinking about [3:14:35] it you one thing you mentioned uh when you were using the word contraction and [3:14:40] talking about public input uh one thing we hadn't talked about was something [3:14:45] akin to what the school district is going to do uh they're going to form a task force of residents with financial [3:14:53] expertise give them a tutorial in school finance and let them think about ideas [3:15:00] on how they can improve the school budget now I'm thinking that that's a pretty good idea maybe we should be [3:15:08] thinking about that too in this year that we have to work just like we did with the liquor stores when we had Total [3:15:14] Wine move in on our border and the profits dropped to a couple hundred, we formed a task force of residents that [3:15:21] had knowledge about liquor store operations and they gave us ideas that pushed us way back up on Revenue I think [3:15:27] is we should consider that as a council too and thinking about and then it serves a dual purpose you have people [3:15:34] committed to learning how the city budget works and then you've got allies who can be out in the community talking [3:15:41] about this is how the budget works so I think that's something else for us to think about it's a little bit [3:15:46] tangental a decision we have to make tonight but nonetheless um I'm going to turn out to council member Jackson she's [3:15:53] got some thoughts too I'm sure yes thank you Mr Mayor so first of all looking at this chart [3:15:59] um it says delay hiring of paramedic firefighters to to 2026 but I think what [3:16:05] we need to think about is looking at service levels and we're going to have to look at service levels at all the [3:16:11] different things so I don't want it to be that we're going to delay it we may [3:16:17] or may not hire that many firefighters going forward um and so I think we need [3:16:24] to kind of think about you know contraction is a good word and what are the service levels where we're going to [3:16:31] be you know Contracting and I think the the chief indicated that he wanted to have an in-depth conversation about what [3:16:38] our fire service levels are that he's he's providing Staffing for the service [3:16:44] level that he has been led to expect that we expect and maybe we need to talk about what are our expectations in that [3:16:51] particular area and in and in others um I want to talk a little bit about uh [3:16:59] Lewis Park and the $60 million of deferred maintenance that we have in the city so um director bener I think we [3:17:07] sent you a slide from this is actually from the street reconstruction but I want to put in context a lot of people [3:17:14] have asked how have we gotten here and this is out of control spending but I I want to show this graph because it's [3:17:21] really important to set the context and and when I was out talking to neighbors over the summer I talked about how our [3:17:29] city was primarily developed in the 60s and 70s and you can see from this chart [3:17:36] that's when those streets were really built and you know in 1960s and 1970s [3:17:43] the city was developed and so for a long period of time time we didn't have to [3:17:48] worry about reconstructing streets because they were brand new and then we could repair them and recycle them and [3:17:54] so for that stretch if you look from like 1980 until 2020 it was a it Valley [3:18:00] of spending and now we're peaking up again and what director Milner has suggested going forward into the future [3:18:07] is evening that out so that we don't have these Peaks and valleys of sometimes we have really really low [3:18:14] taxes because we don't have to rebuild streets and other times we have really high taxes or expenses um because we [3:18:20] have to build streets but I thought this graphic showed a good um indication of [3:18:25] the infrastructure in our city and so when we and so we can take that down but [3:18:32] um when we're talking about where did all this come from that a lot of what [3:18:37] we're talking about is I believe um just the the age of the city and so it's [3:18:44] really important to know that when it was all built primar not not all of it [3:18:50] but a big bunch of our city was built in the 1970s and it's aged out it's 50 [3:18:56] years old there isn't a whole lot of life left certainly in the streets but I think in other um uh assets that the [3:19:03] city has but that $60 million of deferred maintenance is really [3:19:10] mind-bogglingly big number and that includes the Lewis Park shelter [3:19:16] and just to talk a little bit about the Lewis Park shelter it's Unique in that it doesn't have any windows so it's hot [3:19:23] in the summer and maybe it's fine in the winter but for the young people who are working there I worry about their safety [3:19:32] when they're in there by themselves how how can someone walk by help them stay [3:19:39] safe if they can't see in and I so I think Beyond it being an old building [3:19:44] it's also an unsafe building and and that worries me and that's it's [3:19:50] a big amount it's $900,000 it's only going to get bigger um could you uh [3:19:57] assistant manager lens could you go to the next slide that you had where it showed yeah this is helpful to see what [3:20:02] the impact is so if we drop that's 1.65% so that's a big number but the way [3:20:10] we got to $60 million of deferred maintenance is decisions like this and [3:20:15] and that really worries me um I'd like to think that we can take care of the [3:20:22] things that we have I also am really worried about the tax increase it's a [3:20:28] lot um so you know if we can get it down uh to 8.44 per we've we've made a [3:20:35] short-term victory at a long-term expense because it's not going to be $900,000 when it comes back five or six [3:20:41] years from now it's going to be $1.2 million or more it's it's going to get [3:20:47] nothing but get more expensive um and we have to recognize [3:20:52] that this is a aging City and aging City needs renewal of its assets um and so [3:20:59] I'm really I I I'm with you member Risser on on wanting to pay for Lewis Park it's [3:21:06] painful this is a this is just a jaw-dropping increase in taxes and I [3:21:11] hear people's concerns we've had you know increases in a number of things and I think we're going to the conversations [3:21:18] I had um this fall when we began talking about the preliminary Levy I had some [3:21:24] really thoughtful conversations and the one thing I asked was well this budget contains $1.9 [3:21:31] million for asset preservation or in this case uh re replacement should we [3:21:37] cut that that's $1.9 million poom off the top and that would cut the rate and [3:21:42] they said no don't do that you have to go back and you have to look at the system systems and you have to look at [3:21:48] the services we're providing and are we overstaffed and do a deep dive and we can't do that between August and now um [3:21:55] but next year we have to do it and and member Pierce I think you put that really well um I really I strongly agree [3:22:02] that we're going to have some difficult choices but we need to look at the service levels what we're providing and [3:22:08] is this what the the community needs um and we'll have to have some some [3:22:13] difficult choices but I'm reluctant to make a cut to our Capital um uh asset [3:22:21] preservation and that's that money that goes into parks and goes into um other assets around the city so [3:22:30] if we add that back in again where does that put us if we do everything except Lewis [3:22:37] park at 10% yeah it's still a big number 9 I had 9.89 but I don't 9.89 [3:22:44] yeah so those those are my thoughts yeah thank you for that um understand yes [3:22:51] member Pearson member EGU um and so I just wanted to piggyback on that and [3:22:56] actually just use it as an example I actually don't disagree with anything you [3:23:02] said but then what I would say is if we want to prioritize that then we need [3:23:08] more than a 1% reduction in the general fund and so that's so I I I just think [3:23:15] we have to have a practice of want to do that then [3:23:21] got to figure out how to pay for it um and again like I said before I my bigger [3:23:28] concern or biggest concern is actually what do we do moving forward not just [3:23:34] this particular year so I I think that's a great um [3:23:40] example thank you I I do particularly appreciate this view um um because I I think it's [3:23:48] helpful to think about what are those important line items that we're talking about right now [3:23:54] it's it is actually easy to look at the one above um and see I don't know if [3:23:59] it's one or two above but where we see the um 8.44 per increase right if we do [3:24:05] six All Above plus the 1% general fund reduction right it is kind of easy to [3:24:11] just go to the bottom and say that that looks like a much better number let's go with that and and so that is where and I [3:24:19] think um council member uh Pierce did a nice job in kind [3:24:25] of articulating like we need to be sticking to numbers and and really [3:24:31] rationalizing this down and so I think for me the part that I'm like most stuck on is the [3:24:38] park um and I I think that's because and I I think um remember Jackson I [3:24:44] appreciate you bringing up that visual again and because the reason right that [3:24:50] the towns and communities face this kind of influx and this increase in um [3:24:57] property taxes is when they're going through that need to revitalize or reinvest into [3:25:05] infrastructure and assets that exist um so many of our you know assets were [3:25:14] created 70 no I'm doing math and it's later but like 70 years ago right and so [3:25:20] in a lot of ways yes we've started to refresh that but we we continue to get hit kind of on a cyclical basis with [3:25:28] where do we need to do some refreshing and so it's it's hard to pull those out [3:25:34] and it's hard to also leave it in because it's 1.65% and so I think yeah that's just [3:25:39] I'm really stuck on that one and I don't know how to feel about it [3:25:51] so that brings you to what kind of a conclusion leave the park building in is that [3:25:57] it it's more like I'm on the fence oh okay [3:26:03] okay you know I I mentioned this before too but I think about these U the [3:26:08] capital Improvement plan items to me uh they are by Nature defer unless they're [3:26:14] beyond repair and um that's why I'm thinking you know [3:26:19] Lewis Ridge Lewis park building hasn't looked good for many many years but [3:26:25] it's not in a state of disrepair where it needs to be torn down and to me it I [3:26:32] thought member Pierce said it well you know we got to if you're if you're going to shoot for something between 8 and 9% [3:26:38] which is kind of where most cities in the state are when we got that data and I think it's in this presentation uh uh [3:26:46] and that's at least a marker uh an indicator of of challenges a lot of [3:26:52] people are facing then you've got to have some discipline around around what you're doing and if you've got a capital [3:26:59] Improvement project that can be by its nature deferred unless it's beyond repair then Lewis Ridge Lewis park [3:27:06] building falls to me into that that category and um I suppose another way to get there is [3:27:14] to think about 2% Production Services as you mentioned to get into that [3:27:19] range um so you know and we talk about this thing [3:27:27] it is challenging but as I worked on this there there is good news in over the past decade you know that uh that [3:27:35] that um I say that debt I noticed that debt as a percentage of total property [3:27:40] value has risen only 3/10 of 1% over 10 years um and in that same period of time [3:27:47] of course our property has more than doubled in value I think we're approximately doubled in value from [3:27:53] about 9 billion to1 18 billion which is great and then when you look at our legal debt margin at [3:28:00] 412,000 which is the amount we could theoretically borrow under the state [3:28:06] statute it's a debt to to um margin ratio of 10.96% and that data really to me shows [3:28:14] the benefit of growth that we've had in our community manager Neil uh thank you your honor just a couple of things um [3:28:21] one when we think when we've talked about this this budget before I've talked about it as an investment budget [3:28:27] because there are two major factors that are really distinguishing our tax levy [3:28:33] from that of most of our peers and most of our peers are in that 6 to 8% range [3:28:40] uh going into 2025 the difference between us and them really is that we're [3:28:45] proposing to hired 10 Public Safety employees and we're building a $40 million U fire station those two things [3:28:53] really account for 55% if you take 5 a half% out of the 13.14 we're at [3:29:00] 7.68 very comparable to you know the Eden prairies and minitonas and and [3:29:05] those cities um the other thing I would note for that is that uh we do include [3:29:12] in our in our presentation our PowerPoint presentation uh and may we were talking about this yester or [3:29:18] earlier today that a a realtor had talked to you about being careful because people might move to motanka our [3:29:25] property taxes are 18% less than motanka for a a for a million-dollar home our [3:29:33] taxes our proposed taxes even with this increase are $725 less for that home so [3:29:40] we do compare even with our proposed increase we do compare pretty favorably to our to our neighbors [3:29:48] competitively that's all good to know too I I've had it a couple different ways I've had it expressed by uh [3:29:54] residents that they've thought about moving to a different suburb and I want to give them that data on minetonka but [3:29:59] um uh when I talked to the head of this real estate company last week when I had [3:30:05] lunch with them he said it's it's clear that people that are coming here are making decisions even though they're [3:30:11] buying expensive properties based on what they see for property tax so that's something to be my ful of as well as we [3:30:17] go about setting this budget as I mentioned earlier I I view [3:30:22] this differently than you do because I I I think that and I feel that we [3:30:28] responded to the requests of our constituents and it [3:30:34] was a little bit out of the sequence of what we would normally have anticipated in terms of budget so that we adopted [3:30:43] this notion of building that new fire station adding these uh police and fire Personnel because [3:30:49] there was a demand for increased Public Safety well that told me that was something somewhat unanticipated and so [3:30:56] then to me you got to think about making adjustments somewhere else so that it stays within the realm of achievability [3:31:03] for most folks in our town even though that that is something that they asked [3:31:08] for so that's why kind of look at that Mr go ahead I'm sorry I just add one more thing that I wanted to add when we [3:31:15] talk about uh when we talk about the park project the Lewis Park project I think it's [3:31:20] important for us to make sure we understand that we don't we don't save money by deferring it um because we only [3:31:28] are going to save money by deferring it by decreasing our our Levy our CIP Levy [3:31:34] and if we decrease our CIP Levy that means that's how we save money but if [3:31:39] we're going to add it to a future year it's got to it's got to go through a process and compete with other projects [3:31:46] that are already scheduled for 26 27 28 so that's the important I part to [3:31:52] remember uh if we if we want to defer it we can defer it we won't spend that money this year um but if we're going to [3:31:59] defer it it doesn't really save us money in the immediate term it does save us money in the immediate term but not in [3:32:05] the long term I need to do the work well if we [3:32:11] still need but we only save money if we decrease the Levy right and we would decrease the Levy by 900,000 or whatever [3:32:18] that number that whatever that number is that's what that's where we pass savings [3:32:23] along to our taxpayers but if you want to ever do that project again in the future you're you're still going to have [3:32:29] to increase the levy by 900,000 member Jackson go but I want to I want to respond to that a little bit well I hate [3:32:36] to do this from the dis and everything but I see director per director veter [3:32:42] here is there a compromise for that building does it have to be replaced [3:32:47] could you tell us a little bit about how that n how we got to that $900,000 [3:32:52] figure and is there an alternative that would be less expensive but we could still upgrade the you know update the [3:33:01] building uh thank you mayor members of the council uh council member Jackson uh that building um is our oldest warming [3:33:09] House Shelter um it's not a cooled facility but it is a heated facility so [3:33:14] when we have skating this winter we will have heat there uh you correctly identify that it did not have Windows [3:33:20] that building was originally built as an open air Pavilion with slide in walls [3:33:25] that were taken out seasonally um at a certain point in time that building uh [3:33:30] was determined that it would just leave those walls up permanently that was kind of an internal project to insulate them [3:33:36] and kind of finish carpentry that out uh the dollar amount is uh what we would [3:33:41] consider a kind of a a scalable project for that site I know there are other [3:33:47] associations that primarily use that Park that would be interested in partnering with us down the road about [3:33:53] having additional storage space Etc from the athletic side of things because they're a primary user of Lewis Park um [3:34:01] as far as the top of my head of of interim fixes or uh things we can do to [3:34:07] the interim I think I'd have to go back to the team and discuss that a little bit further about what that might be um [3:34:12] there are prefab structures that you can by um that uh Park service areas [3:34:21] national parks state parks kind of use from time to time um you have less control over design and Aesthetics but [3:34:28] they are prefab so they come at a modular cost level uh we'd have to kind of research that as [3:34:35] well so one of the other points about cutting that out is that then we're [3:34:40] going to go from zero in the Parks to a million dollars next year which will be [3:34:46] an increase a tax increase again so you know as we go through this process if [3:34:52] we're ever going to continue repairing things in the Parks and and I don't know how many times the Parks Commission has [3:34:57] looked at funding for the underfunded in the Parks unsuccessfully um we have to realize [3:35:06] that if we take that out of the budget now it's going to come back in it's going to come back up not just the [3:35:13] increased cost of the building but also there will be a tax increase to fill that hole back in again um but I I hope [3:35:21] that we can have a thorough discussion but um would my council members um be [3:35:27] interested in um you know asking director V to look at a a cheaper [3:35:33] building um and cutting the cost from $900,000 [3:35:38] down oh I'm done thank you mean to me if we do this I'd like to [3:35:45] do it right you know when when whenever we do it but nobody here has said that [3:35:51] that that is concerned about this that going away as an obligation we've [3:35:56] all been using the word defer and so we recognize that nothing gets cheaper over time but we're at a [3:36:04] particular point in time where it's it's pretty interesting because you know we go through this property tax exercise [3:36:11] and the first thing we wait for is a determination from the state on class rates and they [3:36:17] allocate obligation between commercial property and residential property well they've shifted it significantly towards [3:36:23] residential because that's where all the property value increase has been and commercial property has been going down [3:36:29] in value and you know think about Minneapolis I mean that's they got a [3:36:34] real problem there because their commercial property has has been shrinking in value so when earlier in [3:36:41] the process here when we asked manager Neil well does 13.1% mean 13 .1% he was [3:36:46] candid and he said yeah this year it does you know because we've been involved in these budget conversations [3:36:53] before where the burden has been more in commercial and Years Gone by and we might raise taxes 8% and we look at our [3:37:00] tax statements and they tax only went up 5% and now we see situations where we [3:37:06] say well we're thinking about 133% we have a prelimary levy and some of uh people in our town are calling me and [3:37:12] saying hey mayor my city tax went up 19% and so that's all because of that Clash [3:37:18] rate shift so if if that changes in the future at some point in time and things [3:37:24] get back more in balance and or more weight shifts from a class standpoint classification standpoint back to [3:37:31] commercial you know and there and the economy is doing well but maybe it'll be [3:37:37] doing better you know that's one of the reasons I'm thinking about deference has [3:37:42] to take some of the pressure off people this year and then to get us in a situation where [3:37:49] and and folks don't know about this but we're we're going to spend our whole Spring retreat around budget issues um [3:37:58] developing uh a structure that we think is appropriate to make sure that we can [3:38:04] do what we need to do in our town uh and continue to do it in a responsible way like I think we have in the past so um [3:38:12] to member Pierce's point it's so long term that we need to worry about we can [3:38:18] we can solve the short-term problem we're going to do that tonight as we have this conversation we're on about a [3:38:24] one and a half% swing right now is all I can best I can see and [3:38:29] um and then the the heavy work comes in the spring when we go to work on the on [3:38:35] the long-term budget strategy and and and look at the whole [3:38:41] structural makeup of the town um other thoughts member egna did any of [3:38:48] this conversation help you move off one way or the other you you might be the [3:38:53] Swing Vote here that's how I'm starting to [3:39:04] feel I think [3:39:10] that I usually tend to want to invest in these things as [3:39:17] it's been prioritized there have been like the capital Improvement plan [3:39:23] has been a practice for a while and this was identified um Lewis Park in particular [3:39:30] was identified as the next best strategic priority for us as a city to [3:39:36] invest in and we we have a very long list of other projects that we want to [3:39:43] get to um and I so I think for me I'm leaning [3:39:49] towards including it in this year um because I there's always going [3:39:56] to be other projects that we need to invest back into in our community um and [3:40:01] so I don't want to create a a snowball effect of now next year we have two or [3:40:08] more right if there m lens did you have something want [3:40:15] to add once you guys kind of come to a a a version of a consensus we are going to [3:40:21] ask for a little bit of time to rerun some numbers because that wasn't one of our scenarios in that order if you're [3:40:27] removing the firefighters and keeping lewiis Park so we get to run a little bit of numbers but we can do that for you so I just going to let you [3:40:33] know well another thing we could do would be to say as member Pierce says let's let's get to eight and a half I'm [3:40:40] just using it sort of round it up uh but let let you figure out how to do [3:40:46] it without without taking out Lewis Ridge Lewis [3:40:53] park that's not a maybe that's not a good idea we can do that we'd need some difference I think [3:41:00] from the council we got we've got some uh typically we have a surplus and that [3:41:05] money has been used to put it in the construction fund mean there we don't and we don't [3:41:11] know what that's going to be right and we won't also to set the levy tonight [3:41:16] because we've got to get you know the Count's got to get their property tax statements out in January remember [3:41:23] rer um and I'm I also want to when we say delay hiring paramedics all of them [3:41:32] how many weren't we talking six six couldn't it be less than six sure we [3:41:41] want to keep them in batches of three yeah okay cuz I I have issues with that [3:41:47] I mean honestly I feel like one two [3:41:53] three and modifying five and then two member [3:42:01] Pierce's point about the general fund maybe that needs to go up a little bit [3:42:07] but to my idea about using unspent Tiff and returning that [3:42:13] money that could offset um reductions to the general [3:42:22] fund but that would be on staff to figure out if that's viable and it would [3:42:27] be an incentive to do that I like the idea of delaying the [3:42:33] hiring of the paramedics as recommended firefighters I mean we we already know that from our um Quality of Life survey [3:42:42] and the company that does it for three to 400 cities around the country that we're number one in Medical Response [3:42:48] times with what we have we don't need more firefighters to you [3:42:54] know but we stay at the top on that I don't think we also you're not going to have the fire station new fire station [3:43:00] ready for probably a year year and a half right it's just I also heard um [3:43:07] Chief slamma say that um it's the number of people doing overtime you know that's [3:43:14] put putting pressure on other firefighters and I feel like to member Jackson's point about having a more and [3:43:22] now I can't remember what you said um I want to say Nuance conversation with the [3:43:27] chief like it right about service level and and to be saying oh I just feel [3:43:34] like um I don't have enough information to say okay fine we won't hire all six I I [3:43:43] just feel like I can't resp responsibly do that I could say three but I don't [3:43:49] really know if I I feel like I don't have enough information on [3:43:54] that the existing level of support for the fire department for overtime built into the proposed budget I would assume [3:44:02] it is for the staffing level and service level that they have now yes yeah I [3:44:09] think the point was more that it was forced over time where people were told [3:44:14] they could not leave um and it was more of the impact on morale and potentially [3:44:21] retention within those roles that's how I understood that that's that's right [3:44:29] yeah so I um I'm repeat this I I really want you [3:44:38] to understand that I feel like I am so neutral I have have no issue with us [3:44:47] doing lwis part we could add all the firefighters I and I can I understand [3:44:55] why we need them um I no question at all [3:45:01] on that my question is how do we demonstrate the discipline [3:45:09] to pay for that and so I have learned in this role that that my construct of managing [3:45:20] my budget at work is nowhere near as complicated [3:45:26] right but in terms of we have [3:45:31] expenses that we can't cover so then what do you do there's [3:45:37] only two things you do you spend less or you generate more revenue and what this [3:45:44] is doing is saying there's all the stuff that we want to do we need to generate [3:45:49] more revenue and we're generating more Revenue through the property tax levy [3:45:56] right um that's like that's what we're doing [3:46:02] and so I am saying whatever we want to put in [3:46:07] there we have to demonstrate the discipline to pay for it and Scott I [3:46:14] don't know how to do that and and so what what just kind of [3:46:20] um puts an even fer porn on it the one point the 1% general fund [3:46:27] reduction that's 5 what is it $45,000 something like that we're having [3:46:34] a discussion around Lewis park there might be something in the [3:46:41] 545 that we care more about because you may come back and say all right you know [3:46:46] to hit that number here's what we're going to do and we may not like that [3:46:52] either but we can't see that today so we're reacting to what you're presenting [3:46:58] to us and I would feel 100% more [3:47:04] comfortable if we said we want to do lwis Park and then we said all right then to [3:47:11] pay for that we have to increase the general fund service cut and give you [3:47:18] the discretion to do that and so you come back and you say all right we got [3:47:24] lwis Park done and here is how we've done [3:47:29] it but we can't in my opinion we can't do it's hard to do both of those things [3:47:35] for us to add things in not really know how to pay for it um and then [3:47:46] have these conversations with residents and say well yeah that's what it is that's what it costs and the the other [3:47:52] comment I wanted to make too um and I forgot about this it does I think it's [3:47:59] worth just saying to people they're probably not awake but for the folks that are still [3:48:05] here we've gotten emails from residents that um and some of them are great right [3:48:14] some of of them aren't so great right to make an assertion that the city staff [3:48:21] somehow is trying to confuse people or like we're not doing that right and so I [3:48:27] just want to go on record saying that that's not the case people are not purposefully trying to hide information [3:48:35] and purposefully trying to be confusing it's [3:48:41] confusing and so we are going to regardless of what we agree to tonight [3:48:48] cuz we got to agree to something if we want to go home we will still do a ton of work [3:48:55] between now and then to solve the challenges that we [3:49:00] have for [3:49:08] 2026 I'm done sorry you're I'm assuming that all these ideas you gave us on [3:49:14] possible reduction uctions are deemed by staff to be feasible maybe not desirable but [3:49:22] feasible I would say maybe not something you're recommending but they're yeah I I would say feasible [3:49:28] and uh not harmful uh one two and three [3:49:33] I think we begin to get into some more difficult policy choices when you look [3:49:39] at four five and six [3:49:48] okay what if we did one two and three and then and this is going in a [3:49:55] different direction than member Pierce but said a 05% general fund service [3:50:03] cut so that it wouldn't be quite so severe because I do feel as if we're [3:50:08] kind of shooting in the dark and we have no idea what the implications of what [3:50:13] did you say Beyond one two and three member rer um and then instead of a 1% general fund service cut we make it a 5% [3:50:23] just to get the I I mean because then it wouldn't be quite so impactful but [3:50:31] um because the thing is I feel to member Pierce's point I we don't really know [3:50:37] the implications of what we're doing and that I mean maybe that wasn't your point that's my point not my point that's your [3:50:44] point I'll say that's my point but um it's late and I think I heard you [3:50:52] wrong apologies there but I I feel like at some point we're not sure and [3:51:00] and I do think you know hearing that there's forced overtime for our firefighters that has me [3:51:06] concerned um and so you know we need to [3:51:11] really think about the implications of what we're doing cuz they could be kind of [3:51:18] costly the other thing is we're supposed to be voting on giving an additional [3:51:23] $80,000 to the historical Edina Historical Society What If instead of doing that we just did an additional [3:51:31] 20,000 and then that would free up 60,000 or six excuse yeah 60,000 which [3:51:37] is not that much you I was just going to ask Ari uh [3:51:43] the mayor asked me a second ago is the 880,000 for the Historical Society in in [3:51:49] this number no it's not [3:51:54] okay what was the question uh of whether or not there's a proposal that you're going to consider next to contribute [3:52:01] $80,000 to the Historical Society so they can remain a functioning body that [3:52:08] number is not included in the budget that we have tonight because it just it wasn't part of the cycle [3:52:26] so Mr Mayor May um what did we conclude [3:52:31] about member riser's idea of decertifying the spark funds is that feasible or is it just so complicated [3:52:39] that it wouldn't really have an impact until 2026 [3:52:44] I I'm sorry I just don't know right the the spark funds were created by special legislation yeah um so they probably [3:52:54] work the same way but we don't but we just haven't had any legal research on [3:52:59] that I think they do work the same way because they had a limited purpose yeah but anyway we don't we'd have to get the [3:53:05] answer to that but that invites a I mean that's a policy discussion you ought to have too because the park spark fund was [3:53:12] created by by commended by staff approved by the H if you want to do away [3:53:17] with that that's a that's an issue you should have some discussion and debate [3:53:24] over so my recommendation maybe I'll even I don't [3:53:30] know look if we're in motion territory but um I would say oh gosh what slide [3:53:37] should I talk about this on um if we go up one slide I would say do this the number six [3:53:46] all of the above but keep Lewis Park in [3:53:52] there but then instead of a 1% General phone reduction figure out what that has to be [3:53:59] 1.5 is to cap the increase at [3:54:06] 9% no [3:54:16] yes you'd have to go run some numbers on that without making a [3:54:21] motion do we have a do you have have enough agreement that [3:54:27] she could run numbers on that I yeah so I I'm sorry yeah [3:54:34] um so again that is a a fine [3:54:40] suggestion but again what we're doing is we are actually we're partially [3:54:47] saying we value this Lewis part more than whatever else we're going to cut [3:54:55] and I like it that I just don't understand that and [3:55:00] so I would I would just I wouldn't include Lewis Park and I would stick with the [3:55:07] 1% and so I would Target the 8.4 and everything we're saying is accurate [3:55:15] when Lewis Park comes back into the CIP it's going to have to compete with [3:55:21] other projects it's going to cost more all that stuff is [3:55:27] true um but if it's a million dollars I'm going to say the same thing [3:55:33] next year right and so I just like it's tough for me to [3:55:39] say to choose 1.5% General reduction and have no sense [3:55:46] of what that extra5 where that's coming from and so that that's why I from that [3:55:54] perspective my preference is to do the hard work throughout the year because now we're collaboratively we're doing it [3:56:02] you're coming back and you're saying here's how we think we can get there and then we're having that conversation but [3:56:09] today it's just all blind and I don't and I [3:56:14] I struggle with how we make the decision to [3:56:20] continue to not def struggle with how we make the decision to not defer Lewis Park how do we value that but we're okay [3:56:28] with the 1.5 General reduction how do we value those two [3:56:36] things so I I just fundamentally I I struggle with that and so I take right [3:56:44] right or wrong here's how I value it you put it on a list as something that we could do so you felt strongly that we [3:56:52] could do that for whatever reason I put a lot of value in [3:56:58] that and so everything on that list I place value in you believing it's the [3:57:05] right thing for us to do to hit that Target given the direction we said 13 [3:57:12] was too high right I put an an enormous amount of value in the fact that you [3:57:18] recommended it and I treat them all as equal right [3:57:23] now when we do the work to take the 177% [3:57:29] to something more reasonable then we're doing all that together now I got more data now I'm [3:57:34] going to be asking so how do you think that you know option A B or C to get the [3:57:40] 17 down to something different what's in there all right now we got to go tell the residents here's what we think is [3:57:48] the difference in service level for that and then it's a collaborative [3:57:53] conversation um and I really like the the idea of [3:57:59] having um members of the community involved in that somehow but that just [3:58:06] feels different to me because then we're going to choose things that we all have a reasonable sense of value around but [3:58:13] today actually all of these is equal simply because I trust you did the work [3:58:20] and you recommend this is the and as a way forward for [3:58:28] 2025 so I view the Lewis Park differently I don't see it as a park [3:58:34] shelter I see it as part of the $60 million of deferred maintenance that our [3:58:39] city has which is debt that nobody's asking to be paid back there's no we [3:58:46] don't have a bank that's saying you've got a $60 million loan you're not paying it back but we have a $60 million dollar [3:58:53] loan against the future of our city that is not getting paid back and that's how [3:58:58] I view it not as a specific project that's is this versus that to me it's [3:59:04] that debt that's out there that we need to take care of the assets and it's a debt that we've already incurred and we [3:59:09] should be paying back and this is this the face of it this time and so I I I [3:59:15] think it if we have an obligation to care for what we have we have an obligation to care for what we have and [3:59:20] that's a debt that's existing we've already incurred that and we need to pay it back that's that's how I view it I [3:59:26] don't view it as a particular line item but as the idea that that debt is out [3:59:32] there and of course we can we can defer it um and you make a very good point [3:59:39] about we haven't had a conversation but I think the payment towards [3:59:44] uh maintaining our Parks is a debt that's out there and and [3:59:52] that's why this is important um and I'll be honest um the the the recommendation [3:59:59] um goes down to six and um and it's in order of of impact and um and favorable [4:00:07] to least favorable and um you know if we four is in the middle right right so the [4:00:15] thing to do I I I think you're right is to not question um all of that but I do [4:00:21] want to I want to go on record as saying this is debt that's out there this is care that we have not done and and it's [4:00:28] not what things age and things break down and they get old and they fall apart it's it's the way of of all assets [4:00:37] and if we're not taking care of them it just continues to go down and so that's [4:00:42] a debt that we have that's caused by time it's not caused by a policy Choice [4:00:48] um but we decided we wanted Parks um and now we have to care for them so it's you [4:00:53] know I'll I'll I'll vote for six um I don't like it um it it goes against my [4:00:59] values I really think we need to address asset preservation um but you know [4:01:06] that's looks like where we're going remember what our average Surplus [4:01:12] is at the end of the year last it really jumps all over the place it's been 2 [4:01:19] million down to 200,000 down to 880,000 actually [4:01:24] and Mr Mayor may I make a a suggestion so I ran some quick numbers [4:01:32] based off of what's here and if we do all of the deferrals except where we put [4:01:39] $450,000 away for Lewis Park that brings us to 9.2 2 6% which would still be [4:01:46] taking care of some aspect of the capital setting it aside but it would get us to a much lower number than where [4:01:52] we're at today so that's just going to be a recommendation that I'd [4:01:58] make say that one more time so I would recommend that we set aside [4:02:04] $450,000 so next year the amount we might not get the project done this year but we're setting aside [4:02:09] $450,000 for that deferred maintenance for next year and then we're able to [4:02:15] work on Lewis Park and get started and figure out what the exact costing might be maybe the number will be lower maybe [4:02:21] the number will be higher we'll figure out exactly what that looks like but it's setting aside some money so that you're not necessarily deferring [4:02:27] maintenance costs um and it ends up putting at us a 9.26% [4:02:45] um so let can I ask a question so that's how much was that 45050 [4:02:52] yep um and so the the question I [4:03:00] have because I would still go with the 8.4 but I'm asking I'm going to ask this [4:03:07] question so the 450 that we're going to earmark for Lewis Park [4:03:14] is there any other deferred maintenance that we would rather spend 450 on great question and I think you guys could [4:03:20] consider that we could come back to you with other options there's $60 Million worth of all sorts of stuff so if if [4:03:26] Lewis Park isn't at the top of the priority list absolutely reasonable we could set aside $450,000 for construction of whatever [4:03:34] that looks like right and so the reason I I asked the question that way is because I think you put Lewis [4:03:42] Park on here and I don't think it was the highest value because if it were you wouldn't [4:03:49] have it on here right and so I'm just drilling into the I put an enormous [4:03:56] amount of value in the fact that this was the list that you put together with [4:04:03] the limited we can call it limited assessment that you had and so the flip [4:04:10] side of that is if you say you know you know what we can earmark [4:04:16] 450 right I'm I'm going to have value in that I'll have value in that as well uh [4:04:22] but I think I would still go and and and I [4:04:27] would recommend that we do six um [4:04:33] but I I think what you're proposing is a good way forward um it just [4:04:42] doesn't yeah I don't know that the 450 should be spent on Lewis park because you had it on here to say we don't need [4:04:48] to do it at all we defer the whole [4:04:53] thing we had it on there because it it did have the potential to be deferred [4:04:59] yeah um all projects do right that's my whole point and you indicated earlier that [4:05:05] nothing on this list was hurtful I I said from options One Two [4:05:11] Three or not but 456 I say there's a level of some pain little pain [4:05:35] okay can I can I move that we move forward with option six and just [4:05:45] just three three he wants to move number six right 8.44 per increase I'll second [4:05:52] or decrease I mean or increase lowered from 13.14 to [4:05:58] 8.44 they remember Jackson was asking if it was a simple majority or yeah it's simple [4:06:07] majority 84 is would be measured off of the 24 [4:06:13] Levy so that's the that's how you'll see it when it comes back to you [4:06:23] okay remember Pierce is moving that the 2025 general fund Levy be set at 8.44 [4:06:32] per utilizing the um methodology shown on whatever [4:06:39] that slide is that has um [4:06:45] the proposed forms a reduction from The Proposal that we had from staff at [4:06:56] 13.14% second I [4:07:01] second discussion or [4:07:07] discussion rer um I'm having a really hard time [4:07:13] having no additional firefighters and deferring this cost so [4:07:18] I'll just say [4:07:24] that anybody [4:07:31] else like to talk about Lewis Park a little bit more and we get done with this vote depending on what how it goes [4:07:38] but um [4:07:46] so the motion is that we approve resolution 2024 [4:07:52] d10 setting the 2025 tax levy at 8.44 [4:08:00] per actually how that affects the 2025 operating budget you want to say actually a number [4:08:09] oh so she's printed out but that's okay um so it's we we set the tax levy amount [4:08:17] at 47,3 [4:08:23] 201325 that should be the motion which um the motion which has the effect of [4:08:29] yeah so if you do that and then there's the construction fund number two so you could um here total tax capacity Levy is [4:08:37] here so this is actually the number we want to set the total we're going to set the total and then we'll will'll [4:08:43] redistribute them Yeah we actually we ran that scenario so you guys made it easier on us than I thought you were [4:08:50] going to so the motion is to adopt resolution 202 24-10 so you you created this in [4:08:57] advance thank you uh it's a budget resolution adopting the budget for the [4:09:03] city of udina for calendar year 2025 uh at total tax capacity Levy of [4:09:12] 58,7 $3,854 with a um established Levy for [4:09:20] the general fund at 8.44 per. member Pierce moves that yes member [4:09:29] seconds yes [4:09:34] discussion you want to yeah a repeat [4:09:46] further discussion all right all those in favor of the resol as a motion of stated say I I I opposed [4:09:54] name carried 2025 Levy is [4:10:05] adopted next up we'll need a motion to adopt the 25230 capital Improvement plan [4:10:11] removing Lewis Park yeah I've got some concerns about [4:10:17] that we haven't even had time to have a conversation about that I don't know why it needs to be adopted tonight can you [4:10:24] give us your thoughts on why it's important to do that tonight because there may be things in here that it may be part of the broader [4:10:31] conversation we have in the spring yeah and now we've got something we've adopted and um yeah it you know my re my [4:10:40] reason for recommending removing it and we can rep prioritize and bring you an amended version back is there are a lot [4:10:45] of projects in there um in all other areas of funds that um we people want to [4:10:52] start working on those projects in order to be able to get them back to you and the next time we're going to be able to meet is going to be two months away so [4:10:59] if we adopt it now we can as staff take a look at it and tell which projects we [4:11:04] think would be reasonable if you wanted to re-evaluate to hold on but um at least adapting it allows all of the [4:11:10] other funds to begin working on the work that is included in the because there's a fair amount of the of the capap that's [4:11:18] funded with non- tax dollars right and so those projects really aren't as [4:11:23] impacted like Lewis Park and other kind of conventional Park projects [4:11:33] are well Mr Mayor well how do how do we know what you're going to start working [4:11:38] on and what you're not going to start working on because I see in here for example 300 ,000 for Studio Lighting in [4:11:45] the chambers that's probably most likely funded out of Peg funding would be my [4:11:50] guess on that one so that's a different funding source that is pretty limited well you'll know when we want to start [4:11:57] working on these mostly because we have to come back to the council and get authorization for contract or or share [4:12:04] timelines with you fa Point yeah thank you Mr Mayor yes jaction one thing I [4:12:13] would like to take off the CIP is the um long-term planning for the Brar um uh [4:12:19] course Event Center um I don't like the Arc of The Debt Service um what year is that under [4:12:26] that's under um 2020 20129 and 2030 it's added in so it would be in the 2029 plan [4:12:35] and um that was something that I had asked to be put in and um I think you know given the [4:12:42] amount of new things are coming on board um in these different um debt [4:12:49] discussion again we're going to have a lot of things coming old at the same time and I I think that's something I [4:12:54] would like to defer it needs to be done but um make a [4:13:00] recommendation there real quick we are not going to actually start on any projects in 2029 or 2030 before you guys [4:13:06] have an opportunity to start working on those projects so I 100% expect that the projects that are in there for from a [4:13:12] debt Sur service perspective and even from a a construction fund perspective [4:13:18] they're all so hypothetical in those out years um that I wouldn't get too caught up on 29 2030 I would focus more on 25 [4:13:26] which is really what we're going to be adopting is really 25s and we're going to have an opportunity to talk about it [4:13:32] for 26 I will also note maybe we could amend it to say We'll removing Lewis [4:13:37] Park from the 2025 list we could still put it in 26 2030 or anytime [4:13:43] in between there if you want to look at that way I think they're in there just as [4:13:49] placeholders so beyond 2025 that's part of the budget but beyond that it's just kind of a wish [4:13:56] list for the best best estimate on timing so I think we're okay having it in there member [4:14:03] rer I understand that the 500,000 [4:14:09] um is a placeholder um coming from the Centennial Lakes Tiff for the France [4:14:15] Avenue Crossing at Gallagher in 72nd it's also listed um from the h fund 72nd [4:14:22] in France Tiff so it's down there twice and I really do have a issue with this [4:14:28] being included in the CIP because we haven't had any kind of public input on [4:14:34] this and I know you all know how I feel about it so I don't need to keep talking about it but this is going to make it [4:14:39] really hard for me to vote for this wait where do you see that in there [4:14:44] what year it's um the First Column First [4:14:49] Column 2025 yeah for HRA fund they' got to remember you remember they have to [4:14:55] come back to us for approval I I get that but the way this whole thing has [4:15:03] progressed leaves me very unsettled and you know we spent [4:15:09] $80,000 on a um kind with a contract with lhb came back and it was all [4:15:18] focused on the under on an underpass that was the only answer um they also [4:15:24] published their plan for the underpass and this on current they evaluated the [4:15:29] Macy's site I just this is too much for me and I cannot support it as it's been [4:15:34] moving forward and I I think um the process leaves a lot to be [4:15:41] desired and I am concerned um especially since it's such [4:15:46] a huge potential you know 20 million project [4:15:52] that there wasn't an opportunity you know we talk about Equity we talk about inclusion and all of that [4:15:59] and it's sounds like it's going toward one company and we haven't I don't know [4:16:05] there's there's a lot about this that I am really frustrated by so I just that's all I'm going to say but that's really [4:16:12] important animportant to me I'll react to that because this isn't [4:16:19] approving spending any money this is providing the ability for us to do just [4:16:24] that of continuing to research it's also not committing to any specific vendor so [4:16:31] I I take issue with you saying that like we're not being Equitable in that because this is earmarking because we've [4:16:38] heard loud and clear that we want to continue to get community input and have the discussion so I I feel very strongly [4:16:47] that we should continue to include it um but again we will bring anything forward [4:16:53] and continue to have discussion about it before things progress and as things [4:16:59] continue to progress the issue I have with taking it off now is we could lose the opportunity [4:17:05] to even do this if we you know have construction going on both sides so I I [4:17:11] do think it's really important to continue investing into it um uh from a Time perspective and looking into should [4:17:18] we invest more from a financial perspective um in [4:17:24] 2025 yeah I just had a a question to clarify uh with member Risser so if that [4:17:32] project is included you are you're saying you would [4:17:37] not support the CIP you yeah I probably said that wrong [4:17:44] but no that that's fine I I feel it has not been vetted in a transparent kind of way [4:17:53] I hear what member agu is saying and you do make very good points I also have [4:18:01] read the um report and um the language [4:18:07] that says that for engineering there may be an RFP [4:18:13] um there was no assurance that there would be an RFP for design and I have [4:18:18] heard and I asked about design even at the February 2nd or the February meeting [4:18:23] where we awarded the contract and was told we with designers we don't have to [4:18:29] have rfps um so that's all going through my [4:18:36] head I think I answered your question yeah I think so okay there a motion to [4:18:42] ad the 2025 through 20230 Capital Improvement plan so moved [4:18:48] second oh and we're going to amend it to move Lewis Park to another [4:18:55] year is that correct remove it from 2025 but remove [4:19:01] it from 2025 yeah with that one change okay and that's acceptable to the seconder you [4:19:09] got a motion second to adopt the um amended um Capital Improvement [4:19:14] plan uh for the city of udina for the years 2025 through 20 2030 any further [4:19:21] discussion all those in favor of adoption of the motion is stated say I I [4:19:26] I opposed carried um the [4:19:32] 2025 through 2030 amended Capital Improvement plan for the city of is [4:19:38] adopted um okay now [4:19:57] uh director veter [4:20:14] don't let Mr yum leave we got questions for him on this I do at least I do on this next [4:20:20] matter all right we'll seat Bel him into his chair uh thank you mayor members of [4:20:25] the council this evening we are uh presenting to you a potential agreement [4:20:31] with Thea Historical Society uh just as a reminder um for the [4:20:38] council for those washing the DI historical society was actually established in 1969 and they are a 501c3 [4:20:46] designated nonprofit they were formed uh by the city of Edina uh and several residents [4:20:53] to save the historic kill School building and provide history themed programming uh they do have a mission to [4:20:58] collect preserve and tell the din story to the community and Beyond uh they do operate out of the arnest and acres park [4:21:05] building and they program two additional ones the kill school and the Grange building uh the relationship with the [4:21:12] dinic Society uh for the fiscal year 2024 the city has provided them an [4:21:17] operational uh stipend or funding in the amount of $20,000 the so the society is eligible [4:21:25] for and they have received in the past uh Legacy grants from the state of Minnesota's Historical [4:21:32] Society um they do provide the following service to the city um they archive records and materials that would be [4:21:38] otherwise eliminated um for us to be in compliance with the uh Minnesota Government [4:21:43] practice data Practices Act and just to clarify uh the adal Historic Society is [4:21:49] not a um uh custodian um at all of any [4:21:54] of our records They traditionally just keep those archive records that are [4:22:00] valuable to the community that we no longer hold on to uh they do um catalog and preserve [4:22:07] Acquisitions into this their um own collection they provide exhibits they provide speakers to the public and they [4:22:14] also um a large part of their work is they provide images research materials and historic information um to the [4:22:21] community U for a lot of research and things um prior uh earlier this spring [4:22:28] we did um go to two work sessions with the city council on this matter uh We've presented you kind of three um um [4:22:37] options that uh could be done for the historical society and the one was just to provide the stat quo and that was to [4:22:44] continue to operate as they currently do uh the second more costlier and complex [4:22:50] operation would be for the city to absorb the historical society and the third was to increase their financial [4:22:58] support uh that discussion took place on February 20th so we did gather a vast [4:23:03] amount of feedback from the city council and went back to the historical society and talk to them about that uh the board [4:23:10] then completed and submitted a more detailed strategy and operational plan that included a refinement of their [4:23:17] vision and Mission U their overall strategy and operational plan um how [4:23:22] they would evaluate and monitor that plan what some of their situational analysis was for the society and did a [4:23:30] three-year uh Financial performa that was submitted back to the [4:23:35] city council this fall we had another work session on that uh largely Gathering input from the council is what [4:23:42] led led to the drafting or actually the amendment of of their current agreement into the one presented to you this [4:23:48] evening um and that was to Grant uh continue to Grant the $20,000 that's in [4:23:53] the fiscal year 2024 allocation and then increase that to U an additional $80,000 [4:24:01] for a total of $100,000 in 2025 uh maintaining that allocation [4:24:07] through 2027 to give them a three-year window um to implement their strategy [4:24:12] and operational plan to become more self-sufficient um that maintains their [4:24:18] 501c3 status as well uh some things that we worked with [4:24:24] hisorical soci to add to kind of address some of your concerns was they um um are [4:24:31] open to and will um amend their bylaws to allow you as a city council to [4:24:36] appoint two non- voting student members and one regular voting member uh SL Lea [4:24:42] on as part of the annual commission application um as a commission liaison [4:24:48] staff member myself we do see the two student members often that you interview and appoint to our boards and [4:24:55] commissions be kind of the roll up their sleeves and get to work type staff and that's something of value to to the [4:25:01] historical society as well as um as you had mentioned too about your interest as [4:25:07] a city council um on that Historical Society board was to appoint a a voting [4:25:12] member to that uh that they would have to implement their September strategy and operational plan and provide to the [4:25:19] city an annual report with their metrics each year uh that they would consult with our [4:25:25] city staff on integrating the the values that we've identified of equity engagement sustainability stewardship [4:25:32] and health into their decision-making process and also include our us as City [4:25:37] staff into the interview team for their uh Historical Society executive director position uh so we did [4:25:45] um put that in the agreement that you have this evening and then we are requesting um that you approve that [4:25:52] Edina Historical Society agreement tonight questions for director [4:25:58] V yes member U thank you uh so my first [4:26:04] question is what would it cost the city [4:26:09] to take on the loow mod of maintaining records compliant with our [4:26:17] data um requirements uh thank you um Council uh [4:26:23] council member U um it would be at least double we do not have any adequate [4:26:29] storage right now so we'd have to take on not only the physical storage of those we'd also have to um um work on [4:26:37] inventorying what that collection is and again we would put in a be put in a very awkward position because there are [4:26:43] records that we've um sent to the socialy that we no longer would have the ability to keep so there would be a [4:26:50] decision process that we would have to go through to find out which ones from a retention standpoint do we have to get [4:26:56] rid of and that's the value that the Historical Society brings is that they have that so they aren't um official [4:27:03] records like you know your Council minutes or building plans they are more of the things that the community [4:27:09] celebrates you know like the um the have the blueprints from the original pool [4:27:14] construction at Rosland Park um successor plans have allowed us to um [4:27:20] decommission those plans they've kept them because they're original blueprints they have this community value and feel [4:27:26] that's kind of an example of that what we bring to them we would be no longer able to keep that because of the data [4:27:32] Practices Act okay um so I I think I understood that there is a lot more [4:27:37] value above and beyond H when you first started speaking you said it would be about [4:27:42] double um can you clarify what you meant by that actually I got ahead of myself Council M I thought you were going to [4:27:48] ask me the cost of us to absorb the Historical Society okay so but then your actual question was just about the [4:27:54] records yeah do you have an estimate then for that I would not have the to estimate that okay um then my second [4:28:02] question is is the proposal that's in front of us right now solely locking us into 100,000 [4:28:10] for 2025 or is it also locking in 26 and 27 The Proposal you have this evening is [4:28:17] a one-year agreement for 2025 okay uh the discussions you had was around providing them a three-year window to [4:28:23] improve their operations and become sustainable so this would end up being three one-year agreements that would be [4:28:29] presented to the city council okay thank you um I I will be supportive of this [4:28:36] but the next time we talk about this specifically for the 2026 um [4:28:42] ask I want to know what it would cost the city to absorb the function of data [4:28:50] and records retention compliance um especially coming off the [4:28:56] heels of our budget conversation right like this might be one of those hard decisions that we have to make and we [4:29:01] need to evaluate as a part of the community um is it worth it um I'm not [4:29:08] asking you to do that right now but before we approach this next year that would be my ask thank you thank you I [4:29:14] apologize for getting ahead of myself on that member [4:29:19] Jackson well do you want to raise the question it was your [4:29:25] idea well we we've got I mean we've just been through this difficult difficult budget [4:29:32] conversation and and we all want to help the D Historical [4:29:38] Society but you know so the one the question I guess is for Dawn uh can we if we approve this [4:29:46] contract tonight for 100,000 could we use that arpa money and give them a check before the 31st of [4:29:52] December seems like a good use of federal arpa money to me where that was sent to our community by the federal [4:29:59] government uh so it's I mean it's in part coming from our taxpayers but it's coming from taxpayers all over the [4:30:05] United States and it had that sort of community benefit theme to it could we [4:30:10] use those arp funds to fund the first year of this uh [4:30:18] contract uh excuse me mayor members of the city council my understanding of the [4:30:25] Federal Regulations is that this would not be an allowable use you know we [4:30:31] could go back and review them again you know primarily what it was for was the [4:30:37] provision of government services and those things that Scott had mentioned as part of your phase one spending plan for [4:30:44] food assistance rent assistance Community Broadband expansion I have not seen anything in [4:30:51] the regulations that says this would be an eligible use so let's let's just say [4:30:57] that um indirectly based on what you said earlier you think we might have 150 to [4:31:05] $300,000 Surplus as a result of absorbing this money into the general fund prior to the end of the year and [4:31:10] using it for some approved expenses correct we then use some of that Surplus [4:31:16] which would be indirect arpa funds to fund the first year probably certainly [4:31:21] yep that as long as we don't you know there's a certain fungibility of of revenues here and we can sure that it's [4:31:29] coming out of another remember I didn't mean to cut you off you may have had other things you wanted to ask okay [4:31:36] others remember Jackson big sigh and yeah there a lot of sighing going on [4:31:41] over here it's you know uh I would say my my my number one priority in the [4:31:49] budget is asset preservation and I just voted against that I I believe very [4:31:56] strongly in in preserving our history but if I just voted against my number one priority I don't know if I can [4:32:01] support [4:32:07] this remember rer too early for thoughts you want [4:32:14] to um I mean my only my one thought [4:32:19] was every but this gets into a level of complexity that might just be ridiculous [4:32:25] but saying you know since the whole idea is to launch them into self-sufficiency [4:32:30] so they don't need to keep coming for that 100,000 that okay you get 100,000 to [4:32:37] start and really launch launch hard and then it goes down 20% every year and you [4:32:43] need to find those funds so that it's built into our funding that you got to be looking for money and be on your way [4:32:51] to self-sufficiency Pi [4:32:57] is your wisdom would be [4:33:02] appreciated um the question I have is the um at 11:35 is the the 8 80k [4:33:13] is the 80 grand given the conversation we just had is this included in the [4:33:20] budget okay got it thank you I can say it loud [4:33:26] mayor members of the council it is not included okay thank you so this is um [4:33:33] and it also wouldn't be part of the 1% general fund reduction [4:33:40] either yeah okay thank [4:33:47] you so how do we pay for this what are the what are the what are the [4:34:00] options I don't think that arpa idea is a terrible idea once we get to the point [4:34:05] where we have an audited fund balance amount um to be able to have that [4:34:10] conversation in in the meantime um it would be an expenditure and it would hit [4:34:16] our probably fund balance or whatever might be the Surplus so it prevents us from having that 880,000 in potential [4:34:22] Surplus next year so you you can spend that money we'll just we'll figure out [4:34:28] where to and I think arpa is not a terrible solution for 2025 I agree and [4:34:33] also clarifies a 2025 expense so it's not a fiscal year 2024 increased expense [4:34:41] so when you talk about uh finalizing the year finding what the uh end of year [4:34:47] fiscal 2024 budget is if there is a surplus you also talked earlier about [4:34:52] arpa being placed into the potential Surplus this agreement would be a fiscal year 2025 expense so you have the [4:35:00] ability to wait um unlike a general arpa fund for the end of this year and you could reconcile financials to see what [4:35:07] that Surplus what's the what's the critical timing on this uh we the critical timing is we wanted [4:35:15] to give the Historical Society an answer um I always say is it a quick no or a long yes um as well as this is a 2025 [4:35:24] expense so we did not want to bring it prior to you having a 2025 budget discussion but when will you know about [4:35:31] you know if we held this until January 7th would you know by then if they we have some excess [4:35:37] funds that that that sort of on the AR side we probably the AR [4:35:44] side or we'll have a more precise sense of what that what that money is going to [4:35:49] be scale of it correct how does that work with your [4:35:55] timing director veteran we could maybe bring Mr ctin up too I know he's he's moved up to the front row [4:36:01] now he may have some thoughts that he wants to share with us paid in the first quarter so yeah we did talk with the [4:36:08] historical society that traditionally our even our prior Agreements are paid in the first quarter so it'll be the [4:36:14] first quarter of 2025 Mr [4:36:19] coine would you come up please if if we wait a little bit to [4:36:27] make a decision on this right after the you know in the first quarter of the year would that work okay I think so I [4:36:33] think so okay we've been working with it for I've been working with it for 50 years [4:36:40] so I have organized the historic Historical Society in 1969 I was [4:36:46] involved in organizing it and I've been on the board ever since although I in the last 10 years I'm not a v voting [4:36:53] member but I'm still on the board but um no I think it's good at [4:36:59] least you know I've been talking about this for the last 10 years have been yeah 10 years ago I proposed to this [4:37:06] body I proposed it for $10,000 and uh I asked for 40 I got 10 [4:37:13] and then they cut me five, of the next year and then I went up to 15 now it's up to 20 so it's been [4:37:21] moving you're yeah you're an amazing individual in our community thank you for caring about good all [4:37:29] right Historical Society board we really thank you too yeah hang in there with us we I think we we'll try to figure out [4:37:36] something okay good we're always going to be history cuz history we won't be [4:37:43] here thank you although I'm history [4:37:49] now um so I just a question I'm just really trying of put [4:37:59] context around what member Jackson's um [4:38:05] exasperation maybe I'll call it that um so the 80 grand [4:38:12] is a 2025 expense and so in the context of what we [4:38:17] talked about for budget is we will have a process to [4:38:23] focus on 2025 [4:38:28] Levy so this 80 grand for 2025 is [4:38:33] subject to that work well not if you give a a specific [4:38:39] allocation like we're talking about out here okay and then it would be I think [4:38:46] the conversation around is around what's the potential source of funds that would be consistent with what we've been [4:38:52] talking about tonight okay okay or or not interfere with what we're talking about tonight yeah CU I [4:39:01] um I hear the the um asset preservation is that [4:39:09] what you asset preservation um and I don't necessarily think of it [4:39:14] as I do think of it as a deference but we will address that issue at a later date [4:39:22] and it may cost more and so I was just trying to understand here if we're going [4:39:28] to ask you manager Neil to do work throughout the year to hit a lower [4:39:35] number for 2026 would this be on the table or not [4:39:42] and I'm hearing you say it's we'd be earmarking it now so kind of saying well [4:39:47] this is quote unquote safe yeah for 2025 I I'm getting the feeling that you want to earmark it for them for going forward [4:39:56] in 2026 I think we're going to be looking at a number of changes to our our kind [4:40:02] of historic budget methodologies and choices so it could be on the table then okay thank you [4:40:09] okay all right [Music] um I think we're at manager [4:40:18] comments no we're not going to approve the agreement we're going to kind of Punt until first [4:40:23] quarter then we're going to look at Don's going to let us know when the first part of January what we've got to [4:40:30] work with potentially from an arpa indirect arpa standpoint correct yeah or [4:40:35] any other budget surplus that yeah we we want to think about how to use it [4:40:43] okay manager comments for tonight uh your honor is is we didn't get to quite [4:40:49] get to the end of our discussion around the legislative platform uh earlier this [4:40:54] evening however when when um Ari and Zoe [4:41:00] and I went into the break room to kind of work through it we I think we're not as far away from this being completed as [4:41:07] I thought we were when we were in the room so what we would like to do is to produ produce a a Redline version of of [4:41:14] the document and put in you know we've got a number of of changes that you've all kind of consented to there really [4:41:20] aren't very many that you haven't that you haven't consented to yet that I think you probably will so we'd like to [4:41:26] prepare a Redline version and get it out to you and kind of get it approved [4:41:31] unofficially um that's just as meaningful to our legisl legislator says [4:41:37] if we take a a formal action on the document so we can still do do that but [4:41:42] I I I think we'll do that over over the next week or so and uh collect your [4:41:47] input if there's more input then uh great we'll we'll slow it down but I think we're pretty close to being done [4:41:54] actually remember Jackson I were talking about after the work session thinking you know it wouldn't be the worst of all [4:41:59] cases if we work through our final legislative agenda with our legislators and because they may tell us [4:42:07] well don't waste your time on this one or really put your horsepower behind this [4:42:12] idea but um anyway I think you're the the method you're following here would [4:42:17] give us a red line to work from that's a good Next Step okay that's what we'll do [4:42:23] okay that's all I've got okay um member rer you got any juice left in [4:42:30] the tank you got anything you want to talk about I'm empty thank [4:42:35] you you usually have a couple of things Jackson I didn't prepare anything except [4:42:40] I want to have a discussion about Community comment that we've seen Community comment turned into a [4:42:46] political Arena a political Forum it's not a political form it's a chance for the the public to come tell us what [4:42:53] their lived experience is in the city and what we can do to improve that tell the council tell the council not the [4:43:00] public and to broadcast it so I think it's a very important part of our uh of our work but I don't think it needs to [4:43:06] be broadcast and I'd like to see in 2025 that we have that off camera and before [4:43:12] the city council meeting starts because it's addressing the council it's not addressing the public and if people want [4:43:18] to be broadcast they can go on cable TV we have a wonderful service in a studio [4:43:23] they can use and put a program together but I don't see that we have to produce that um on the on their behalf so I'd [4:43:30] like to see that come forward in January well let's put that on as a [4:43:37] discussion somewhere down the line remember Pi I don't have as much energy [4:43:43] as member Jackson so I will pass thank [4:43:51] you no one else is dressed quite as festively tonight uh so I just want to [4:43:57] wish everyone happy holidays and I know I'll see you again on Thursday which is [4:44:03] kind of like tomorrow almost so maybe I'll save the [4:44:09] truly well wishes on the year until look forward to seeing your attire on Thursday [4:44:15] morning um it's interesting I had written down that same notion that that [4:44:22] is what's the purpose of public comment you know and have that [4:44:28] conversation and who is who is it for is it benefit of the council or benefit of the public let's have that [4:44:34] conversation I know yeah Eden Prairie for example where you were doing it for [4:44:40] years it was it's done at 6:30 right and it's off camera yeah so there's a work [4:44:46] session just like here a work session that goes from 5:30 to 6:30 they the [4:44:51] council would come upstairs get into the chambers they would do public they would do community comments and uh at 7 [4:44:59] o'clock that was done and the and the meeting started and that was off so that [4:45:04] was off camera and the cameras came on when the meeting started at [4:45:09] 7 okay all right that's that's all I had oh don't you have to say something about that oh [4:45:15] yeah thank you I had it all out here too so yeah thanks member [4:45:22] Jackson um member rer member Pierce interviewed [4:45:29] several uh entities and individuals uh with that are in the business of uh [4:45:36] providing guidance to city councils and and assessments of city managers [4:45:41] uh through the performance review methodology that they have and uh members Pierce and uh grer selected a [4:45:50] company uh led by somebody named Charles Weinstein it's called ethical leaders in [4:45:55] action and he interviewed the um senior staff members [4:46:00] and all the city council members and um from all of those uh all that input [4:46:07] provided a um performance review that is uh [4:46:14] confidential but uh I have as the mayor an obligation to report out to the [4:46:20] general public kind of a summary of the findings and so the purpose of uh the [4:46:26] the appraisal was twofold as set forth by Mr Weinstein it was to assess whether [4:46:32] Scott Neil is performing satisfactory as C United City manager and provide Mr NE Neil with thoughtful feedback on his [4:46:38] strengths areas of compet competence and and and any areas for potential [4:46:44] Improvement based on the perspective of the council and Senior staff and based upon the survey and the [4:46:50] and the interview input um from the m and the majority of the council members all senior staff members I would say [4:46:58] that believe Scott is meeting or exceeding expectations overall as the ad city manager the appraisal revealed that [4:47:05] Mr Neil has demonstrated some areas of distinctive strengths and some areas of satisfactory performance along with some [4:47:11] other areas where the council seeks Improvement in practices and performance of the city manager and staff overall [4:47:18] the appraisal identified staff leadership and management creative thinking problem solving and high level [4:47:23] commitment to be among Mr Neil's distinctive strengths we also identified a range of General competencies such as [4:47:29] risk management financial management support for the council we also identified some areas where some of the [4:47:35] council members seek Improvement uh in performance and those included uh Improvement in responsiveness to his uh [4:47:42] resident concerns uh and also uh some aspects of communication and support for the [4:47:49] council and um those were the general areas that we covered we want to make [4:47:55] sure that um uh information was included to present to the council that supports decision making that's factually [4:48:01] factually accurate and make sure staff provides the council with contextual information concerning budgetary options [4:48:08] and decisions and it is I think worthwhile noting that [4:48:14] that we learned I think that some staff members have expressed concern about their overall workload uh facing their departments and [4:48:21] and them as Leaders of those departments um and there is a risk of of employee [4:48:29] burnout and overwork and so we um we note that as well in in that that [4:48:35] assessment so I think that is sufficient for Minnesota statutory purposes to [4:48:40] provide that summary of the conversation we had with him last evening and with Mr [4:48:46] Weinstein as well and all council members are present so that concludes [4:48:53] um that report out on Mr Neil's performance [4:48:58] evaluation and uh we could now think about a motion to [4:49:04] adjourn so moved a sec we had a motion by member Jackson second by member U [4:49:09] that we adjourn the meeting of the ad city council uh while it is still December 17th 2024 any further discussion all [4:49:18] those in favor of a German of the city council meeting this Tuesday December 17 2024 say I I I opposed [4:49:25] carried We Stand adjourned