Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. All right, let's get started. Good evening. Tonight is June 15, 2026. This is a study session meeting of the Minnitanka City Council and we just decided to move the meeting in here to help accommodate both the large number of staff and the anticipated number of observer observers. So just as a quick before we get started, this is a study session. It's still meant to be in the structure of a study session. We don't take any comments or input from spectators, but they're all welcome to be here and we try to keep it informal. So, let's start with introductions. And tonight, we're just going to do councel and then Miss Dmond's going to take notes of what other staff members are here as well. So, Paula, why don't you go ahead? >> Paula Romey, w three. Deb Calvert at large CAY Kley Ward for Rebecca Shack mayor Paty Foster Bolton Ward one Kimberly Wilburn at large >> Amanda Maxwell W two >> All right thank you so um just as a kind of outline for tonight. So, we hope to spend about an hour on 3A, the Purgatory Park off leash dog area evaluation. Uh, maybe about I think Mike thinks an hour, but I would say an hour and a half more realistically on the CIP and then we'll just briefly talk about um July study session topics and I've just got a little point of discussion there. So, let's get going. Uh Mike, you want to start with the Purgatory Park off leash dog area evaluation? >> Yeah, thank you uh Rebecca and council. Before we do that, just want to remind the council you do have an agenda in front of you. And so there's two items for your agenda. I know you don't officially approve the agenda item, but just really want to call out to your attention with item 3A, which is related to, as the mayor mentioned, Purgatory Park off leash dog area evaluation. there was public comment received after publication in the packet. So that's included in the agenda. And then the same is true for item 3B uh which is preliminary 2027 through 2020 excuse me 2031 capital improvements program review public again a public comment again was received after publication of the packet. So all those comments are re received and published in your packet and then are part of the agenda. So with that uh if it's okay mayor I'll just roll into then 3A. Go for it. >> All right. Thank you. So, I'll quickly just tee it up. Uh sitting behind me, we have uh two staff members that will primarily lead the conversation related to the Purgatory Park off leash dog area evaluation. Uh before we turn it over to Matt Kuma, who's going to start that conversation, I just do want to recognize just really the efforts uh of Matt Kuma. Uh Rachel Mian, uh our police captain, one of our captains will be speaking. She supervises uh the staff that enforce the ordinance. And so you'll hear both from Matt and from Rachel this evening just about our staff experiences. And I would just begin by saying that the the staff report really kind of outlines the challenges. And as I think council as I talked to you throughout the last few weeks just really highlighting uh you know we went into this with good intentions uh in terms of a plan last year and part of coming back this evening was to report on how how things have gone uh here the last uh six nine months uh regarding the off leash activity you know and again as I shared with many of you it it's been a challenge and I think you'll hear that from staff tonight disappointing in a lot of ways just regarding some of the non-compliance that continues to happen and the challenge es that it's posed for staff and trying to enforce an ordinance that's been uh really difficult in that regard. So, we did do some data points. Again, Matt will touch on those here coming up just in terms of uh what we're hearing from from complaints in the community, the volume of those, what what the complaints are saying, and then also just addressing some of the non-compliance. So, we've had a chance to observe uh activity in the park, and I think the word I just used was just some significant still non-compliance in regard to the ordinance. So tonight's conversation is really centered around uh staff's updates to you on that front and then at the end of it talking through some options uh for your consideration and then at the end of it staff would look for some direction uh regarding next step. So with that I turn over to Matt. >> Thank you mayor. Thank you council. So tonight I'll start with a little bit of a background. >> My mic on there we go. Um, back in November 18th, 2024, the council adopted revised off leash dog ordinance language. Um, then in April 23rd, 2025, staff presented the Minnotonka off leash dog strategy and guidance plan to the park board. On May 19th, 2025, council directed staff to examine areas two and three in the south end of Purgatory Park. And we considered soft and hard barriers, and I'll describe that in in greater detail throughout my presentation. natural area protection, the challenges with existing topography and potential traffic impacts to the park overall. And then on August 25th, 2025, council directed staff to implement areas two and three, plus an unleashed corridor, also called the trail, unleash trail between the two areas and the main parking lot using mapping and signage, what we'd call soft barriers at the time, and evaluate the effectiveness and enforcability of that plan. So here's a map. Uh this is a an image of the maps that went up out in the park. So Purgatory Park off leash areas. Um the direction was to not overlap with a quality habitat as described in the natural resources master plan to not overlap the significant amount of wetlands out in the park. Um we had removed areas 1, four, and five. And you'll see a figure I dropped off hard copies. All the figures except for area four in the northeast corner are shown. And I'll express that in more detail throughout the presentation. The total area of the total area in terms of acreage for areas two and three was 18.8 acres approximately as as mapped in the field. And the off leash corridor was just over a half mile in length and really varied in length depending on on the trail and the opening of the vegetation through that area. But really the idea was to keep that corridor within um 20 feet on either side of the main trail expressed in the in the east side of that wetland there. So the Purgatory Park off leash area evaluation had a a bunch of factors to it. So we wanted to understand overall boundary compliance. Have people generally complied with the on and off leash rules in the park? We wanted to understand circulation where people were moving through the park. Is the corridor effectively moving people with off leash dogs from the main parking area to the southern off leash areas and is there non-compliance with the off leash corridor and the significant primary trails throughout the park. We wanted to understand dog and human conflicts are have conflicts generally increased or decreased after the ordinance taken effect and the designated areas were established. Um, working with police, we wanted to understand enforcement. Can public safety staff effectively respond to issues or concerns in the park? And is enforcement achievable with the current layout? And again, we wanted to understand parking. Has parking off Stadola Road in particular changed significantly due to the change in the park rules and the designation of the off leash areas. So, in fall 2025, we paid um our engineering consultant to design signs for us, and we hired a local um signage production company out of Plymouth. We implemented a preliminary signage suite throughout the park with a variety of signs, six different type signs in total. Um these signs looked at um as best we could map those off leash areas. We described the ordinance rules in brief. Um, we tried to map the major parking areas and the major trail intersections. We wanted to identify entry into off leash areas at regular intervals. Key informal primary trail intersections out there. The park is quite large. There are a lot of trails. There's a lot of primary and secondary foot paths through the park. So, we really did our best to try to figure out where the best locations for these signs would be. We certainly had some challenges with um cardinal directions. So, you're looking at the sign, but the sign's oriented north, but you're heading south. Where are you given this map, the size of the the park? It it it was a substantial challenge trying to orient people out there when they were standing at these signs out in the woods to get a sense of exactly where they were and what direction they were heading when they were entering or leaving an on or off leash area. So, I wanted to make it clear that it was pretty tricky. It's been pretty tricky to sign this. We have unfortunately received quite a bit of vandalism to the signs out there. There is markering and graffiti on the signs. Our staff was pretty timely in getting out there and removing it when we saw it. Um, we replaced and added additional signs over the last couple months here once we saw that we were getting some feedback from public safety. We wanted to roll out some more signs out there that there weren't quite enough. And then we were as timely as we could replacing signs that were vandalized. Signs were pushed over or otherwise removed with a socket set. So we implemented some vandalproof um nuts and bolts out there that require a special tool to remove the signs. But again, we were replacing those as quickly as we could. So we did some trail monitoring out there. We wanted to understand the overall compliance and the general park use. So, we did put two um trail cameras out there. They were implemented at a distance where we could really see the shapes of dogs and people, but we couldn't see people up close. Generally, there was 70% compliance at the Southern Creek Bridge. This is a major intersection in the park off of Stadola Road. When you're looping on the primary trail, you cross that bridge, but lesser compliance up near area three. only about 20% 27% compliance along the primary trail on the Oak Ridge. So that entrance was at the west side of area two. We looked at vehicle traffic and and did our best to determine whether or not it increased or decreased. So we put down um parking counts at the Excelsier Boulevard park entrance and at the Stadola AB Culdeac park entrance. uh a no parking zone has not yet been installed in order to examine the impact of the overall dog areas. So we wanted to see these numbers to understand whether or not it made sense to implement a no park area. So overall the amount of of vehicles in each location location excelsier boulevard and stoodola didn't really change all that much. In summer 2025 uh there was about 250 vehicles a day. Spring 2026 236 vehicles. And on Stadola there was about 50 vehicles a day and then earlier this year there was about 46. So about the same. And I'm going to turn it over to Captain Rachel Mihan to talk through the reporting system. >> Thank you. So in June of 2025, the city created a QR QR code reporting system that provided the residents with a non-emergency way to report off concerns and approve our ability to track and respond to the trends we saw. The QR codes are placed in parks throughout the city and while used at several parks, the usage has been overwhelmingly concentrated at purgatory park. Since the implementation, the QR code system generated 142 reports with 128 128 of those related to purgatory. Of those reports, there were 24 unique reporting users. While we note okay while we note that thank you. When we note that 81% of all the reports came from just three individuals, the reports that they did do were reviewed carefully and found to be credible, accurate, and consistent with the conditions observed both by our staff during our directed patrols and the trail camera footage. So, while a small number of residents generated the majority of the reports, the reporting still reflects real and recurring compliance issues within the park. The most common rate concerns reported throughout the QR code system were dogs off leash outside the designated leash areas, dog owners failing to pick up waste, vandalism and theft of the park signage, and conflicts between the park users, which included off leash dogs running up to or interacting with other park users, and negative interactions between individuals using the park with off leash dogs and those expecting dogs to be leashed. In addition to the QR code reports, the police department reviewed our calls for service in and around Purgatory Park since August 25th, 2025. During that time, there are 146 total calls. We also reviewed calls to Stadola Road and found only one parking complaint. Of the 146 calls for service at Purgatory Park, 15 of those were animal related. This could include dog related complaints but also call but also involves calls regarding injured deer, snapping turtles and other wildlife concerns. The largest category 104 of the calls are consisted of our self-initiated directed patrols by our police department staff. The self-initiated directed patrols of our staff were conducted specifically to increase visibility, educate park users, and monitor compliance while also addressing the broader public safety concerns in the park. The rest of the calls included thefts from vehicles, traffic accidents, afterhour park use, and other miscellaneous incidents. From a law enforcement perspective, the most significant challenge that we have found is that the boundaries of the designated off leash area are not clearly defined. Given the size and layout of Purgatory Park, the signage alone has not proven sufficient to clearly communicate where off le off off leash activity is permitted, particularly within the corridor area. This has created challenges in both educating park users about the rules and consistently enforcing the ordinance. The signed vandalism and theft over the past several months has further complicated our efforts. Through our conversations with park users while we're at the park, it's clear that many individuals do not fully understand where the designated off leash area begins and where it ends. This finding is also consistent with the feedback received through the pause for park survey. The data demonstrates that non-compliance exists and that concerns being reported and observed are legitimate. At the same time, the information that we've gathered suggests that confusion regarding the boundaries of the designated off leash area is a significant contributing factor. From our perspective, establishing a clear, visible, and understandable boundary is the most important next step to improve compliance, reduce the conflicts between the park users, and support consistent education and enforcement. We can and will continue directed patrols and education as we have been doing. However, the long-term compliance will be difficult to achieve consistently without clear physical delineation of the designated off leash area. I'll turn it back to Matt. >> So, I I want to walk you through a variety of options for your consideration tonight. So, I'm going to refer to these as options one, two, three, and four. Option one, continue the current off leash area layout. It's just about 24 acres in total. Replace the signs as necessary. add signs to enhance awareness of the off leash area boundaries and rules and continue our education and engaged enforcement. Option two, enhance the current off leash area layouts about 24 acres. Again, install fencing in key locations. I had presented a variety of of fencing options throughout our conversations. There's some really key areas where our primary trails do come quite close. Remove brush to open up the corridor in general. add entry features to the corridor and the and the off leash areas um including gateways, trash receptacles to formalize and improve enforcement. Um the cost of that would be approximately $25,000 back of the envelope. Options three, eliminate the corridor and establish new fenced off leash area. This would be just under 15 acres in total. Um I'm proposing new area one which is 4.7 acres. This was shown in previous versions of these concepts. It's just south of the main parking lot. It would cost about $140,000 for over 2,000 linear feet of fencing. And to fully fence area 2, just over 10 acres for approximately $250,000 for 3700 3700 3740 ft and eliminate area three just under 9 acres. And finally, option four, eliminate the corridor and establish a new fenced off leash area. Again, about 15 acres in total. This would be area five, which coincidentally is also 4.7 acres. That's not a mistake. They're both 4.7 as shown on the drawings. This is just west of the main parking lot. So, you leave the main parking lot, you cross a creek bridge there, and then there's a heavily wooded area in the northwest side of the park to fully fence area two, just over 10 acres for $250,000. and again eliminate area three. So again, a map on the left shows the four areas that I've just described in those options. Areas two and three on the south side, area five in the northwest corner, and area of one just south of the main parking lot. Off leash area two is just over 10 acres. It would require to be totally fenced 3740 linear feet of fencing. Again, that approximate cost is about $250,000. Um, the challenges out here are significant topography. There's quite a lot of hills going up and down. And a lot of the cost of this fencing is related to the preparation work that would be required to get this fence in. There would be significant amount of potential tree and brush removals to create the space to to create a fence and access in general through this area. And these are conservative numbers. They're on the high end. and and these overall numbers were gathered from what Three Rivers has recently paid for similar style fencing at their dog parks. Off leash area one just south of the parking lot is 4.7 acres. It would require just over 2,000 linear feet of fencing for about $140,000. The challenge here is it's adjacent to highquality existing natural resources area and key primary chair trails as well as nearby residences. And then finally, off leash area five in the northwest corner of the park. Again, 4.7 acres, 2150 linear feet, about $145,000 in total fencing. It's very heavily brushed in there. A lot of buckthorn, a lot of invasive trees. There's an awkward existing trail network near the creek and adjacent residencies are are quite close by. So again, um we would need to review the options for fencing and get a better sense of overall feasibility. We know we would want to expect uh to protect the existing soils out there. Um there's high quality topography, high quality natural areas that we need to be thoughtful of. Um we would need to meander around trees. We certainly would want the fence to avoid significant trees if we were to install a fence. So again, approximately $60 per linear foot would include the posts, the fencing install, and the entry features related to these fenced areas. And again, it's based on Three Rivers prices. There could be additional brush removal, but again, we could meander and sort of field fit that fence as best as possible to to eliminate some of the tree removals. And then we could um further look into fencing material options to potentially bring that cost down. Um I've shown these in the past. This is some examples of what Three Rivers installs. It's it's a fairly um unintrusive fence style. It's kind of rustic. So implementation of options one or two. So walking through what it would take to get these in the ground. Option one, immediate actions. We could monitor and enhance the parkwide signage system. We would continue to respond to the dogs and parks complaint reporting system on the park signage for rapid response and enforcement and track those considerations. We would host educational events out on the park. Um we could push out on social media these additional changes. Options two could start right away in summer fall of 2026. The items listed above. Um and some tree and brush removals to improve the off leash corridor. Closing the existing large trails outside of the off leash corridor. We could drop some brush and potentially fence off some of those corridors that um are very tempting to walk down but aren't aren't quite in the off leash corridor. And we could install all fencing and off leash area entry elements, amenities, and features. and then implementation of options three or four. Um, this would take more of a phased approach. So, the phase one of this implementation could start this summer. We would implement new signage parkwide with the designated off leash areas as decided upon. Um, we would look at figuring out exactly where we would need to implement these entry features and temporary soft barriers before we got the fence up. We would again continue to respond to the dogs in the park complaint reporting system. Um, and then we would begin off leash area fence design. Um, hire a contractor to help dial in those prices a little bit. Designed to include tree brush removals, fenced installation standards, revised cost estimates, entry feature design, and wetland buffering. We certainly would need to buffer the wetland in any of these scenarios. And phase two of that implementation over the winter and spring, the it's best to remove trees in the winter. we do do less damage to the soil in that scenario to prepare for eventual fence installation. And then in the spring when the ground thaws, we would install all the fencing and off leash area amenities and features. So for enforcement, I'm going to turn it back over to Captain Mi. Okay. When talking about enforcement, we recognize that there's always going to be some people that actively resist or ignore the new laws or the new rules. Um, but if the boundaries are very well delineated, no matter what decision is made, the enforcement is considerably easier, as is education. And so we also expect vandalism still. Um, and we'll take further steps to decrease or eliminate that. Education and a visible presence will continue as crucial for building our voluntary compliance. We'll continue our outreach, which includes education, signage, flyers, and maps, and in park engagement. Again, this is considerably easier if we have a delineated um area. Right now, it is difficult to explain where the areas are for people if they're not standing in the park. Um we'll in we'll disseminate our information through the city website, the Minnitanka memo, and other city and police social media platforms. As we have been doing, we'll deploy our extra patrols, including our police staff, hopefully on ebikes for enhanced mobility and to get further. And then our long-term enforcement will eventually transition into a complaint-based model for sustained and targeted enforcement. >> So budgeting considerations, funding is not currently programmed at this moment. We would need to review the capital improvement funding options and upon council direction, a staff update would be provided in the coming months as necessary. So with that, a few discussion questions. Does council choose to proceed with one of the four proposed options and what enforcement actions, if any, does council prefer moving forward, including the interim of implementation of the options proposed? And I would like to thank you for your time. >> Thank you both. Good information. Um, all right. So, council, let's start with questions. Any questions for staff? Kimberly, >> um, do I recall correctly that way back when when we were having our discussions of areas that the area um for was we we discussed the potentially removal of of quite a bit of trees that it it's not the original tree growth, not necessarily high quality trees in there, and that it it's so dense in there that it might require quite a bit of tree removal. >> Yes. U Mayor Shaq um council member Wilburn um area 4 is not shown on this map but it was in the northeast corner of the park closest to Excelsier. There is significant brush in there. It is currently considered some of that uh aquality habitat but it's a maple basswood forest. The quality there is in the the canopy of those species. The real challenge there is the topography. There's some substantial topography from the parking lot even into that area. There is an old trolley bed that goes through there. So, there's some really human-made slopes and then it slopes. If you drive along Excelsier and look into that forest there, there are some significant soft dark slopes with not a lot of ground cover on the ground. So, open exposed soils, it is it is an available area, but in terms of topography, it would be pretty tough to implement. And I I feel like the soils would be degraded quite heavily, quite rapidly. And just quick followup. So you feel like area five would it would be better as far as topography and >> area five is better. I've been through there quite a bit. It's hard to tell because of how dense the brushes. There's a lot of invasive elm trees. There's some old apple trees in there and a ton a ton of buckthorn cottonwoods. It would take substantial opening to make that available and comfortable to walk around. You really feel like you're in a tunnel through that area. But it is generally sort of mounded. There are some slopes down to the trail. Um, so we wouldn't need to figure out exactly where the fence would go along there, but there are large enough flat areas and, you know, some modest topography through there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Question. >> Yes, Paula. >> Thank you. I'd just like to follow up on that. That was a good question. Um, so how is area um four different than two or three? because you say topographical challenges. There is the site where the old house was and so there is a flat area there that you know is even accessible from excelsier. So I'm just trying to understand what the differences say between that because I understand I was just by there the other day it's been forestry mode. >> Yes. Um, so it's kind of cleared and in that sense is a good thing if if it would be a place to put an off leash dog area because it's been cleared. Um, but so help me understand why the topographical challenges are different there than say in the other side of the park. >> Great question. Um, so yes, we did do a bunch of brush mowing east of the red barn site house. Um, and it really opened it up and there are some flat areas in there. Um, but the the artificial slope of the trolley line is so steep and areas two and three do have significant topography changes, but there are some locations where you can get in and out that you're not necessarily climbing up a slope immediately. We would have to analyze the degree of those slopes, but I I know from the parking lot north to Excelsier, you go through a lawn area with our picnic shelter there, and then there is substantial slope. So, we would need to think about general slope stabilization and the actual topography there, but it's fairly steep, steeper than two and three overall >> if you're entering from the parking lot. If you're entering from the park, >> not necessarily if you were entering and had parking space around the red barn. >> True. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Other questions, Amanda? >> Yeah. Um, options three and four, both of them you suggest removing area three, but option two would include area three. Could you explain uh why you recommended removing those in the fenced fully fenced options, please? to fully fence areas two and three is a substantial amount of fencing generally speaking. The other challenge with two and three is that there is a primary trail that comes straight through that area. Um so we gotten a lot of non-compliance between those two zones. So if we were to fence those, we would either need to fence them both entirely or just one of them and eliminate the other. So we didn't have this sort of crossing through of the off leash areas on the primary trail that I think could cause some challenges. The hill is quite steep there. We see a lot of bic bicyclists turning that corner into um low sight lines areas. So to have off leash area all the way around there would be quite difficult and just the amount of fencing to do both of those. Um, so certainly worth discussing the sort of the variety in these options, but for now it just seemed like a ton of fencing on the south side of the park. >> Thank you, >> Tizzy. >> Thank you, Mayor. This is a little different question. Um, not really talking about the areas as much, but my question is more so about the cameras that's in the park. Um, and I know that um, Officer Rachel or Sergeant, you said that um, you can't really see people faces, but my question is um, if we have cameras in the park and people are vandalizing signs, then why aren't we charging these folks? Because to me, that's a criminal offense. And to me, um, it should be made clear that if you're going to vandalize signs and not follow the rules just like anybody else, then there should be a charge for that. >> Great question. Thank you. And um, we unfortunately we captured thousands of images, but we did not see anybody actively vandalizing the signs. There was some nighttime activity, but we didn't end up seeing um you know anybody actively vandalizing the signs unfortunately when the cameras were up. >> Yeah. And if we had captured that and if we were to capture somebody doing that, we would absolutely charge them 100%. Yeah. And it was it was in various it happened in various places throughout the park. So there wasn't one specific area and unfortunately it's actually happened at a few other parks. So, if we could find the person or people doing it, we absolutely would charge them. >> Okay. I just got one more question and follow up with that. Um, and I know that people are really against cameras and everything, but like if you can get tickets for driving speeding and you can see folks for that and you can see people license plates, to me, those so same type of level of cameras should be used in the parks to be charging folks for vandalizing. And that's just my opinion. >> Fair enough. You don't need a response to that. >> Correct. Okay. All right. I didn't think so. I They're both sigh sign a sigh of relief. Okay. Uh, other questions? Any other questions? >> Paula, thank you. Um, just to clarify and and reiterate, I guess the period that the cameras were up were basically a 10-day period. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, you know, and they were in two locations, which may be why things weren't caught on camera. Um the second thing is is just a more question and comment regarding the fencing costs because obviously that does give one pause and um you know the areas we can talk about the fencing is another and I just have to say I am curious that you know it seems to me and I have to wonder if the majority of that cost is in labor. Um the reason is is I brought this up last year um in our discussion and I kind of checked my numbers again this year and um I looked at basic you know attractive high-quality deer fencing um that ran about $680 per 100 linear feet um which doesn't include obviously the labor. Um but you know unlike traditional fencing like regular um you know like our baseball diamonds and um chain link is is that it's more flexible and you don't have to disturb the topography as much. And so I'm wondering if you have considered would consider fencing like that which you know just based on my back of the napkin estimates would mean for 2,000 linear feet i.e. For example, area five, that would be $13,600 plus labor. For area two, we're looking at $25,160 plus labor. And you know, those could considerably use. We have a corrections program that we use for a lot of our summer labor. So, you know, that would be I'm just kind of considering, you know, the idea about fencing as a permanent solution, maybe an interim to make sure we have compliance even with that, you know, would that be something that is realistic and possible to do in your opinion? >> Unfortunately, the the nature of this fencing project, a potential fencing project, I can't just call backyard resident chain link installer. This was sort of a specialty job. So it seemed like the only precedent cost I could come up with was Three Rivers construction. So certainly there is more research we could do into materials. A lot of that is the labor cost, the inaccessibility of some of these locations, the actual machine to drive these posts into the ground. It's not so much the the physical material cost. It's the it's the coordination and the install. the snaking it around trees, not really knowing your final quantity until you're out there installing the site. And and really again, the only precedent I had was three rivers. And I have since talked to some other city park managers. Um for instance, I was down in Chanhassen not too long ago and looked at a similar fence and he was quoting me similar numbers just off the back of an envelope. This is what I remember it sort of costing. So the unique challenges of accessing this and and labor and again keeping those costs relatively conservative to sort of the high end. Could it come in cheaper? Certainly. Um but we'd have to study that a little further. >> Okay. And yeah, if temporary more temporary snow fencing types, you know, something could be something for an interim while we're kind of studying this and maybe Yeah, maybe not full fencing part. >> So Paul, we're keeping it to questions now. Thanks. >> Uh Deb, >> thanks Rebecca. Um so my question has to do with um there have been violations. So basically that's just dogs being off leash where they're not supposed to be. My question for the six-month period that we've been observing there, what kind of actual issues have there been with off leash dogs in terms of conflicts, um, injuries, um, so on. As far as I know, there has not been any reported dog bites or a dog versus dog. That doesn't mean that they're not happening, but they haven't been reported to us there at the park. Um, there have been complaints of dogs running up to people. There was one of a dog that ran up and knocked knocked the either knocked her glasses off and then she stumbled, but someone um tripping and falling as a result of the dog. Um, but overall it has remained fairly consistent with the past. >> Paula, go ahead. Can you discuss please the interactions between csos and you know when you say a interactions and incidents? Um can you speak to you know kind of some of the reported credible verifiable incidents either between cso and resident or and other off leash dogs owners or residents and off leash dogs owners. >> Sure. Our community service officers and our cadetses are primarily the people that respond to these uh and spend the time in the parks. And what they have reported to me is um they have sat in up above the parking lot, the main parking lot off Excelsier Boulevard and seen many many people just open their doors and let the dogs out loose um not ever leashing them until they get even after they're uh not at the off leash areas. um when confronted sometimes they are they can be um argumentative about about the rules or about what we have going on. Um they also been through the parks. They come they'll come through on the other side by Stodola and that area by the bridge has been consistently an area where people are off leash uh and non-compliant. And so most of those interactions have been education. And so they'll identify the people and um if they come up if they have an additional um incident then a citation may be issued at that point. But most of the first time uh offenses will be just a warning and education on the rules. And how many have been argumentative? Like how many, you know, what are we looking at for verbal kind of incidents between csos? And >> um it honestly it's hard for me to to tell because they don't I don't it's not noted in their calls. Um and so from what they've told me it's probably 20%. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, are we ready to kind of if we can put the screen up with the questions again? So, what we're charged with easy, right? Two questions. Um, so we've got four options and really the question is what what of the four options are we looking for? Um and what enforcement actions, if any, does council want prefer uh moving forward with including in the interim while the whatever we choose is implemented. Um I just want to make a comment and then I'll hand it off to you all about, you know, this is a unique situation. I think Mike and I were talking this morning. Usually council will pass an ordinance and it will be up to staff to implement the terms of the ordinance and oftent times we we are not a part of this implementation phase and I think perhaps that is in reflecting where we've gotten hung up over the past couple of years because we do have I I just as a reminder we have subject matter professionals here who have laid out some recommendations and you If this were almost any other issue, we probably wouldn't be making the decision, it would be up to staff to make these decisions about implementation. So, let's keep that in mind as we discuss this and that we do have four options that were outlined by our expert staff. Kimberly, >> I'll go and I just want to say really quickly too um from our emails like people are sort of ascribing all sorts of motives to the council and I think I can safely speak for everyone here that like our primary concern is safety and then um doing our best we can the best that we can to have the park accessible for all of the multi-uses that it is it is meant to be used for. Um so, you know, I'm not going to go back over all the discussions we've had and where we might I but um you know, I think we we are doing our best to get there. I don't think we're there yet, obviously. Um I would I think it was always a plan to put up some fencing. Um just timing didn't allow for it to go in last with winter coming. Um, so and and it just sounds like the the corridor is not working. Um, so I'm leaning towards uh option four. Um the again the cost does give one pause but you know it it is what it is. I think um I it I think having uh an area that's sort of separate so that off leash is going one way and everyone else is going another way is you'll have less interactions with off leash here if if you're just going a separate direction. So um that's where I'm leaning. >> Thanks Kimberly. Who would uh Paty? Yeah, I'm I'm leaning that toward option four as well. Um, and you know, I I I think that this this whole trial has proven that that the corridor doesn't work and a lot of the things that we thought would work that we hoped would work didn't. And so, um, like you said, the, you know, this is these are professionals that suggested this number four. And I I think that or all these options, but choosing, you know, to to to fence, it'll be very clear. Here's where you're you can have the off leash dogs in a fence. It's easy to enforce any kind of um violation. I I I feel like I would really like to put this to rest. And we we've tried we've tried lots of things and they haven't worked and fencing seems like the only thing that's gonna work to me. So I am feel very strongly for option four. >> Thank you Paty. Anybody Paula? Yeah. Um, thanks. And yeah, I think we all went in hoping that this uh would work as is. And um, you know, it's it's disappointing, you know, maybe not surprising that it didn't, but still we I think we everybody up here was hoping um that it would and we wouldn't have to be faced with this situation. Um, so I also am leaning towards area uh or option four. Um, for all the reasons already noted. In addition, I am worried. You know, the other reason about the corridor is that, you know, it just seems like from some of the photos that have been taken is that there's been a lot of degradation. I know Matt didn't speak to that. Um, and I didn't ask about it, but it just seems like there it hasn't helped the high value natural resources in the interior. So, kind of to Congress, Congress council member, I I just gave you a promotion, um Kimberly Wilburn's uh point that, you know, kind of having diverting that to different areas of the park away from the interior is a good idea. Um obviously, I I do have pause about you know, obviously the financial considerations here when we all have so many other things. So, I would really like to lean into um researching alternatives using our corrective labor programs, maybe even phasing so that we prioritize fencing the sides that um are facing the interior of the park first. Um I know, you know, obviously that's not going to help the neighbors. It sounds like there's been a few incidents um from the staff report where dogs have have gone into neighbors um yards and there's been some unfortunate um negative interactions there. But um so yeah, I think uh option four, but doing some really hard looking and and basically challenging, you know, ourselves to try to be as costefficient as possible and use every single program and, you know, not just taking three rivers because um this would also bring us much more into alignment with all of the other cities in the metro area, none of whom none of which have a a unfenced off leash dog area. um for these very reasons. So I think it makes eminent sense. >> Ky, thank you. Mayor, I guess for me, um, fencing uh, in any area to me doesn't really sound like a good idea, but um, with all of the problems that we've had, uh, we've went through the trial and didn't seem to work and it's very disappointing to hear some of the things that, you know, Mike has talked to us prior to having this meeting and then just hearing it even more tonight just is very disappointing and sad that um, the residents or whoever is using the part just couldn't bring it together and or pull it together. But um I'm going to go with the recommendation of staff three or four. I'm open to either or but I mean the cost is pretty heavy and um so I guess with the least um expensive so it looks like four maybe be least amount of money. So, um, yeah, it's just it's really disappointing that it comes down to this in this beautiful fine city that we have here. Thanks, Kizzy. Deb. So, I I think I'll probably be a little bit contrarian here and I think um I'm disappointed uh in so many ways from pretty from people uh on all sides of the issue. It's just very disappointing. And my contrarian view is that 70% of people did comply. only 30% or 27% didn't comply. There weren't any uh you know terrible events. Um that said, we have uh a duty to public safety. I see people shaking their heads in the audience and um you know, I understand that. Um, personally it is a community park and preserve and so the idea of fencing to me is just antithetical to the whole purpose of the park. Um, and I'm very disappointed that there were people in the park that committed crimes and vandalized city property, made it harder for people to follow the rules because we had to take signs down and didn't follow the rules so that we could prove that people could behave. It is just extremely I mean you know they they they're they're making their own bed by doing this. That said, I also think we can fence the whole park and I don't know that people are going to comply. And so to me to put up, you know, $200,000 worth of fencing somewhere um where people are are, you know, tearing down the signs and not complying, I'm very reluctant. And so, um, you know, I I will go along with whatever my colleagues decide, but very I I'm kind of contrarian and I'm not I just think it's wrong to fence a community park and preserve. Personally, I walked in places where um we were going to put fencing. I believe I was with Mr. Kumpa and um I looked at where we were putting fencing and it just it it just took the nature out of it. And um you know and I really understand that there are people out there that do not like dogs that have had adverse um interactions with dogs and um and that's you know that's how we get here. I am a little less concerned about um erosion and so forth in in the corridor and here and there because most of the corridor wasn't high quality. It's the prairie area that was high quality and um I just wish we could find another um another solution um and putting things down at the southern end of the park. I'm just not sure how the neighbors on that end of the park are going to be feeling about it. So, I actually think that there are no good options. And to me, the worst option is fencing because um dogs the dog owners are already not complying and um it just takes the nature out of the entire park. Manda. >> Yeah, I uh mostly agree uh with council member Calvert on this one. To put in fencing here is going to change the feel of the park for the dog walkers, for non-dog walkers. Uh it will segregate people out. If you're not off leash, you're not going to go into the off leash area. Um so I don't like the fencing idea. Uh that being said, clearly what we've done and we've tried has not worked. The corridor has not worked. Um and as our uh police colleagues said, the what we really need is clarity of bound. We cannot get clarity of boundaries with signs alone. Um, so I kind of like a a hybrid of option two and then three and four where maybe we pick one area to like like say area two, we sort of enhance that area, remove the corridor and then fence in area five sort of as a phased approach. We start with more of the enhanced option two and as we get funding then um and as we continue to monitor compliance then we add in fencing uh along along the way. Those are my thoughts. >> Thanks Amanda. Well thanks every go ahead Deb. I'm so sorry. Um I really do have concerns about the expense. It's very expensive and especially if we keep on having vandalism. Um, I'm looking for a compromise and um, I have suggested it before and I'd love to suggest it again that trying posts with wires with I think think you call eyebolts to just huh >> to to just try to keep people in line that you can take take it down at different times of year when there's different kind of vegetation that provides a natural barrier. um and is a little bit less intrusive and less you you know it's less noticeable as a fence especially if you take the wires down um depending on the time of year. So um I just want to minimize the impact. I mean, what what a lot of people that are pushing for fencing don't understand is the the impact on the environment to put in that infrastructure and its infrastructure and it and it not only fences the dogs in the wildlife that lives there. It it just I it's just very problematic to me and I and I don't want to um minimize the sympathy that I feel for the people that feel that we need more control over dogs. I don't disagree with that. We've we got five minutes and I would like an opportunity to weigh in, but go ahead Paula. Take just a brief moment. >> I just wanted to correct um or to comment on one thing. There was not 30% There's 30% non-compliance in the bridge areas, 73% non-compliance at the trail junction. So, that's one thing. There's significant non-compliance happening um in terms of fencing and wildlife. and staff can correct me if I'm wrong on that. I don't believe I am. I think I'm taking from the staff report. Um secondly, in terms of impact on wildlife, I think again it has been suggested that we do a partial fencing f um approach, you know, kind of facing the interior that is a compromise. Um, and then if there's issues, I I agree it's not ideal to have um fencing in a preserve, but it is a preserve and everybody in the community deserves to be able to use this park without being harassed by dogs. The other option is to completely eliminate off leash dogs and give them another and and designate another park like Mooney Park that can be totally given over and designated an off leash dog area. there's not that many neighbors around it. There's all sorts of ways. So, that is another option to consider if we're considering compromise or other options and we can't find a way to make this work in purgatory. All right. Thank you. I think this is a bummer. I think the the whole situation's a real bummer. Um, the thing that is most compelling to me is the position this puts our community service officers and our um, our public safety folks in in the sense of without a delineated place that they can point people to. And I'm not going to weigh in on it legally, but my legal mind also says the more confusing it is for people to find the off leash areas, the more likely that those um citations are not enforceable, right? And so it's, you know, the behavior, the human behavior is the most troubling part of this and the position that it puts public safety officers in. And I don't want fences there either. But if I'm hearing that in order to manage this and to to assist in the public safety side of it, that the fences need to happen, I have to take that recommendation seriously. Um, I think I, you know, I, as a person, I I don't use dog parks anymore for a whole host of reasons, but you know, Elm Creek and Minowashka, which are both Three Rivers parks, which apparently have the fencing that we're looking at. I mean, if you've been to those, the fencing, it's there, but it is not intrusive. they they have managed to find a way to integrate it in um to the natural features in a way that's unobtrusive for most of it. I mean obviously the entry areas and some of the the less dense um areas of of of wooded, you know, natural features, it's going to stand out more. So, I'm less worried about that. I'll be frank. I'm worried about the money, right? we've this is not uh programmed in the CIP and we see the pressure in you know our next agenda item with the CIP. Um and so we we're going to have tough decisions to make because I think there's an appetite to keep our levy low this year. And so um as we look at the CIP, we have to probably help staff decide where we might be able to fit this $400,000 in. And that pains me to have to say that knowing where some of our opportunities are. Um, but with that, I I have to take the recommendation of staff seriously. I don't have a strong preference between three and four. Um I I think that perhaps it it sure seems like option three would be easier to implement from you know so if it if it comes to the fact that option four with area five is just untenable as far as implementation maybe we want to know that um because I think we don't want to drive prices higher than what we're looking at here. Um, so that's my perspective. I think overall there's some mild consensus on this. We we certainly don't have a complete consensus, but it sounds like did Matt, Mike, do you feel like you have enough direction? >> I'll summarize quick. I can't see Matt behind me, but certainly chime in, Matt. Uh just to summarize, I think to your point, mayor, hearing consensus on number four. Um and and what we as staff can do is come back to probably a regular meeting because I don't know that we have much room in our next study session, but certainly coming back at a regular council meeting really just to highlight a sense of getting a better cost estimates because we do hear the cost. It's a concern for for everyone on that front. And so we do have some highle estimates and so we can look we can sharpen and look at different options for fencing and come back with more solid numbers on that. But again for tonight's purposes really want to give you a really conservative look at what it could be. U again we're you're hearing from staff that it could it likely won't be that high. Um and of course anything that we do we go out for bid and so we can bid out a couple different options. So there's so we'll come back with you. I guess what I'm saying is with a more robust u approach to implementing option four. So we can look at again kind of better cost estimates where those formal entry designs would take place where tree removal and a better sense of like what tree removal we're looking at and then that transition. So where we are today and then really the timing of a transition and how we could uh enforce during that transition. So coming back with a more robust if you will game plan wrapped around option four. >> Great. Sound good everybody? All right. Thank you. Thank you for your work on this, Matt. Thank you. I know it's a job you did not ask for. I don't think that you this was your top on your priority list of being the dog master. All right. So, let's move on then to um the preliminary 2027 through 2031 capital improvements program review. And Mike's going to kick us off. while we get that set up. >> Do you want just take a two-minute break if you want? We'll get it set up. >> Let's just take a brief break and we'll get that going. Hopefully, we don't run into any storm issues. >> All right. Well, let's get back to it. Sure there's plenty of people here who will let us know if we've got any storm things to worry about. All right, Mike, the floor is yours. >> All right. Well, thank you, Mayor and Council, CIP. Uh, so tonight, uh, as you know, is our capital improvements program conversation. Do want to acknowledge our staff also sitting over by the window protecting us from the storms this evening. >> So, thank you. All right. So, real quick, uh I was mentioning to Mayor Shaq earlier that um tonight I think as staff we have 16 slides for the presentation. So, we'll try to be efficient in presenting and and really making sure we leave enough time for conversation. So, tonight's agenda just frankly upfront is really a policy overview. Um I'll just touch base on where this policy fits into our planning process along with our strategic plan. I'll talk just briefly on our capital improvement pressures and then we'll talk about facility funding just with uh with our latest news with the sales tax conversation. We'll end with questions and answers. Then we have some discussion item questions at the end. Uh and just with those discussion questions, uh we'll state them up front as well. That way just as going into tonight's presentation and conversation for the next hour or so, just keeping these in mind. Uh the first question that we have teed up for you is does the council have other priorities currently not an identified for 2027? Uh as you know this is a five-year plan and we and we do this forecasting for five years. The reality is when you approve the CIP what you're approving is really the 2027 expenditures and so we're asking you is there anything in 2027 that you're specifically looking for and then certainly in those out years as well. Uh the second question is does the council have other feedback regarding the proposed tax levy needed to support identified programming for 2027? Uh in the coming slides I'll touch on that the based on the plan that you have in front of you. Again it is preliminary that the tax levy required for our capital improvement program is $9,863,700. The third question is and I'll just tee up first with some context. The city has, as you know, strategically increased the levy for this year in 2026 to prepare for a potential $10 million bond issuance for facility improvements. The follow-up question to that is, does the council support continuing this approach to levy an additional $45,000 in 2027 to then fully fund that potential bond issuance? Then last, does the council support the facility improvement strategy as proposed? We have some slides coming up on that that will outline that better for you. And then part of that conversation is what happens with the community center. So staff will want to see want to hear from you on direction regarding the community center. As you know, we've talked about improvements there for many years. And for Mr. OD over there, Kelly and his team uh want to know in terms of if there's going to be support for remodeling the community center, plans have to be put in place. not only just the the um the facility plans themselves, plans and specifications and the bidding, but we already are starting to take reservations for next year in terms of wedding receptions, weddings, other venues that are looking to book the community center. Um so we just really need to understand from council where you're where you are with that. So that gives direction to staff on the facilities. And then last is a council support requesting local sales tax during the legislative session next year. So, as you know, we we're on the wrong side of the equation this year and the question is, will that be a legislative priority for next year because that will drive some of the decisions um for this evening. So, with that, a lot of questions there. So, again, think about those as we continue through this through this uh presentation. This overarching there's a number of principles um in the CIP document and really that's really if you have your three- ring binder, those principles are all noted on the front end of your three- ring binder. I only point out the first one there because that's significant to tonight's conversation and that is the capital improvement plan will support achievement of the city's long-term strategic priorities. So again, this is where our strategic plan comes into play. More importantly, when we look at two of our pillars in our strategic plan, infrastructure and asset management, I'm not going to read through the definition there. You can read that yourself. But really, as it relates to the desired outcomes, the three desired outcomes that is in the strategic plan related to infrastructure and asset management completely tie into the to the capital improvement plan that is improve reliability and efficiency of utilities and facilities. And so we have information here about utility infrastructure improvements, safe quality, well-maintained roadway system. Again, a major portion of the CIP tax levy goes to funding road improvements. And then last, enhanced safety, walkability, and connectivity of the trail system. Uh Darren Nelson will walk through a couple of those funds and some of those major projects uh in the in the coming year highlighting uh our trail system. The other strategic plan relatability is in regards to sustainability, resilience and natural environment. The desired outcome in our strategic plan is to protect, manage and enhance the natural environment. And so again number of number of items identified in our CIP are directly tied to that outcome. So again kind of illustrating for you the importance of our strategic planning process and then how we use our strategic planning process and aligning our CIP to those core values. Again, you've seen this slide before. So, real quickly, we are here June 15th, the CIP. Tonight, again, we're talking about our capital improvement funds. That's the darker green X there. And we'll touch on enterprise and special revenue funds. You've also seen this before. I really kind of highlight uh the three areas that I just touched on. I'll start on the right hand or kind of the middle of that slide, which is the capital improvement funds. We have roughly 12 of those, and that's what we're going to walk through here this evening. Total projected costs of our CIP for 2027 is 65.17 million. We'll also touch on some special revenue uh funds like cable TV and our enterprise funds with water and sewer and environmental. Uh those are still yet to be determined because a lot of the plan is still being developed. But really understanding tonight with our CIP of that 65 million. This is a a graph showing our 10-year levy history. And again, tonight's the CIP, which is that blue uh box, if you will, for every year. Uh looking at 2027, as I just noted a few minutes ago, the estimated levy needed for 27. 2027 is 9,863,700. If you look back and compare that to 26, it is more than in 26. So the current CIP levy is 9,363400. So the levy is being proposed to go up approximately 500,000. Uh but it's really on par with 2025 uh CIP tax levy of 9,876 uh even less than the levy in 2024. So there's been some es and flows with our CIP levy over the last number of years as again we try to balance between our capital improvement requests and operations. Uh with the orange box that's the operations that'll be at another study session. So we'll spend uh another study session diving into the orange colored box was our operations but again tonight being that 9,863700. Uh just a couple pressures and competing interests. I know we've talked numerous times about these uh and this is really kind of prioritizing and I think that's part of the conversation this evening is where are these um pressure points? how are they landing in our CIP and how do we try to fund all these different um needs that we have? Uh again with the facility upgrades, I do have a slide coming up so I'll save my comments for that. But with the facility upgrades again, the community center, our fire stations, the marsh opus, our trail master plan implementation. Uh again, you'll hear from Darren on some of these fund balances and with the trail fund, just the pressures within the trail fund and trying to move those uh projects forward in a timely in a timely way. It will be difficult. Uh we'll talk a little bit on the Colon Nature Preserve. Uh that has changed um from last year's proposal to this year. uh and so staff will highlight that just given uh trying to find a method and a process to fund improvements uh to that preserve. Next is overhaul burial cost and I think I've talked to many of you when we've met oneon-one just some real pressures uh with converting overhead power lines to burial. Uh we've seen costs in there just exceed just increase exceedingly in the last year uh especially as we start planning for Excelsure Boulevard and some other trail projects. just the pressure of trying to fund those overhead burials to underground and we'll demonstrate here in a few minutes what's what the cash flows look like in that fund and and how do we try to get that accomplished. Uh certainly at the end of the day ensuring long-term fund balance stability. So again, we'll go through these funds here in the coming minutes and you get a sense of the funds are doing pretty well. We got a couple where there's pressures and we'll talk about what those pressures are and and some of the options around that. And then just coming off the heels of our last conversation, uh weaving in cost related to fencing for potential dog areas. So the fun details. So you have your three- ring binder. Uh again, we're going to turn to this and and we'll walk through this here in a second. Uh certainly we'll beginning on the table section, which is page nine. In our CIP, what this graph really illustrates are all of the funds within our CIP. So when we say the CIP, these are the funds that we're discussing. Uh at the bottom, um as I've noted now a couple times, the preliminary 2027 tax levy is estimated at $9,863,700. I've also just noted that the expenditures estimated and these p these slides in or excuse me, the pages in your book illustrate that $65 million uh dollars that represents about 15%. So one thing to think about is with the proposed tax wave of 9,863 that's about 15% of the revenues to fund $65 million worth of projects meaning that we stretch our dollars. Our goal is to really stretch our capital improvement dollars. Um other there's other funding sources and that's what's illustrated on this page. So for example uh the cable t TV fund there are no taxes that fund cable TV. The revenue sources, major revenue sources are the franchise and peg fees. Uh where we do see uh the tax levy would be in the capital replacement fund, the forestry fund, the park and trail improvement fund, public safety, street improvements, and then technology. Those six funds is where our tax levy proposed tax levy dollars will will help fund those activities. With the other funds noted here, it's largely fees. Uh again, as I noted with cable TV fund, it's the franchise and peg fees. Uh there's also a lot of interest earnings in these funds as well. So some of these funds have healthier balances than others. So there's definitely some interest earnings that we rely on. Uh with the with the streets, for example, the municipal a state aid fund along with the street improvement fund. Uh both have MSA aotment. So that's the municipal state aid dollars. It comes from the gas tax. So the the city gets a share of our tax ass tax gas tax dollars, excuse me, for those. Uh and then towards the bottom of that, we have our storm water trail expansion, water, and sewer utilities. Those are again all franchise fees andor uh user fees or user charges through our utility bills. And then Willis Center has membership fees. So it gives you kind of a sense of the breakdown of where the money comes from. Again, tax dollars representing about 15% of the proposed expenditures. So, with that, I'm going to turn over to Darren. Mr. Nelson here. I know we're in study session. It feels like the council chambers. I'm saying Mr. Nelson, but uh Darren Darren's going to walk us through starting on page nine. Walk us through the funds and then if we can uh Rebecca, we'll just pause. So, we'll start with uh Darren will start with page nine. When we get to page 12, which is the first fund, they're listed in alphabetical order. So, with the cable television fund, we'll just pause after everyone and then um ask questions if there if any of the council has any. So that sounds great. >> Turn over to Darren. >> And to to be clear, council, just we're changing it up a little bit. Rather than going tab by tab, we're going to go fund by fund. So if you have things noted, try to get those questions in when we're on that fund. That's how we're going to try to do it. >> We'll just make sure everybody's questions get addressed one way or another. Darren, go for it. >> Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, mayor, council members. Good evening. Um, starting on page nine, um, Mr. Mr. Funk did a great job of introducing kind of where we're at on this end of it. Just want to go through these pie charts really quick on on this end of it. Um this first pie chart here on page nine is basically just a breakdown of each one of the tabs. So it breaks down that $65 million between um all these major category areas um equipment, parks and trails, facilities, those types of things on on that end of it and such. So that's just one kind of way to kind of digest or or dissect kind of this information on that end of it. On page 10 is our funding source summary. And this one's a little bit um unique. Um there again, it shows us $65 million, but it breaks it down by our funding source. And um to kind of look at that, when you think of funding sources, well, you think of property taxes. Well, property taxes should be in this funding source page. Well, it's not because those property taxes are part of the funds that are on the screen in front of you or part of street improvement fund. They're part of technology fund, those types of things. So if you look at and a great example of this would be under the MSA tab on the MSA street improvements tab is the Excelsier project along from Williston to um 101. That project itself has six different funding sources. So there's a street improvement fund, there's a storm water fund, there's electric franchise fee fund, um there's all these different sources of fund of sources within this project um that are then accumulated into this this page on that end of it. So, it's more to do with the sources of the fund types that are in there versus the the really detailed area of its interest revenue or its property taxes or it's um a user fee for a utility fund on that end of it. So, it's just um a little different way of showing some of that information if it's beneficial or not. Um it kind of is what it is at at this point is as a different way of showing this information. So, and then finally on page 11 is just the breakdown of the of the projects by department. Um, as you see, public works has about 71% of that. And really, how it's determined the owner of these projects is really who spearheads the project. So, there can be recreation, you know, improvements done at a recreation facility, but it's led by public works doing that improvement. It'll show up as a public works project more so than a a recreational facility project on on that end of it and such. Um so that's why they got a little bit bigger proportion of some of those. A good example would be um vehicles as well too. So public works purchases the vehicles even though they may be for police or fire or community development or whoever they'll show up as public works because they're the ones um spearheading that project to purchase those vehicles on that end of it. So So just a little context to what um is in front of you on on that end of it. And so we'll kind of kick this off a little different format this year, but I thought it was a a good idea to try to get um council to look at all the projects within each um specific fund um to really give you a good overview of what's going on in that fund and to kind of see where the revenues are, where the expenditures across all the projects are, and then kind of where those ending fund balances lie as well, too. So, our first fund that we're going to look at is the cable television fund. If I get my glasses on here because these numbers are small. Um, a major source of funding as as Mr. Funk mentioned is the franchise fees on that. Um, cable franchise fees, as we all know, have been decreasing over over the years. They had stabilized a little bit after COVID. Um, for a couple years, they were kind of we saw kind of just a leveling off there. And now with it seems like with the fiber going into the different communities across the city, we're seeing a decrease in the franchise fees. I I have a gut feeling that's probably directly related to that because it's more opportunity for um residents to sign up for other services that are in their area on that end of it and such. And so we're projecting franchise fees to continue to decline for um the kind of the foreseeable future on that end of as well too. Hopefully it levels off at at some point. Um but it is a is a driving factor for our the cable um franchise or cable fund on on that end of it. As far as projects, um we got our audiovisisual equipment and broadcasting um um projects there and that's about scheduled for about $480,000 for next year. Um related to you know various either PEG related um replacement items or other audiovisisual um equipment throughout the throughout the city on on that end of it. Um kind of the big thing to note there um is our ending fund balance in in those out years and we look at 2029 2030 2031 we are in the negative on this fund and so um we've been making a concerted effort across both operations and capital because this is one of those funds that has both um that we're trying to get some of those operating expenditures out of there and over into our into our general fund. And we did some of that now for 26. um we'll have to look again um for 27 to make some more efforts to get that um in a better spot on that end of it and really have this fund pay for just the things that it can obviously afford for or afford to pay for but are really truly cable related expenses moving forward. So that's about all I have for the cable fund if there's any questions or comments there. >> Any questions about the cable fund >> that were the >> it's pretty straightforward. All right, on to castle replacement. Sounds good. Next one is the capital replacement fund on page 13. Uh this fund accounts for a lot of our equipment um replacements and um building facility um improvements as well too. And if you notice on the uh this is a a fund that tax dollars go into. So there's a tax levby line on this on this fund. Um for 2027 it's a million92,000. And there is also below that there's a transfer in line. And so for 27, we have projected of $100,000 transfer in. And that's coming from our um fund balance from within the general fund that we had excess reserves that we utilize for one-time um purchases in the future. And so we've programmed that out. And in 2027, $100,000 is programmed to come in here. And then again in 2029, there's $750,000 programmed to come into this this fund. As far as major projects, if you look um towards the top of under major building components, MB27103 in 2029, there's about 1.5 million scheduled for um a big project that year, and that's the dehumidification project in Iserink um Arena A. Uh that's been a project that's been needed for for some time on that end of it. We're experiencing um lots of breakdowns and lots of costly rentals to to replace that. And so that is a bigger project. And that's why you see that um transfer in of $750,000 that year. That'll help kind of um subside that and then um help in the future build up our balances. But that's one of the bigger projects in our five-year um outlook that is impacting kind of our fund balances there as well. Um another note is fleet vehicles in ME2742. So we have 522,000 scheduled for 2027. In prior years, we had combined fleet vehicles across the entire city. This year, we split them up between public safety and um the rest of the city on on that end of it. So, we have a public we have a fleet vehicles project within our public safety fund that we'll um see in a few minutes here. Um we kind of split that up uh just to isolate those expenditures between public safety and the rest of the city at this point in time. And then another project to note is the very bottom one, the community center improvements. We have $150,000 scheduled there. And um I believe that is for like I believe it's like chair replacements and those types of thing. And I think there's some refrigeration stuff as well too planned for um 2027. Um should note though that in 26 we have about $100,000 scheduled for I think it's like carpet replacement, those types of things. That's a project that we'll wait and determine what council decides as far as moving forward where we wouldn't spend that until a decision is made of when and where we're we're moving forward with a community center remodel. So, so I'll keep it to there and turn it over to you, mayor. >> Thanks, Darren. Any questions about the capital replacement fund? >> All right, I think we're on a roll. So, >> Mr. Funk had more questions when we were were programming that were were practicing. So >> I'm glad to hear that. We sharpened it sharpened it up a little bit. >> All right. So the community investment fund is the next one on page 14. And so the community investment fund is as recall is almost like similar to an endowment fund. So it has a a principal balance there that we cannot um spend and it and it grows a part of it has to um keep growing from year to year on that end of it. Um the nice thing about the interest rates as of late, we've gotten some really good interest earnings. Um compared to the prior decade where we're earning just, you know, pennies on the dollar, um now we're actually earning some some good dollars, you know, half a million dollars a year or so that we can utilize for projects on that end of it and such. And the only really revenue source within this fund is its investment earnings. And so we have about $20 million or so that we're um investing in and earning interest revenue on. And so we do have some projects scheduled for 2027. We have had some recent projects that we have paid for out with um earnings within this fund. If you recall the property along Minnotonka Boulevard along the creek um we purchased that property ear last year last year I think it was um those were dollars that were dedicated within this fund a decade or probably more than a decade ago 2009ish or so I think those funds were were dedicated for um we purchased that pro property in last year. Um the skate park um had some dollars dedicated in the 2026 CIP along with some additional dollars in the 27 CIP. Um currently over at the ice arena in ice arena B we're replacing a refrigeration system at the current currently and that project is being paid for with the community investment fund as well too. So these are all interest earnings coming from that principal balance and none of it is taxpayer dollars which is great. So all these are projects are are beneficial to the future. And so I think that's about all I have for that one. >> Council uh PA, go ahead. Um yeah, thank you. First of all, super helpful to have these the way you broke these down this year. Really appreciate that. Um and then just uh looking at 2028 and maybe we'll get to this later on. Do we have um allocations for the CIF for 2027 or 2028 and 2029 yet? Are they already allocated or are they still available? >> Uh currently, >> are is there available interest balance for that? >> Great question. Um, uh, Mayor Shack, Council Member Meley, uh, at this point in time they I don't believe in 2028 or 2029 we have really capacity for, um, projects in this fund. They has used up and they used up all of its available um, financing for that time and probably needs a year or two to recoup where we're at to to make these projects that are already dedicated to. >> So there aren't interest income and Okay. So, I just was wondering >> there is, but it has to go back to repay the need to get these other projects squared away. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Any other questions on this one? Okay. All right. >> All right. Uh, moving forward. So, we got warmed up with some of the the easier funds. We'll get into some of the the more big construction funds here now. So, we're looking at the electric franchise fees fund. And this is on page 15. And so this fund pays for the burial of um electrical lines throughout the city on that end of it. This um franchise fee came into place uh back in 2005ish or something to that nature and it was um when we brought in the natural gas franchise fee back in 2018ish. Um we upped we increased the electric franchise fee fund to help with trail expansion along with increasing um a little bit towards the electric um burial as well. And so the source of that funding is pretty flat. It's a flat dollar amount on utility bills. And so that funding doesn't necessarily it increases a little bit as we add housing throughout the city, but it's um virtually flat because it's a it's a flat dollar amount um that's set in by ordinance uh and not to not to change on that end of it. Um so looking at that, so we look at the projects moving forward. We look at um there's a really big one here, the Excelsier Boulevard County Road 3 project that MSA 27701. So that's um estimated to be $3.5 million of of electrical burial just in 2027. We have dollars that are dedicated in the 26 CIP for electrical burial as well. And so I believe if I'm not mistaken it's about $6 million um six $6.9 million for um yeah I think I had that in the report as well too. So um $6.9 million for electrical burial along Excelsier Boulevard. So it is the price of that has gone up substantially. Excel is um charging us an arm and a couple legs for um for that that that service these days. But we don't really have much of a choice on on that either on um and there's really limiting what we can bury um just with available funds at this point in time. So that is a major part of that of that cost. Um that obviously is the same for uh Gleon Lake Road. I think we have a million dollars in here. I think we've gotten updated numbers and that um is substantially more than that as well too. So, um that is really going to limit what we can do kind of moving forward and it probably be um limiting our underground burial and just being into very needed areas at at that point in time potentially. So, um that fund um if you look out, we just have projects through 27 here with our big projects on the on the docket. We're still negative at the end of um or I guess in 2031 we have a project along Hopkins Crossroad for about $3 million dollars, but that does bring us back down to about a $3 million deficit at that point in time as well. So that's a long ways out in 2031. We can a lot of things can change between then and now. But um literally means that there's going to be a whole lot of burial um out of this fund specifically for the next number of years on on that end of it. We do we are paying for burial out of other funds and we'll I'll note that as we go through this. um that the street improvement fund um the trail expansion fund is paying for burial um it just that that one piece is really starting to drive um the whole and a lot of the projects these days on that end of it. though. >> Do you have a question? >> Deb, go ahead. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, I had two questions. Um, first of all, what is the estimated increase um from Excel year-over-year? Like we looking at 20, 30, 40, 50% increase in burial costs. >> Um, I I I would have to ask Phil Olsson is here for from engineering and he's been working pretty closely with this. So I I might ask him to come up and and step into this before I step into it per se. >> Yeah. Don't have a specific increase that >> and every project has been estimated best um as a standalone project. I would say we've seen um what we estimate uh project to be um rise quite quite a bit. Some of them are more twice as much as we've estimated. Um but year-over-year, we don't have an estimate. >> Okay. But just on on a project for project, it's like gone up up to doubled. >> Yeah. In a lot of cases. So we're actually going and and using our consultants then to just double check those numbers, which we're in the process of doing as well. >> Great. Thank you. Um follow-up question then. Given this, I don't think that um material co labor costs have changed significantly. I don't know that there's a lot of different materials that they're using that would have cost. Can you account for this cost increase? >> A lot of the costs are are so specific on on the road corridor. So, it's what level of uh transformers do you need for that corridor or wire for that corridor. So, um I don't know that we have on our end enough, uh history on how to price those out ourselves when we're planning for these things. So, we're getting the estimates from Excel. >> I'm just surprised at the amount of of rate increase or the cost increase fee increase for doing this. And I'm just wondering if this is worth talking to the PUC about and if anybody has done so. >> So, >> maybe that's a comment or an Oh, that's okay. No, a reasonable point, I think. But >> any anything to add on that, Mike? >> We certainly can talk to the PUC that it's it's a private, you know, we can talk to the PUC. We haven't done that yet. Uh I think it's been a surprise as I've Darren and I have chatted with both Will and Phil and other team members just they do estimates and so our staff does a really good job estimating and so we have estimates in our CIP and then when we're actually getting the the cost the cost proposals from Excel it's it's shocking us too because it's it's not expected and to what degree we have some control in that or can push back on it very I think very little but it's something that we still can try to point out to the PUC. I would also point out that Excel made it a record profit last year of $2.4 billion dollar and so to have these price increases without having a demonstrated need for them, I think that is something we can and should be asking the PUC and maybe connecting with other cities who are also having this issue. So, I would just encourage that to happen and happy to help with that. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. The other thing I would just add to this too and um I think maybe Darren touched on it with the under projects managers we have the local rehabilitation under Kinszel. So we that's coming to the council uh very soon and and again just a reminder on this page this reflects the burial cost generally where we're doing trail improvements and so where we're doing trail improvements we're looking to bury those lines and so that was the in some of the most of the intent of this fund and as Darren noted when this fund was established it was based on a fixed fee versus like a percentage and so that revenue source of 1.29 29 million comes in every year. And the expenditures right now are just outpacing that considerably. And so we're going to have to look, you know, pretty hard at not only just trying to talk with XL on what's driving that, uh, but then we we're probably have to make policy decisions at some point on either looking to raise the franchise fee to cover these increased costs or we may have to look at not bearing. I mean, that is another option is not doing the burials as part of these trail improvement projects. >> Thank you. And Mike, maybe I would just want to piggyback off that, Mike, a little bit is that Mr. Manchester, Will and I are on the suburban right authority and I serve as a treasurer. Will's the the expert on that end of it, but we had kind of asked this question when we were seeing these big numbers this spring at our last meeting. And we asked, you know, who's doing burial and we're just seeing these astronomical price increases and and the room was just quiet and we're like, nobody nobody was can afford to do the burial and so they're not doing the burial and in the areas that need it. And granted, different communities are different depending on age and things like that, but um you know, it's it's beneficial for us to get that line buried along those major arterial routes where trails are going in and it helps with the reliability of the network or the system and um it's their system and uh but it's our residents on on that end of it. So um it was just interesting to see that um response when we inquired about those costs. So >> thank you. Thanks Darren. Thanks Phil for now. You'll probably be back. You're probably the hot seat guy tonight. >> All right. Go ahead. >> Moving on to the forestry fund. Uh this is a relatively simple uh fund on that end of it. We really it's just one project within this fund. It's a pest um or plant pest program and really it's dedicated towards our EIB or EAB um removal and those types of things. And so we're kind of in that peak time frame. I would assume um over the next three, four, five years that um that'll be our our peak time. um we have a tax levy that's dedicated to this and uh obviously we'll then restore our fund balances that at that point in time but we had a good um decent fund balance leading into um the EAB stuff or event and so um we're using those dollars along with existing dollars to help u fight that fight that infestation on that end of it. So >> any questions on the forestry >> excuse me any questions on the forestry fund? >> Pretty straightforward that one. All right. >> All right. Municipal State Aid Fund. Um, this is a fund that is um funded solely by the state aid that we receive. As Mr. Funk mentioned, the gas a portion of the gas tack comes into this uh fund. And so it's a lot of projects that have to be MSA eligible type of projects. So there's certain streets, certain areas that are um deemed MSA eligible. And so we use those dollars um these dollars for those types of projects. And so obviously a big one in there again is the Excelsier U Boulevard project there. We can see $1.3 million is is going towards that project in 2027 and I think we had some dollars in 2026 dedicated to that project as well too. So um we state aotment's about $2.2 million a year. Um it has been fairly fairly stable. Um I don't know that we expect it to increase potentially. I think we're expecting it to really um start to decline a little bit as well too. So, those are are things that we'll keep an eye on. But um as um miles per gallon increase, more electric vehicles on the road, those types of things, um our our gas tax share and more state aid eligible roads come on the system, um our gas tax share will probably likely decline a little bit moving forward into the future. So, >> any questions on this page? And this fund did have a negative fund balance three four years ago. It was had a pretty substantial negative BA fund balance in there as we were completing projects around the Ridgedale area. Um but now we've been able to recoup those um funds and get it into a good spot to be able to move forward on MSA eligible projects. So, >> and no other questions, but I just want to maybe reiterate. So, these funds are very restricted in what they can be applied to, correct? >> Yes. Yep. All right. >> Yeah, correct. I would that was a short answer, but that is correct because the if you look at the balance, you know, we're at 5.8 million could be up to 9.5 million in five years. And so let's just shift that over to the electric franch underground burials with that. And you can't on this one. This is very restrictive because of the state state aid dollars attached to it. >> Right. >> Yeah. And that's what's unique about government accounting is that we have all these funds, but we have all these funds because they have a specific purpose. And so, uh, yes, we can do some shifting around and things like that, but for the most part, we have a fund that's created for a purpose. And so, those fund balances in that in that fund are dedicated for that specific purpose and typically aren't moved around. So, >> go ahead, Paula. >> It's on on the specific road. state roads. >> Yeah. And there's certain there's classifications of roads. It's not necessarily a county road. There can be a city road that is MSA eligible type of road. >> Got it. >> Um I haven't figured out in 20 years, but they just tell me these are the roads that are MSA eligible. And it's not a lot of like the very residential ones, but it's more the collector city street ones like maybe like a Williston, which isn't a county road, but it's a city road, but I think that would probably be a state eligible road. getting a thumbs up even >> I know Phil was >> I think there's a table with all of them. I just was wondering what the rhyme or reason was. Thanks. >> All right. Park and Trail improvement fund. >> All right. >> So here this this fund has a a fairly substantial fund balance in it. At the end of 2031 we're looking at about $5.6 million in um remaining fund balance. Currently, we have about $7 million on the books at the beginning of 27 estimated. Um, a major source of revenue for this fund is our property tax levy along with our park dedication fees. And so, um, over the last decade, Julie and her team and the rest of the staff have done a good great job with development and we've received lots of park dedication fees that have paid for Ridgedale Commons. Um, we've had lots of development around the Opus area and such like that. And so, we have a lot of park dedication fees that are in this fund. Um, I would say a vast majority of these, if not all of these, should really be dedicated towards it something in the Opus area because of the dedic park dedication fees that have come in um over the last number of years on that end of it and such. And so we're obviously looking um to supplant these dollars with, you know, maybe a local sales tax or something to that nature to get that um open space area in the opus um area complete at some point in time down the road. But um that is a a major source of the within this fund is that dedication of park dedication fees that have to go towards a regional or a park of significance within the city on on that end of it. Um some obviously some uh some projects in here. We talked about the Cullen Nature Preserve. um we've talked about that a little bit and so we got a phased approach to um bringing that into as an active project for 27 beginning in 27 um all the way through 2031 at this point in time. So um that is a a newer project in here. Otherwise, a lot of it is um um we actually when you notice there's fleet vehicles in here. It just caught my eye, but there is a a fleet vehicle and that's really related to probably trail um uh trail maintenance, snow removal, those types of things on on that end of it. So the that was a new ad to the fleet and so that came out of the park and trail fund related to related to that. Uh other than that, I don't have any other projects to point out, but I would take any questions. So on on um this might be more for Matt and Will's not here tonight, but regarding Cullen and we saw a nice email from uh the friends of Cullen and I spoke with Mike about it a bit today and I'm I think everybody's glad to see this funding in here. As far as what comes first and how we kind of program the operations, is that something that there's some flexibility on on what what things we do and what in which years? >> Uh, Mayor Shack and Council, thanks for the question. And throughout this whole process, the Friends of Colin Nature Preserve have been amazingly excellent to work with and thoughtful certainly from the restoration end, but on this master planning stuff, um, they've been innovative with their approach. So, I I just received their um sort of outline, but we've had discussions in the past, so I'd have to look closer at the latest stuff they sent um thanks to the team um to get a true sense, but generally um you know, wanting to build as much of the site as possible before we would open it to the public certainly makes a lot of sense. It's certainly a special place. We would need a variety of amenities on site to to welcome the public to a site that's under restoration um like Cullen is. Um, but certainly there's financial pressures. So, we could talk through what that could look like if we had a certain amount of money each year, but but certainly wanting to build as much as possible in advance of opening to the public could make a lot of sense to make sure the restoration is safe as well as the public who accesses the site. So, open to, you know, discuss and think that through a little more as necessary. So the most important part is that we've got the money in there and then we're kind of how we program it specifically can be nimble in some ways. >> Great Paula. >> Yeah. First of all, I want to thank um Matt for some terrific work trying to get this you have so many projects um to try to you know kind of figure out a whole park system with 50 plus parks and this being one of them. Um, but you know, so I also want to, you know, kind of just wow. Um, I got this email and was able to go over uh the plans from the friends of uh Minnetonka Parks. And first of all, I want to thank them for basically making a $250,000 pledge or contribution. Um, you know, on top of the really thousands of hours that they've already put into, you know, this and our other parks, but especially this preserve. Um, you know, this is for me the exact type of partnership that we're looking for that we've been seeking with private and nonprofit organizations. Um, you know, this is going to potentially fund 30 to 50% of the capital costs for this park. So, I mean, you know, huge staff uh thanks to you, Matt, because you've cultivated that partnership and have been the staff contact for that. So, I appreciate that as well as all of of their work on that. So I do hope that there is you know some possibility to kind of take this and look at doing that whatever they call backtofront um kind of planning and then you know seeing if if things can come under budget you know in years one and two. And then the other thing that I just saw that I thought was really interesting is the Timberline Park um kind of has some dollars available in 2028. And so if need be, hopefully it'll come in at or under budget, but otherwise, you know, I I don't know if I would prioritize that over getting Cullen done. So that that's my comment on that. Thanks. >> Anything else on this page? Great work everybody. This is the I don't want to I don't want to pick favorites, but it is maybe the most exciting to the public as far as fun things to do. So, all right, public safety. >> All right. Thank you, mayor. Um, so page 19 is the public safety fund. And so this fund is kind of dedicated to um obviously as it states public safety um related capital needs on that end of it. So it's a lot of its equipment. It started out initially as um fire for for our fire department. A lot of our engines and pumpers and ladders and those types of things because they were so expensive. We tried to um plan for those a little bit differently than in our capital replacement fund. Um but over the years it's it's really morphed into all of our public safety is is now in within this fund for our equipment. Um our we have a tax levy that's dedicated to this. It's about $1.4 million or almost $ 1.5 million for 27. And then it also has a transfer in as well too. So we're transferring in um some of that excess fund balance or surplus that's available in the general fund to this fund for 27 in the amount of $300,000. Um if you look at our um projects, we have some turnout gear in 2027. So that is the fire department's um purchase of turnout gear. So all firefighters have two sets of turnout gear that are replaced every five years. So they can have a a set that's in service and then they can have a backup set so that if it needs to be if they're at a fire and it needs to be cleaned or repaired or something to that nature, they have a second set available to them and aren't out of service at at that point in time. So um that is a a purchase that happens every 5 years or so. And then um as I mentioned before with the capital replacement fund, we have our fleet vehicles public safety in this fund. This is where we broke this out in 2027 here. Um this is mainly related to our um squad cars and then um some u light duty vehicles within the fire department as well too. I think there's eight or nine total vehicles um in there for for next year on that end of it. You do see that our fund balance is a negative $1.7 million at the end of 27. Um the actual cash balance is likely it's hard to say if it will be negative or not, but we have three pumpers that we ordered. um probably three and a half years ago now I think it is or two and a half or three and a half years ago I think um with some public s we're going to purchase those with some public safety aid dollars that we got a one-time um influx with from the state and so those trucks have been on order and I think we're scheduled to get them probably this time next year I think somewhere in that ballpark so uh we have those funds set aside so those dollars are encumbered in this fund and so they're that $3 million is earning interest it's all those types of things. And so, um, it's in reality, we may or may not be at that at that point, but, uh, we don't have a lot of bigger bigger purchases scheduled. So, we will, um, recoup those dollars, um, in the in the out years on that on that fund to get us back into the positive. And so, and that's really what capital funds are is that they really eb and flow. There's ups and downs in them depending upon what, um, is on the on the schedule for projects. And so, um, different than an operating budget where it's it's fairly flat. um a capital project or capital fund can really eb and flow and can be really high one year and be low the next year but we really look and manage it out on to the long term and making sure that it's uh remains viable on that end of it. So with that I'd be open to any questions >> Deb. So this section I I did talk to Mr. about it uh quite a bit this morning and um I guess my question has to do with inflationary pressures on these big big ticket items and you know certainly after COVID there was a just you know huge supply chain issues um you know a huge increase in cost and and um you know a basically four-year wait for say a a fire truck build out. So now, has any of that subsided? Are we just looking at these sort of astronomical price increases year after year for these big ticket items or like fire trucks and ladder trucks? >> Yeah. Uh, good question, Mayor Shaq. >> Council member Calbert, >> I think the chief has got a good answer for that one. >> Good evening, Mayor. Uh, yeah. So, Postco for a period of time we were seeing manufacturers uh they were doing roughly three to four price increases per year which uh was pretty unheard of. Those have subsided some. So they're they're kind of back to that annual price increase. We're seeing that that uh kind of 3 to 4 1.5% on an annual basis. So they have stabilized some but they went up. so rapidly, so quickly that uh it's we're still paying those elevated costs, but they are starting to plateau a little bit more on the inflationary side, but the the lead time for the the builds are still sitting at about four years, which makes it a little more challenging as we try to plan out those replacements. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Chief. Any other questions for Chief Fox? No. Okay. Any other notes on here, Darren? >> I got one one I one I should note as as a chief was talking there, there is a a pumper truck replacement scheduled for 2030. And so knowing that it's a 4-year time frame that might be something that you might be seeing a CIP amendment for probably sooner rather than later on on that and probably not expecting to order that in 2030 because you're not going to get it until 2034. And so if we want to get that truck in 2030, uh we might be ordering that um well ahead of time on that end of it. But um at this point in time, we're not prepaying for anything. We are going to lock in a price, but um we're not going to turn over any funds until a vehicle is delivered at at this point. So they're not giving discounts enough to offset what our interest earnings are at this point in time. So >> anything else council on the public safety fund? Good questions on all these so far. Mike, >> just uh maybe just call on Chief Boor. I think he's sitting over there. There he is. >> Yeah, I know. I just want to point out also on this fund, this is where we do fund our automatic or automated license plate readers or LPRs. I know that's gotten some attention here with some other neighboring cities and in the media lately. Uh there is a $46,000 cost per year regarding that. It does not show up on our operations. It does show up in our CIP. So, I just want to point that out that that's where this is funded through is this fund. I didn't know if the chief has any if you have questions for the chief on that >> question. Paula, go ahead. >> Just not on that per se, but just relatedly if we were to do and this is something I've I've kind of been encouraging us to consider is the um traffic camera if there's a pilot program that we can expand to um and be involved in, you know, in addition to say Minneapolis and Egan and I can't remember the other city that's doing it. Um, would it come out of this fund? >> I don't know if that's Darren or Chief >> Jason. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Come come on over to the mic. Sorry, I don't mean to put you on the spot. >> Do that. Would it come out of this fund? >> Yeah. Or would it operations? I don't know. Maybe that's a Darren question. >> I don't know what the cost I mean I don't know what the ballpark costs are or anything to that nature, but >> All right. Thank you. We just wanted to be able to see you, >> Chief. What do you mean? >> All right. Anything else on that this one? >> All right. Moving on to storm water fund. All right. All right. We're to the S's. We're getting there. Um, so Storm Water Fund is a enterprise fund. So that's run similar to our water and sewer um fund as well too. So it's an enterprise. it's theoretically supposed to just stand on its own and pay for its own um operations and capital. And so this is a fund that has both operations in it and capital. And so we're looking kind of here at the capital piece. Operations have been forecasted generally at this point in time. So they're not set in stone because we're going to go through our operational budget here later this summer and early fall um to get where that's at. But um where this fund is sitting at u obviously the the big um fee generation piece of that is from user fees through a utility um utility bill. Um there's a fee that is charged to every parcel of property in the city based on the type of parcel if it's a residential or commercial various commercial types on on that and such. And so when we look at revenue other revenue sources there is one new line item that is in here that is uh new to the stormwater fund is bond proceeds. Um the stormwater fund has not historically bonded for any projects, but there is going to be a need for um bonding with the stormwater fund as we move into some of these bigger projects, especially um the Excelsier um project is is a big one on that end of it and some um other the Kinsel neighborhood is a a big pull on that as well too along with other um regulations and other um storm water needs that we're seeing throughout um this fund. And so, um, that's part of our our, if you remember, our infrastructure asset management plan. Um, stormwater fund is a big piece of that and and bonding for this is is, um, going to be, um, continued in the future as well, too, is to make sure that both current users and future users pay for, um, the both development and the replacement of this storm water system on that end of it. So, as far as projects, um, obviously the Kinsel neighborhood project, that is a big big pull on this on this fund. So, that's $2.8 million for 2027. Um, and then again, the Excelsier Boulevard project is about $3 million or so. And I can't remember offh hand if there's dollars in the 26 CIP that are scheduled for it as well. Um, but um there again, those two projects are about $6 million and it brings in about u $3.5 million a year in storm water fees. So, um, obviously we have to lean on our reserves there and then, um, program that out into the future, making sure that we know where we're at. So, um, so those are a couple of the bigger projects that are in this fund and open to questions. >> Anybody questions on this? Phil's ready. It's going to come up. Nope. All right. >> All right. >> Street improvement. Well, the street improvement fund, page 21, is probably one of our our most complex funds. I spend a lot of time with Phil and and and his staff over there and trying to make uh the the big puzzle uh work and sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. So, we try to figure out how to how to do that. Um obviously, our tax levy for our CIPs is a majority of that goes into this fund. Um we got about $5.8 million of that. um $6 million plus or just about what was our levy 10 just under 10 million 9.8 million of our total CIP levy. Um so it's a big big portion of our our CIP levy that's dedicated to this. We have some MSA maintenance dollars. So there's um similar to the m the state aid aotment dollars. This is just the maintenance portion of it. We have construction dollars as well too that goes into the MSA fund. Um so we got a little funding source there as well. And then um we don't have it in here, but in often out in past years, we've uh transferred funds from our general fund over to this fund as well too to make sure that it's um paying for some of those basic infrastructure uh needs on on that end of it. But if you look at our projects going forward in 27 here, um that Kinsel neighborhood again, we've seen that or touch base on that and other funds. We got about $5.6 million scheduled in 27 for that. Um, and I think there's probably funds in 26 if I brought up my CIP there as well, too. So, that's a big project. Um, we have uh the Excelsier Boulevard projects, another 1.5, and I know there was funds in 26 for that one. Um, local street preservation, that's kind of our milling overlay, our just kind of the general um not minimal maintenance, but it's the um just the milling overlay type stuff that we do in house, both contracting and in house. And then um we have the noise barrier one too that's just on here for one year. That's uh that was a a petition to put a noise barrier along 169 where the state pays for a vast majority of it but we pay for 10 or 20% of it I believe or something to that nature. So that's our local share cost there in 2027 as well too. So you can see we have about $12.6 million of of projects in um 2027. And so that eats up our $5.8 million tax levy pretty quickly on that end of it. And so we're kind of at the point where we um can't do these major recon projects every year. We do them kind of every other year, every third year on on some of those. Um just as we did down the project just down off of Mitaka Boulevard or was a multi-year project on that end of it and such. So um and I should note also is that um as we talked about the electric burial piece of that um the street improvement fund is taking on some of those pieces as well too. So I believe in the local street have street street rehab project for Essex which is LSI 31602 I believe there is um underground burial I believe in that project as well too. So um it's not that we're not doing electric or underground burial um outside of that electric fund but it's within street improvement fund within the trail expansion fund that we'll touch on here in a second as well too. So just a couple highlights for the street improvement fund. So >> thanks Darren. I know those folks on Essex are going to be glad to have that happen. So, that was good to see. Any other questions here? All right. Uh Paty, yeah, go for it. you know, and I don't know how um this all fits in, but so with the local street with the Kinsel project that um so all of these funds are going toward infrastructure and um you know repairing old you know aging water, all that stuff. But also there um with this whenever we do street improvements, there's the there's trail. It's and I I I wonder if we don't do this trail. I'm I'm thinking about how much of this is put aside for the trail improvements in that area. Like how much >> All right, Phil, come on up. Maybe you can just touch on when we expect to see this and how we would address because that trail issue is kind of the elephant in the room, right? >> Yeah. Mayor Council, uh, for the Kinsel project specifically, we're finalizing the feasibility report and likely bringing that in July and talking about it then. But, um, any trail expansion in that neighborhood we be would be funded from this fund in the street improvement fund. It's not part of the trail expansion fund or anything. It's it'd be included within this number. >> Okay. So, and we don't know generally how much that is. >> I think it depends on which segment it is, which is a little more of the detail, right? >> Um, but it's within all within that same budget that's listed here. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks. >> Do you want to add anything to that, Mike? >> And um, yeah, thank you, mayor. I I think Phil said I'll say it maybe just in some different different way saying it. So when you look at that number that 5 million and again Phil correct me if I'm wrong the 5 million665 that you see there that's the engineer's estimate for that complete that project including the trails and I know I think passy what you're asking is well how much of that is like for the trails themselves and I think that we'll have better information in July when the engineers come back with the feasibility study and we'll be able to break down I think different the different segments and you have a better sense of what that cost is too difficult probably today to estimate that number, but certainly we'll be bringing that back to you in July. So that way you'll understand really the totality of that project and the in the scope. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions on this one? >> No. Okay. Technology. >> All right. Moving on. Technology fund. Um this is a fairly straightforward fund on that end of it. We are seeing some lots of increasing costs just like every other fund on that end of it. uh seems like the technology world is increasing at a a very hefty pace as well. Um our we do have a tax levy that's dedicated to this, but we are looking to expand that tax tax levy over the next five years um fairly substantially. Um right now we're kind of backfilling it with um some um transfers in from the general fund from those surplus dollars that are programmed out um through the next five years actually on on that end as well too as we try to transition from those transfers to a tax levy dedicated to uh uh our projects in this fund. There aren't a lot of projects but there are u important projects in here as well too. So we have some one project is our cyber security piece of that. That was a new project that was added last year and that is um ensuring that we are um meeting cyber security needs there and um protecting the city um as best we can um against any potential cyber attacks and things like that. On that end of it, um just it goes towards there's office equipment in here. So it's you anything from computer replacements um from laptops to servers to um anything technology related is is a lot of it is all in here on on that end of it and such. And so um a lot of our software applications um come out of this fund as well too and um a lot of everything's virtual these days and so there's a lot of annual cost increases on on those um hosted type of applications and products as well too even servers and such like that. So, um that is about all I have on this one. It's a um tight fund balance on this one as well, too. We do have some dollars in reserve that are encumbered for um a future ERP HCM system as well, too. So, we got about a I think it's about a million dollars or so that we had is a 26 project that dollars are encumbered in there. And so we're looking to um try to start that project later this fall of just starting to um gather um an RFP um request at this that point in time and to start looking at products um coming forward at the end of this year towards the beginning of next year on on that end of it. So So that's in the works as well too as a pending project. >> Good. Any questions about technology? I mean other than everything, >> right? >> All right. Uh trail system expansion fund. >> All right. So this is our um obviously as the mayor stated, trail system expansion. And so this is um a fund that's dedicated to expanding our trail network. And so this um was a a concerted effort by the council um a number of years ago to try to get we have the long list of trail needs um tried to get some um some progress made on that list. And so we instituted the franchise fees in 2018 um for the natural gas piece of that and then the increase in the electric at that same at that same point. Um a lot of those fees are going towards trail expansion, a other parts going towards underground burial. And so, uh, we got about $2 million a year that's dedicated to trail expansion. Um, and seven, eight years ago, $2 million got us a long ways. Now, it gets us a half a project. And so, um, it's it's really, especially with the projects that we have in place here with the Excelsier piece of that along with um, trail improvement for the 2027 projects at park 27305 is the Baker Trail. And so, that's a Three Rivers Park Trail along Baker Road. Um, the $4.2 $2 million that we have here is for burial of electrical lines under um that trail in specific areas. It's not the entire area, but it is certain locations of that um where the trail intersects with the utility lines on on that end of it. Um I think total burial was going to be upwards of $7 million plus on on that end of it and and just not feasible on a a $2 million annual budget on on that end of it. So, um you can see in in out years here we don't have any projects scheduled, but as we've mentioned going throughout the other um funds, the street improvement fund um like specific there and some street improvement fund is where it has um some trail expansion work done as well too. So um just like the Kinsel um project that Phil talked about um that would trail expansion would be part of that piece of it. So, we're not necessarily stopped doing a trail expansion. We're just doing it in other areas that have some funding available at that point in time. So, um you can see even without doing any projects over the next five years, we're still at a negative fund balance of of a substantial dollar amount on that end of it. So, uh we'll need to pull ourselves out of that and and um kind of go from there and save up as as we move forward. So, >> any questions on this, Amanda? >> Yeah, I have one. And I think maybe a clarification for the the trail improvement plan, the park 27305 4.2 million for that. Did I hear you that that is entirely for burial of the Baker Road trail or there other aspects of the trail that are included in that 4.2 million? >> Yes, council member uh Maxwell, that is correct. So, in your hard copy that you received, there was a a typo in there. Um it initially stated there was a $7 million in there. So, there's $4.2 $2 million that's dedicated to that project. $4 million of that is for underground burial and $200 200,000 is dedicated to um trail expansion with ancillary segments to connect to that trail. >> Um so Three Rivers is doing the entire trail itself, but we have like certain connections that we want to make to that trail. And so we have $200,000 dedicated to that. I I would assume it's probably by maybe like by the middle school or something to that nature. um getting major um little points connected to that major trail. So, >> okay. For I guess for me, the idea of $4 million for burying utilities doesn't really belong in a trail trail fund. So, I I just that seems like a lot to me. So, that's why I brought that up. >> Yeah, I think the same conundrum that we've been talking about with this one's tricky, I think. on, you know, on some of the >> I I think >> opting out of burial, right? I mean, is that's a tricky piece. >> I think obviously Baker was a major um trail on our plan and so getting that trail done and having three rivers pay for it on that end of it. So, we're just thinking, well, if we were to build that trail, we'd gladly do it for $4 million if we could get it done. So, if we're doing, you know, if we can dedicate those dollars towards burial for areas where the lines intersect with the trail, um if we can do that and and get it done, that would be um probably our contribution towards that that trail going through our our city on that end of it. Um ideally, it'd be nice to bury all the lines, but the ones that are in the directly line path of that trail, it probably need to be done at this point. So, and just trying to find funds in any of our available funds in a fund here. Again, obviously the electric franchise fee fund can't afford the $4 million of it. So, trying to find an alternative solution. So, this one isn't great, but it's it's maybe better. But >> go ahead, Mike. >> Yeah, thank you. Darren Darren just touched on what I was going to say, and that is we're on page 23. And then, as if you flip back to page 15, as Darren noted, electric franchise fee fund. This is where Darren and I have spent some time talking with uh Phil and the team on these projects because they're connected and while we said earlier many of these funds you have to keep separated uh we've talked about whether we should combine these and maybe we will at some point because they're they are interrelated between the trails and the burial um so they're that's why these two are really connected if and you're right I think if we were to sh this is more burial and if you shifted this expenditure over to page 15 which is that electric franchise fee. That's another 4 million. It's already carrying a negative balance and it just makes that fund a lot worse. So, we're at this point keeping it um staged in the trail system expansion fund. >> A follow-up question to that. There was conversation or or some review of what would happen if we just didn't bury there. And my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that that would result in a lot more tree loss and pushing the trail closer to the homes on already pretty small uh kind of setbacks. Is is that right? >> Yeah, that is I believe that is correct. I want Phil to weigh in on that one since he's more familiar with the topography. Um, for the trail itself, the poles would have to be relocated. So, either they would stay on the same side, change the design of the trail, or they would flip to the other side of the road, which would then require clearing space for not only the poles, but the power lines. So, um, it's possible to do, but wasn't necessarily the way we've done trails in the past. So that's why we talked about adding the burial in to keep the trail at least in the same um type of feel that we've been doing with our trail projects. >> Thank you. Thanks, Phil. All right. Any other anything else on the on this one? >> Good questions, everybody. >> And Rebecca, the other thing I would add, if you recall, our sales tax ask was for supplementing our trails. And so when you look at the cash flow of this fund, uh we are anticipating with the sales tax authority and if there was authority granted by the voters, uh we were anticipating another million that would go into this fund annually. So we have a question at the end if we want to continue to pursue sales tax and if the answer to that is yes, then this fund hopefully will write itself better with a more influx of sales tax dollars for our trails. >> Great. Thanks, M. All right. >> All right. >> Anything else? All right. >> We're almost there. >> Fun. >> So, the utility fund is next. So, that's page 24. And that's another enterprise fund. This is our water and sewer utility fund on that end of it. And this one has um fairly significant cash balances. At the beginning of 27, we're just about $30 million. Um should note that we just issued a $10 million um bond here at the end of 25 as well, too. So those dollars aren't quite spent yet as well too. So that's helping kind of inflate that number as well. Um and then if we look down at the revenues, so obviously our user fees, our utility bills that sent out to um commercial and residential customers are a large part of the the fees collected on this account. Um we are looking at another bond issue. Um initially it was scheduled for 2027. that was by our consultant that helped us with our rate study and our infrastructure assessment last year. Um probably be able to push that to 2028 and that'll be done in conjunction with that storm water one that we looked at as well too. I think um if we can push that um and maybe interest rates come down a little bit. Um that'll help us as well too and cash balances are sufficient enough to be able to delay that by a year or so on on that end of it. Um looking at projects here again we have that Kinsel neighborhood project. Um here's the the water and sewer related portions of that project. $4.6 $6 million for next for next year. Um, Excelsier Boulevard project again, another $4.2 million on that end of it. And then our last year water meter replacement program as well too at $3.5 million. And initially was um I think that was going to be a six-year project. I think we've um gotten it down into four at four years at this point in time. So we're making really good progress this year. Um and that'll be beneficial to get that project completed. And then we have some sewer sustainability improvements as well about $2.5 million. So we have lots of projects. We have about $16.5 million of projects next year. Um so you use 22 $22 million of revenues and $16 million of capital outlay. Um that's a substantial portion of what um goes into this fund. Um it doesn't take into account some of the mech council operating charges that we we see as well too. So we have about $6 million of um just pass through dollars that Met Council charges us as well too. So, making sure that we're staying on top of this fund, making sure that rates are doing what they need to do. We did have some substantial rate increases for 2026. We're trying to make sure that our residents are aware of the summer. I'm glad it's it's raining so people are not sprinkling as much but um those um we put out some messaging as well too to be aware of those new rates this year with um with watering just to be cognizant that um a lot of people are going to be in that that third tier this year which is the kind of that highest tier when you get into the heavy irrigation things on on that end of it and such. So um lots going on here. This is both operations and and the capital that happens within this fund. though. Um, and you can see that our outy years in 2020 in 2031, we have about $22 million of capital or cash balance remaining there, but we would probably be due for another um bond issuance at some point along the way there as well too as we gear up for that um those infrastructure needs that are coming out in, you know, 15 years or so when they kind of hit that peak um 15 to 20 year time frame on that end of it. So, >> lots going on in this fund. So, open to questions. >> All right, Deb. Thank you, Rebecca. We um got an email from one of my neighbors saying uh since the council since the city has already has a new tax of approximately $140 annual on our sewer water bill for each household, why is there another need to include in the property tax levy? But this has specifically to do with water and sewer, >> right? Uh, Mayor Shaq, Council Member Calbert, this Yeah, the water and sewer fund is funded strictly by user fees. It's not property taxes. It's it's user fees. Obviously, you can look at a fee versus a tax, but this one is really um u based off of user fees on on that end of it. And you have some control over how much water and you use and those types of things on that end of it. But this is a fee driven fund specifically. you know, tax dollars are are >> and that's precisely why I asked the question. Thank you very much. >> Follow question. >> Yeah, just um to to kind of follow up on that. Um also bond proceeds. So the $10 million bond I assume is being financed via the fees again, not >> not via general tax levy or anything like the property tax levy or anything like that. >> Correct. Yeah. Bond issuances out of the out of enterprise funds are paid for by user fees. And so we um schedule those to be paid for over the next 20 years. >> So some of so some of these increases that we're seeing in our water um you know bills and our base fees are to help finance these bonds which will then pay for over time. um some of our infrastructure improvements that are desperately needing because we have a what seven 60 year old infrastructure that is nearing the end of its useful life. Is that correct? Am I >> No, you are. You know, you're right. Yeah, absolutely. So, part of part of our part of our fee structure is to pay for our debt service. And so, Right. >> Um those bonds come due every year and so they mature. Typically, a 20-year bond we pay for every year. >> And it's spreading it out. It's spreading those payments out so that you know it's it's not just us today. It's people future residents who are also sharing in the cost of that. >> So current users are current users of the system are getting that benefit and then um a lot of it is pay as you go or pay as you use philosophy on that. A bond is a pay as you as you use basically. So you uh you're you're getting the benefit of that infrastructure being improved at this point in time and then you pay for that over the next 20 years or so. So there might be future users of the system that'll pay for >> the current system and a little bit of the the prior system which um every user is in that boat. So >> right >> where current users are paying for systems that were improved upon years ago as well too. So >> right, thank you. >> Any other questions on this one? >> Okay, last but not least. >> Right. Absolutely. Wilson Center Fund. Um so if you look at their beginning cash balance at the at 2027 they got about $1.4 million. So they have been doing really well the last number of years on on that end of it. Really recovering from um our co our co times of you know five six years ago on on that end of it. Um Wilson Center pays for a lot of their capital outlay themselves right out of that fund. It's again it's another enterprise fund. Um it's just like the water and sewer and the storm water fund. Um, but a vast majority of those of the capital LA is paid for um by the Wilson Center. Kelly and his staff keep a a close eye on that cash and those capital projects and making sure that um he has sufficient room to pay for um any capital outlay that's occurring. And so um again the the revenues within that fund are basically membership fees, user fees, um you know, rental fees, those types of things that are in there. Um tennis court rentals, those types of things on that end of it. Some of the major projects for 27 are um major building components. And so he's looking to have um rooftop units, RTUs for short, I guess. So um two of them replaced in in 2027. And there again, that shows up as a public works project. Um that's just because it's led by pro public works and not necessarily obviously it's a recreational facility, but the Wilson Center itself is paying for that improvement there. And then the uh Wilson Center improvements under the recreation area are um a lot of um exercise equipment, electrical machines, treadmills, those types of things. And I think there's about $25,000 in there for miscellaneous building um repairs that um happen to occur from time to time on that end of it. So overall, um sitting in a in a good spot um for for the current years and the out years. Um there are some um additional projects in place out there as well too that um kind of put a little bit uh more of a drain on that cash balance, but uh as Kelly and his staff um do, we we manage those and watch those as as those progress. And so we'll keep an eye on those as um the years progress and see where we're at at that point in time. So we have no concerns about that that fund at this point. So >> all right, questions on this? Pretty straightforward this one. A little engine that could, right? The Well Center. >> Go ahead, Paula. >> Thank you. First of all, congratulations to Kelly and the staff um for doing such a great job um operating this as a successful enterprise. Um much appreciated. Just wanted to clarify, however, um when you say that it covers most of its capital funds, does that include like capital improvements like the major facilities or is that still something that we're needing to, you know, fund through the facilities bonding and other ways through the general levy? >> Um, good question. Um, Mayor Shaq, Council Member Rome, it um in this CIP here, all these funds are are or in this on this page, all these funds are funded by or these projects are funded by the Wilson Center. Um, if there was a a bigger project, if there was a roof replacement and it's $800,000 to replace the tennis center roof, I don't think the Wilson Center is going to be able to financially manage that. And it's in the and it's a community facility. And so, we would look to probably have the capital replacement fund or, you know, if down the road if if it's five, six years from now, if it's community investment fund is an option, we'd look at our different options um that are there. But um historically the Wilson Center has paid for a vast majority of it, but from time to time there are some um capital >> improvement projects that are outside of the capacity of the Wilson Center that um the city has has funded or and probably will continue to fund. So >> great. Thanks for that clarification. Anything else on this one? We're ready to move to our next slide, huh? >> I am. I think we have two left. >> All right, here we go. >> All right. And what if you recall council at our uh previous study session well back in May um back in May sounds like a year ago month ago uh council asked or staff asked the council if there's anything that are on your priorities list for upcoming 2027. So we've summarized those here for you just to run through this list quickly. uh fencing for off leash dog areas and that was mentioned uh by council member Romey again that's a CIP item uh as noted earlier that's currently unfunded and so based on earlier conversation uh staff will come back and look at a way to fund uh fund the the fencing currently it's not included in what we talked about this evening so we will come back with a proposal on that as noted earlier with Mr. Kumpin and others on just the strategy to implement um option four that was discussed earlier. Uh also then sin the park was mentioned um this is by by Paula. Uh that was actually approved at the June 8th council meeting that was in the staff works already and so um that one is off and running. So that one should be taken care of. Uh Mayor Shaq mentioned an urban fence dog park. I know that's being I think discussed a little bit right now with the big willow master planning. Not sure where that's still in the works. Uh so more to come on if there's going to be any type of other urban dog park outside of Purgatory. Uh and currently that is also unfunded at this time until that's identified. Uh Council Member Calbert, you brought up safe routes to school. Uh one thing I just want to point out to you, I think on page 66 of our book, um we have it page 66. I'm going to turn to that quickly. This is um a CIP page in the uh park, trails, and open spaces. A couple years ago, we put a place as staff, we recommend a placeholder. Uh we do have a $100,000 a year included in this fund. It's meant for these types of purposes. So, if there's uh a crosswalk identified that needs improvement, whether it's ADA accessibility upgrades, we have funds available for that. Uh we do have two uh projects noted for 27 and 28 but again this is largely um not project specific because it's meant to address issues as they arise. So there is some funding available uh for safe to schools and certainly with the Baker road trail project that will address some of the some of the issues around um the Hopkins was it middle school west I think is the right name of that school. >> Right. So, I've been on the council for nine years and I've asked for very little, but that little piece was something that um that's really missing. So, I'm hoping. Okay. Uh then with uh Council Member Romey brought a playground usage study. Right now, that is not funded and so if they're looking for that type of activity, we would need to look to fund that and staff would need more direction from council on that. And then the other item mentioned by Mayor Shaq was the Colin Nature Preserve. Again, that was uh noted earlier that we have a phased in approach uh that Mr. Ka talked about. So that is currently included. So again, want to just highlight those quickly for you. Those are the items you brought up and we have a question coming up that ask beyond that. And if there's anything on this list, uh staff would need further direction on that. And then facilities. This is my last slide before we get to get to the questions. And so as noted kind of throughout this evening is with our capital assets as we all have talked about numerous times just with the local options sales tax. We did not get that authority this year. So then the question becomes what are our options and what perhaps could be the timing of those. Uh so laying out a couple different scenarios. The first column there is partial state bonding. As you know we did get the two and a half million for fire station 2 and I'll talk about that here in a second. and then the local option sale t tax authority. The second column is again that partial still state bonding of two and a half million and then no authority. That's kind of where we are today. So the no authority and so really there's probably two paths for you to consider uh council and and what Darren and I have talked about and what we'd recommend as staff is really what's noted in that first column uh and that is to look back at or look forward to the state legislature next year to get that sales tax authority because if we don't if without that sales tax authority then you're looking at that second column and that's where you're going to really defer to more geo bonding and that geo bonding would be significant dollars and we've done some very preliminary runs on what that could mean for increasing taxes to pay for general obligation debt. It's a lot more to the tax bay or more to the property tax ask. And so with that sales tax authority again as staff we would recommend staying committed to that because that would be your most or your best and best path for forward uh from our perspective. And so going through that list real quickly, we do have that fire station. We do have that $2.5 million. We have, I believe, three years to spend that. And so we still could go back as a city and ask for sales tax authority next year without jeopardizing losing that 2.5 million. We could in the meantime expend those funds. So we could start with building design and look to get shovel ready. So as the as if we get that authority from the state next uh legislative session, bring that to the voters next November, November of 2027. assuming the voters approve a sales tax authority being ready to go with bidding for a project to start in 2028 in terms of the fire station. Um because we did receive 2.5 million in bond dollars, a remodel would be off the table because we did specifically ask for two and a half million for a new fire station. So we would not be able to utilize those dollars for any type of rebuild. Um, I think our staff and our consultant would recommend the the a new station over a rebuild or excuse me, a remodel. And then regards to fire station three, the marsh, opus, and then the trails. Again, we're looking to utilize lowcost sales tax dollars. And then really with the community center and Willis Center, uh those proposed costs, community center at $4 million with the Wilson Center, $6 million and looking to utilize um how we've had set up for the $10 million bond issuance to utilize that $10 million bond issuance towards community center and the Willis Fitness Center. So we'll we'll talk about that here in a second. Um so that's just a quick summary of where we at with those facilities. Again, really, I guess in summary, looking to again utilize lock option sales tax as our path forward, which gets us to the questions. So, with that, mayor, I'll turn it back over to you to facilitate the questions. All right. So, let's take this one question at a time. So, question one is, does the council have other priorities not currently identified for 2027? And then looking out beyond that 2028 through 2031. So the scope of this CIP. Anybody have anything that they were wishing for that they're not seeing here? Paula, thanks. Not not specifically. I just wanted to make sure that we're, you know, putting a pin in and going to come back to the whole, you know, how we how we're going to deal with Cullen. So, I mean, we discussed that briefly and so I just want to put a a marker in that that you know that you talked about mayor being um flexible about how we he look at the funding and and looking at that. So, I just want to kind of go on record with that. Not not something that I want to go forward and and discuss necessarily in depth right now. I think this is the time or place, but um just to kind of put a a marker in it so we can come back to it. >> Okay. Anybody else? We're generally satisfied with what we've seen so far. I would note that, you know, seeing several times, you know, that this isn't we're we're able to push something out or we're able to rework and saw um really clear-cut efforts to keep the spending managed on things and and evaluating just because we said we were going to need this um we don't or we have some more time. So that was noticed and appreciated. All right. So this is kind of piggybacking. Does the council have other feedback regarding the proposed 9.8 million tax levy needed to support identifying programming for 2027. So again, you know, to stay essentially flat with what we've spent on capital over the course of the last two or three years prior to 2027. Everybody's Deb just quickly I you know year after year especially when we get to our budget votes we hear from people um as we get close and usually on the day that we're voting on the levies that you know we really need to sharpen our pencils. And um in reading through, you know, some of the many needs that that we have, I just want to thank staff because there are so many things that they could just ask for. And I do think about public works and the heavy equipment or public safety and the vehicles and the technology that people need. And you know, we have deferred and deferred and deferred um on some of the vehicles and sometimes it's not a big deal and um we're making do. Um, so I just wanted to make that comment and I wanted to ask a question because in talking about that with Mike this morning, he mentioned that there might be a little tweak to the um vehicle replacement policy and I was wondering um if you could share just a little bit I know it's not the it's not solidified in any way but just sort of what the thought was around that because I think it was a good thought. and I'll I'll start off and I does Phil do you want to come back or who's gonna answer or Mike? >> Hey Mike. >> Um so just maybe just describe a little bit about our vehicle replacement process and how it works. So, and first off, there is um well, Mike Kuno, I think everyone knows Mike Kuno. And so, with Mike Kuno and then um our supervisor over there, Russ, he they work on tracking all of our vehicle replacement because it's there's a detailed spreadsheet behind all of this spreadsheets, multiple layers of information because we track all of our equipment, everything from I say some of the smallest things like lawnmowers all the way up to fire trucks and everything in between. And so u tracking our assets uh we want to make sure that we're planning for the future replacements. So we do have a replacement schedule generally it's based on years. So for example a piece of equipment should be replaced every x years. That doesn't make it automatic. Uh what it means is that we look to schedule it and then we also take a look at its maintenance history. So, if it's, you know, if it's something we can stretch out one year or two years further, we're going to try to do that. Uh, conversely, we might replace it sooner, too, because if there's ongoing maintenance, it's a maybe kind of a lemon type situation where there just ongoing maintenance, we have those records. So, we track parts that go into a vehicle or a piece of equipment. So, we want to make sure we're diligent about really what our ass can be replaced. And so really trying to massage or excuse me, massage the CIP in a way that um recognizes the needs and yet being fiscally prudent and responsible with equipment u replacements. And so with that, maybe Mike, do you want to speak more to kind of the approach as well? Did I miss something in that? >> No, that was a very good explanation. Uh the replacement schedule acts as more or less a guideline for us. Um, you know, it's really we we lay out the the years that we anticipate a vehicle to last and then, you know, review the mileage, review the the uh maintenance that we've had on it, uh, before we really uh, put it in a year for replacement. So, um, you know, I would say when when you look at some of the equipment that we have, it it tends to operate in in some pretty corrosive environments sometimes. you know, look at our the snow plows that are operating with uh salt and brine. Um that is really hard on those vehicles. Um when you look at police and fire are out there in you know emergencies when it's icy and snowy and and they're operating in that same environment after we've put down salt to get rid of some of that ice. Um it's tough and you know you'll see a line of of vehicles or plows waiting to go through the car wash at public works at the end of a a plow event. So, you know, we do our best to try and uh really maintain them, keep them uh keep them lasting as long as we can, but uh it's it's a pretty tough environment. So, um yeah, I I think we we look at every vehicle um as it comes up and and try to make the best decision we can on replacement for it. >> Great. Oh, go ahead. >> Yeah, thanks. I think I brought that up as well um with you this morning, Mike. So, I appreciate the kind of explanation and clarification. And I know we all I know we are already doing it with um things like roofs and things like that where we're stretching out. So um you know I have a 24 year old roof that was supposed to be replaced probably 10 years ago. And um so you know I appreciate the fact that we're not just looking at a schedule but we're also looking at you know basically the cost benefit of continuing to repair and maintain versus replace. And you know, just thanks for doing that and and uh I appreciate the the the effort because I know it's it's you know, they go through a lot. So, appreciate it. Thank you. All right, let's keep going here. The city has strategically increased the levy in 2026 to prepare for a potential $10 million bond issuance for facility improvements. So, we've done half of that um in 2026. Does the council support continuing this approach to phase in the other half in 2027? And as Mike's slide indicate indicated, depending on our response to number four, you know, a potential use for that is the community center and then the Williston improvements. last year. I think we also talked about that also giving us some flexibility on some other things in the event we don't get the sales tax approval. Is that right, Mike? >> You want to? >> Yeah. Yeah, I can chime in. Um, thank you, mayor. Um, yes. So, that um $10 million that we were budgeting for was kind of that step one last year in the 2026 levy. We set aside about $45,000 with the anticipation that we get up to this about $810,000 would cover the debt service on a $10 million issuance. And so thought was at the time uh we had a a debt piece of debt coming off the books as well too. And so we had some savings there. We called a bond early. um we had some savings from that that we included um in kind of a set aside amount just for some special projects coming up whether that's the community center Williston or if we decided to move forward with a fire station if we didn't get sales tax or we didn't get the full $5 million of state bonding or whatever that was you had options whether you wanted to use those dollars for um fire station and or recreation facility improvements on that end of it such um obviously as uh Mr. Mr. Funk mentioned probably your best course of of action is is trying to utilize the local option sales tax for that fire station. Um it's it's it's going on the assumption that you're going to we're going to get through it next year on that end with legislative session on on that side of it. But um it it does leave it kind of open on that end of it that what happens if you don't get it. um you know and fingers crossed you kind of move forward and we get that local sales tax next year to really make things happen because we need that for other areas as well not just the fire stations but for trails and and things like that as well too. So you have some options it's just kind of your decision on how you want to proceed with that. So >> so council the question is do we kind of carry forward the decision that we made last year regarding this kind of funding mechanism? I'm seeing a lot of nods. Any dissent? >> Just say it out loud. I I mean I just think this was a prudent move. Um something that you know it's just good planning in my opinion. Great. Okay. Sounds like we're on board to keep that track forward. Does the council support the facility improvement strategy as proposed? And so that includes um improvements for the community center in 2027 and then carrying forward our sales local option sales t tax process and request during the upcoming legislative session. Uh Amanda, >> yeah I have a question around that sales tax. Is there any cost to continuing to pursue that or is that essentially you ask and if you don't get it, you don't get it, but no harm in asking. >> Mike, >> yeah, excuse me. Thank you for the question, Mayor Shaq, Council Member Maxwell. So the the the the cost if you will of asking for sales tax um part of it is just our time as staff as we talk to our legislators and do our own lobbying if you will. Uh we do have a lobbyist that we've utilized for many years. And so we do have a cost for lobbyists which is you know 50,000 a year but regardless of the sales tax we would have the lobbyist for other issues. And so it's not really specific to the sales tax act. just part of what the the scope of work that they do. So costs, hard costs are pretty minimal. >> It just dilutes our asking power for other things that we might want to ask. It sounds like it's really cost >> in essence. Correct. >> So council uh Paul, go ahead. >> Yeah, thanks. I think it's well worth pursuing and considering to pursue because of the facts and sometimes actually repeating um your advocacy on a particular bill can be helpful and increase the chances of of of getting it as you are able to educate legislators and um and chairs of committees. So I would uh definitely be improve in in in favor of this. >> So it looks like there's generally consensus to stay the course. I will say that we've done a lot of talking with legislate legislators, lobbyists coming out of the session and I don't know what the conversations were, but everybody seems pretty optimistic about the op the uh possibility of approval on this for 2027. So fingers crossed we can, you know, carry that ask forward. All right, so we have what we need on this I think so. >> Yeah. >> Great. >> Mike, do we have or the community center piece of that? >> And we're all is everybody was responding kind of we talked about the community center piece as well. >> I'm sorry. I >> That's okay. >> Just making sure. No good question, Darren. Okay. >> Great. All right. Next and final item is July study session topics. And Mike, I'll let you start with that and then I'll uh I've got >> Oh, yeah. Thank uh Thank you, Mayor. We got to pull it up here. One second. >> Here. Sorry. That's why you were looking at me, Miranda. >> Yeah. Will you do it? >> Well, as you know, we end every study session with confirming upcoming topics. >> Thank you. So, looking ahead to July. So, next study session is July 20th. The main agenda item is our economic improvement plan. Again, we we normally would do CIP and EIP the same night. So, we split it up. So, a lot lot easier, a lot more manageable. So, EIP next month. Uh kind of some subcategories within the EIP will be housing. Again, we call it the all things housing. So, Julie and her team will um be doing a lot of the presenting. Along with that is developer refinancing policy. There'll be an update on the zoning code rewrite. I think part of that too is some drive-throughs. I think uh is it planning commission recently tal or EDAC talked about or sustainability one of those commissions both talked about drive-throughs. So we'll have some information back to you on that. Then in August we have our general fund budget discussion. Uh that's that orange piece of the uh graph you saw earlier this evening. And then along with that some more conversation on prior priority based budgeting. Can't remember which council member asked me about whether priority based budgeting kind of works. Thank you Paul. works within the CIP. Prior based budget is more on operations. So that's where you'll see more of the alignment between um the breakdown of how we look at our operations and that'll be part of August. And then in September there is no study session. I believe we only have one meeting that month just how it aligns with other things happening in the calendar. Uh and then October zoning code rewrite update comp plan process preview. We do have our 30-minute open time. November is all budgets again. So that's kind of really bring back a lot of the budget conversation uh and really focusing on our enterprise funds and then December is a repeat of kind of what we do every year. So that's the upcoming study sessions again council what we look for as staff if you have any changes to that adds to that we'd want to know that that's the direction we need from you uh moving forward. >> Thanks Mike. um council, I just have I haven't asked I don't think it will be a significant time um use of time, but just by way of history going back to last fall um related specifically to some of the work that Brad started doing relative to gun control issues, high-capacity magazines, etc. I think you'll all recall that he did um coordinate with a group of other mayors regarding some some asks that kind of he had some intentions and anticipated putting forth a resolution or a proclamation or something it to further the the asks regarding some gun control measures. Fast forward, that didn't happen for a lot of reasons and a lot of balls in the air at that time and it's been kind of on the back burner for the last six months as we consider how we're navigating all the other things coming up this year. So, I have been um engaged in many ways carrying that torch forward, coordinating with uh Mayor Fry on some of the lobbying at the capital regarding um regarding the gun control bill that was out there this session. what I would like to have a conversation about possibly uh putting forward a resolution dealing with some of these same issues. I think it's prudent that before that show up on a main council agenda that we everybody has an opportunity to weigh in in in a study session format. And so I would propose taking 10 or 15 minutes at the end of the July study session to have that conversation if the rest of the council is willing to indulge me on that. So that's my ask. Kimberly, go ahead. Mine's separate. And I um just I talked to to Mike about this earlier and um following up I believe council member Calbertt had mentioned potentially discussing um accessory dwelling units during our housing discussion. Um, and I just wanted to to uh follow up maybe get a little bit of history since the uh what the former council um when they set the parameters, what was the decision-making process behind that on on why they why the parameters were set where they were and do we want to consider making changes to those? Because even though the zoning right the zoning code um will address whether whether you need uh special permitting to get uh accessory dwelling unit, it doesn't it doesn't address the parameters for the for the units themselves. >> Paula, I'd like to circle back to your question and I am wholeheartedly in favor of having that discussion. So, thank you for bringing it up. >> Thank you. Okay. And to the extent, so anybody else have any input either way? I mean, if you'd prefer, you can also say, "Hey, put it on your list for December." And that's an option as well. I I'm I'm kind of in that camp. It looks like a big meeting. Yeah. I mean, everybody else seems willing, so >> I was feeling the same way. Um that it it looks like it's going to be a long meeting, a long session, you know, and and I know, you know, I don't know how people feel about adding it to September. Um because I I, you know, I would rather add another day instead of another, you know, staying here until 10 o'clock on, you know what I mean? like and and it and the and the conversation probably won't be 10 to 15 minutes. >> Sure. >> It'll be longer. >> September is kind of out of the question, I think, because we have significant holidays that fall on Mondays in September. So, I I think that's okay. >> So, that's fine, but I mean, we we don't >> I mean, I'm willing to hear other people, but I don't think September is an option. >> Okay. Maybe August. I don't know. This just seems >> Yeah. So, I mean, if we can keep it to 15 minutes, I would totally do it. I mean, it's not something I would totally do it. >> Any Go ahead. >> I was going to say, I mean, we got the October. That's a big one, >> but we still have the 30 minute open time, though. That might be a good time. 30 minute open time. >> So we're talking either um July or October. >> Then I would like to replace the 30 minute open time with that discussion. >> Well, I know that me and Mike talked about um some housing piece in October as well. So, there's supposed to be some more discussion, too. >> You don't want to wave the 30 minute open time is what you're saying. >> No. Okay. >> I mean, I think we could talk about have multiple things there, but I don't want to dismiss >> what I asked my >> Paula. Go ahead. >> Thank you. I just want to point out that we did split the EIP and the CIP. So, as opposed to other years where we have gone until 10 o'clock, we are at 5 to 9 right now having covered two topics. And so, I don't think it's going to be too much uh to ask to add an additional um time period. You know, we are here doing the people's business. If we have to stay up a little bit late, I'm fine with that. Okay. So, why don't we just do just a simple Are there those of you that would like to talk about this in July? just indicate Paula, myself, Amanda, Kimberly, and Paty. Okay. All right. So, we'll talk about it in July and we'll do our best. I think Eric and Mike are on it and to keep it fairly brief and we'll tie it to some of the work that we've already done. And then regarding the accessory dwelling unit, and maybe this is a question for Julie. Is this something that you have anticipated wrapping in? Is this a whole another topic issue on everything housing? >> I'm wondering if we could, it sounds like a history and Julie during because we're doing a zoning code update. So maybe part of that, could we just do an overview of the history of ADUs? A fivem minute overview of history. >> Oh, I see. Is that I think that's what >> so the question Kimberly had was you know do is it worthwhile to have a brief discussion or at least understanding of how did we get to the thousand square feet the what is it 30% of the >> zoning by October we should have figured Okay. >> So the question was should we >> in July >> July? And then we'll come back to you in October and see if you are in agreement. >> So but the reason I the reason I brought it up is that the zoning Oh, sorry. the zoning the zoning. >> Okay. Um the zoning group isn't going to make any changes in the in the parameters of the the square footage, etc. That would be up to the council. Um and so I just, you know, with the the recent ADU things that we've had, there's just some consideration about do we want to make any changes to that? And so I was like wanting us to have maybe a little history on how we got to where we are now. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Sorry to cut off. Sorry. >> No, that's okay. We had two things going at the same time. Okay. Sounds like we're on we're Anything else from anybody? No. Okay. Excellent. So Mike, you you're on board with what we decided. Okay. Well, with that, we'll be adjourned. Thank you everybody.