[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Good evening. Welcome. Tonight is Monday, August 25th, 2025. This is a regular meeting of the Minnitonka City Council. I will call this meeting to order and ask you to stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. [Applause] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [Applause] Good evening, Miss Larson. Would you please call roll? >> Shaq >> here. Wilburn >> here. Calbertt >> here. Romey >> here. Kley >> here. >> Foster Bolton >> here. Wearsome >> here. Um, next item is approval of the agenda. And I know we have an addendum. Um, Mr. Funk. >> Good evening. Thank you, Mayor, City Council. We do have one item for your consideration this evening and that's related to item 14A, the Minnetonka off lease strategy and guidance plan. Public comments were received after the distribution of the packet since Thursday. And so those emails that have come in are included in your agenda. And with that, mayor and councel, the staff would recommend a motion to approve the agenda as amended. >> Thank you, Mr. Funk. Um, Council Calbert. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to make the motion to approve the agenda as amended >> and a second. Council Romey, >> I'll second. >> All right. Motion by Council Member Calbertt and a second by Council Member Romey. Miss Larson, please call roll. >> Shaq, >> yes. >> Wilurn, >> yes. >> Calbert, >> yes. >> Rome, >> yes. >> Kley, >> yes. >> Foster Bolton, >> yes. >> Yes. Motion carries. Next item is approval of minutes. We have one set and that is the July 28th, 2025 regular meeting minutes. Um, any comments or a motion? >> Council member Calbertt. >> Thank you, Mayor. I move approval of the July 28th, 2025 regular meeting minutes. >> And a second. Council member Shack. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'll second. >> All right. We've got a motion by Council Member Calvert and a second by Council Member Shaq. Miss Larson, please call roll. >> Shaq. Yes. Wilburn. Yes. >> Calbert. >> Yes. Romey, >> yes. >> Kley, >> yes. Foster Bolton, >> yes. >> Yes. Motion carries. Next item is special matters. And we have no special matters tonight. Um and so the next item is reports from city manager and council members. Mr. Funk. >> Again, thank you, mayor. Good evening, council. Really just two items for your consideration this evening. The first uh just to let everyone know that unfortunately summer is winding down. I always hate to I think we all are remiss in seeing the the weather go away. Uh but that being said, uh it's time for everyone to get to Shady Oak Beach before it closes. So, it is closing on Labor Day, but this week it will be open 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. through Labor Day. There is no emission charge. We don't have lifeguards on duty, but this is still an opportunity for anyone to get out and hopefully enjoy a little bit of weather this week before uh we close down for the summer. Uh Mr. Strodana's team had a great year at Shady Oak Beach and so attendance was was really solid and real good credit to our team on another successful year with our operation. And then last just want to mention uh this morning as you all know we had a press release and a press conference on our drones as first responders program. I had noted this morning my appreciation to our mayor and council. I want to say it again here. We really appreciate as staff your support council in your leadership and in supporting myself and supporting our chief and our police department for this technology. It goes without saying without you and and your leadership uh we wouldn't be able to make this new technology possible. So again really appreciate your support on that front. And then also want to thank Chief Borboom and Deputy Chief Tate for their implementation. A lot of work has gone into this the last few months and we're excited it's up and running. uh spoke to uh one of our operators here uh towards the end of today and it's now again live and we used it a couple times today for calls. So it is up and going and encourage anyone that has questions to visit our website, look at our transparency, look at how it operates and always encourage anyone with questions to reach out and be happy to uh answer those. So with that, mayor and council, I'll turn it back to you. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Funk. Um council members, um are there any reports that you'd like to make? >> Council member Shaq. >> Thank you, Mayor. I've got just a couple things. First, I want to um thank staff and the police department had a pretty scary incident in the early morning hours um a couple weekends ago at our house and um in light of kind of the state of the world. Police got there quickly, took care of the situation. Um fortunately, there was no threat. Uh but staff was very respectful to all involved and really appreciate that. Um secondly, I am on the HR and data practices um committee through policy committee through the league and we've been meeting. We had a really good update about the state of PAR and PAR has for those uh folks who have followed kind of the state of things. they've caught back up quite a bit and that was really good news and um the league's really helping cities implement and and consider how sick and safe time uh is going to be implemented starting in 2026. So really useful um time spent there. And then lastly, I just want to thank staff regarding the drones as first responders program. You know, we've talked about a lot of ways that this will help um the community and also how it can help police and fire and every day I think of or hear about a different way that it might be able to help the fire department by spotting hotspots and things like that. So, I really think it's efficient use of resources and it will als it will help keep our folks safe as well as our residents. So, really appreciate that. >> Thank you, Council Member Shack. Um, anyone else? Council member Kley. >> Thank you, Mayor. I just want to um do a shout out to the Cannabis Expungement Board. Um, I've been working there since May. It's a new um position that was created when cannabis got um um passed in 2023. And so, um, anybody who have a background, criminal background in mar with cannabis use can contact the cannabis expan expungement board at the minnot.gov/ceb to get their record expuned. um you know there someone would look at the record and it would be um looked at by attorneys and parillegals and then information will be sent over to the board and at the board they'll determine if the record will be expuned. And so it's just a resource for people who have this in their record. um because we had a person who was like 21 years old, hadn't had anything else in their record but cannabis use and um we were able to expunge their that person's record and it was very helpful because when you have a criminal background sometimes it prevents you from well not sometimes a lot of times it prevents you from having housing employment and so it's just a resource and I just want people to know that they can contact the cannabis expungement board to get their record looked at and possibly get it expuned. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Kley. Is there anyone else? Council member Calbertt. >> Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I thought the the drone event today was amazing. I also saw our wonderful Chief Borboom in a an interview about it, and it just it's I'm going to geek out about it like I do about our sewer cameras, which I think are also really cool. But um I also uh I'm on the National League of Cities Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Committee. I have met several times with some council members from Anchorage, Alaska, and uh several cities in California to draft a resolution um asking the government to refund and restaff the the um agencies that are involved in climate and weather prediction and emergency response. Um, shortly after some of the Doge cuts, there were the terrible floods in um, Texas that killed many people. And one of the reasons people died is because uh, key officials that were responsible for um, making sure that local officials knew this, understood the seriousness and the imminence of of the disaster um, had been relieved of duty. And so um I I we have drafted a resolution on that and we'll be meeting on it later this week. I'm actually also on the HR and data practices committee but it's for my work and um we have our next meeting for the improving services delivery committee uh coming up soon and also the metro cities metro agencies committee is coming up this week. So there is a lot going on this summer to make sure that we are providing the services um that folks need and I will say that um several of the um items that have come up on the in my door knockocking are also important to the improving services delivery committee. So, I've been door knocking um a lot of our neighbors and um two um issues have come up at many of the doors. One is ebikes and one is um the lack of response from utility companies and it has just been so noticeable that I've been sort of keeping a running list. I've been sending it to our uh city manager and um it's notable. So, um hopefully we'll be able to take some action. Um I know I know that Excel Energy out of the utilities that are involved um has been contacted just to make sure that um you know for instance if if um you have power outages seven times since June or you have a cable um that's strung across your lawn from an old utility pole to a new utility pole and um they haven't removed the old utility pole in 3 years. I just want to make sure that um the companies that are involved are compelled to respond. So those are the kinds of things that you find out when you are knocking on doors and um uh I'm just really glad to do it because I'm learning about what's going on in our neighborhood. So thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Calbert. Um Council Member Romey. >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Um two things. I wanted to remind people that uh 30% up to 30% tax credit on solar installation that um is expiring now on September 30th. It was supposed to last for another uh few years that was enacted by the previous administration. The current White House administration has clawed back and rescended that in recent legislation. So now um it's a you know if it's anything that you were thinking about or people in our audience are thinking about Sierra Club and the Northstar chapter which is specifically Minnesota has a tool an online tool that helps you evaluate whether your home is a candidate for solar and then also helps connect you with vetted contractors for installation. But again, um time has now been that has been slashed in terms of the the time frame and so you have to do that by the end of September. Um and the other thing is a a sadder note and um that is and I want to thank uh one of my neighbors for pointing this out. Rory Stcata who is the owner of uh Deacons True Value which is in my neighborhood in W 3 unexpectedly passed away on August 17th. a lot of us in W 3 and maybe beyond W three. Uh knew Rory. I knew him as somebody who helped with uh do EV events last year, brought, you know, uh electric mowers and things like that. Always helped me when I went in to try to figure out what tool I needed and just an all-around great guy. Um so that was unexpected and very sad. And so the store will be closed tomorrow and there will be a celebration of life at the American Legion in Hopkins starting at 11 for anybody who wants to drop by. So anyway, um condolences to all the folks at uh that location and to all of us neighbors who will miss Rory um tremendously. So thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Romey. Um anyone else? All right, I'm just going to pile on just a little bit. I I thought the the DFR, the Dones drones as first responders event today was um was very well done and interesting and you'll probably see some things on the local news about that. But um to me, it it speaks to how we're making investments in technology that um both improve our capabilities and save taxpayer funds. And that to me is kind of the sweet spot. That's exactly what we want to do. We want to be more effective and we want to do it at lower cost. And and the DFR program over 10 years will will save us um quite a bit of money because we're actually using that technology to to extend our police force and our firefighting force. We're going to improve our response times and we're going to be able to do it with um without adding personnel. So, um, that's a big positive and I'm I'm pleased um that we are leveraging that technology and I think it'll be very effective for both for police fire and it will probably support um EMS that serves Minnitankka as well. So, um great event today. watch for it on the local news and uh Minnetonka is the first city in the state to employ that technology and uh so that that's a pretty big deal and we are getting some attention for that. So anyway, that was that's that. So the next item on the agenda is um citizens wishing to discuss a matters not on the agenda. So this is an open mic opportunity. If there's something that you would like the council to know about on an item that is not on tonight's agenda, then please come forward, state your name and address and tell us what that is. Um, when you do that, we will not take any action on that tonight, but we will refer it to staff and ask for them to come back and um investigate um your concern and then they will report back to us at a later date. So, is there anyone who would like to come forward and report um on something that is not on tonight's agenda? Anyone? Okay. If you'd like to come forward, come forward and state your name and address. >> Good evening. >> What up, council? Uh Jonathan Kent, uh 14513 Moonlight Hill Road and uh 55345. Um, I wanted to bring up two items that really uh relate regarding the budget and uh specifically um as is often the case uh property taxes really any taxes but uh really just some themes that I've been mulling over as I uh learn more about uh how the city functions frankly and admittedly a newer process for myself and credit to uh the current leadership and the city um city manager staff um from what I've observed um and to no surprise of my own and I imagine uh hopefully everyone in this room and people watching uh and maybe to those who have never really paid attention and are somehow um seeing this or catch wind of uh things that happen in the city um I think it's a um it's a quite transparent process I guess uh admittedly to um there's not that many other cities where I'm deeply familiar with how they go through everything So, starting with a positive, if you will, and I really do mean that, and I credit all the hard work that uh goes into a process that I probably don't even know um on a super granular level, um a whole lot about in certain areas. So, that said, I think, uh as with anything and in the spirit of excellence that I hear continuously, um I think rightfully so in a lot of respects, uh that's in the vision statement, I do wonder, okay, how does the process improve? And as one of the council members, uh I'm so glad to hear she's knocking on doors. Um and uh I'm doing some of that myself, uh because I'm also running for a position. And um what I'm hearing back is that uh there's a lot of people who don't really know what's going on. And I don't really fault for that matter uh the uh current leadership because I think there's a conscious effort. We're looking at it right now. You can watch this uh meeting at your leisure. I think that's a good thing. And then the reality is most people have busy lives and uh aren't really going to be able to um follow even at a high level what's going on. And maybe I'm putting that a little bluntly, but I think there's a lot of truth to that. So that begs a question of okay, what do you do with that? And I think a couple things. Uh, one, um, in the spirit of knocking on those doors, getting out and talking to people, and maybe this already happens. If it is, I love it and I'm just maybe not paying attention. I think that the city could, for probably not uh, too much more in terms of dollar amounts and even to the extent that it takes uh, some extra dollars, create some sort of street team, if you will, that goes out and talks to essentially every resident and takes a poll. And I realize there are surveys that go out and one of the ongoing discussions I think it's actually something that doesn't get discussed enough is who are we uh surveying say around uh home ownership that that's a population that does get heard from rightfully so. That's where a lot of the revenue is coming from. And then there are a lot of renters here too and as I understand it they are not necessarily taking part in certain surveys that are going on. I think that's a problem and if I'm mischaracterizing that so be it. But and I don't even think that is an error of commission. I think it's more omission. And you know that's a that's a real um think drawback at the end of the day. Again, I don't think that's necessarily a deliberate oversight. But in the spirit of that, if you actually and it's probably more grandiose than it would be in practical practical terms, but if you more or less hear from most people, you're going to get a better sense. Um, and then I think we could really have, it's not that this the discussions aren't serious, but and then I'm I I can't help but wonder as kind of a more newbie and outsider who is really driving the conversation. And it is uh highly qualified, responsible people. And it's a lot of it's not that it's even an echo chamber. It's just a lot of people with a lot of experience with a lot of perhaps more similar vantage points. And how are we making space and making room for people who are coming from different income levels? And I think there's a spirit of that that is very much embodied by current leadership and those um anyone who's uh making time for meetings like this and um uh study sessions or what have you. And I just think it could be better. So that's just kind of a a a thought and maybe that's something that's been tried before. I think like I personally if somebody showed up at my door, I'm also someone I'll purposely stay on the phone with like a telemarketer to give them some feedback because I've worked in customer service and I just think that's kind of like a good human thing to do. I'm not expecting people to feel that way too. But like I would welcome being asked that whether I'm in a a public uh uh capacity or not as a a public official or not. Just as a resident, as a human being, I think that's good customer service if you will. And if we really are going to walk the talk as a city of delivering that excellence that to me like I don't know any other city that's doing that. If we want to be first in class, maybe we do that too, right? Um the other thing I'll just throw out there in this one I'm a little more nervous to bring up and then I'm I take it upon myself like I I promise myself the more I speak up if I got that little, you know, knot inside that I got to just say it. And so to me and and maybe uh it's not that controversial a thing, but when people uh just yesterday I heard from a father, he's lived um in Minnetonka for about 5 years. Um moved from not that far away. And of course on his mind um he's he's concerned about the um the frequency of property tax increases and the amount and where's it all going. And I think there's already robust conversations happening around that. What it got me thinking about though is and in the spirit of um this excellence piece is you know the reality is there's also an equity piece and there's inclusion there's affordability and we can have a whole discussion about those things and again I think most people probably would agree that ideally Mitanka it truly is a place where all people it's not only open to everyone right I in practicality you can afford to live here no matter who you are that's just not the case and what I think of I'm solidly a millennial meal and uh there's a lot of people in my generation and lower who they cannot like the the mere thought of buying a home is laughable and on the one hand it's like haha funny but it's also like there are the reality is uh a baby boomer generation even Gen X uh people before us they just had a different reality set so that's not really necessarily anyone one particular person's problem but I do think it's more of a what are we doing about it and here's the rub what I suggest is and maybe this has done been done before I haven't seen is we should have at least some kind of public conversation around a more progressive property tax system. And what I what I propose is and this is pretty broad strokes so I leave it to the subject matter experts to do uh something with it maybe is you could look at it as are you taking the existing let's say 79% increases that continue to happen typically speaking and are you going to continue to apply those in the same buckets in certain buckets uh and I'll just leave them out for now but encourage people to take a look at the city budget there's some really nice charts and graphs I'm I'm having little study sessions of my own learning a lot and uh you you could figure out it's basic budgeting right like in that money could it start to go to other areas you still maintain high levels of service I would argue maybe that's a a false assumption and then the one that I think and and this is where the the uh progressive uh property tax piece is and maybe this is just pie this guy thinking but for those who are in more of that 1% category or who are making the most money having presumably the uh highest property values, would they be willing to pay even more than what they're paying? And you know, shocker, I I imagine they wouldn't want to do that. But but if you could make the case that this is going towards the excellence that we're talking about to make this a more inclusive community that does enable afford even more affordable housing, right? If if you can point to real dollars that are going to those things and that's it. And and I don't know legally speaking how you do that and make it ironclad ironclad, but if you can point to that, my my own hypothesis is to make this a truly excellent city. It's my own bias. I'm not expecting anyone else to necessarily agree with it, but it's essentially what I'm I'm banking. Um it's my belief set is in order the highest level of excellence is one in which the least of of us amongst us uh you know your your brothers your sisters keeper loving your neighbor the highest form of that is to make that space in a very real and tangible way around things like can someone afford to live where they also might be working and especially if they're making the lowest lowest middle lower or lowest income levels. So maybe there are more serious discussions happening there. But I think we need to start having more of those uncomfortable conversations because the reality is and this is what I'll I'll stop with or a parting thought is if we don't make aggressive and maybe the better more palatable word palatable word is um proactive. If we don't take more proactive steps the way of the world, folks my age and younger, they're not only going to not want to live here, they're not going to be able to live here. And that's probably the the the bigger issue here. And I realize we have an aging population. It's only getting older for now. And that's a real challenge. So I'm not trying to be dismissive of that or exclude uh that population. I just think we need to think more holistically and frankly more creatively. And and the real bottom line is if we don't do things like this, I don't think it's I can look at the mission statement and the vision statement with a straight face and say we're actually living into these principles. I realize those are aspirations and it's good to have those but I think it lacks integrity if you don't put act those things into action otherwise it's window dressing and I see enough of that in my life and and and and I think a lot of people do too. So just some thoughts >> appreciate it. Have a good night. >> Is there anyone else like to comment? All right seeing no one we will move on. Um, next item on the agenda is bids and purchases and um um we have one item uh 9A is bids for the Groveland storm sewer phase 1 project and I believe that's Mr. Manchester. >> It is. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh before you tonight are the Groveland storm sewer improvements phase 2 bids. Uh there's two recommendations tonight. a motion to award the contract for the Groveland improvements phase 2 to Jewel Underground in the amount of $239,215.11 and then authorize the city engineer to expend the allocated funds for the project without further council approval provided the project does not exceed the project budget of 490,000. Um it is related to the strategic profile um as it supports our improvement of our reliable and efficient utilities. Uh the project is located uh in the area of Minnotonka Boulevard and Groveland School Road right adjacent to Groveland Elementary um and Groanka Park. It is uh phase two of an existing project. Phase one was completed uh a few years back. We did receive a a grant for this project which is the reason for phase two. Uh the project it basically replaces a storm sewer. So it upsizes uh essentially uh for our flood risk. It's part of our water resources management plan. We're tracking a number of areas in the city. This is one of them. So, we did a partial replacement during the Groveland school work a few years ago and so this would be the second phase of that. We did receive a grant uh from the MPCA for 440,000 which is funding uh essentially most of this project. Uh council did approve that agreement for the grant in February. Uh they authorized bids in July. Uh we went out to bid and then tonight the action before you is to consider the bids received. Construction would start if council decides to move forward this fall and would be also completed fall early winter. Uh we did take uh bids on August 14th, 2025. We did receive nine bids. Um so we had a good turnout for it. And I'll I'll keep it short. Um essentially the two actions I read before I'll turn it back to the mayor council for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Manchester Council. Um, we've seen parts of this before. Any questions for for staff? Um, bids have looked uh pretty favorable, positive. Just uh my one question is not specific to the project, but our our bids, you know, I mean, we we went through a period of very high bids and we had a lot of bids that were over the engineers estimates. this is well below um is the bid atmosphere, you know, can you make a general statement or you don't want to go out on a limb? Just what are your thoughts regarding the the um you know, the bid environment right now, Mr. Manchester? >> Yeah, Mayor and Council, we've definitely seen an uptick in number of biders. I don't know that the prices are necessarily changing. It's still a little bit uncertain, but there's definitely more uh bidding on projects. We were down to a few in past projects, and there's a lot now. >> Encouraging. >> Hopefully, that continues. >> All right. Thanks very much. All right. Anything else, council, or or a motion? Council member Shack. >> Thank you, mayor. I move that we award the contract for the Groveland storm sewer improvements phase 2 project 24801 to Juel Underground in the amount of 239215,000 or dollar11 and authorizing the city engineer to expend the allocated funds for the project costs without further council approval provided the total cost do not exceed the project budget of 490,000. >> Thank you. And is there a second? Council member Calbert. Thank you, mayor. I'll second. >> All right. So, we've got a motion by Council Member Shack and a second by Council Member Calbert. Miss Larson, please call roll. >> Shaq, >> yes. Wilburn, >> yes. >> Calbert, >> yes. Raley, >> yes. Kley, >> yes. >> Foster Bolton, >> yes. We >> Yes. Motion carries. Next item is the consent agenda, and these are items that are typically routine. I will read them into the record and we will vote on them in one motion and one vote unless someone wants to pull an item for further consideration. Um if anyone in the audience or um on the council deas would like to uh uh pull an item, please indicate that. We'll consider that item separately after we vote on the item or items that have not been pulled. So item 10 A is resolutions pertaining to levying the 2025 special assessments and um item 10B is a resolution redeeming redeeming the outstanding portion of the 2016 I got to make sure I can read this 2016B general obligation open space bonds. So, does anyone want to pull one of those items or a motion? Council member Mley. >> Thank you, mayor. I'll make the motion to approve the resolution redeeming the outstanding portion of the two 2016B general obligation open space bonds and also the resolution pertaining to levying the 2025 special uh assessment uh indicating the cost of the improvements ordering the preparation of special assessment roles and setting the public hearing to consider the proposed special assessment. >> Very good. So, we've got a motion. Is there a second? Council member Calbertt. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'll second. >> All right, we've got a motion by Council Member Romey, a second by Council Member Calbertt. Miss Larson, please call roll. >> Shaq, >> yes. >> Wilbur, >> yes. >> Calbert, >> yes. >> Rome, >> yes. >> Kley, >> yes. >> Foster Bolton, >> yes. Wears, >> yes. Motion carries. Item 11 is consent agenda items requiring five votes. And um it's a bit unusual for us to have more five vote items than um the four vote items on the consent agenda, but I will also read those. Uh the same rules apply. I will read these into the record. If someone would like to pull one, please let me know. So um item 11 A is autotheft prevention program grant agreement. 11B is the final plat for forma null, a two lot subdivision at 14705 Glendale Road and 11 C is the Minnesota Firefighter Foundation Hoods for Heroes grant. So, is there a motion? Council member Rome. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh, first a comment. I just want to commend uh the fire department, Minnitonka Fire Department for achieving that uh grant. That's terrific. I understand that's the first time that we've received this grant. As somebody who has written my fair share of uh federal grants in my time, I know how difficult and challenging and timeconuming that is. So, uh we don't have a a professional grant writer did not write that. So, I I commend the the staff for doing so in the department. And so, with that, I will make the motion to adopt the resolution. >> Very good. And and this >> resolutions. >> Yes. Items 11, A, B, and C. >> Yes. >> Very good. And is there a second? >> Council Calbert. >> Thank you, mayor. I think the other the autotheft prevention program grant is also pretty awesome. And I'd like to second uh items 11, A, B, and C. >> All right, we've got a motion by Council Member Romey, a second by Council Member Calbert. Miss Larson, please call roll. >> Shaq, >> yes. >> Wilburn, >> yes. >> Calbert, >> yes. Romeley, >> yes. Kley, >> yes. >> Poster Bolton, >> yes. >> Wearsome, >> yes. Motion carries. Excuse me. Item 12 is introduction of ordinances and we have no introductions tonight. Item 13 is public hearings. We have one public hearing tonight and that is um uh 13A is a temporary liquor license for the Mitaka Rotary Club for links and libations event at um 14350 County Road 62 which is the um the golf course um on Highway 62. So um Miss Wishnack, that is your report. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Um as you stated, it is at the Glen Lake Golf Course. Uh it is an event that is hosted by the Rotary Club and it does require this temporary liquor license. Um it is the 14th annual event uh of this group for the Lynxen Libation fundraising event. Uh it takes place on September 11th and it's a 9-hole golf tournament and then afterwards they have a tasting event, a raffle and a silent auction. Um the food and alcohol are so served both inside and outside. They have an area that will be roped off so that no one can leave with alcohol. Um all participants are also required to wear um an over 21 um notification so that they know they're of age. Um we have not uh had any issues in the past and with that mayor we would uh recommend approval of granting the license. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Wishnack. Um, councel, any questions? Uh, we've seen this before. All right. Well, this is a public hearing item, so I will open the public hearing and invite anyone uh who would like to comment on this item to come forward and state your name and address and uh tell us what you want us to hear. >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. My name is Chris Rosenland. Uh my address is 8672 Meadowail Drive in Eden Prairie and uh I'm a member of the Minnitaka Rotary Club and I'm here in support of our uh temporary liquor license application for our links and libations event and uh thank you for doing such a great job of uh explaining that because there's not much left for me to say. No. Uh anyway, we're very very excited. 14th annual um it's our largest fundraiser of the year. Um as you heard, it's a 9-hole scramble golf tournament. Uh we have some fabulous sponsors including a a large number of uh local businesses. Jewelry Works is our title sponsor. Uh we also have Restwell Mattress C Company, Hopkins One Auto Body, and Dale Festy Automotive is our our key sponsors. Um and uh we're almost sold out. So that's the that's the best news. So we're very very excited for what's coming up. Again, 9-hole scramble tournament followed by uh food and beverages. We have a beer tasting from local uh breweries including Bloom Boom Island Unmapped Brewing, Excelsier, Loose Line Brewing, Back Channel Brewing, uh Bearcave Brewing, and I think we have one other that that's going to be a part of that as well that we don't have confirmation yet. Um the thing is though that our club is the uh the club that uh is building responsible youth and the club is more fun than you want it to be. And 100% of the net proceeds of this event go to uh local organizations that we support as part of our work as Rotarians in this community, which include uh Lyft Garage, Resource West, Can Do Canines, the ICA Food Shelf, um GE Graduation, uh awards, um we do uh uh scholarships at both Minnitonka and Hopkins High School. um in a whole host of other uh organizations that uh maybe aren't as well known. Uh and many of these grants that we offer are kind of micro grants. It might be 500, it might be a thousand, it might be buying a computer, it might be doing other things. So we um we're very very active in the community and and as again as I said, this is our largest fundraiser to support those activities in our community. So I'm ready for questions if you have any. Otherwise, we'd appreciate your support. >> Great. Uh thank you, Mr. Rosland. Um, council, any questions? >> I have a question. >> Oh, very good. >> Council member Shaq, >> Mr. Rosland, if you don't golf and maybe golf is sold out, can you still go and eat and buy things at the sign? >> Absolutely. Thank you for that question. Yes, we absolutely uh will uh we'd love to have people come by and visit with the Rotarians. If you're not a golfer, that's fine. wondering if we're sold out and uh otherwise, but you're absolutely able to come by and participate in the raffle silent auction. There's some fabulous baskets and and gifts available uh for auction and also a great great meal and beer tasting. So, we absolutely would love to have members of the community come in if they just want to learn more about Rotary. We'd love to host you there. So, thank you for that question. >> Very good. Is there is there anything else, council? >> All right, Mr. Rosland, thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to come forward and comment on this item? Anyone? All right, I'm going to close the public hearing, but I'm going to feel obligated to make a small comment, too. Um, I would encourage people to participate in this event because, um, Minnetonka Rotary makes a huge difference in our community and participates with um, all the nonprofits that that the city values that makes a difference in in the lives of residents. And there's a lot of ways you can participate. Now, I've shown up at this event in the past and and um you know, just did the uh did the silent auction and the meal. I did not play golf because my um the days of my playing reasonable golf are well in my past. And maybe I'll pick it up again in the future. Who knows? But um you can um um you know, for 35 bucks, you can get participate in the meal and and the beer tasting and things like that. But also they have a raffle and you can buy raffle tickets for $10 a piece and uh there are many um there are many and they will do the drawing that night and so all this money goes um all the prizes are donated. So 100% of the uh the receipts go to the charities in our community plus um uh Rotary International um which has done tremendous work in ending polio around the world. those those are where that's where the money goes. So, I don't want to sound like too much of a commercial, but um but it's it's a great event and I would encourage people to attend. So, with that, I will look for a motion. Council member Shaq, >> thank you, Mayor. I will be there even though I'm probably haven't bought my ticket yet. I also encourage folks if you can't make it to the golf event, come visit one of our meetings at the Marsh 7:30 on Wednesday mornings. A little bit of breakfast. Always an inspiring speaker this week. skip it because we'll be talking about the golf tournament, but um come and see some really cool interesting speakers. So, in fact, I think some of our own are going to be speaking soon. So, I will proudly make the motion to grant the temporary liquor license for the Minnotonka Rotary Club for the links and libations event. >> Thank you, Council Member Romey. I'll second and thanks for being our charity navigator to the Rotary instead of having to research all of these different charities and nonprofits in our community. We get to go and just donate to you. So, thank you for that. >> So, we've got a motion by Council Member Shack and uh second by Council Member Romey. Miss Larson, please call roll. >> Shaq, >> yes. >> Wilburn, >> yes. >> Calbert, >> yes. >> Rome, >> yes. >> Kley, >> yes. >> Foster Bolton, >> yes. >> We >> yes. Motion carries. So next item is other business and 14A we have one item and that is the Minnotonka offleaf strategy and guidance plan and Mr. Funk or is it Mr. Kuma? Okay, I will turn that over to Mr. Kama for the staff report and uh thank you. >> Thank you very much. Good evening Mayor. Good evening council. So tonight, the staff recommendation is um a motion to adopt the off leash dog implementation plan for Purgatory Park and a resolution authorizing a no parking zone on Stadola Road east of the culdesac to Creek Park Drive. This initial phase of this implementation plan includes full signage for a parkwide um complaint reporting system, rapid response and enforcement tracking considerations. The plan also includes future considerations including enforcement effectiveness, barrier fencing installation, overall effectiveness of the off leash areas, and general accessibility for these areas being proposed. So, a brief background without getting too deep into it. Staff was recently directed on June 16th, 2025 at the council study session to refine previously conceptualized off leash areas in Purgatory Park. areas two and three out of five overall areas and the south side of the park were the preferred options and staff had looked more closely at those two options in the park. So an overall look at Purgatory Park, area two and three is on the south side of the park there highlighted in in light pink. So concept considerations per the council discussions include um that these areas not overlap with natural resources master planning highquality habitat areas. um those are highlighted in that that reddish color that there be no overlap with wet wetlands. Those are hatched with sort of a wetland um hatch to them and removal of the previously presented areas 1, four and five and those were in the center of the park and in the northwest and northeast corner of the park. The total acreage for areas 2 and three is 18.88 18.8 acres as shown here on this figure. The distance from the Excelsier Boulevard parking lot down to area 3 is approximately 0.55 miles. So recommended signage approach. So as directed in the fall of 2025, a phase signage and barrier approach would begin immediately. This approach would include full park signage, including very clear and concise ordinance rules and requirements, off leash area and trail mapping uh in the major parking areas and the major trail intersections at all appropriate locations. um soft barrier signage identifying limits of the off leash areas at regular intervals key informal primary trail intersections so to be sort of thought out and and set in the field appropriate locations. Um two terms that reference the figures I'll show in a second here. Temporary soft barriers would be identified via signage while planning and implementation of the fencing take takes place. So temporary soft barriers and then optional soft barriers include locations where dependent on monitoring and enforcement effectiveness fencing may be considered in the future or potentially not needed in these locations. So a little bit more specifics about fencing and what it takes to put fencing in a place like this. We want to certainly protect existing soils during the installation. We looked at a variety of fence types. The fencing install feasibility um is really dependent quite a bit on topography out there. Purgatory has some beautiful um rolling topography which does complicate fencing a slight bit. We certainly want to min minimize the visual clutter of the fencing out there. So overall in conversations with three rivers park district and other contractors we have an estimate of approximately $60 per linear foot. This would include post install and the entry features. and I'll showcase what what that looks like. It does not include any earthwork necessary or tree removals. Um there are certainly less expensive fencing options available and we could certainly consider those further. This is sort of the high end of what that cost looks like based on what Three Rivers has seen in terms of pricing for this particular type of fence. So, as mentioned, this is the fence that I've seen at local dog parks. It's a um essentially a a steel um fencing attached to cedar posts. It can somewhat disappear to the visual eye in the in the forest. And um as mentioned previously, gateway and entry features ideally would have a minimal amount of working parts to them. So, I found some examples of of gateways that would sort of allow folks through but but operate as sort of a threshold to the off leash area but require um ideally the least amount of maintenance in terms of failing hardware, gate hardware or other um steel or other features involved in that gate. So, overall design considerations regarding barriers. Um throughout this process we've talked about the diff difference between hard barriers which would be fencing and gates with controlled entrances and soft barriers which would be considered um sight lines distance to sight lines um accomplished with topography or dense vegetation or just overall distance. So off leash area two this totals out at 10.1 acres. The potential fencing is shown in the green, that thick green line. Um, that comes out to 2436 linear feet at an approximate cost at that $60 per linear foot. That comes in at $146,000. The dashed purple line on the west side of this area would be the optional soft barrier. This comes out at $1,282 linear feet. to fence this area entirely at that $60 cost per linear foot would cost $223,000. Um the challenges for this area include significant topographic variation, a lot of rolling hills here. And um one thing that been discussed in the past with the park board and council members was the possible expansion up the oak ridge to the northeast of this area too. Area three, this is in the southeast corner. This totals out at 8.7 acres. Um the potential fencing along our major primary trail in the park and adjacent properties totals out at 196 linear feet at an approximate cost of $114,000. The optional soft barrier is along along the south side. There is Purgatory Creek through that area and significant topography up to the houses along the the south side of the park there. um that is $1,497 linear feet. To fence this area entirely at that $60 per linear foot cost would be $24,000 approximately. Challenges here include an awkward existing informal trail network near the creek and closeness to some adjacent residencies um to accomplish that fencing, but it's it's certainly doable. Um we've met with um community safety and the police department. There is currently a report and off leash dog concern form um active on the city website. Um signage in the park would include a QR code system including phone call options um which would be implemented on signage in the park for rapid response and enforcement tracking. And here's a look at what the current page to report an off leash dog concern looks like. The Minnitankka Police Department and community safety officers will continue to educate residents on site and respond to complaints as they've been doing throughout this process. The police department will compile and present this complaint data and the overall effectiveness of enforcement as requested. This data will be used to inform future recommendations related to barriers and the existing enforcement methods um and whether or not there would be any updates recommended or requested and previously presented by the police department but generally public compliance. We certainly understand that some owner owners may actively resist or ignore the new ordinance and rules. Um the police department is determined to educate and provide a vis visible presence on site and that being crucial to building voluntary compliance on an issue such as this. The overall enforcement strategy would be continued outreach. This would include education, signage in the park, flyers and maps and inpark engagement with folks um when necessary. The information will be disseminated through the city website. We could update the Minnotonka memo as we've done in the past and other city and police social media platforms. Um the police department has suggested deploying extra patrols inclu including police staff on ebikes for increased mobility throughout the park. The long-term enforcement will transition to a complaintbased response model for sustained and targeted enforcement. Stadola road is a access into the park on the east side. Um to better understand the current parking conditions in this culde-sac, um we we installed vehicle count devices and recorded um vehicle counts coming into the Excelsior Boulevard parking lot as well as Stodola Road. Um over that period we saw approximately 250 vehicles per day into the Excelso Excelsier Boulevard entrance the parking the main parking lot of Purgatory Park and 50 vehicles per day entered the Stadola road culde-sac. So in response to resident concern regarding traffic on Stadola Road staff is recommending no parking being proposed on Stadola Road west of Creek Park Drive. And I'll show a figure in a moment here. This would leave six to eight approximately parking spots remaining in the culde-sac. Signage would be there to direct visitors to park at the north parking lot. Other considerations um discussed would be an optional small dedicated parking lot in the future. This this would come at approximately $150 to $200,000 in budget to install um this approximate amount of parking spots. and also was discussed was the concept of permit parking to allow folks to park in this area. So, here's a look those two red lines from the bulb of the culde-sac um just over Purgatory Creek east to the corner of Creek Park Drive. Um this would eliminate backup traffic on the the weekends and the busier spots in the park that can park on both sides of the road at times and and um limit mobility through there. So overall the recommendation would be a phased approach including future evaluation of the success. The initial implementation this fall as soon as possible would be a full signage implementation parkwide. This would include again clear and concise park rules and requirements regarding all the current leash ordinances and off leash area locations and guidance to get there. This signage system would be developed at and implemented at the off leash area entrances and all the temporary soft barriers at the appropriate intervals to make sure they're consistently visible. We would implement the existing dogs in parks complaint reporting system using the current website and QR codes in the in the park. Um, this would serve for rapid response for community safety officers and the park and the police department to respond and this would allow us to track enforcement. We would also plan for accessibility evaluation as future permanent park alterations may be considered. Um, these accessibility evaluations would include, but are certainly not limited to all the ADA considerations such as parking, fencing and barriers and general access, travel distances, bathroom availability, overall slopes related to ramps and and rest areas and overall material surfacing. Um, following that initial phase would be a potential future winter spring 202526. Um, this would be planning of discrete entry feature fencing at key locations identified on the off leash area concepts. These would be located near key entry locations in the primary trails where we'd expect most people to be accessing these off leash areas. We would also review the Stadola road parking following implementation of these off leash areas and determine if future CIP parking improvements should be considered in the future. And then moving into the summer 2026, an assessment of off leash areas and the reporting system results, what sort of complaints we've been seeing, um general um um understanding of how the sites being used. We would then evaluate operations of the off leash and leashed areas pertaining to additional fence installation, whether or not that would be necessary based on evaluation and the general use of the site. So overall the phased iterative approach would include the staff presenting in the future evaluation of the enforcement effectiveness and complaint analysis impacts on parking with these off leash areas going into effect general barrier effectiveness via via soft barrier or hard barrier and additional design considerations including general accessibility to these proposed off leash areas. [Applause] Thank you. questions for me. >> All right, Mr. Kuma, thank you very much. And um yeah, council um covered a lot. We know that this is not a brand new issue. We've um certainly had um um have uh heard from a lot of people and and um considered a lot of issues, but but um this is staff's uh proposal and recommendation. And what questions does council have about uh what we heard tonight? Council member Romey. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, regarding uh the fencing, when you say entry area fencing, the initial phase in winter and spring, what does that exactly mean in terms of amount of fencing, you know, kind of as a percentage of the overall interior boundary? >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor Wears, Council Member Mali. um we would need to understand the distance of fence required to eliminate any unwanted crossing of off leash dogs through those areas. So we would have a very significant entry feature and then have to run the fence until perhaps it disappeared over some topography um but otherwise would accomplish that barrier in an effective way. So we would have to look really closely at the extents of those fences required for that initial implementation. >> And how does that account for informal trails that might be established which they're already quite frequent? >> We would need to make the decision to close off informal trails in some locations. Some locations where the primary trail and an informal trail form an intersection would be selected to be these entry areas. Otherwise, in locations, the fence would create dead ends of those informal trails >> until the new ones are great. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Other questions, council. [Applause] Council member Wilburn. >> Um, can you talk a little bit about the the stood road recommendations? um why the recommendation for the the parking and the in the culde-sac area the 6 to8 um like in response to the the petition where they're they're wondering how that how that makes a difference just having 6 to8 and then no parking for the rest of the area. >> Sure. Um so throughout the Purgatory Park master planning process we've seen quite a bit of traffic stack up on Stadola Road. Um, I certainly understand the the concern of increased traffic through that area. This felt like an appropriate compromise to hopefully um get people used to running out of spots in that location and and planning on parking at the main parking lot initially. So, just cutting down on overall double stacking of parking along those both sides of that street and getting people more accustomed to moving to the the northern parking lot. it felt like an appropriate compromise and a place for us to start the discussion. >> Council member Romey. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh just to follow up on that. Um so I mean it just kind of seems I can understand some of the concerns of the Stoodola residents because if there's still parking there, they're you know still going to seek them um whether or not they'll be able to get them. So that's one concern. So, um the other concern is is that uh people who have have limited mobility and we've talked about that and you know people who want to have their dogs off leash and so we've heard quite a bit about that because access from the interior of the park is quite difficult there steep hills in order to reach that and I understand that. So that's when we had when we had done the walkthrough of the park, I had actually suggested a permitting system. Um, and that seemed to be something that seemed to be possible at that time. We have permitting at Grace Bay Marina and other places throughout the city. Um, and has there been any, you know, considering both of those things as I've gotten feedback from residents, um, has there been any thought or could there be any thought given to providing permit parking only for Minnotonka residents with mobility issues so that they could have access to this area? >> Yes, Mayor Wh. >> Um, we did discuss that internally. we would need to get back to you about what systems would need to be set in place, what that format would look like, what staff person would essentially run and enforce that permitting system. So despite internal discussions, we sort of determined that we need to look into it more to figure out what the steps would be needed to to create that permit system. >> Does staff think it's feasible though at this point? It's just kind of figuring out the details or Okay, >> that's my understanding. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh thank you um >> Mr. Funk. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh Council Member Rome, I think as Mr. Ka has laid out really this first phase to summarize it is really starting with signage. And so the intent is not to really make any drastic changes to staff say drastic changes to the scenarios. Um, and so the idea is that signage would go up this fall and then really utilize this fall, this winter to evaluate what changes could happen because it's there'll be patterns of changes. And so I think the idea is to ease the concerns on stood over road by putting the no parking in and that would allow staff to then monitor throughout the winter and throughout the spring what what's happening with 50 vehicles a day. Does it increase? Does it decrease? We're speculating it'll decrease, but this way it'll give ch staff a chance to evaluate it. Come back to the council what we're targeting next spring and perhaps council you want your discretion whether it's next spring, next summer, next fall on bringing back um an evaluation of what really is happening uh with some of these changes we're being presented here this evening. So I think to answer your question, Council Member Mey, it is permitting is possible. I think staff would recommend that we would again evaluate uh throughout the winter and then come back with a more robust um plan once we learn what patterns of change have occurred. >> Yeah, thank you um for that. My my only concern is we have a a at least a s a a small minority of people, you know, elderly people or people with mobility issues who have um dogs and, you know, kind of need to or want to uh walk them off leash and you know, kind of what they're going to do in the meantime. Um so that was my concern there. Um I did have one question about the table that you presented in the staff report. Um, is that possible to put that up? [Applause] Just pertaining to fencing. Um, basically I can uh kind of go to my my uh my questions about that and first of all I think what I asked as well was what's can you just kind of walk through what a community park is? Um, and just talk about that, you know, how many there are in Minnetonka? We have five community parks, I believe. Is that correct? >> Yes, there are five community parks. >> And so, you know, how are they differ compared to other parks in Minnetonka? Are they bigger? Are is there a difference between community parks and other park types in terms of their mission and their purposes? And you know regarding purgatory in particular, could you just describe what types of functions and activities it you know it serves? That would be really helpful. >> Certainly. Yes. Um we do have five parks listed as community parks. And my understanding the initial designation of community park was generally the size, but overall they do characterize different recreational uses. For instance, Big Willow has a diverse set of recreational amenities. ball fields, traditional wreck. Um, Purgatory is primarily natural resources focused. It's outdoors. There are no programmed recreation currently at Purgatory. Um the community park designation um in terms of a planning document was to sort of stage you know overall prioritization levels in that we would consider these to be some of our most important community parks. Whereas we'd go down the list and the parks get generally smaller or single use a small corner park with a playground whereas the five community parks end up being the largest in general. Purgatory is distinct in that it does not have any act active recreation in it. >> Um so is it fair to say then that our five community parks are meant to serve multiple uh purposes and multiple types of users? >> From a park planning perspective, they offer the largest canvases um for use overall and are the largest contingents of land for the most part. >> Okay. Thank you. And then regarding um kind of the uh fencing or the uh the table here. >> Um so it looks like the only the unfenced or uh partially fenced parks are Handover and Woodbury. Is that correct? >> That is correct. And yes. >> Okay. Are are those in community parks designed for multiple user types like Purgatory or are they kind of single-use parks dedicated only for off leash dogs? >> I I have looked at this. The Woodberry Park is a singleuse off leash dog area. It is surrounded by farm fields for the most part. I've looked at aerials and the handover is a singleuse set aside outside of the residential area of an off leash dog area. um generally more exerbia I would say rather than suburban. >> So they're not in built a they're not in builtout communities like Minnotonka that doesn't have developed land. We're not semi-ural like both of those places are and both of them are in single use. >> Yes, >> single purpose parks. Thank you. That that that's helpful. Thank you. >> Um Council Member Foster Bolton. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, when we you you talked about the gates that are going to go in right away, right? Or I guess I'm >> signs is what I >> the signs are going in right away and then the gates um what what's the timeline on them again? Is that >> it's relatively unlikely for us to be able to install fencing this year? >> Okay, got it. So, we would do that planning as directed over the winter and and look to get those installed as soon as possible when the frost is out of the ground. >> Okay. Yeah, that's I'm sorry. That's what I meant. Um, so when those go in because part of this we're going to talk about all of the fencing, the the quotes that you gave us, does that include the are the gates part of that? And will we as part of the incremental plan? I'm just thinking that the gates will go in before the rest of the fencing. Is that correct? Yes, that's the way we see this, you know, hard barrier implementation as directed. We could install portions of it including the gates where you know the primary trail is very close to these off leash areas and then assess in the future whether or not we would need more fencing. Okay. Okay. Um and the gates are they included in the estimate although >> yes they yes they are. >> Thank you council >> Kley. >> Thank you mayor. I just had a question in regards to the um fencing that um is proposed um for next year, maybe in the fall. Um we haven't, you know, totally decided, but say for instance um you know, we decide to do a closed fenced in area in the different areas that we've mentioned two and three. Um, do you think that would create a more safer space than a non-closed in area like traditional dog parks versus, you know, soft barriers and hard barriers? because, you know, I know safety is a really big concern, but also um you know, we have we've we've had so many different opinions on all sides and you know, I've come to the con conclusion of all of this that we can't we can't possibly um make everyone happy in this situation here. And so with that being said, um I'm thinking about safety issues as well as taxpayers dollars. And so what it would it look like if we did have like a closed in dog park and like possibly charge fees because I know I mentioned this before and I know it's not listed in our proposal but I mean is it does it rise to the occasion where you know people want to pay fees for you know having a closed in area or do people still want to have um do you think it'll be it makes sense to just kind of cuz when I think about like a soft barrier and a hard barrier, I still think about dogs being able to run freely and go around the closed area or the soft area and they're still able to run throughout the park. I don't see it as like a a total fixed solution. So, what are your thoughts around that? Does that make sense? Or um far as it's not really where they just the dogs can't go out that space cuz it doesn't sound like you're closing that that space off completely. >> So, I don't know if that makes sense or not, but that's kind of how I envision from what you know we toured and you showed it to us. And um I do get the point of people with disability. Um I'll talk about me personally. You know, a lot of folks know that I had knee surgery and I had a really difficult time um you know, walking those trails myself. So I do get it. Um, but also I know you know we've had issues in the park and people send emails talked about the dogs um um you know biting babies as well as the fun you know like all kinds of things. So it's like >> you know >> um please >> um >> no interruptions please. It's we we just can't please everybody and me personally I get it and I understand it but um what are your thoughts around that? I mean what do you think? >> Uh Mayor Whome Council Member Klay I mean that's the big question here. Um when it comes to barriers um a fence is a clean enforcable distinct edge. You're either in it or you're out of it. It functions as a physical barrier. soft barriers. Despite me trying to describe vegetation and sight lines, it's permeable. A dog isn't going to read the signs and run through. In that scenario, we are relying on people understanding the rules and following the rules and having general control of their dog. So, it's a question of whether or not we can rely on residents to understand these rules that we set in place and understand their dogs needs and behaviors or do we need to draw a firm hard barrier? It's really become a, you know, a complicated issue that I don't necessarily have a very clean design decision for. It becomes more of a policy question at that point. Um, but a fence is nice and distinct. A soft barrier would rely on our residents. >> Other other questions? >> All right. >> I have one more question. >> So, we can always come back and say as the council, if we put the signs out there and residents are not following their dogs are not following because folks don't have control over dogs and I mean that's just the truth. I've seen it happen where some dogs are not as under control. Um I talk about my daughter's dog who had training, lots of training. Sometimes she listened, sometimes she doesn't. And so I understand that dogs are dogs. And so with that being said, if we get to a place where um dogs are, you know, not following and we get a lot of complaints, the council can always come back and make another decision around to create more harder barriers or f closed in spaces. um if we decide to do the soft barriers or not closed in fencing um because it can change. >> Mr. Funk, go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council and Council Member Klay. I think going back to again how what staff is presenting this evening is not necessarily a decision for the council to make about fencing, no fencing, partial fencing this evening. uh what we're recommending is a multi-phaseed approach. Again, the first phase being implementation of the signs and for logistical purposes, we're not able to install those or get those installed this year. So, the earliest the city could install any sort of fencing is next spring. So, really phase one is about signage. Um and then we would phase two then is more about evaluation. Think of it in that term. So, phase one we would get the we're recommending signs be installed. phase two be an evaluation whereby uh what Mr. Kuma and staff has suggested that coming back next spring um or at a time that you feel comfortable council how much time do you feel comfortable evaluating the effectiveness of this phase one? So phase two would be more about evaluation. So, at that point, uh, Mayor and Council Member Klay and council would be not installing fencing until we do an evaluation where staff could bring back to you information about complaints because we're going to be putting up signage this fall that will have that allow for complaints in the QR codes that was discussed here by Mr. Ka a few minutes ago. So, we'll be able to better track data in terms of complaints. We'll have anecdotal situations uh between now and then. Uh you'll have to also determine between now and next spring you have two seasons. So you'll have a fall season, a winter season and I think we all know that uh Purgatory Park changes over 12-month period in terms of vegetation growth. So it just depends on how much experience you want and how effective the signs will be. Then the phase two is evaluation. It'll be at that point where uh staff would report back to you. Um, and then you could determine at that time to what extent, if any, fencing would be required, whether it's a minimal fencing or perhaps the entire area. So, what staff tried to do tonight is give you a sense of what those potential costs could be, ranging from partial fencing all the way to full fencing. So, just keeping that in the back of your mind as you consider your options. >> Council council member Romey. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, yeah, thank you for that, Mr. Funk. Uh, I think what council member Kley and some other people are are getting at is that um, we understand the phased approach is a little bit open-ended open-ended. What are the criteria for evaluation? Um, before I get into that though, I would make a note that uh, thank you for including the other optional fencing. I agree that it is at the very high end of fencing. There is welded metal fencing that looks quite nice, requires no digging, and is $5 a linear foot. that doesn't include installation, but it does include um but it's non-professional installation, which means it could be done by interns. Um it could also be done by our uh kind of our seasonal help that are from the corrections facilities, things like that. So, I think it's important to keep in mind that this is a very high-end estimate for fencing and there are a a lot of other less invasive, less um expensive ways, like way less expensive that I think are on the table that, you know, keep in mind and I hope my fellow council members will keep in mind. Um, the other thing that I would ask about, you know, fencing is, okay, I know that this is phase one, but we're kind of being asked to approve a a multi-phase um kind of plan here. And I think what some of, you know, council members that I've been talking to at least is and and residents is what does that mean? like you know do is there a number of non-compliance complaints, a number of warnings, a number of incidents and attacks or the severity of those attacks? What does it take? One, two, three, how bad? We, you know, people scoffed about a baby being bitten, but that actually did happen this May. A 21-month-old toddler was bit by a dog with an owner from Brooklyn Park, not from Minnotonka. that dog, it took 30 minutes to find that owner. And you know, if that if that hadn't been found, then that that child would have had to undergo babies, treatments, and shots. So, a fawn, you know, was a lot of people have seen the video of the baby deer that was killed by a dog and the owner kind of stood by. Um, now granted that was a a deer and some people think, well, we need to callull deer, but that also could have been a child. So, you know, when we we make these decisions, there already have been incidents. And so, you know, when we do this and, you know, I just asked my my fellow council members to consider this, we are rolling the dice if we don't have hard fence barriers. So, I guess um getting back to the question part of this is what are we looking at? uh you know what what does staff have any recommendations on you know what what happens when the next incident happens. Are we going to say let's wait until next summer and see how it goes the rest of the time? Is there a threshold that you know is recommended that you know okay this is bad enough that warrants we need to just go forward. Mayor, >> is that, you know, is that a rhetorical question? I'm not sure there's a there's an answer there, but um >> I think it's a fair question to ask what the criteria are. >> Um, you know, I don't ask a hard number in most things. I have no complaints, but it it may be a semi-rhetorical question, but nonetheless, one that, you know, if staff has thought about, I would love to to, you know, kind of understand what the plan is because we're being asked to evaluate this phase plan. So if you don't have it, that's fine. >> I do not have a number of injuries to children in mind that would change policy on this. Yeah. Or anybody else? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um all right, councelor. Are there other questions? Um I I have a few if there are not qu um the the um do we have data on um we have the number of um cars that we're seeing at the main parking lot and at the stoodola um culde-sac um and I and I think um the culde-sac was 50 um a day and the and and remind me again what it was in the main parking lot. Was it >> 250? So, five times as many. >> Do we have a sense for um time of day when that occurs? Because as I think about, you know, I'm not I'm let's set aside the Excelsier Boulevard um entrance, but u we have a proposal um for Stadola Road and you know, when we're talking about, you know, six or eight parking spots essentially uh what as as it currently sits today. Um you know, that sounds like, well, gee, that's that's not nearly enough. Um on the other hand, um you know, at what time of day? I'm sure very early in the morning there's zero cars and and and then there's um different counts and and then I think the thought is with the and correct me if I'm wrong the thought is that as the day goes on there are going to be times when all the parking sp available parking spots are taken in the culde-sac and somebody have to walk up the street if they're going to park there but ideally um we don't want them to park there we want them to go to the main entrance but do we do we have a sense for kind of peak usage times and how many cars we see in let's say the peak hours. Um so that gives us a better sense of the adequacy. We don't anticipate 50 cars at one time, but we also know that there's probably going to be more than eight cars any given time. Do you have any sense for that? >> Uh Mayor Wearsome as anecdotally a neighbor to the park. The Stadola Road is where I jog into the park. So I've see it at all times of the day. Um, having also seen the Excelsior parking lot, it does at times get stuff to the gills that there are parking, you know, down towards Excelsier Boulevard on both sides. Turn around get pretty tricky. It tends to be earlier in the morning when folks I I think are trying to walk their dog in advance of the workday, for instance. And then certainly the weather impacts um the amount of visitors as well as evening visits. So maybe after dinner you take your dog for a run, but generally during the day there's lighter traffic, but it's that sar pre-dawn even folks out there and then the late afternoon and it does get quite full. But you know, parking lot design is tricky because you don't want to necessarily design it for the maximum amount of cars that you would ever need. So there are going to be moments when it's overflowing, >> right? And then and then one other thought that I had as I entertained this and I I'm going to ask the question and you can tell me why it's a bad idea. Um but you know the the um we talked about no parking along Stola road until that first intersection. Um if um we if people on that road wanted to have um a no parking sign in front of their house, is there an op is there is there any logic to um saying if you want a park no parking sign in front of your house, we will you will be able to get that understanding that's a two-edged sword. I mean try and have a party at your house when there's a no parking sign in front of it and that's that that's difficult too. So there's it's a two-edged sword, but you know, as I try and think of how we how can we be flexible on some of these things, is that something that makes sense or is that a bad idea? And and I'm fine either way. >> Yeah, mayor and council, I can answer that. You know, generally for no parking restrictions, you know, entering a work with the police, um, you know, I think that'd be a difficult situation. Certainly anything's a possibility, but generally we try to set a zone where it's enforceable and very clear. So, if we pick and choose, it might get complicated citywide, too. You know, if we were to offer it here, it seems like it'd be difficult not to offer it somewhere else. >> Okay. Thank you for that. So, the answer is no. That's a bad idea. I get it. I have bad ideas every once in a while. So, or maybe more often than that. Um, okay. Are there um Council Member Kley, >> I had one more question. I was thinking about this too on Sidola Road. if we um you know there's proposal of potentially doing creating parking there um I guess you know the six to eight or you know four um parking spots if we this is just my thought process if we did create approved to create parking there and um how long do you think it would take for residents to catch up to realize that the parkings are always full because people are going to still go there. And I don't really see it um detering people from going down Saddola Road and right now you said there's 50 vehicles per day. How long do you think it would take that the 50 vehicles per day would just stop at some point? Because folks are going to still continue to go check to see if there's parking available. That's kind of what I'm thinking. Like, you know, I've been in places where you're trying to see, oh, you might even wait to someone leave and see, oh, see if someone's going to leave and you're waiting on the side. You know, I can see that just being an issue where folks like, well, I need to get in on this side because maybe they have, you know, a disability or, you know, issue where they need to go in on that side. So, >> uh, mayor see something like that potentially being an issue or, >> uh, Mayor Whome, Council Member Kley, um, what we do know through our Purgatory Park survey, um, through the master planning process is most of the folks that go to the park are regular users that, you know, go once or twice a week. So, it would be my expectation that over time people would learn whether or not their preferred time of day is full or not full down on Stadola and then after a few failed attempts to get down there and it's full then just change their routine to park on the XLC or Boulevard parking lot. That's my assumption that people over time would um understand when parking would generally be available and stop wasting their time and having to turn around. I have one more question then I'll go ahead. So I know Excelsier tends because I usually go in on Excelsier that parking space usually is pretty full as well >> and so um what do you do about the times where both sides are full? Do we have any options other option? Are we going to be thinking about creating other options? cuz I know we talked about over by the Red Barn at some point and so um I know in one of the letters that was sent um someone talked about another location that we haven't even discussed. So, I I just feel like if we, you know, go with what's suggested, then it's possible that we would have more time to look at other locations far as parking um as far as um you know, monitoring what's going on and what's happening and if we are able to you know do something different whether it's going to be you know continue with the plan or if we're going to try something different. Council member Kley. Um, this would be an opportunity for us to reassess. We are changing the use of the park to some degree by creating this potentially off leashed area. So, we would evaluate and monitor parking needs. The Purgatory Park master plan did propose the Red Barn area for potential future use as well as a re-evaluation of the entirety of that parking. So, this would essentially give us more information to make the appropriate decision on parking needs through that area. [Applause] >> All right, Council Member Wilburn, one more parking question. So, um I'm I'm assuming that like there's been some some conversation with with police and there would be increased enforcement um because otherwise if it's not enforced then people will just park there in in the no parking areas and and um I believe you described sometimes in the in the culde-sac people will double park or park just wherever. Um, and so we don't want that either. Um, so are are the police prepared for increased enforcement at least at at the beginning stages and um able to handle that? I guess >> uh Mayor We are some council member Wilbur. We did discuss that with the police with this proposal and they do recognize that it would be increased enforcement necessary at least until folks build that into their re their routine and understand those requirements in that area so it it would tax their resources. >> All right. Are there any other questions for now? >> Council Calbertt. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I've been contemplating different kinds of fencing and I'm just wondering when you got the when you got the um estimate at what what what kind was it? I I'm just curious um because we didn't know what kind it was, but we had a price. Uh, Mayor Wearsome, Council Member Calbert. Um, that $60 number came from the fencing that was installed at the Bryant Lake Dog Park through the Three Rivers. So, we had contacted Three Rivers >> post with hog wire basically. >> Correct. Yes. Yes. >> And there are um tension wires that need to be installed to keep it upright. There's a frost depth so it doesn't twist. Um it's panelized so when a branch comes down you can cut out a section and reattach it. So general maintenance feasibility to some degree easily found materials that sort of thing. >> Thank you uh Mr. Kuma. Are there council any other questions? So, um, we've got a few folks in the audience and we're going to take public comment tonight, but, um, you know, I I think for me, um, um, I'd appreciate it if we could just put up the staff the recommendation because I think we'd like to know exactly what we're we're talking about and what we're what what people are commenting on. Um, because really it is the this um phased approach um, with future evaluation. It's not like we're voting we're going to be voting on a plan tonight and this is it and you know fences here um you know it it's it's it's more amorphous for lack of a better word um than than that. And so if we could just be as clear as as possible regarding what the what what's the recommendation so that people who are here to comment know what they're commenting on. If if we could just reiterate that I think that'd be helpful. Mayor Wearsome, I think the best example of that is our first page in the presentation here. This would be to um adopt the initial phase of the implementation plan, which would be a full parkwide signage suite and a complaint reporting system. The signage suite would include those soft barrier locations. Um and it would also uh initialize to us begin to plan for future fencing and enforcement updates and general evaluation of effectiveness of this initial phase. >> Okay. Very good. And that and that refers to um areas two and three correct >> that are discreetly identified. Um and um because I know that there are some opinions uh some other opinions as well, but I think that's what the recommendation is right now. I think council members may have different thoughts on different things that they want to share as well. But I wanted to at least provide some clarity so that people who are commenting have the opportunity to comment. And so with that, I'm going to open the U. It's not a formal public hearing, but I'm going to ask folks if they have comments on the on um this proposal to come forward, state your name and address. Um share your thoughts. Um ideally, we'd like to keep your comments to three to four minutes. Um it we don't have a huge group, but I' I'd like to be I'd like to be um somewhat efficient. Um, if you have a spokesman for a sc spokesperson for a group, that's helpful. I mean, you can identify that you're speaking on behalf of x number of people or a neighborhood or something like that. Then the other thing is let's um if somebody said something before um you don't need to repeat it. We don't need to hear it twice to to get it. Um but you can say you I just want to reiterate what that individual said, but let's let's try and make this efficient. We want to hear what people have to say, but we would like to not go um too long either. So, I want to be respectful and and hear what you have to say. We've got a timer that we can use, but you know, if you just work to keep your comments to, you know, three minutes or so and, you know, it's not going to be like, you know, the gong goes and you have to stop. Um u but I I'll I'll let you know when your kind of three minutes is gone and then if you could wrap it up in the next minute or so, then we'll keep things moving. The other thing I'm going to ask is that people line up. And um what I've learned in these meetings is that so often people say something and then they go sit down and then and then nobody comes forward and you think, "Okay, we're done." No, no, no. Then somebody just as we're ready to say close the public hearing, somebody else comes up and we waste a lot of time between speakers. So, if you line up um and and not everybody has to line up at once, but keep an eye on the line um and if you want to speak, make sure you get in line before the the last person is done because when the line is when the there's nobody in line, the public hearing ends and then we'll bring it back to the council. So, I want to be respectful of time and be as efficient as possible, but I want to be respectful of you. The one other thing is um some people are going to say things that you like to hear, don't applaud. Some things are going to some people are going to say things that you really dislike. Don't boo. Let you know it's intimidating to go up to that to that day or to the uh to the podium and you know what we want people to feel free to speak and say what is on their mind without criticism without evaluation. We're going to listen. We're going to consider it and we're going to make a decision. So let's let's not we don't want people pandering for applause or pandering for this or you let's just be respectful and listen. let people say what they have to say and then we will bring it back to the council for consideration. So, pardon my long speech, but um please come forward and state your name and address. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. My name is Fred Weiner. We ne 2425 Old Beach Road in Weisetta, uh 55391. Um I've had dogs for a zillion years. I've currently got two labs that uh uh spent a lot of time at Purgatory Park. Um I don't know about this baby that was bitten, but I can certainly suggest that, you know, this is an off leash area that that that people are going into. And if you are setting a small child down in an off leash area, you know, I don't know that I would ever do that with my children or my grandchildren. And at a certain point, it's just parent abuse to do that. And uh you know a perfectly fine dog could react badly to an infant and there's no reason to have them on the ground. Um there's a lot of dog parks in this area and I've had a lot of experience at dog parks. I've had no finer experience than the purgatory dog park. And the reason for that is that it's completely unfensed. And 99% of the people that show up at this dog park are good people with good dogs that are trained well enough to have them off leash in a nonfenced area. The minute that you fence this in, you're going to get just the opposite. You're going to get a bunch of people who have uncontrollable dogs and they come here because they're fenced in and they can let their dog loose and not have them under control. So from my perspective, one of the beauties of this park is the people that you meet and the dogs that you meet and day in and day out there's never a problem. And I don't know what the frequency is of these incidents that you all reference, but they must be extremely rare. The other comment I would make is that relative to policing these new things that you're talking about doing, there are currently on leash paths that are sort of around this dog park area and those are not policed. And whatever you're talking about these people doing for policing, if you just had them out there now on Segways or ebikes or whatever you think you're going to do to police, if they were out there now, you would have no problems and there would be the sort of control that you need. The idea that you need to fence this thing to accomplish anything, I think is just completely wrong. The other thing that I would notate is the beauty of the park and the vegetation and the Purgatory Creek marsh area that we walk our dogs all the time. If you go down there now, the vegetation is 6 or 7 feet tall. The vegetation up on the upper walking trail is completely that's probably 5t tall. There's no sign of uh human paths that you see in the uh wintertime. They grow back. There's no vegetation damage. There's absolutely no reason to put those out of reach for the dogs. Um, [Applause] it's not working. So, I guess my point is why don't you work on policing what you already have and then tell me what sort of problems you have if you have the sort of policing or surveillance or whatever you're talking about doing in place. There's really nothing in place at this time. It's all self-p policed. I think people in general do a pretty good job of that. But if you think you're going to institute all these things and then police it, just go police what you currently have and then come and tell me you still have problems. You just >> Thank you, Mr. Weiner. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> My name is Andrew Jennings and I live at 4330 Windwood Way. I have been exercising my dogs in Burgatory Park for over a decade. I am also have severe aes disabled and have severe mobility problems. Then it is in the context of that and the commitment to the abiding by the terms of the American with disability act. I have some comments and questions I would like to ask. >> Well, you'll you can make your comments. You will not get the question. >> I know we I don't expect you to answer anything. >> Very good. Very good. Thank you. >> No, not at all. The current proposal as it stands would I I presently use the ex exclusively use the excelsia parking lot because I have very easy access as a disabled person to it and at the north end of the park over the years I have developed going around trails that I never counter a hill that I can't manage there if you know the trails well enough you could you don't have to go up any steep hills Effectively, if I I could no longer park with this proposal at the northern end in the current parking lot, I'm totally incapable of walking down a hilly trail and back for approximately over a mile and then doing anything. I couldn't do the f get there and back at all. I will be forced to muse the parking you're proposing on Stoola Park Sta Road put Culac and I suspect there are many other people that we put in the same position. So I do not know until you have done this how you could possibly estimate the number of parking spots you will need. I just don't know how you can do it because there are not I'm far from the only person that couldn't make that trek. Also, I'd like to add two more things I'd like to add. I have never been able to access the southern ridge. I have no idea what the topography is like up there or whether it even be suitable for me attempt to walk in. Uh only I don't know how you're going to judge that whether that is possible. Uh so I'm the I would like to also on the subject of parking I would like to read a small paragraph from a document published by the department of justice civil rights division on uh enforcing uh ADA part two on the subject of equal access to parks and recreation. Some of you may be f familiar with this document. I don't know. Um if a local guy government decides to modify facilities to provide access to a recreation program or activity that has more than one facility such as when oh sorry such as ball fields provided only some of the access uh facilities need to be accessible. But um federal regulations when parks and recreation facilities are built or altered must comply with ADA standards for accessible design. I'm sure you're probably aware of this which require inclusion as features as accessible parking spaces uh restroom facilities etc. They list what you are required. I believe under the terms of the act you would have to replicate the facilities you supply in the northern parking lot at the stadola entrance if any access any person with mobility uh problems as I do. I don't know if you've considered this. You I think you are required under the act do you? >> Yes. Thank you. Um, one of um, I on this subject I sought advice from the Minnesota Disabilities Law Center. I don't know if you're aware of the organization. >> We are familiar with I am familiar with them, but keep going. >> Yeah. Um, a staff attorney advised me to file a request for accommodation with the city, which I did on last Saturday. Given that I am urging the city not to move forward with this proposal before you are completely satisfied you are meeting the obligations placed upon you by the ADA. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Jennings. >> Good evening. >> Hello. My name is Ed Wanss. I live at 6016 Pinewood Lane. >> Ed, give me your last name again. >> WS W Ns. >> Thank you. Um, I'm a board member of Posra Park, so if you could give me a little more time, I'd definitely appreciate that. Um, council member Kley, um, I can help answer your question. As the board member, we actually, what one of the things that we were very frustrated about is that there was no behavior dog behavioral consultancy in all of this process. There were no dog behavioral consultants looking at what makes a ve what makes a safe off leash area. So let me let me talk about that. What makes a safe off leash area are confined pathways where there is continuous movement. And what happens is the dogs go along that pathway. They're directed by smell. It is calming to them. Okay. As a previous speaker mentioned, when you have these fenced in areas, the dynamic of how dogs behave changes. And especially when you're concentrating them in a small group like this, the whole dynamic of it that this that is actually what makes a dog park dangerous. So this is this is what you have here is actually probably the safest thing is having these continuous pathways. So as I'm looking at what you're proposing, it doesn't meet that criteria. Am I making myself so doing fencing what you're saying is that actually does not help. Okay. So hopefully that answers your question. So let me let me I'd like to go back to actually the the um the ordinance. You had three objectives. Public safety, reducing the city's liability, and making off leash enforcable. Of those three, you only accomplished one. When you changed from a six-foot leash to allowing retractable leashes, what happened is that made things much more dangerous. And let me talk about I've had so I've had a personal experience with this 15 years ago. These things are dangerous. You don't have to listen to my anecdotal response. I have a I'm going to quote from an article, retractable leashes, how they work and why they're risky. Written by Shosa Parks, Ph.D. certification certified personal dog trainer. Joan Meyers, certified behavioral consultant, canine certified personal dog trainer. Renee Rowas, master of science, animal welfare, ethics, law and behavior. And the content was reviewed by Jenny Ol uh uh doctor of veterinary medicine. Behind this, what here are the forces that are involved. The 50 dog take taking off at a run on a retractable leash can generate a force of 200 or 620 pounds by the time you click that that thing or they hit the end of the the leash. For an 80 lb dog, it goes to 996. And even with a 30 lb dog, it goes to it's 373. So it's a lot there's a lot of force going on there with these retractable leashes. What does happen is finger and hand injuries. People have lost fingers due to retractable leashes. The handle is jerked out of the handler causing the dog to bolt. Can locks can and do malfunction. If they get stuck at the wrong time, you are putting your dog and somebody else at serious risk of injury. >> Mr. WS, I'm going to just, you know, focus. I mean, you're actually over time now, and this is interesting, but it's really not relevant to what we're >> Okay, it is because I'm not going to argue with you're making your argument, are retractable leashes ever safe? And the answer is no. >> Well, we're not talking about retractable leashes, but and I agree with you. Okay. But but you're up to you're up to time. Please wrap it up quickly. [Applause] >> You know, you made this decision. You didn't make a when you did this, you didn't actually make you said we're it's not a hill to die on. These things aren't safe. One of the things, so I'm just going to go. One of the things, the true value of Purgatory Park in my mind, the true gem is it builds community and it's dogs that foster this. So I would argue that this community building process far more important than the plants in the park, which you're prioritizing. The scales are like this. Despite from hearing residents time after time that this is really important, it is very disheartening to never hear any one of you say that this is important. The city has been spending $2 million a for the last four years and 2.5 on the restoration of the park. The scales are heavily. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Watt. Did you we'll we're going to go to the next speaker now. Thank you. >> One more thing. What's going to happen is when you start enforcing this, you're not going to have people coming to this park. You have a hundred people a day coming roaming this park. If all of a sudden that happens, you can there are areas of this park where you can yell and scream and nobody can hear you. You should keep that in mind. You're probably not going to have to worry about parking. >> Thank you. Good evening. Welcome. >> Uh Kurt Henry, 1901 Vernon Avenue, South Minnitaka, Minnesota 55305. I'm here. I'm not really going to make any deals, but make some suggestions. You talked about parking at Sedota. You know that we really need that for handicapped. Why don't the city convert that to all handicapped parking? Granite will go from six 8 to six probably down to four to five making it ADA compliant but it would save a lot because you're talking about using the parking lot on Excelsier Boulevard. We have a number of people that I walk with. I'm at Purgatory Park every well my dog's there every day. I'm there almost every day. Um that do not have the ability to walk one mile round trip. They got MS, they got hip problems, they got knee problems, uh polio, all kinds of horrible problems. And by making these people walk one mile round trip, they won't be able to use the park. My other then is the walking the one mile, the city does a very poor job of maintaining the trails in the winter. They are covered with ice. You could skate on them. Many times in the past 30 years, I have gone to the hardware store and bought a bag of gravel and sanded the paths, especially the area around the restroom on Excelsier going up that slight incline towards the um the restroom. It's it's a sheet of ice. You can't walk it. And I wear grips and I've fallen down many times. But the Purgatory Park though is a treasure the way it is. I'm going to hate to see it go. I am you know, reading between the lines and reading your faces, I can tell one thing for sure. This has already been predecided and you know what you're going to vote and what I'm saying really doesn't make a whole lot of difference. But back to the ice still in a former life, my job, I was facilities manager at H County Medical Center. One of my biggest problems were sidewalks, keeping them clear. I had to keep documentation for five years on when the sidewalks were plowed, shoveled, and sanded because every plaid suit lawyer was lined up to find a person who fell and hurt themselves to sue us. And most of the time we just paid because it was cheaper than going to court. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Henry. Um, I I can I won't speak for any of the other council members, but I can promise you that I have not made up any any any decision so far. So, >> thank you very much. >> Thank So, but thank you for your comment. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Um, Chase Halverson, I'm in the Saddlewood neighborhood. Um, just my first thing, the gentleman that spoke first, I like his idea of policing what's there now. That seems like a lowcost thing to just try out at first before any money spent on signage or fencing. But at that, so if a decision is made, we spend $500,000 on fencing and we realize traffic is down at Purgatory Park. Is there a way to walk this back? Like say you made a mistake, 30% less people are going to Purgatory because I I mean I go there twice a day and especially in January and February, there's times I go out there. I'm one of the pre-dawn folks. I go there at like 5:45, but I don't see a soul. There's not another another car in the parking lot. So, I think there's a lot of people that use the park just for their dogs, whereas, you know, there's fair weather people that aren't going to use it as often. So, I just want to make sure that if there's a mistake and we realize there's a mistake that we have the gull to walk it back and say like, "Yeah, we screwed up. Let's change this." >> Thank you. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Um, nice to see a few of you. Few few familiar faces. I'm Chris Kapishki, 4528 Saddlewood Drive. Um, I first of all just want to thank council members and mayor and uh for walking the Purgatory Park with us. I think it's a very different experience to see a map on a screen versus coming and walking with us. And um, council member um, Foster Bolton, thank you for coming with us. I know how you feel about dogs, so thank you for that. Um, but I think in terms of what you're voting on today, I think signage is something that we from Pause for Parks has been talking about for a very long time. like it's just it's up for interpretation. Um I think that that could really help us. The biggest thing that I have in question right now in terms of the plan that's been proposed is area one not being included in that off leash area. Um I know ADA has been brought up. There's been a number of things. I have older dogs now. I have senior dogs which hurts my heart a little bit. Um but sometimes I can only go a little short distance. They don't want to do the hills. And even if there is parking in the back, any way you get to area two or three, you have to go up a hill. So, um, I just would hope you would take into consideration off leash areas in area one because I think that's going to be really important for a number of people in the community. Um, and then just as you think about the evaluation and you're looking over things over time, um, I too am an early morning person. I walk the park every day. Um, unless I'm out of town. Um, but I think it's really important to take a look at what the seasons how they change. So, there's in the summer there's more people. In the spring, there's a lot more people. We may get more people in the fall as the bugs die down. I hope you didn't get bit by the bugs in the back. Um, but I think it's really interesting because the different seasons, there's a lot of different activity and usage. And so, and that can really change. So, I don't know if you can get all of the facts that you need just going from fall to winter um into the spring. So, just take that into consideration and thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. Welcome. Hey, good evening council and mayor. Uh Greg Johnson, 18810 Kingswood Terrace. Um just a quick uh couple points. The uh idea that people would go down to Stadola, find a few parking spaces blocked off and go all the way back to the other entrance and then park there and then walk another quarter of a mile up. No, they're going to be parking all the way out to Scenic Heights Road because that whole length of that road is going to be blocked wall to-all on both sides. So, better plan on putting up no parking signs the entire length of that thing cuz residents are going to be furious when they see the amount of cars. I know I will be because that even if I was parking at Scenic Heights, it would still be a shorter walk than parking on the Excels, you know. So, your your residents there are going to be furious. So, what I'm worried about is not only are we going to have residents pitted against each other in the main part of the park where they're, you know, this complaint based enforcement, people are going to be ratting each other out and calling the police, feel sorry for the police. Um, you're going to have people on Sedola, people coming out in their front yard and telling you not to park there. So, I'm really worried about what's going on here. It's just it's um we I think this was had a lot of opportunity for a great solution. I think the areas in in the woods are beautiful walking places. I love walking there with my dogs. It's not easy to get to for a lot of residents. The opportunity uh I think missed is if there would have been just one single track corridor from Excelsier into the woods that Paul Parks had had made a recommendation could be through low value areas. Doesn't have to be in any part of the high value prairie. one single track corridor getting them into the woods where they could be off leash. We'd avoid the problems on Stadola. You'd probably have a lot of happy campers in the dog world. So, just wanted to keep that as a as an opportunity and then hopefully you guys will uh reconsider that uh maybe not all of area one would be completely off because I think you're going to find that a lot of people will still want to use it that way. and I would hate for your officers and law enforcement to be spending so much of their time catching people out there um that don't have leases on. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Good evening. Welcome. >> Hi, I'm Dave Ingerham. I live at 15745 Lane in Minnetonka. I've been a resident of Minnetonka for 48 years. My wife and I uh have been experiencing purgatory with our dogs for over 30 years. In addition, I've served on the park board for five plus years. So, my comments are based a lot on the input we've gotten there, too. Although, tonight I'm just speaking as an interested resident. I want to thank you for serving on the city council. It is a tough demanding job. I have a lot of respect for the time, dedication, and work it takes you to do your jobs. I appreciate the time and effort you put spent on the off leash issue at Purgatory Park. You work hard to get things right. On this issue, I feel you're getting closer, but you're still not there. I sent you all emails with my thoughts, and I appreciate your responses. I referenced the dogs who've been present throughout the successful restoration efforts and the lack of critical safety incidents within the off leash areas. And I'm going to go off my prepared script for just a second because some of the comments tonight concern me. Um, we focus a lot on being data driven using facts. I would ask you to tell me what significant incidents have occurred in areas one, two, or three with people and dogs in the last 10 years. Okay. I know I'm aware very aware of three or four or five that have occurred on the primary paths but I am not aware of any incidents that have occurred in those other areas. 20 years ago I stood up here and uh spoke on behalf of awfully strong access and at that time there was concern on safety and again much like this time all the incidents were based on events that happened in the primary paths. As it was referenced earlier, if you're concerned about safety, what has happened to enforcement on the primary paths? Because frankly, in the last 20 years, there's been less. We used to have community service officers driving through giving out $100 tickets or something. Uh, that doesn't happen anymore. My focus tonight really is on the comments about the absence of off leash dogs in area one, as several others have referenced. For decades, people have used that area to walk their dogs off leash, building lasting memories and many friendships. Area one is critical as a path they get for to areas two and three. More importantly, I I hate to we're not supposed to replay, but I will. Um there's a significant there's a segment of park users who have mobility, age, or health issues or time constraints where the main dog path area one is sufficient. They enjoy taking their dog down the path and back and that's all they really need and that they're very happy about that. Early in this effort, the council was looking for compromise to deal with the off leash issues. I'm not a member of the pars for pause for park, but appreciate the solution they offered to area one. a proposal that protected the prairie and improved the safety and conflict potential from the eastern primary trail which has historically been the largest area of contention particularly when the prairies flat I'll call it. I strongly urge you to uh reconsider your position on area one in the May 19th study session. You you did not dismiss area one uh other than consideration be taken to protect the prairie areas. There was no we're going to take it off the table. In the June 19th special study session, you focused exclusively virtually on p areas two and three, which was a good discussion, but in the process, area one was really not addressed. Um, given the proposal from the pause for parks group, it seems that some discussion or explanation is warranted. The sta the proposal presented by staff tonight reflects your June 19th meeting, but the proposal is asking hundreds of people to give up significant experience they've shared with their dogs and the sense of community they've created over many, many years. So, I sincerely hope you'll reconsider your approach and maintain off leash access in area one. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Engram. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Um, Denny Harpistad. I live at 146 06 Carroll Drive, Minnotonka, 55345. Um, sorry, I got to double down. The first gentleman he said, I think 100% what he said. Um, I go to the park. I was there today. I didn't if I saw one walker without a dog was heading to the culde-sac. If they had a dog, they were breaking the rules because I didn't see the dog, which means same thing. No one enforce where the dogs are not supposed to be. Um, in 20 years going there, I've seen one police officer there, chatted with him. My dog and I walked all the way back to the main parking lot chatting um from the from the bridge on just a nice conversation. My my main concern was those that break the rules not picking up after their dogs. But let alone I went from the main parking lot, I hit zone one, zone two, zone three in approximately an hour. I me I I think I'm the same age as the mayor. Um I count myself lucky I'm healthy and can can walk that. But I think the the idea of of zone or zone one being taken off the table because of the habitat as others mentioned. I feeasant hunt a lot in the spring. That grass is nothing. It's four feet tall today. That's just the nature of the seasons. Let it So you take away zone one for the dogs, you're going to take it away from people walking there, too. Because I've seen people having picnics there in the spring. You're going to take that away from the people having a picnic [Applause] anyway. Um, same thing. I think too many dogs in one condensed area creates more of an issue. I had this 20ome years ago, different dog park about 15 dogs in one area. Now granted, I I sensed the tension of the dogs. I called my dog. We went down one path. Two other people sensed it too. Went different directions. It and this was a small park. By the time I got back to that area 10 minutes later, there was nobody there. But I I I told this story yesterday, there was a gentleman running in zone I guess it was zone three and I called my dog off to the side. I'm like, "Get out of the way. Let the guy run by." Now granted, my dog's three and a half years old. A one-year-old dog maybe would not have responded to me and moved, but we got out of the runner's way. He's enjoying zone three without a dog. I've seen so many people without dogs in these zones and we've had so many nice conversations. They're just, "Oh, what's your dog? What's his name?" I'll sit there and talk to him for 10 minutes. So anyway, I think we we don't really need the fence, but so hopefully you can be on board with that. >> Thank you, Mr. Harkad. Appreciate it. >> Good evening. >> Hi. Uh Jonathan Kent, 14513 Moonlight Hill Road. Uh two quick uh one observation and then a little bit of remarks that I took note on. um in hearing uh a variety of comments um and admittedly this is something I'm uh newer to studying uh so really just trying to be in a mode of listening uh one thing if the council and perhaps staff isn't already considering this or really this forum is a version of it but seeing as this is a a hot topic to say the least and uh I say this not just for those in this room but there's probably just about every person who lives in Minnetonka has some kind of opinion on this matter and in the spirit to that um maybe there needs to be even more done to hear directly from community members and might I suggest if this is not already in the works having dedicated listening sessions to this topic um and see who shows if you do one and there's not uh many other folks then uh you've kind of done done your part but I have a feeling that um and and maybe there there is a risk of continuing to hear the same comments but if nothing else um not taking any sides at all But if there is a concern over having this already preddecided, having even going out of your way to having as transparent and as inclusive and participatory as a process as possible and having some kind of forum dedicated to this, I mean, you look at other the MPCA, I try to follow environmental matters. They often and I have mixed feelings about that organization or that regulator, but one thing to their credit having when they're doing rulem hearing uh from community members. So I think just having even more of that would be good. Second point uh uh briefly bring up because I haven't heard anyone else speak to this and it concerns me is um with all due respect to uh public safety officers with police and I think they have very tough jobs. I find it interesting that sort of the default um uh solution to uh policing this or monitoring the enforcement is the police. I think it makes a lot of sense in the sense that there's they are law enforcement. Then I do wonder um who might else uh who maybe could from both a both a cost and uh for other reasons that I can try to briefly go into who else could fill that responsibility including volunteers. I just think it's something that's worth considering. I personally would be willing to go spend some time and maybe that's just me but I'll throw that out there. Uh and I might might I add in the name of I'm saying this rooted in principles of anti-racism um subject for another time. A lot of what we're hearing tonight is understandably coming from people who live here and that's wonderful. And then what I'm not hearing as much of and maybe for time constraints or what have you. Maybe it's just not something enough people are thinking about perhaps is for those who are visiting here for maybe their only time or maybe they're repeat visitors or they're on vacation or wherever or where they're coming from Minneapolis or other cities or what have you. Um how might they feel about increased police presence? Because the reality is and I'll wrap it up. I know I'm on time. Is in many communities that don't look a whole lot like ours, increased police is a triggering thing. Maybe police don't like hearing that. That's just a fact. And so I hope that as and not just on this matter, but in really in all instances trying to reimagine having conversations in which the default mode is not how do we approach this by calling on law enforcement. And again, I respect them. I think they have hard jobs and I think there's other ways to go about this that might be more inclusive um and and frankly um save the city some money. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. K. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Craig Alciotti. I'm in Ferris Lane in Glen Lake. Um so, I guess I understand your desire to try and wrap up this problem because it's highly conflictual and emotional. What I don't understand is why it's highly conflictual and emotional. Dog lovers love nature, too. That's why we go out there because we love this open space. And the people that want to protect the park, they feel the same way. So, why are we fighting over the same place? Why aren't we working together to, you know, to make it better so that we can all use it in a good way? I think that's that's something I don't know how it got this way. And it's unfortunate and it would be great if we could turn that around. Um, you know, having more signage so people understand what to do. Super. That's what we need. That's what we've been asking for for a long time. Um, creating some sort of criminality. I don't know if that's going to reduce the conflict. You know, rapid response with data that says, was there a problem? Was there somebody who's just pissed off about a dog that's off leash or is the dog causing trouble or is there been a bite? I mean, if we had more data so we actually knew what was happening and really find out is it just one or two dogs or or just identify the the problem dogs. Most owners and dogs, you know, they want to get along like Rodney King said. Now I'm aging myself maybe, but you know, um I just think that we're we're trying to put out a tiny fire with a huge fire hose and it's just going to blow up sparks and embers everywhere and it's going to be a bigger fire and it just seems like we could do this a lot cheaper and with a without stomping on the rights and the you know the the joy of so many citizens. So, I hope you'll consider like, you know, collecting more data, putting up more signs. That's great. Increasing enforcement and causing more conflict is probably not going to be the best thing. Um, one other thing I'll just mention, one guy I bumped into in the park the other day, he said, you know, where he was from in New York, they have times and they'll say like, okay, from 10:00 in the morning, you know, from sunrise to 10:00 in the morning, it's off leash time. And then in the afternoon, you know, it's not. And then in the evening again. So, I don't think we ever looked at the different ways of sharing the space instead of just putting up fences and putting up more criminality. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Ali. Aliotti, excuse me. I I think I got it pretty close. All right. Um, are we are we done or are we Okay, we've got somebody else coming up. Welcome. Your name and address, please. >> Um, Owen Weimoth, 16816 Scenic Lane North. Um, I bought my house in September right by the park. And the reason that I bought my house was for this gem, Purgatory Park. We just got a puppy. And I mean, in the UK where I'm from, we don't have such strict off leash laws anywhere. So, it was kind of a shock to me um that this one came through. Um, I use the park every single day without veil when I'm home, which is like 300 days a year. Um, and everybody that I see that uses the park, as in your locals, your regulars are off leash dog walkers and joggers and cyclists. And we kind of stick to the off leash areas. They kind of stick to the path. That's your like daily users. And I feel like the majority of your super regular users are off leash dog owners. And I think it's like if you're owner of a bar and your your regulars that come in every single day, they like laga. But these people that come in once a month for once a week, they like IPAs. It's like you're changing everything for those people. Um, so I don't know. We had hundreds of people on the petition and I'm not sure, maybe I'm completely wrong. You guys might have had hundreds and hundreds of emails from people around the community saying, um, we don't want this. Um, but that's just my stance on it. And I was looking up uh statistics. About 1 in 25 Americans are cripplingly afraid of dogs and about one in eight are somewhat afraid of dogs. So pretty much everybody that I see with my golden retriever, we just stop and say hi if they don't have a dog. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Hi, my name is Amy Cho. I live at 5809 High Park Drive. Um, so I'm just speaking tonight to encourage you to adopt the resolution for no parking off of Stoodola if you go forward with this dog park. Um, I live in that neighborhood. I moved from Adina to live in that neighborhood. We have four young children and I wanted them to be safer walking to their friend's house, cycling outside of our house, and going to the park. Um, I'm also an emergency physician. I've been an emergency physician for 17 years now. And, um, you know, popular party game is, oh, what's the what's the most, you know, what's the most interesting thing you've seen in the ER? And I can tell you that, um, you don't want to hear about what the most, I guess, interesting or, you know, most horrible thing I've seen in the ER is because it's telling parents that they're, you know, I couldn't fix their child. told I couldn't put them back together or telling a husband or a wife that um you know their kids don't have a parent anymore because of an accident that happened in a blink of an eye. And so you know the there's a large body of evidence that shows that separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic, separating cyclists and pedestrians from cars um increases safety for everybody significantly. That's why cities across Europe across the US um make dedicated bicycle lanes um dedicated pedestrian thorough affairs and it also increases foot traffic and increases cycling traffic because there's newfound safety and so um I guess I I just really encourage you to take that into consideration. It's um you know obviously as a resident of the neighborhood I don't want more traffic through my neighborhood going to that entrance. there's already a fair amount of traffic on that street. Um to the point where when we built a new house, we moved our driveway so that it would not be on that street. Um but um you know, you guys have the power to make it more safe for people. And if you're going to put an attraction in that park that attracts people who are going to be driving and increase vehicular traffic, I would urge you to separate that traffic and make sure that the Sedola entrance is not a preferred or even an acceptable entrance. um and protect the people in the surrounding neighborhoods. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um I'm going to call an end to the uh public hearing and bring it back to the council for discussion and uh staff recommendation is before us. Um appreciate all the comments from everyone and um um so I'll bring it back. Um council, any comments? I'm sure there will be some. Uh, Council Member Shaq. >> Thank you, Mayor. You know, one of the most discouraging things to hear is to hear people say we've already made up our minds or that we're not listening. We as a council, I can I'll speak for myself, but I know this to be true about my colleagues, have take this very seriously and really care what people have to say about it. And sometimes when we make decisions that are different than what somebody who's sitting in the audience looking at us, it's the hardest thing we do. I don't really sleep on Monday nights. I don't know about the rest of my colleagues. Um, you know, I I have a full-time job and I get up and go to work on Tuesday morning and just do the best I can. Um, that's because we really care. And so I want to assure you that that's the case. I've walked with paws. I've walked with staff. I've walked by myself. I've walked with my husband. I've walked with my dog. I live on the complete opposite side of town, but I make a point to immerse myself into the park to make an educated decision about what happens in in the park. Um, so I feel tremendous amount of responsibility for it and I know you do too. and I I respect that you're here and many of you have been here um probably eight meetings combined with parkboard conversations and and um and the the uh workg groupoup meetings. So I appreciate I really appreciate that. What I've heard over the past year plus is that there really two desired uses in for docs. There's social and social for owners and less rigorous physical activity for the owners for whatever reason, whether that be time, physical limitations, just having a a slow day. Um, and then the desire and you know the and to to the credit of the POS for parks people, you know, the the ones that I've walked with really were pressing the need for continuous walking opportunities for the dogs and were less um vocal about kind of that social component and that that fetching component. So, but I but we need both, right? We need the ability for people to have long walks with their dogs where they can sniff. I think in large part this proposal does accomplish that for the people who really want to get some miles in. I recognize it doesn't for the social piece and for the you know for the less rigorous involvement. I think we need to look at that and we need to look at that fairly in fairly short order whether that's on the house site at the you know where at the red barn site that's a open area that's not um ecologically uh sensitive. Thank you council member Albert. So, um I think we're putting a lot of pressure on this part, this park and this part of the park trying to make it everything for every dog walker, every dog owner. I think we can solve those pretty easily and I think we we have an opportunity. So, um this is a huge change for the community and I think it's our right for it to be incremental. I think people need to get used to it. We can't get a fence up before the weather changes. We know that. Um I think there may need to be some fencing on if we're looking at areas two and three because the border the northernish border of those areas are very close to the formal trail. So I don't see how we could avoid ultimately fencing there. But maybe we do this for 6 9 months a year and we decide this isn't the this isn't working. This isn't the spot for it. I want to be a council member that hears that and says hey do we have different opportunity here. So with this incremental change, I think we can keep our minds open and whether that's fencing, partially fencing or full fencing if we decide we need that, making that decision somewhere near a year from now. Finding a place where people, whether it's in Purgatory Park, whether it's elsewhere in the city, whether it's both, where people can do the other activities with their dog that we're hearing that they really want to be able to do. To me, 18 acres um isn't necessarily where we're going to stop. I see maybe something close to, you know, 30 somewhere, I don't know, 25 to 40 acres across the city where we can have different type of uses for people who have different needs. Plus, we're all the way on the southwestern side. You know, there needs to be something probably on the northeastern side of town. We've got some opportunities for that. Um, so I I think I support this as an incremental step forward knowing that this conversation is long from over and we want to make sure whatever we do works for dog owners, works for people who want to use the park in different ways and works for the different I mean one of the things that has been a challenge for me every person that I've talked to pretty consistently has a different idea on what would be best and whether that is people who are um have dogs or the people who are worried about dogs or the people who are more worried about the environmental aspects. I don't know if I've talked to two people who have the same total priorities. So I think we're that's reflected on this council and I also think that's probably why we've had so much so this has been such a difficult long process is because we see it so differently as a council as well. Thank you, Council Shack. Um, other other comments from council members, Council Member Romey. >> Mayor, >> um, um, thank you for those comments, Council Member Shaq. Um, this has been a long and challenging process that has brought us to the proposal that's here tonight. Um, I kind of want to try to keep it short, but um, say a few things kind of to bring things into context in terms of the comments that we've heard tonight. But first of all, want to talk about my priorities and goals and considering the soft leash dog area. And I think, you know, I think some of my fellow council members will agree. Um, I think public safety has been a high priority for all of us. um especially in light of recent incidents, the dog attack on the toddler. Um other past incidents, for those who ha are either watching in the audience or haven't heard this before, a senior citizen um fairly recently was knocked off a bike and shattered. I think either it was his knee or hip and still hasn't recovered. Um I think we've all seen, you know, many of us have seen the the video of the baby deer that I mentioned earlier. So public safety is one thing. Ecological conservation is another. For people who haven't been in attendance, I think purgatory holds Matt, you can maybe correct me, 25% of all of the highquality natural area and habitat in Minnotonka. Is that correct, Matt? Thank you. So, seven acres out of about 28 in the entire city. Um, it is designated as a nature preserve as well as a community park. Um, and much research, and I've provided a lot of it, has shown that off leash dog areas are not compatible with conservation and restoration areas. Um, and then another thing that I've been looking at is public access. A community park is by definition a multi-purpose park. It should its its purpose is to um be accessible to the broad community. And so in addition to the off leash dog area owners owners that we've heard today, it also includes as council member Shack said the off leash dog owners who have mobility issues or only want it for socialization for themselves or a place to you know kind of throw the ball and they need enclosed spaces for that. Um, it includes the general public that does not want to interact with off leash dogs, whether it's because of trauma or fears for their small children or their bike riders or their runners or whatever. Our bench knot mark should not be well my dog doesn't bite. Um, you know, because there are people who just do not want to and they should not have to be uh in proximity to off leash dogs in a community park. Um there are again dog owners uh unleash dog owners who have dogs that are flight risk or they're reactive. So they can't be around dogs that just come up to them. Even if they don't bite, they're reactive. They can't do that. Um and you know then it also so I'm con I'm considering all of those people. Um because it's not just the off leash dog owners or you know others. It's all everybody has to be able to use that park safely. Um, and then of course we have to consider the neighbors who live near the park. Um, so those are my considerations. And for people who say they've been here for 40 or 50 years, I live in my childhood home here in Minnetonka and my family's been here for five generations. So I'm not just coming here and, you know, kind of as a as a as an outsider trying to impose my will here. Um I would like to briefly revisit a couple of uh two key decision points leading up to the current proposal because I think it helps uh people who haven't been immersed in this process maybe understand and again I I promise to try to be succinct on this part as well. Um the first decision point concerns how Purgatory was chosen as the site for the off leash dog area just for those you know because there's been a lot of you know talk about purgatory and and the site within purgatory. So the city formed a citizens working group this past winter to study potential dog parks. And again this is just for background to inform tonight's discussion but I will say the group ranks several other parks as more suitable locations for an off leash dog area. In addition, other council members and I did advocate for a designated singleuse off leash dog park, not in purgatory, but in a place where off leash dog um dogs and their humans could have the entire park to themselves, just like the two that we saw that were single designated use off leash dog uh parks that were in Woodbury and Hanover. So, you know, we have such places in Minnetonka. There's Mooney Park near Cargill. I'm sure in within the other 50 parks in Minnetonka, there might be somewhere. But regardless, you know, there wasn't traction for those suggestions and instead purgatory became the focus and for two reasons from what I understand is first because Purgatory was the park that was being master planned at the moment that we were talking about. And the second reason um as we've heard tonight is that we've had a vocal resident group that has pushed hard for um the off leash dog area to be in purgatory. And I am not criticizing that. That is totally their right to advocate for their desired outcome. And I really commend their engagement and organization. That's what you know we want in our community members. But so it was staff and council's role to determine how to respond to that. And we responded by going with purgatory. So to my view, it's unfortunate that we didn't move in a more holistic review of the park system for the most appropriate location for an off leash dog area. And that's just me. So that's that part. That's how we got to purgatory. And then the second part of this whole um decision point issue was the selection of the southern part of the park for the affleish dog area. So, anybody who's actually spent the hours that most of us up here on the Deis have looking at the Purgatory Park master plan saw that it included several areas in the northern part of Purgatory off or near the main parking lot because those were the areas that were um nearest the parking in the main parking lot and also that because they were lower in ecological value. So, for those two reasons, two other council members and I both pretty strongly advocated for that general northern area of the park to be the off leash dog area. However, again, the Pause for Park Group and others lobbied for it to be placed on the opposite southern end of the park, which is far away from the parking lot. And again, not criticizing them, that was, you know, their choice to be advocates and their right. um the group leaders um there was mention about the time frame in between uh the the May or the April study session and you know what we came up with another study session that was because at least to my mind group leaders when I went on a walk basically said with pause for parks that they had spoken with their members and agreed that they would give give up the prairie as an off leash dog area if the southern part of purgatory was set aside as the off leash dark area. I think council member Shaq also alluded to that. So, in response, the majority of the council moved to go forward with the southern part with the southern part of the park um as our off leash dog areas. After that part moved forward, um that group and other individual residents then demanded a partially fence access corridor through the par prairie up to areas two and three in the southern part of the park. Um and they said that because either andor because mobility issues make it challenging to get up the hills required to access the southern part of the park which they do. So I understand that. However, that was not the basis upon which council agreed to designate the southern part of the park as the off leash dog area. At least it wasn't for me. And so doing that corridor would effectively reserve 40% of the prairie area according to the plan that was in place for off leash dog areas in addition to areas two and three. So again, I'm not criticizing pause for parks or you know the residents who did that. >> I think you're misquing. Let's We're not We're not having a debate. >> I'm saying I'm giving my perspective. You've had >> And you're not >> And and if she wants to say something that may or may not be incorrect. Everyone had the opportunity in the audience to speak. Now it's a council's time. This is not a debate. This is a let's let everyone speak. >> I can speak to what um I was told by the people who uh took me on a tour from the pause for park group. So again, I'm not criticizing that. I'm just saying this is my perception. This is what was told to me. These were my considerations. So in addition to all of that, we have the residents on Stadola Road that are concerned about increased traffic and speeds from off leash dog areas, parking in their emergency turnaround rather in the main parking lot. Um, and the proposal that would make Purgatory the only unfenced off leash dog area in um the the West Metro makes that a legitimate concern. Um, it's also going to cost taxpayers more because the city just spent over $100,000 restoring and conserving areas um two and three, portions of areas two and three. And that's going to be very likely be ruined by an off leash dog area. And other jurisdictions like Burnsville that have off leash dog areas don't even bother to conserve them anymore because it's just throwing good money after bad. So finally, we also have a regional trail that cuts through the middle of this area. So now that's how we've gotten to areas two and three and and kind of answering what about what's happening with one. And that brings us to fencing. Um, I don't think it's a secret that I and a couple of other people believe that a multi-purpose community park and a nature preserve like Purgatory is not a suitable location for an unfenced off leash dog area. I've already studied and provided a lot of data and research and examples demonstrating why no other city regional, state or national parks have unfensed dog areas and multi-purpose parks with conservation areas. And so I'm not going to repeat that there. Um except to say that unfenced off leash dog areas in these types of parks pretty much goes against what all other jurisdictions are doing. And that includes, you know, municipal parks, regional parks, state parks, and national parks. None of them have off leash uh dog areas that are unfenced. and that's because it's contrary to best practices in public safety park planning and ecological convers conservation goals. Um so in my view adoption of this plan in the if it's a long-term plan and I understand that we may look at phases for this but not even having you know a plan for full fencing on the table I think makes us an outlier in a bad way. Um but I don't think there's any appetite to go backwards and change the location. Um and and which to me would make the most sense but so otherwise the best way forward at this point in my view is to make sure we have firm parameters and criteria and a sense of timeline um for fencing in place. Um I would prefer from my point of view not to wait until another child gets bitten or worse. We have an emergency physician who is in the in the audience tonight. I'm sure she could probably tell us about some of the kind of horrendous dog bites that she's seen in her emergency room. Yeah, I've certainly I got a letter from another resident um who is an emergency physician and describe that in and in in some detail. Um I would like to see permits set up for uh Minnitonka residents for mobility issues. I know that's not going to, you know, kind of hopefully we will have something else in the future, but at least in the short term, maybe that would help. There is a small area off of Stadola Road that is, you know, flatter and that could be, you know, a place to kind of go and people who need it could have a place where they could go and let their dogs go while we figure out um future plans if that's possible. I would advocate for that. I also, you know, hope that eventually, if not immediately, we look at licensing to help with public safety and wear and tear. Um, you know, kind of a a cost benefit to the city to help maintain as much as we can um the off leash area and for maintenance. And um so I'm going to wait to hear what the rest of uh you know, the council says and their and their thoughts on this. I still don't know where I'm going to come down. Um, you know, I I have some reservations about this. Um, but I thought it was important to kind of lay this out for people so they understand, especially those in the audience who seem to not understand or have um been informed about the long process that's been involved here and the many steps along the way. And you know, I just want to say that all the people in the audience, I think, you know, everybody here has good intentions. Nobody here has bad intentions or want to, you know, curtail people's rights or anything like that. I think we're all looking for, you know, the best solution that we can find. And we may disagree on that, but, you know, to maliciously cast slurs on anybody for, you know, their position and their viewpoint, I don't think that should have a place in this community discussion and I hope it won't. Um I hope we can you know kind of look at I can look at you know certain members and say I can appreciate perception and your position. I have a different one. Um and you know let's just try to find um the best outcome that we can here going forward and hopefully maybe finding some other solutions for um you know kind of smaller dog areas as well throughout the city. Thank you. >> Anyone else? Council member Calbertt. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, my my fellow council members have touched on a few things and um I just want to say that on Saturday I got 17,000 steps in in Purgatory Park with my dog and my husband who has worked on trails and trail conflicts for a good part of his career. And I have walked it with the friends of the park. I have walked it with paws for parks. I've walked it with my dogs, without my dogs, with my family, without my family. I pulled people in the park and asked them different questions. I have been knocking on hundreds of doors and I got dozens of people that volunteered without me asking what was important to them. and Purgatory Park as a dog park was um you know on one side of it or the other uh was an answer. So it's it's a huge emotional question and I just want to thank staff for their hard work. I want to thank all of the people that have shown up whether they're on the task force or in in the groups involved in the parks and my fellow colleagues because no matter how much we disagree up here, I know how hard it is and these are heartfelt words from every single person up here and I will tell you right now I don't agree with everyone on everything um in this room or up here um or out in the community. But I will say um that I don't want to although I haven't seen adverse um interactions with dogs, I don't want to minimize it. We all know that they have happened. Um I never want to implement an ordinance um I never wanted to implement an ordinance without uh a designated area identified. So this this process has been very uncomfortable for me. Um and um so anyway, I don't want to minimize other people's experiences and um public safety is very important to me, but I think that there is there's a certain pragmatism and uh I certainly feel that sometimes if if rules or constraints are too draconian, it creates resentment in the community and people just don't follow the rules. And I don't I don't want to be that city. Um so uh my this is my feeling. I think that it addressing this very um incrementally is is the best idea. I I think the the signage is very important. I'm going to get into some real um details. I think if you're coming from the main parking lot, there's a way to just make sure the signage, first of all, to have a sign that says you are here, which we currently do not have. So, there's no orientation as to where you are when you when you look at the map currently. So, just way better maps and wayfinding signs because on Saturday there were several visitors to the park that were exhausted because they've been walking around in circles and they couldn't find the parking lot. and we had to help them get back there. So, signage is going to be really important. I think just making clear that there's a certain uh I this is my feeling at this point and I'm sure that there's a lot of disagreement. I think that the the center path um that is that is a uh informal unmaintained trail that goes along the western side of the prairie and starts peeling off into an aspen grove should remain a corridor. And I and I think that gives people that walk and that path. Um and that there may be a way to have very unobtrusive I mean the kind of fencing that if we have fencing which at this point after walking the park I I'm I where some of the suggested possible fencing was to go. I definitely don't want it. I just think it's going to do exactly the opposite of of the intention, which is to disturb the soil and create conditions where we get invasives and um just completely obliterate the the sort of naturalistic feel of the park. Um but um just to to make sure that everyone knows if you're going down that center trail that's off leash and to peel people off in the other directions that don't don't want to interact with off leash dogs. I also think making sure that people enter the park understand that there is off leash activity in the park so that they can make informed decisions about how they want to interact with that atmosphere. I honestly feel at this point um there was a third reason why Purgatory was selected off leash and that is because for 40 years it has been the de facto off leash area in the in the city and everybody knows it and and that's just the way it has been used and um I think that there are um Um there's a a a community member who called me last night who does not have dogs and goes there for birding, bird watching and hiking. Um does not have a dog, does not is not bothered by the dogs and would be very much bothered by the obtrusive nature of uh some of the suggested fencing. And um there was a couple there from Crystal who are cat people. Um, and I they were, you know, we were just chatting about the day walking down the the path and I told them what we were voting on today and they said, "Oh, the fencing would just take all the joy out of it." Um, so those are some of the the comments that I've I've gotten. Um, and I think that there are ways to um I think right now if we have that center path, you can take the the as the trail through the Aspen Grove to the southern part of the park and then um go up into the hills. that will give people that have some mobility issues a longer walk uh corridor to um areas 2 and three. And during this season when the grass is high, nobody's going to be walking through there. The dogs aren't going to be running through the the prairie. Um and um I think the the bigger area that that the activity can happen is less degradation because then it's not concentrated in in in a small area. And that's why I didn't want the off leash dog area concentrated in area one. So um and I'm sorry this is just going to have to be a little bit long because there's a lot there's a lot involved. So, I think that we need to keep looking for other areas um to council member Rome's point and also to Council Member um Shaq's point that there are people that like to interact with their dogs differently and there are places at B Purgatory that might work for sort of the ball tossing, socializing, hanging around um areas and there are places all over the city and I think we do need to spread the love around Um, I don't think we need to be like other cities. I live in Minnetonka cuz it's an exceptional city and I don't mind um being a little different. It's already a regional um attraction. The people that I met at the park this weekend were not all from Minnetonka. And that's okay. In fact, I think it's good. I think it would be wonderful to have people visiting our parks and then maybe getting a beer at Unmapped and buying their dog a toy at the dog store um down the strip mall and maybe getting an empanada. So um I don't mind that and I do think that we what I would like to see is implementation primarily of just signage. I think that we need the pause for parks people to do what other groups in the community have done for the things that are important to them like the mountain bike trail mor people that maintain the trails in Lo Lone Lake and the friends of Minnetonka Parks who have worked so hard to restore the prairie and other parts of our community. I want to see them out there pulling buckthornne, removing invasives like the ragweed because of their traffic in the park. um helping to educate the people that are coming into the park, helping to make sure that people are picking up their dog poop bags um and in and helping to enforce um the new rules to make sure that it that we can keep things um workable for everyone. So, those are the things I think there needs to be some elbow grease, possibly some money cuz the friends of Minnetonka Parks have fundraised a lot of money um through grant writing and other things. And I am not opposed to some kind of permit system if it helped pay for things as long as it wasn't too ownorous on staff. I do get a little worried about the the workload on staff. I'm not sold on fencing at this point. um if if the signage is adequate and I think um I think there's a way to do that. Um I'm convincable on some fencing and I think my my thought on fencing is metal posts with eyebolts that you can string cables across that makes it flexible. You can take the cables down, you can put them back up when it's necessary. Um, it just makes it more a more flexible system and a little less intrusive than hogwire. And you can do things like control burns without burning up the posts um in the prairie. So maybe just putting a little bit of fencing on the west side of the prairie on the east side of the the middle trail. So those are just some of my ideas, but I just think that we should just take it slowly, see what's working, see what doesn't. I am perfectly willing to look at the data and if it shows that there are too many adverse um activities by dogs. I will I will take it very seriously and we'll have to do something differently. But I just think it's been used that way for 40 years. I wouldn't say that there are from what I can tell there's not more um dog bites or dog attacks there than there have been elsewhere in the city. And um I will tell you that I had a dog that was on leash. We told a gentleman not to pet him. He petted him anyway and we had to get his hands stitched up and we had to put our dog down. So there are things that that happened. That was a that was a dog that we had had um that just showed up at our house that we had had for a few years and we you know had to keep him on leash because that's the way he was. So I think it can happen when you're on leash, it can happen when you're off leash and that's why I'm not convinced that um that we need to pen dogs in. So um that's kind of where I am at this point. Um, I think we need to keep on looking for other areas um all over the city because people have been used to uh a lot more area and I'm glad that my fellow council members are are open to that. >> Um, before we continue, we've had we've heard from three council members. I'm pretty convinced that every council member is going to want to speak on this, but I'm going to say we should take a five minute break because I know some of us could use one. So, with all due respect, we're going to do that. Don't go away, but we're going to take a quick break and then we'll be back in here for the rest of us. So, thanks very much. All right. Should we should we try and get her going? >> I've got the council back in in in place. Okay. All right. >> All right. Let's see. >> Sorry. Thanks for thanks for indulging the break. I hope um everyone who needed one uh got done what they needed to do. Um I will call this back to order. And so we're taking comments from council members. Um council members, anybody? Um, Council Member Wilburn. >> Yes. So, um, I will I'll try and not spend too much time repeating what my fellow council members have said. I will point out that in um sort of the dichotomy of responses we've been getting from people is that we are simultaneously moving too quickly and making decisions and um not making decisions quickly enough. Um so I will and I'm not going to spend um time going over everything on the timeline. I will sort of point out like the there's an attempt to explain how we ended up with area uh two and three. Um and so I had a similar experience when going out with the pause for parks people that they um emphasized that the the continuous walking trails with the separation was was most beneficial. Um and uh also a statement was made about how even though they hated the idea of losing Area 1 that uh that people had had accepted that they needed to make that that that sacrifice that compromise in order to get these other trail areas. I will say at the same time a a corridor was mentioned uh along that path. So that that was brought up at the same time. Um but ultimately like right now we are not we are not being asked to decide where where fencing will be if there will be fencing. um my and so I I won't won't spend too much time on that, but like I did with when walking with the pause for people, they pointed out some areas where it made sense to to not have fencing because of the separation or the topography um to to council member uh Kley's question earlier about like if you don't have fencing, what does that mean? I mean, there were some places where in theory a dog could go, but it's very unlikely for it to happen. Um, and so definitely in those places I and you know, and staff has pointed out places where they think soft fencing would be uh adequate. Um the I tried to make notes for myself so I would remember. Um so yes, so the the so it was after walking with the paws that cuz I was one of the people that was pushing for the more northern areas, but areas two and three already had the trail system in place and and seemed to me to be the most logical compromise um for that time. As others have pointed out, it may just be that we can't. There's not one area to cover every off leash use that people want to have. And I am certainly not opposed to looking at other areas in Purgatory and other parks throughout Minnitanka for you know some of the ball tossing type of areas uh that uh for people who want to talk it doesn't matter why you want for people who want who want that for their off leash dogs. Um and finally for parking I I don't know the legalities but uh again I would not be opposed with to having uh offdola road having designated uh disabled parking or uh or permanent parking for that seems like that might be more difficult than just having disabled parking. But I don't know the legalities of that. But again I would not I I'm not opposed to that. I'm also not opposed to considering some sort of corridor. Um it's, you know, as as always, the devil is in the details. So, um it would depend where and what that looked like. So, I think that's it. >> Thank you, Council Member Wilburn. Um anyone else? Council member, uh Kley. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, um I like some of the comments and u recommendations some of the other council members have made. um in particular what um um council member um um Calver had stated about coming into the um um park area from I guess off of Excelsier and then either steering to the right or the left, but kind of separating um the dogs from people. Um I unfortunately could not walk um the trail. Um, as I stated, I had surgery uh on my knee in October and it didn't heal correctly. So, um I know I've got a request or asked to come to um to walk the park, but I I stated at that time I could not walk the whole park. I would walk portion of it and I did get a chance to walk with our city staff um walking a portion of the um park with them. And um it really bothers me cuz I'm really active. Um and that bothers me to even have to tell you all that. But I'll tell you because I think it's important to let you know that I have experienced some of the things where people talk about the mobility and being able to come up the hills cuz I had to like kind of go up these hills and grab onto trees and all those different things to force myself to go. So I did that. But um so I get that part, but I am not opposed to coming up with some other options um looking at other parks and um considering other spaces um in other parks, but also I'm not opposed to um the fencing like it it doesn't have to be what we've already looked at the area two and three. And the reason why I'm saying that because um I usually would make quick decisions and being on a council has really helped me kind of slow down in my thought process because I'm the one who wants to go to bed early, get home and go to sleep. But some of the comments and um statements that the other council member have said tonight to me um I do agree um because I I I really don't think the fencing is going to be the full solution to the dogs. Like personally um I I just don't um because it's not the full fencing in my mind. This is just my visual thought process. It would take full fencing to address the safety. Um, but then there's folks who probably know more than me that who, you know, have dogs, who've been into into dog parks where maybe there is a reason why you shouldn't have full fencing. So, I don't know. Um, just I only can go off of what I was told. And so I'm open to um considering other areas possibly um with when you're coming into the park. I guess um on the on the northern part of the park if we can keep the dogs separated from people. Um I am really concerned about safety. Um I think that's really important. Um, especially with I stated before in the past where I also experienced that I'm just a little tougher around the skin. So, I can handle dogs running up to me and not being afraid and just being still. But, I did have a friend who really got really scared um when someone dog ran up to her when we were walking in Perogatory Park. So, I do get that part. Um, far as the Stadola road, um, I also feel like, um, yes, we have this question about, um, the signage, um, no parking zone. I think that would be okay for now, but far as uh, the no parking zone, I think that's good, but I'm also not convinced 100% about the um the parking stalls. I know that's not what what we're asked tonight, but um so we we need to do something because we have spent a lot of time a lot of time for me is per I mean just I just told y'all about I'm not the most patient person. So I feel like we spend a lot of time. So, I think it's really important that staff move forward with at least putting the signs out there. Um, doing as much signage as as we can and then also making sure that we do consider other parks. I think that's very important to me. Um, and um the fencing piece I'm open. I mean, like if it was my idea, we put some homes there in the park. Okay. So, I know that's not what we can do, but I'm more about we need some more places for people to live. And we've spent a lot of time talking about, you know, making sure our dogs are, you know, are comfortable and our residents are comfortable and so I get it. So, um, I'm open. I mean, if we can come up with something else, I'm willing to listen. And, um, yeah, that's just kind of where I'm at with it. Council member Foster Bolton, you're the last person before me, so go for it. >> Um, so you know, really, when this first came about, I was all about fencing. Um, because I am one of those one in 25 that I'm terrified. um um if I don't know the dog um and sometimes even if I know the person the dog owner um I mean I think I'm really friendly once I get to know the dog that doesn't matter but so I was all about the fencing and then um and I was all about one area in the corner of the park fencing and then I you know walked walked the park um with you know a number of people pause for parks was one of them and I thought well wait okay we can do we can do bigger spaces um and we can and then walking with Mr. Kunka and talking about soft barriers and hard barriers. It didn't feel to me when we were walking through that through the park that there was that that it was going to be like all these dogs confined in one area. I mean, 8 acres is a lot of space and 18 together um is a lot of space. And so to me it felt like when we were walking um through the areas two and three it felt like there was a flow definitely. Um and so I I liked that even more. I thought well this is this is this is better. Um, and then I and then my idea was, oh, what we're going to do is build these fences, you know, no matter what. And I misunderstood, but it's an incremental plan. So, so then once I got the um packet, it was like, you know, okay, this is this isn't going to happen next summer, you know, um and I was talking about it and there is going to be data gathering. I mean, I somebody was talking about how we're making these um decisions without gathering data, but it seems like this plan is doing exactly that. Um gathering data. And the other thing I thought tonight I was going to decide, well, we'll we'll put off the fencing, but eventually we'll have it. And that isn't the plan tonight either. It's it's to it's a move forward is the thing. And um and I guess that's the that's the piece that I get stuck on. We we need to move forward. Um and it it can't be a fence. I mean, it can't be what I want or what council member Kley wants, which is housing, or what we we want. It has to but it has to be a compromise. And that's that's what we're usually really good at up here is knowing that we disagree, but but figuring out a way to make it work for everyone that we represent represent. Um, and so that's why because then, you know, like I get it when council member Raali talks about what's going to be the criteria, where's the measure, what is it that's that's going to put us over the over that fence. Um, but as we move forward, I think I don't think that it's a I I I I'm realizing it there's not a tangible um thing measurement. Thank you. And so, um, I h I I would have to and I and I didn't know like I thought, well, I'm not going to, um, vote for this unless I know for sure there's going to be a fence eventually. But, but what's more important, I think, is some movement. And if I if I'm not willing to if I have to if I say I'm not going to vote for this unless there's eventually going to be a fence, then then there's no movement and that's not what we're here for. And so, um, you know, I'd like to to to research how much money the fencing is. I'd like I'd like that research. Um, and I'd like the no parking at Stadola Road. Um, and I I do really want to pay attention to how things go um in the coming year, but I I'm going to I'm going to support this tonight because it's um it's moving forward and if if it isn't if we don't agree on it, then we're right back where we started, you know, and it isn't just within, you know, my the year and a half or a little over a year that I've been serving. It sounds like I mean, it's decades long and it's got to stop somewhere. Um, so that's that's my two cents. >> Thank you, uh, Council Member Foster Bolton, and thank you for my fellow council members. Um, and thank you for everyone in the audience and thank you for everyone who's written. Um, I've I've read a lot of emails and uh I've gotten a lot of input from people and uh this this is hard. I mean, there's no there's no simple solution. And um you know uh when you're an elected official, you want to keep all the people happy all the time. But you know what? Uh when you're an elected official, if you think you're going to keep all the people all happy all the time, you've got the wrong job. um that's not what is going to happen. And so we have to be we have to be practical and realistic. Um you know, we talked earlier tonight about the drones as first responders program and we're proud of that because public safety is so darned important. And I've said it, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, Julie, how many times? Um you know, public safety is job one in cities. I mean, it's the number one deliverable that we as cities have. Um um you know, if we can't if we can't deliver that to our residents, then then they probably need different mayor and a different council, different council. I mean, that's really got to be a priority in our community. We have to value the safety of our residents. Um but as I look at this um you know this you know thinking listening to different people talk about dogs I mean dogs are as different as people. If we if we say well I you know I had this dog and I had this experience and so I know all about dogs. Well that's like saying well I know one person and I understand all of humanity. It's just not that easy. And and so, you know, dogs are social animals. Um people are social animals. Um you know, we need we need parks. We need places to come together to to um to for recreation, but we need it to maintain our sanity and to build community. And so, you know, the the task we're trying we're confronted with is, okay, how do we how do we how do we check all those boxes and do it in a way that's fair and reasonable um and respectful to um all the diverse people and frankly all the diverse dogs that we have in our community because just simplifying say well I get it you know no it's it's just not that way. I I I have a um I have a 14 pound um female Snowzer at home and she's a lot different than my son's girlfriend's uh 90 pound Doberman and you know and they're dogs and I mean as human beings we all have different experiences. So, you know, figuring this out is is really challenging. And then the other piece of it is um as I as I work to find a solution, this is a big change. It's a big change for our community. And we we implemented a um a new ordinance that limits off leash dogs to designated areas. Well, I'll tell you what, compared to what we had before, who gave up the most in that? It is dog owners who are used to taking their dogs anywhere in the city. Now, the the notion of under voice command, that's in the eye of the beholder. And I really never believe that. You know, the the probably 90% of the people who um said, "My dog's under um voice command," were wrong. I mean, they were a under voice command in their living room or in their yard, but introduce a squirrel to the equation and your dog's still under voice command. Most dogs aren't. Some were, some were, but not very many. So, we needed a different ordinance. And we passed an ordinance. And I'm going to say, is it the perfect ordinance? No, it's not. But now we're dealing with, okay, how do we implement that? And then I look at Purgatory Park um um or or any of our parks, but um because basically it used to be that you could have an off leash dog anywhere in Minnetonka. There were no off leash dog areas because they were all dog off leash dog areas. We had 52 or 53 parks that were off leash dog parks and we had Purgatory Park was one of them. And now we're saying, okay, well, we're going to go to 18.8 acres. I mean, if we just say we just considered um Purgatory Park as the only offish leash dog space, we we're going from 155 acres to 18.8 acres. That's a loss of 88% of the off leash dog area just if we consider Purgatory Park. And it was much bigger than that. So the change that we're talking about is significant and I think we have to be mindful of of what we're doing and what's fair and reasonable. Now again, public safety's job one I want I want I want everyone to be safe in our community. But I also don't want our approaches to be draconian because I'll tell you what in Minnetonka we have automobile accidents. people get injured and they and and people even die on our streets. Should we shut them all down? Should we shut down all our streets because somebody got hurt or somebody died? I mean, that's horrible. But the reality is we have to we have to have laws and rules and approaches that pass the smell test. If we try and take all risk away, one, we'll fail, but two, we'll we'll we'll live in a police state and we won't be able to do anything. And I don't I don't stand for that either. So, we have to take a practical approach. So, I think, you know, you've heard a lot of different things from my fellow council members and I respect all that said and I learned from them and I learned from you. Um, and so what I'm going to recommend tonight from my perspective is I like the incremental approach that staff has proposed because I think there's more learning to be done. Now I when I talked to Mr. funk today and he talks to all the council members every day before we have a meeting. I said, you know, I'm really going to have a hard time agreeing to such a significant limitation without identifying more areas in the city because the the the dog people, for lack of better terminology, they're giving up a ton. I mean, they're giving up a lot. They're giving up I mean they're giving up the whole city. They're giving up 88% of Purgatory Park. Um and and for a solution that you know what dogs are different. I mean some dogs do fine in a confined space. Some dogs need a lot more than that. I mean this is a complex issue and it defies simple solutions. And um and and I'll be also be honest. You know, enforcement is great, but I'm lying to you. If you think that we're going to have enough cops in our parks to enforce every deviation from the ordinance, it's not going to happen. I mean, we have to have a we have to have um an approach that smell that passes a smell test because people who because if it doesn't pass a smell test and people think our our laws are stupid, they're going to ignore them because that's the way people are. And so, you know, we've got we've got to have something that is practical, reasonable, and passes the smell test. And I learned something, too. I really appreciated the comment about the ADA and and the comments um um regarding um access for people with disabilities. Now, that's a big issue to me. I have two I my twin daughters are disabled and after walking areas two and three, I'll tell you what, my my daughters need wheelchairs to get around. They will never go to areas two and three ever, you know? I mean, it's impossible. I mean, I'm not strong enough to push them up and down those um those hills, and that's just not practical. And I think we do have to be mindful of the needs of our senior citizens. I'm a senior citizen, by the way, so I'm not insulting anybody there. Um but um but you know, I think I think we have to have practical solutions. So I um so where am I? That's all that's all well and good, but where am I? Um, I like the incremental approach and I and I'm supportive of that. Um, I really think we need that corridor through area one. Now, I I don't think the corridor through area one should impinge upon the highly sensitive areas, the prairie. That's really important. But I've also learned that it doesn't have to. We can have a corridor that um and an approach. So we can have that corridor to get to the to um to areas two and three and and and through area one. Um and there might be some there might be some real creativity needed to to implement that. But I think we can do that. I think that's doable. Um, you know, I also am very sensitive to this notion of seasonality because we've got four seasons in Minnesota. And I'll tell you what, that park is four different parks in each of those seasons. And so, you know, maybe maybe we look at having some rules that are different in different seasons, but I think maybe our implement implementation approach and, you know, I think there are things like maybe temporary fencing. I don't know. I I don't want to problem solve it here, but but I think we want I think we need some creative solutions. Um and so I'm willing to support this tonight with the understanding that, you know, we've got to identify more areas because the dog people, for lack of a better term, um they're giving up a ton. I mean, they're the losers in this thing unless we as a council are committed to delivering more in pretty short order. So, my view is that, yeah, I can approve this, but I don't want quick implementation. I'd like a year of learning from, okay, signage. We need that signage up as soon as we can get it, and we need it to be good signage, but then we need at least a year of learning. Um because we've got four seasons and it's hard to squeeze four season into six months. It just doesn't work. We need at least four seasons. But you know what then even even four seasons I mean not you know every winter's not the same, every summer's not the same. You know probably better have two years of seasons learning so that we can implement this way in a way that makes makes it work and makes it intelligent. So, you know, again, I I'm not going to be I'm not going to be sitting up here um after January, and it's going to be up to other people who are going to have have to worry about implementing this. But, but I really think that we we need more information to do this, right? Because I do think that I do think a confined dog space has got to be large enough and and are 10 and nine acres large enough. um so that they're no not so confining. I don't know the answer to that. I know that when you I know that when you go to a small dog park with your dog, it's a much different experience. And and and and dogs really behave differently. I know with my little dog, my my sample of one, my dog is different when we're with other dogs. When she is on a leash versus when I drop her leash or she's um I mean, she wants to play with those other dogs. She's not intimidated by anybody, but but she's a different dog when I'm holding the leash versus when I'm not. And so, we have to understand that, you know, I mean, dog behavior is just like human behavior. People are different. Dogs are different. And and you know, I've I've said it before, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We're not going to come up with a perfect solution. Let's do the best we can. Let's know what our priorities are. And I think we have more learning to do before we say we're going to have hard barriers or soft barriers or any kind of barriers. Let's let's do a year or two of learning. and but let's let's let's look at how we going to implement areas two and three with and I strongly support um having a corridor because frankly if for no other reason um people with disabilities deserve the right to have access to to Purgatory Park and and I I was convinced by some of the speakers tonight that if we limit things to areas two and three without that access we are cutting off people with disabilities and I have a big problem with that. So that that's where I am now. I don't know what that says. I don't know what the motion's going to look like, but I think I think areas two and three um with a with an incremental learning approach and um and then the I I don't have a problem with the no parking zone in Stoodola Road. I don't think but I want to be clear that that doesn't commit us to um to building a parking zone on Sidola Road. Let's let's let's learn. Let's see how that works. Let's try some things with the expectation that you know what, we're not going to get it perfectly right and there is no perfect solution. So, let's retain the flexibility to learn and modify as we go along and do it over time. This is not a oneanddone deal from my perspective. I don't know how my other I have a sense for how my other council members feel, but but I think that's a is this a compromise or is it you know I don't think we're kicking the can down the road. I think we're saying you know what we don't have enough information and frankly without identifying more areas in our community where we can have off leash dogs. We are taking too much away for one group of people and that's a problem. So I think this approach allows us to to learn to execute and to get someplace that we want to get to um that is fair. And I and I think it's important to be fair. So that's that's my view. Um I don't know what kind of motion we're going to get out of that, but that's one person's perspective. >> Yes, Council Member Shack. >> I guess my I mean I've got some reservations. I mean, I I think we all It sounds like most of us agree to an incremental approach. I I'm concerned about falling into a scenario of kind of apathy over a period of time where we just don't want to, you know, if we don't kind of have some I'm not as hard and fast on the metrics that we need to have specific metrics, but if we don't have some reviews in fairly short order that this kind of just goes off to the wayside and we don't get it right and whatever that means getting it right right if that's expanding if that's retracting I don't I mean two year I'm uncomfortable with two years what I will say is I I have also significant reservations about the corridor I don't I'm not completely opposed to it but I don't understand how given the way that piece of the park has been used in the past how we segregate use um without pretty much immediate fencing. I don't love the idea of fencing the prairie area. So that's where I come back to because how dogs don't read signs. We've all established that um there is a long pattern of use in the prairie area of social and you know running and I don't want the I don't want the police department out there telling people that they can't use it that way. I'm not sure the signs will accomplish that. And so a physical barrier seems to be the only way to accomplish that and we're not doing that here. So I it is, you know, a premier ecological um feature in our city and I hate to just I I would rather see us quickly figure out something for the red barn site or some other accessible place that could be used in that way. I just don't see I mean at minimum the bench needs to come out and but I don't know I I I would have a hard time without some real clear structure on just letting area one be kind of open indefinitely. um because it will be used again in that way that does when we see it now we see even on the trail the ragweed that's encroaching into the maintain or the the restored area so I understand the I understand the desire I just don't know that it's it's something that is possible to implement counc >> so in my comments Um, one of the things that I mentioned is that um, the pause folks are going to have to put some skin in the game and I think they're going to have to be removing that rag. We I kind of agree about moving removing the bench. Um, I think that the that corridor solves two issues. One is the accessibility issue from Excelsier for people that just need a place to walk and also just getting people to areas two and three that that takes pressure off Stoddola Road. So to me it it solves two issues. Um I think there's another issue that I didn't really talk about which is sort of like the adult swim uh concept where you know there might be times and it was suggested by several people that maybe there are times when there are no no dogs at you know and people that that um that don't like off leash areas that we might be able to establish sometimes for them to enjoy the park. I actually think that if pause wants this to happen, I sort of want to demand that they that there's a little elbow grease and a little help and that they're going to help police um the prairie and that they will help make sure that people are not ruining this opportunity for for the rest of the off leash folks by using it inappropriately when there's signage saying Don't don't use this is this is a sensitive area and you can't run your dogs on there. And I think that if one or two dogs is running around on there by accident, it's not going to it's that's not what's going to degrade it. It's it's people tromping through there. So, I think if we have the kind of signage that we want, and I'm talking I don't think that we can get the fencing up fast enough, but again, it's been used the way it's been used for decades, and there is a little bit there's there's some encroachment, but I think with their help that can be remediated. I I also mentioned to to staff that I thought maybe the bench would need to go. Um, and that's why I'm and I'm talking about I kind of want unobtrusive fencing if we have to do it, which is just posts with eyebolts and you can string wires across, you know, at different levels and it it would be adequate to keep dogs out and um and it would be flexible. But um I just don't think that we can get it in. And I I just don't think there's a short period where the grass is going to be down and there isn't snow. Um and um I just don't think that many people are going to be um disregarding the sign. So, I I take a little different approach and um I think it solves more problems than it makes because people already use it use that corridor that way. >> Any other comments? >> Yep. >> Um council me. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I want to say about uh you know council member Calvertz and with all due respect that's part of the problem is that that central prairie area has been trampled and incredibly degraded and that was part of you know the conservation area. So that's exactly where we don't want to have that corridor. Um and I agree completely with council member Shaq um you know about having you know this extended amorphous um time period instead of having you know kind of specific you know whether it's quarterly bianual reviews really looking hard at data um that would be preferable in terms of area one um you know again to council member Shack's comment there's not going to be a way to separate it with, you know, certainly not even I would say with partial and certainly with no not with no fencing. That's just not viable in in my um consideration. And if we're talking about corridor, what are we talking about? A 4ft quarter. the only people that's going to help, you know, unless you're talking about really giving whatever 20 30% of that whole part of the park over, then then basically, you know, if you're talking about a small quarter, that's going to not going to really help the people who, you know, who, you know, want to have an a place for their dog to go and socialize and, you know, whatever. That's what we're talking about. what it would help is people who want to be able to get to areas two and three um without having to leash their dog. Um so unless we're, you know, talking about giving a significant portion of the eastern side of western side of the park to um off leash dogs. Again, um that's what it sounds to me what we're looking at when we say a corridor. either you're talking, you know, something that's just basically a walking trail. Um, and really the only >> it's the trail that we walked on with staff. It's it's an existing trail. >> I understand that. Thank you, Council Member Calbertt. Um, but what I am saying is is that that is the exact trail that's the problem. that is right against, you know, the trail that is right next to the ecologically sensitive high quality one quarter of all of Minnetonka's high value natural resource areas. So, if we could move a corridor all the way over much farther, you know, to degraded area um farther west, maybe that would work and make it smaller. But in my view it would have to be um fenced and you know fully fenced going up to um you know the areas two and three. I think that would you know otherwise we're just going to have that mixture of you know the crossover of users which is you know been part of the problem in the first place. And by the way the toddler that was attacked was on a main trail. >> A primary trail. >> A primary trail. Yes. >> Same thing. No, >> no, not the same. >> Yeah, that's um we're not going to debate it, but yeah, Primary Trail is off is off leash. I mean, on leash all the time, >> correct? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Thank you for the correction. So, um you know, I I think we're we're out here. The motion is is not for area one. It's for areas two and three. >> Well, no. The recommendation is different than a motion. >> The recommendation Thank you, mayor. for areas two and three, not for um the corridor in area one. And I don't think at this point I would be able to support an unfenced corridor. Thank you. >> All right. Well, um Council Member Wilbur. >> Um so I I do agree with with uh Council Member Shaq. I don't know how we could have that separation without fencing and there's no way to get fencing in even if we wanted to this year yet. So, um, is is it possible I don't want to make work for staff just to make work for staff, but is it possible to consider, you know, going going ahead with the resolution the way it's written and also have staff take a look and see if if there's a way to have a corridor, maybe not that, maybe further over a corridor to areas two and three so that people could from their from the parking lot walk all the way to areas two and three off leash um and bring that back when they come back with recommendations for around fencing etc or or sooner >> okay Mr. Funk or Mr. Kuma, if you'd like to comment. Um, if you if you're able. [Applause] >> Yes. Uh, Mayor Wome, Council Member Wilburn. Um, yes, we could certainly look at what existing informal trails are further west of that main straight avenue. Um, we could measure how what that distance would look like, what the ground conditions are. Certainly, um, closer. There are some pinch points in there that would be some trouble spots, some We could evaluate what the impacts to the aspen sort of wetland edge there would be if we were to implement um fencing through that area. We could look more specifically at, you know, pushing a corridor over as far west as possible. A question if I may is um is the existing trail um it's through area one is it adjacent to the sensitive area or is it through the sensitive area because I think that's an important distinction. >> The trail >> the trail is through a portion of area A. >> All right. >> Highest quality. Yes. >> All right. Thank you for that. And a follow-up question to that um how far would it have to move to um lose that distinction and you I mean you know you don't have to have a ruler or anything you know approximately >> it would have to move approximately 50 80 ft west from the bench key bench location towards the wetland towards the creek. And and from in in your professional opinion, how achievable is that? >> I think it's achievable. >> Okay. Thank you for that. I don't know if that helps anyone. [Applause] >> Council member Foster Bolton. And then to add fuel to the fire, can we do can we say, you know, instead of, you know, having a report in two years, have it be quarterly or like determine determine that tonight as well. >> And and Miss Funk, go ahead. I I I mean I I think you know I think how frequent is the question but but um you know I think reports on progress is is clearly given given the importance of this um um yeah I think we need some reports. So what what are your thoughts on you know appropriate um frequency of reports on on status and learning with the incremental approach? >> Yeah, excuse me. Thank you mayor councel. Um can someone go back to the recommendation slide please? Thank you. So again, I just want to summarize and I know you know this council, but just to help at this uh time, >> maybe we don't. Go ahead. >> So again, the staff recommendation which has been explained to you, excuse me, is a motion to adopt the off leash dog implementation plan, excuse me, for Purgatory Park and a resolution authorizing a no parking zone on Sedola Road east of the Culdeac to Creek Park Drive. So that's the recommended action. I think I've heard or staff has heard support for that recommendation. Now, there's some nuance to that and I think staff would look for clarity in a motion. So, mayor and council, as you consider a motion, uh the clarity that would be needed would be and one of those is what you're talking about area one. So, that connector from the main parking lot to areas two and three. Right now, as you know, the ordinance as it's written is that dogs shall be leashed at all times except for designated areas. Right now, you've been um talking about areas two and three being that designated area. So, if you're looking for a connection point, we would need that clarity. Staff would need that clarity in the motion. Uh perhaps your motion, there's some options in there. You could look direct staff to come back with some thoughts on what that could look like. Um Mr. Kuma has indicated we could there's possibilities in that. So we as staff could come back with you on some recommendations on what that connector could look like. Again, we've talked about just timing wise, we would not be able to put up fencing, hard fencing this year. So if we were to consider or use a council were to consider some sort of connector point, whether it's the current location or shifting it further to the west, that too would be incremental in signage. So we would have to sign it this year just like we would assign areas two and three and then come back to you with how that's working. Um, in terms of timing, I think the second part of your motion ought to be consideration for the length of review period. Uh, staff has in our presentation talked about potentially spring of 2026 that gets into the spring that's perhaps two seasons and I think council you've also talked about either four seasons or even um been suggested even a longer period of time. So I think for your consider for your motion, you should identify what that length of time should be, whether it's coming back as early as next spring to perhaps give an update on to the status of where we're at and then at that point you could even extend it further into another couple seasons. Um or you could just simply by your motion start with four seasons as well. So you have that flexibility. Um you'll need to again give that direction to staff on what when you want us to come back. >> All right, Mr. Funk, I'm going to I'm going to I'll go ahead. Um, councilor Shaq. >> Well, thank you, Mayor. I was just going to I was just going to say that I think that it sounds like maybe we could get this motion adopted with direction on two points to come back with a plan about how we could get a area one that does not interfere with the high value natural resources area. also maybe um opportunity here for some some cooperation and I've talked to a number of people with pause for parks and suggested they meet with the folks uh with Mor. I've talked to Morc and they haven't heard from anybody. So, this may be a real opportunity because we could have a pit boss type of of role potentially that we could introduce as a part of monitoring, maintaining, help transition that area one piece of it. Um, if that makes sense to the council once we see it. I would also say, you know, I think we should check in in the spring because if there is fencing needs that we say we really have to do this fencing or this this spot's just absolutely not working, we got to retract it or whatever. I think we want to give ourselves the opportunity to do that before we end up in the seasonality issue again. And and and if I if I may add, Council Shaq, um you know, I think that idea of um identifying the fact that we're going to have a check-in in the spring um and not commit ourselves to taking any particular action in the spring, but evaluate um whether we're in a position to implement something or if we need to add another, you know, x number of months to to really fully evaluate. But let give ourselves a flexibility. We need the check-in but then we have to see where we are and the progress we've made and then we'll make any further decisions and I say we I won't be part of it. Um the decision will be made to you know on next steps for the you know the subsequent following the next you know 6 months or two seasons or whatever it is. >> Are we getting are we getting in the hunt here? >> Um does anyone want to be bold and make a um council Wilburn you're bold. >> All right. I might I might need Mr. Nielson's help here, but um so my motion is to adopt the off leash dog imple implementation plan for Purgatory Park and resolution authorizing a no parking zone on Stadola Road east of Culdeac to Creek Park Drive. Um the initial phase will include what is included in the staff recommendation here. Um, in addition, uh, what's the word? Directing staff to research a a corridor from the uh, parking lot, whatever it's called that the north the north parking lot. Um, areas, areas two and three that does not impinge upon uh, the the area one >> sensitive areas. the sensitive areas. Um and in and uh to with and bring that back to council with consideration for adding that to the design designated area and then finally report back in spring on the stuff. Maybe we should make um we should make a date specific in the spring. What what time, you know, staff, what time do you think would be appropriate so we'd have information that make a report back worthwhile? >> Um >> and I'm kind of asking staff. I'm sorry. >> They're all just looking. >> Yeah. >> And there's a motion on the floor. Does that matter? >> Yeah. Q2. >> I'm just saying Q2 >> by the end of Q2. >> Yeah, I believe so. >> One second, mirror. >> Okay, it's all right. We're painting you into a corner now. >> I would uh mayor, we would recommend the staff to get a second. So, we have a motion on the on the floor. And then if you have a second then they would be available to answer questions. >> All right. Um would someone like to second that? Council member Foster Bolton. >> I'll second. >> All right. Motion by Council Member Wilburn and a second by Council Member Foster Bolton. Thank you for >> helping us with procedures. >> Mayor We think the appropriate length of time would be into the spring. So >> okay, >> when the seasons change, we get a sense of those new behaviors beginning again after the winter. people come out of their hibernation and are re-entering the park, we'd want to gather that information as well. >> So May. >> Yeah. End of May. >> I think end of May. >> Very good. All right. End of May. >> Is that good? Council member Wilburn, it's your motion. >> Sure. >> All right. And and Council Member Foster Balton. Okay. So, we have agreement by the by the um the maker of the motion and the seconder. So, do we have a sense for what our motion is now? Can we um are we good? Um, Council Member Calbert. >> So, I have a question. So, how are people getting from in the meantime before we designate a different corridor? How pe how are people getting from the parking lot to areas two and three in the meantime with a leash? I mean, [Applause] >> Mr. Funk. Uh, thank you, mayor and council. Uh, I know you have a motion and a second on the floor. One s one other suggestion and perhaps this is a um suggestion to maybe perhaps change your motion. I'd defer the city attorney how you could do that. But something to think about is I think uh council member what the motion and second is on the floor is for staff to come back with a recommendation on a alternate pathway from the parking lot to areas two and three if the council is supporting moving the path further west and Mr. Kama indicated that it's possible. Are you comfortable with staff proceeding? Do do we need to come back with that area provided we can get out of the highquality area? If you're saying you went out of the high quality area and Mr. Kuma and our team says we can do that. Would you are you comfortable with us proceeding without coming back? >> Yes. >> Council, what are your thought? I mean, you're the experts. I >> um that's kind of my view. You I mean, if you're saying we're not in the sensitive area, I I believe you. I don't know other are there other opinions from the on the council >> just a question is that with or without fencing >> what was your question >> the the area >> without temporarily at least it would be >> temporarily without fencing >> just clarify >> all right >> so so I think I heard the council say correct me if I'm wrong that we are comfortable trusting your professional opinion that that um a revised trail location outside the sensitive area um is up to staff discretion. >> Right. I would be willing to amend my motion to remove the the to remove the requirement that staff report back to or that staff bring it back to council for approval. >> Seems like clarification. >> All right. Okay. We're all nodding and smiling. Um, so BA basically up to staff disc outside the sensitive area up to staff discretion and and you don't have to bring that back to the council for a specific location. >> Mayor Wearsome, just to be clear, like there's nuance in that area. There's no hard line where the high quality begins or ends. Um, so for me to say absolutely 100% it'll all be outside of that area is difficult at this point. I I'm familiar with that area quite a bit. I've walked it. There are certainly ways we can push it into the aspen grove and closer to the wetlands, but exactly it being outside is hard to guarantee 100%. >> Well, we'll we'll trust I mean I'm willing to trust your sensitivity to the sensitive area. Um and so um you know I think I think that's as good as we can do. >> Councilor Shaq, >> you know I I have a little apprehension on this just because it is a pretty significant shift from what was in the staff recommendation and it you know I not and it doesn't give individuals an opportunity to weigh on in on this but I don't you know and I don't want to throw the consensus out the window. So I would like a note in the record that you know this would be part of the conversation in in May that you know is that working? Have we protected the sensitive area well enough? Are people honoring it? I just I don't want somebody to say you said you would do this. I mean, I'd like to review that and particularly because I don't think all of the invested stakeholders on that area have had an opportunity to weigh in. One very small adjustment, I would suggest pushing the deadline to um no later than June 2nd because we're pushing miday by saying end of May because we have Memorial Day. So, that gives us one more Monday to get for staff to have some flexibility. And sorry. >> Oh, no, that's okay. And I was going to suggest that we part of the evaluation could be looking at this trail area and see are we impinging on the the the sensitive areas, etc. So, yes, I would I would be in agreement with making sure that's part of what's evaluated. >> All right. Is is there Council or um Mr. Nelson? >> Yep. Mr. I I I think we're kind of tangled up in a bunch of uh different motion considerations right now and a lot of it did just seem like in the nature of clarification and there is general agreement but I think to to to make it clear for everybody perhaps a restatement of the motion. >> Um >> all right >> with a second with a second with a second just so that the record is clear and everybody is aware of what All right. Council Wurn are you up to that? >> Uhhuh. All right. The motion is to adopt the off leash dog implementation plan for Purgatory Park and resolution authorizing a no parking zone on Stadola Road east of Culdeac to Creek Park Drive. The initial phase includes full signage imple implementation parkwide, including complaint reporting system for rapid response and enforcement tracking considerations and a plan for future considerations including enforcement barrier fencing installation effectiveness and access accessibility. Um, in addition, we direct staff to research and implement, if possible, a corridor from the parking lot to areas two and three, uh, that does not impinge upon sensitive areas and report back by June 2nd. >> Is that good? >> That that Sorry, that that sounds good. and and just have a second on the motion and then proceed. >> Council member Foster Bolton. >> I second. >> All right, we've got a motion by Council Member Wilburn and a second by Council Member Foster Bolton. Are there any other comments that council members like to make? >> If not, is any anyone Go ahead. Council member Foster Bolton, go ahead. >> Does that include the removal of the bench? Do we need to >> I don't think that needs to be part of a motion. That's executional. It's just going to do it anyway. Okay. Okay. >> So, we've got a motion, a second. Any other last comments? M. Larson, please call roll. >> Shack. >> Yes. Wilburn. >> Yes. >> Calbert. [Applause] I'm just thinking about what's going on right now today. So, I don't know. [Applause] I'll say yes. >> Rome, >> no. >> Kley, >> yes. >> Foster Bolton, >> yes. >> Wearsome. >> Yes. Um, I will make one one comment. I think this council demonstrated that we had not made up our minds before the meeting. And so I want to be clear on that because people often think that councils do that. This council does not. So I wanted to make that point. So with that motion carries. Um uh next item on the agenda is appointments and reappointments. We have none. Final item is adjournment. Um is there a motion to adjurnn? Council member Wilburn. >> I move adjournment. >> Is there a second? Council member Calbertt. >> A second. >> Okay. Uh we've got a motion by council. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> We are adjourned. Thank you all. [Music]