All right, I'm going to call the meeting to order and this is the uh work session for the city of Minnetrista of May 4th, 2026. We have a number of items on our agenda. I'd like to ask that we So, I thought maybe this gentleman was going to be here. Since he's not, we're going to stick with the agenda as presented. So, we'll first talk about the 2050 comprehensive plan update, Woodland Cove Crosswalk, and then the joint letter um about the roundabouts with St. Bonnie, and then fire district resolution with St. Bonnie. Then we're going to have a closed session. So, with that, I'm going to hand it over to staff. Is that David? >> Yeah, thank you uh Mayor and Council. Um I think it's no surprise it's come up I think here in recent discussions, whether it's strategic planning or recent development proposals that we've had. Um it's that time of year in the every 10 years. Um we are required by state law to update our comprehensive plan. Um goes back to the Municipal Land Planning Act of 1967 that was enacted in Minnesota. Um the next go-round will be uh due by December 31st of 2028. That is um how long we have to submit our plan to the Met Council for their review and approval. Um so, as part of that, I've got two different things listed here in the staff report that we wanted to just touch base with the council on to make sure we're um tracking in the right direction. And um also, these are two very key uh steps in the process to initiate the the updating of our comp plan. Um so, first would be uh to look to get a proposal from WSB and Associates, our engineering firm. Um this is what we did last time when we updated our comprehensive plan. We got a proposal from them um and approved that, and worked uh very well with them uh throughout that process. So, our our hope is to go ahead and and uh get a proposal from them and we'd bring that back to you of course for approval at a future meeting. So wanted to do a touch point on that with the council. As outlined in the report, there's a many reasons why it seems to make a lot of sense why you'd want to utilize your engineering consulting firm, the knowledge, the information that they have it just goes a long ways in in helping to be efficient and cost effective throughout the process. And then secondly, the establishing of a steering committee is also something that we should probably get going on and wanted to do a touch point again with council on what your thoughts were on who would serve on that committee. Ideally, it'd be a seven-person committee, but there's a couple different options listed there of course about how you could go about that. But bear in mind as you're well aware, we are having problems the way it is filling our planning commission and our parks commission. We currently don't have a full park commission. And for whatever reason, we have not had a full seven-member planning commission very often show up. I mean we we have quorums and we're getting business done and that's fine. It's working fine, but just bear that in mind that we're now asking people to do more and and the difficulty that you might we might run into trying to do that. So wanted to touch base on what your thoughts are there. We'd probably do similar to what we did last time. The steering committee would meet the same once a month the same night as the planning commission does. It'd be an hour. Probably be like 5:00 to 6:00 is what we'd have slated for the steering committee cuz then the planning commission meeting would start at 6:30. So Um, what we'd be looking to do from a meeting standpoint. There may be a month or two where we might have to meet uh a second time, but um hopefully not. It just be the once a month meeting requirement for the steering committee. Um and whether or not council wants to actually have someone on that committee or if you want to do the rotating liaison thing like you've done or whatever you want to do there, um but uh probably good to have someone from council. We had someone from council last time that was on and actually flipped because she left, Patricia left, and then Mike Molitor was promoted you know went from planning commission to council and then he was the liaison. So, or he was on the the steering committee. So, um just wanted to again touch base, uh make sure we're still going in the right direction and then get your thoughts on uh the the steering committee and we can start asking uh people who are would be willing to be on that. >> Yeah, it's I'm going to start out real quick. So, one thing I don't want to jump the gun here because um I kind of want to see want to make sure that no housing um bill is passed or at least you know that supersedes um local zoning and planning for this year at least. Because if it does this is going to change. This whole thing is going to change. You know, it's I mean, we still have to do it, but it seems ridiculous because if they can just come in and do whatever they want, our plan is going to go to it's not going to be worth anything. >> Well, I mean, this this is so the proposal would be you know, it's a budgeted item for next year. >> Right. >> So, um in terms of getting a steering committee together and start laying the groundwork I I think we have to. >> Yeah, I don't Yeah. >> We have to get started at least um and you know, the the bulk of the work won't be till next year and you'll know more obviously than when >> Okay. >> about your uh the housing bill. >> Yeah. Yeah. How much is anticipated to change between our 2040 plan and the 2050 plan? >> Well, there's and there's there's changes. Now, there's a big changes with water resources and climate is is uh per the Imagine 2050 that each community has to address. So, there's bigger changes there that are going to have to occur. >> Like could you be more specific? >> Well, I mean, I can I if I could, but so there's Met Council gives us things that we have to include before they'll actually accept it, right? Some of those things are kind of unknown, but they did do their Imagine 2050, which is which the product one of the products was this 3.5 units per acre. It just enacted that before kind of the comp plan was due. Unfortunately, um so I don't I don't know if we know the details on those things, but like as far as other updates, you know, we're going to have to look at larger sewer shed areas, water shed areas, um things like that with some of the growth that's expected, um you know, up in the bowl area, um Akradi area. Those things will have to be included in there. We'll have to look out much farther. Those things aren't in our current plan. >> Right. >> So, they'll be up >> developed. So, I mean, we're not We already know that. That doesn't take seven people to decide to make sure that can be developed. That we we got that already. >> There'll be There'll be other I mean, it depends on how many units that we are going to be on the hook for. So, I don't know what that number is going to be. >> Well, it'll be it it will be 3.5 units per >> No, no, I don't Yeah, but they usually assign us a certain number of units that we have to have. So, in other words, they might say you have to absorb 1,000 units. So, figure out how you want to do that. I mean, that that's in my I think that's correct. >> That's potentially potentially. Just but the problem is there's so many moving parts right now where we're at and what we have developed or what we don't know what is or isn't going to is real yet between Akradi and Boll. >> Right. So, I mean it's more than just figuring out housing units and I don't know that you know. >> It's it's it's 13 chapters and you know if we don't address all of what they have in their imagined 2050 that you know they won't approve it. >> Right. So, what happens if they don't? Yeah. I mean like then you can't develop. >> Well >> Well, I can I ask a question? >> Well, they won't give you sewer, yeah. They won't give you sewer permits to hook up the houses. >> Aren't Okay. People leaving Minnesota faster than they're coming into Minnesota? I mean, who says we're not really growing this fast? >> We are the rest of the state. That's >> Why are So, are they is the Met Council looking at the communities that just have more land and they want I mean there are empty buildings downtown Minneapolis that could be filled. I just don't understand why we're being forced to grow. No, it's I know sustainable growth is something. >> Right. But is a thousand more heads? >> I I'm I don't know that that's the number. I'm just saying they usually give you a certain number of units that you have to absorb and then you have to do 3.5 units. It has to equal an average of 3.5 units. So, they say well, we anticipate growth to happen here. This is what we anticipate and so it it >> And we still don't know that. >> We still don't know. >> We don't know that they're going to we we have number we don't we might be fine. >> Yeah. >> In terms of adding more. It's but if you want to you can. >> Right. And we may want to grow a little bit more than I mean we may we have to kind of to cover our water infrastructure. And so it's a matter of where and and how. I guess that's the biggest issue. But there's other things like I mean I would But my question or maybe can we somehow just adopt a lot of the things that are in our current plan? I mean like transportation, that's kind of not going to change a whole lot, right? >> Uh >> Well, they can't make us What are they going to do? Make us put a bus stop in somewhere? I mean like we we're not putting in rail lines or anything like that. I mean that that would be have roads that we control now. Most of our roads that would be that are county or you know, county roads. So I mean like we can't we have no control over that anyways. If they want to put a light rail on seven, we can't do anything. So I mean like that stuff those aren't our roads. So what how much is really going to change between our 2040 and our 2050 no matter what rules they put in? I guess I don't I don't I >> Could I say something? >> Yeah. Go ahead, Peter. >> Okay. Um well, uh as Sam mentioned the um the 3.5, you know, that's for the whole city and so uh when you think about uh that, you you know, we want to have less density in most of the city because it's so big, you know, a big geographic area. And then maybe, you know, get a much more dense um like the apartment building um along seven and uh so that's where, you know, we really have to focus our efforts on of thinking about you know, where can we put this growth so that it's it's logical and it and it preserves as much of the kind of rural feel, you know, as as possible. Um so that's really uh the part that we have control over. >> So Allison, you wanted to say something about rural >> Yeah, Mayor, if I may. Um so I think there's some high-level components of the comprehensive plan that um you know regardless of where the Met Council comes in at with with unit counts speaking from a water and sewer infrastructure for example you take a look at where where do you extend how do you extend sewer to serve certain areas and then included in that you you do the the high level calculations of units per acre and so on but there's some components on that that will help the city facilitate growth and knowing what areas need to develop first where do you extend the the the sanitary sewer from what water main looping and water main sizing would you need etc. Another component with the water resources is my understanding now instead of having you know certain watershed districts documents updated separately from the comprehensive plan process they're now looking to have that included in the comprehensive plan process so there components that the city's already doing that were independent of the comprehensive plan previously but are now going to be part of the comprehensive plan and then with with traffic you know certainly there's there'll be some changes with anticipated growth because you have those areas that you look at and and what the trip generation would be and certainly with the Highway 7 Corridor coming in with the plan that they have that would be something that we would recommend including in the comprehensive plan update so those are just a few items that regardless of what the the Met Council comes out with with unit counts really helps staff from a planning perspective and and looking at logical sequence of development and and assisting us in in when developers come looking. >> Don't we already have that? >> Well let's hold on. I think that the issue or what what David is saying is we need to decide tonight do we want to uh a uh member whatever number um committee because we have to do this. I mean, and if we don't, like he said, they can hold up um sewer um permits. And then what do you do? You have a development that doesn't have sewers. So, they kind of have you um yeah, they And so, um So, I think So, we have to do it. So, I think he's just saying uh what are the first steps in in doing it? Maybe we can at some point talk uh we we really need to probably uh refresh ourselves regarding the comprehensive plan. I'm not really excited about having to read five, six, 700 pages or or more. I don't know how many pages this is. It's a pretty It's a big document. It's a big document. But, and I think last time what we did is we the um committee, and Peter, correct me if I'm wrong, the committee really focused more on um units and housing and density. I think that was their primary focus, if I'm not mistaken, because um the other Yeah. Go ahead, Peter. >> Right, yeah. Yeah, that's right. And uh Mike Mullder actually um led that. Um you know, he had the vision to uh think about, you know, keeping the density um in in one area. And so, as a result, you know, the a lot of the development that That's why it looks the way it does. So, >> Right. >> it did have a big impact. >> So, um again tonight, it's like, do you want to do um rotating council in and out of the committee? I think that would probably be most fair rather than somebody getting uh or two people getting, you know, um >> Well, and I was going to ask if we're having problems getting people coming to the planning commissions on Mondays, like in general, does it make sense to do it on a different day of the week in hopes of getting people who are more available? I mean, is it the day of the week that's not working for our planning commission members? >> Hard to say. I mean, a lot of it's due to travel. It seems like or illness. There's been that, too. Um we can ask them if it if >> Cuz I know parks used to meet on Tuesdays, so maybe like a Tuesday. >> Mhm. >> If that works better just to offset in case >> Yeah, we can we can certainly ask. I was just thinking in my head about publications and what that might do. We have to post the The problem is with our paper and their deadlines of posting it to the paper. So, we'd have to play around with that, but we can certainly ask them if what there's a better day. >> Okay. I mean, I just meant for like this committee, not necessarily like moving the planning commission or anything. >> Yeah. I think >> Just what David was trying to do is maybe streamline it a little bit so you don't have two nights where you have to be >> If it's just the plan I mean, if the if we're going just after the planning commissioners, you know, they're coming anyway. >> Right. >> Council members coming anyway. And staff's here anyway. Um it's not another evening, if you will. Um it worked it like I said last time it worked well. Um about a year, you know, there's about 12 or so chapters. Basically, a chapter a meeting is what we would do or the goal was to go through a chapter for each month. And then, of course, we have to have we'll have a couple community meetings. >> Right. You have to have community engagement. Yeah. >> Right. >> Right. Um okay. And then, how what's like an estimated cost from WSB? I think last time uh it was 118 is what the final bill came to. My question would be is is there no way of um how do you say combining um trying to do it with another community of similar size and similar that we are? I mean, like I'm thinking of Corcoran, Medina. They're close by. Especially Medina, they're similar size. Corcoran is a growing community. I mean, it seems to me that they did look at one time doing one plan, one um it was for the watershed because every watershed was doing a different plan or a plan. And then they decided, well, what if we just did one plan and people could kind of tweak it a little bit for their own cities because if every city has to pay 120 grand, that seems like >> That's little. Victoria is paying 250. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean, that's just the worst thing. >> That's That's low >> Yeah. We're doing a huge I know that, but that's >> That's so high. >> That Yeah. >> Yeah, especially if a lot of the >> I mean, has has anybody thought about that? I mean, >> Well, it's a It's impossible. You Each community has separate system statements and separate There's no way that you could from a comp plan standpoint to meet the Met Council. I I >> Yeah, it'd be very >> I don't know. I mean, Austin St. Bonnie, that might make some sense. >> Okay, but they don't have Do they have to do it? >> Oh, yeah. >> Oh, okay. >> Everybody in the seven county metro area. Every community. >> Okay. >> 1960 >> I know. Every 10 years. Every 10 years we have to >> Every time it comes up, I I know nobody likes it and nobody in the seven county metro area likes it, but it's been going on since 1967. So, I you know, till they change that. >> I know. >> The The other question, you know, other than the formation of the group is, are you okay with WSP providing this? Um I would say that that's the most cost effective. >> Well, I mean, what's the other option? Yeah. >> Do an RFQ and interview folks and um >> I think we have to do that. >> Well, WSP then is also they have to review the work of the whoever the third-party consultant is from the engineering standpoint. They're a consulting engineer. >> Then you'd be paying double and then send some of it. >> Yeah. And I mean, they they did it before I mean, they did it before. They have all the maps. They have all the contacts. Like David said, they they work with the community. You got you bring in like a Bolton and Menk or whoever else does these There's all kinds of different different groups that do that. They're going to be starting from scratch and they're either going to have to get the data >> to go out for an RFP, Sarah? Because of the cost? >> No. >> Uh Madam Mayor, members of the council, this is exempt from the uh the competitive bidding requirements because it involves professional services. So, no RFP is required. >> No. I just can hear certain members of the community saying, "Well, isn't that convenient for WSP?" That But isn't it convenient for us, too, though, you know? >> Yeah, if we're going to pay them just to review it after the fact, it makes no sense to not just have them do it to begin with. >> So, here's the thing. We do need to have some kind of dollar amount by June, August kind of be for budgeting purposes. >> That's why I'm >> That's why you're bringing it up. That's why you're bringing it up. So, let's do this. Let's just say, yes, um um WSP, give us an RFP. Give us a um >> Folks, um >> um a a quote or whatever. And uh let's then um also determine that yeah, okay, we'll meet Mondays before the planning commission meeting so that we can kind of streamline things. And >> How does that work if you have a parks meeting, too? >> Well, yeah, we'll we'll figure it out. >> Yeah, we'll have to figure that out, right? >> The parks meeting for this next year, what hopefully what we need to do with the parks commission will be taken care of by the time this gets going. But, you know, I guess something else could come in, but >> Right. >> Um we'll figure it out. >> Okay. Um And then, um so we'll do that, and then we're looking at possibly a seven-member committee consisting of Do you think you want to do two council members or one council member liaison? Alternating or >> I think two. >> Okay. And then And we'll check with See, the problem with parks is there's only like four people in parks, and one of them, I think, is actually parks and planning. >> Cool. >> Cool. >> Two of them are, so you know, so I'm I think then we should do say two people from parks and planning, whatever. And then see if we can get two or three residents. >> I just sent out a text to some really competent people that >> I just sent >> Yeah. Well, why don't we just see how many residents want to do it? >> I mean we could all reach out to a few people. >> Well, I think it's good to have you know, a couple of planning commissioners because they kind of hit know some of those zoning and all of those issues. >> Yeah. >> Um and it's good to have two two council members, but maybe maybe then ask if there's people at large maybe would can try and get three people at large. >> Okay. >> And if we can't, then then we have five. >> Then we have five. >> Should Should we do an application process where you can we'll develop a little application similar to our park We'll just use that one and then have it be for the comp plan. >> And who knows, maybe more people will be interested because it's just a one-year commitment. You know, versus if it's parks or planning, then it's four years, you know, so maybe they'd be more interested. Okay. All right. >> And just so you're aware, Peter fell off. >> We saw. >> Uh-oh. >> Okay. Just so you know. >> We lost Peter. >> Which we're not voting on anything This is a work session, but that could be problematic during the regular >> Yeah, okay. Um, now we're Woodland Cove crosswalk pedestrian feature. Do you have everything you need okay? Um Allison or who's taking this? Okay. >> I'll take it. Thank you Mayor Waylon, Council. This item is following up from a March 23rd session of Council City Council meeting where a resident from Woodland Cove came up during persons to be heard raising some concerns and asking for a four-way stop and crosswalk at Woodland Cove Boulevard Lotus Drive near the the auxiliary pool is is in my my mind what I'd call it. >> No, it's a little pool. >> The little pool. >> It's a little pool. >> Um, so as staff we took a look at that from a technical perspective first from the four-way stop perspective. There are some guidelines that are that we have as far as stopping sight distance and and I won't bore you with details, but vertical curves, horizontal curves and after looking at that we found that there is support for the installation of a four-way stop based on those technical components. Um so we are recommending that those be put in and then we also when we come to crosswalks the the manual that we use to to guide us through these processes recommends a full out study and we didn't think staff didn't think that that was necessary. So we we took a look at it. We're like, well, it's a four-way it would be we're recommending a four-way stop. It's a high pedestrian generation in the summer, right? It's it's certainly and so staff would be supportive of installing a crosswalk at that location as well. Um, a third item that was not brought up at that um, Council meeting, but has become to public works uh attention is the pedestrian crossing sign, the existing sign at the regional trail crossing at Woodland Cove Boulevard. And um, there's a request to replace those with LED pedestrian crossing signs. I believe it's a push button one. Um, and so we included that in the packet here since we were already in the neighborhood talking about stop signs and and and crossing sign requests. Um, so I'm bringing that um, to council's attention as well based on what uh public works has received a request for and and um, some costs are provided in the packet as well. Those are on page six of the packet. So there's there's a little bit of work that would need to be done in order to install the crosswalk at the the little pool. Um, there's um, those the the we call them ADA compliant pedestrian curb ramps. What those are is where the the curb line drops down so that you don't have to step down onto the road. Um, and then it has those little bumps they're called truncated domes. That would need to be installed um, at the at the one intersection. That would be an estimated cost of $2,000. Um, and then the stop signs and the temporary stop ahead signs would be another 500. So we're looking at about 2,500 for what the request was. Um, the striping and some and some striping as well. The striping's I think only a few hundred dollars. Gary, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I I I don't think that the striping's very expensive. Okay. Um, my understanding is the resident that requested these um, indicated that we could talk to the HOA and see if there would be a cost if they would be amenable to cost share. So that's direction that staff is asking council for this evening um, based on what we're seeing for costs. If you would like us to go back to the HOA and um, request a cost share, we're we're happy to do that. And then additionally, I I'm not sure where we're at with the LED pedestrian crossing signs, but as you can see, that's oh, just price tag of over $6,000. Um, so again, we're looking to for council direction on first, do you support the staff recommendation for the four-way stop crosswalk um, at the little pool. Um, and then second, what would you like us to do with as far as cost share request? >> Why are the LED pedestrian crossing signs so expensive? Like a quick Google search shows them to be substantially cheaper. >> Um, I can't speak specifically. Gary can certainly chime in here. Um, certainly there are some electrical components. I don't know. I think it's a solar powered and I don't know if that's a differentiator. Gary, if you can provide some feedback on that. >> Yeah, I'm not certain uh, that's what our supplier quoted for ours and these are the um, ADA recommended out of the traffic control device, too. I mean, that they're the current ones that MnDOT and the federal have deemed usable at these intersections. So, they are LED they are LED or solar recharge batteries in there, too. So, um, we can definitely do some research and see if there's other options available, um, at a lower price. I I have no problem doing that. >> And then the the ones at Mac and Toons have those stupid circular lights all over the shape. >> Is it possible to get the ones that just have the two solid bars under them that are a lot more noticeable when driving at night? >> Uh, oh, instead of being around the sign itself, do a >> Yes. >> above or the above or bar, the above or below bar. We can we can look into that and see what that would cost. >> Yeah, those the the ones at Mac and Toons are horrible. And they definitely need to be push button and not on all the time. >> Yeah, that's what these should be. >> Yeah. So, here's my recommendation that we do the ADA compliant pedestrian curb ramp and the stop signs and stop ahead signs for 2,500 or maybe a few hundred dollars more for the striping and that we talk to the HOA to ask them to flip for the LED pedestrian crossing signs because that was their request. So, I mean, I I think they could we could ask them if they would be because it's mostly people in the HOA that use this. >> I don't have a problem with any of it. This is actually where I said we should put the crossing last year when the people came and wanted the one a block away. I said we should have done this then, so. All right. I don't have a problem with any of this. >> city's jurisdiction though cuz isn't that a parks uh a parks ramp or a trail? That's the city's still responsible for the uh the crossing signs for the um park district trails? >> It it it is a city owned yet at this point they have not nothing has been turned over to the Three Rivers Park yet. >> Ah. >> So, it's still ours. Yeah. And we don't have to have the lights, but I mean, they're extra feature. >> It's a long stretch. It's not a bad idea. There's a lot of kids that go flying through there. >> I mean, let's just at least do the ask ask the HOA if they're willing to help or pay for that and then Gary's going to look into seeing if there's something else that's a little less expensive, too. And then we can >> The HOA helped pay for the ones at Macarthur's, didn't they? Or was that Macarthur's who helped? I thought somebody uh shared with us on the Macarthur's ones. >> No, the city the city paid for that 100%. >> Okay. Peter, do you want to chime in anything? >> Well, I just got in on the last part, so uh I guess that's true. >> Okay, motion passes. No. Okay. Um Okay, then um I think that's gives you enough direction. >> Yeah, so just make sure I'm clear. So, the city support the council supportive of paying for the curb ramp, stop signs, and striping at the at the little pool. And then the request is to go um ask for the HOA to help pay for the LED pedestrian crossing signs and look at alternatives to the ones instead of having the lights around the perimeter of the sign with a flashing one with a flashing bar instead. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right, thank you. All right. Um joint letter about um regarding the roundabout with St. Boniface. >> Yes, um Madam Mayor, members of council, we can I guess Lisa and myself can kind of take team this. Um since it it'll be a letter that potentially she signs along with the mayor of uh of of St. Boniface, but really what it does is it it urges MnDOT to move the roundabout that's planned at County Road 92 and 7 to the Wildwood Hunters um Trail and uh Wildwood and 7 area. So, urging them to do that, at least engage in a conversation with us about that to see if if there's a possibility um to move that. So, I think what we're looking for is just nodding like you guys are okay with that, and then um if if that's okay, then we'll have Lisa sign this and send it off to our rep um at MnDOT, and and likely we'll engage with them in the future. >> So, they they already what they're planning on right now is a roundabout at 92 and 7. And they already have a light there with turn lanes. So, what we're saying is that the Wildwood and the Hunters Trail inter- those entrances onto 7 are somewhat problematic. So, what we're saying is, well, could you take the money that you would be using at 92 and 7 and instead transfer that and align the Wildwood and Hunters Trail um intersections or entrances together and do a roundabout there instead. So that's and St. Boniface would love to have that because a lot of big huge semis use Wildwood to and to access or enter onto 92. And that's going right through a small neighborhood of theirs. So they're very much in favor of this as well. So it will benefit both both communities. Now if they have enough money to do both roundabouts at 92 and Wildwood, well that's up to them. But we're just asking if they can make that change. So if you're all okay with that Okay. >> I concur. >> Peter, you're okay? >> Yes, that sounds good. >> Okay. Um next the fire district resolution with St. Boniface. >> Yeah, Madam Mayor, members of council. Uh this resolution probably looks very similar as we kind of reused it from the JPA um kind of acknowledgement with Mound and St. Boniface and Spring Park. Um but what this stems from is a meeting that we had with St. Boniface. When I say we, it was myself, Mayor Whalen, Council member Rufkin talking about the possibility of of forming a fire district with just St. Boniface. Um that would only be in the the area that uh St. Boniface currently serves in Minnetrista. So basically a snapshot of the current agreement that we have with them, but under the district model. Um what this resolution does is just indicate support from City Council to proceed with examining this. So the team would likely be um the city administrator in St. Boniface, myself and the um fire chief in St. Boniface, uh Eric Anderson working on some of the details and then bringing that to the back to the various city councils. And and starting that process process would would entail likely bringing in the the state fire marshal group that I think we're familiar with that we're part of that partnership meeting and kind of going through that process to see once if we can get this district set up with St. Just St. Bonnie. And then with hopes that the long-term plan would be that Mound Spring Park could potentially jump into that when the time is right. So looking for direction if this is something that we want to see at the next city council meeting we can then throw that on the agenda and and and adopt this. >> Yeah, I just had a question about the be it further resolved and then it has the joint powers agreement in line in there. I don't know why that's there. >> Should be fire district. >> So just we we're trying to move >> to move forward with a fire district and then when Mound figures out their pension issues ideally they would join us. >> They or they could if they wanted to. If they wanted to. >> They could. >> Yeah. >> So I think it's great. >> Okay, we'll bring it back. >> of work into that. >> Yeah. >> More meetings. >> Yeah. >> Sounds good to me. >> All right. So next we have a closed session so we can close the door. So we are going to go into closed session. This is pursuant to Minnesota statute section 13D.05 subdivision it's called a attorney client privilege to discuss pending litigation. It's the city of Minnetrista versus Sunny Field LLC at all and it's court file number 27-CV245609. Um and present so I'm going to open up the closed session. >> Madam Mayor. >> Yeah, okay. I was just going to ask you. >> You need a motion. You'll You'll need a motion and a second to go into closed session, and then you can shut it down. >> All right. Um, can we close the um work session? >> Nope, you're just going into closed session. So, let's just entertain a motion >> Okay. All right. >> closed session and >> Motion to open a closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 1.3 >> D Is that all? >> .05 subdivision 3B attorney-client privilege discuss pending litigation against City of Minnetrista V 1205 Sunnyfield LLC etc. Court file number 27-CV-245609. >> Seconded.