your meeting. All right. Is there a motion to go out of close session? So move and go back into a regular meeting. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. And we're back in open session. And we're back to our agenda schedule. And next on the agenda is a Highway 7 corridor study presentation. and that is listens. Thank you, Mayor Whan and council. Um, so as a council may be aware, um, couple years ago, uh, Mindot encountered a or did a safety study along, uh, Highway 7. Um and subsequent to that uh subsequent to that they uh initiated this corridor study. So uh the safety study was conducted between 2021 and 2022. Um there's been concerns over the corridor historically, but there was a fatality on Eureka that really kind of spurred this um into this safety study. Uh currently the study looks at the transportation needs, future improvements in the corridor, some improvement concepts, and then they're looking to do some MDOT's looking to do some upgrades in 2029 with a resurfacing project between Wildwood A to approximately Mil Street. Um and so um they were looking at this as an opportunity to identify potential updates to the corridor that could be incorporated with that 2029 project. Um there isn't there certainly isn't anything set in stone. This is um it's a concept and so uh the mindot staff and their consultant have been working with the technical folks from the communities along Highway 7 um to come up with these alternatives. And now we're at a point where we'd like to get council feedback um on these alternatives that we can um provide to mind in addition to the comments we've already provided. and then Mandot will be opening this up for public comment as well, but they wanted to get this in front of council first. Um, so again, I think the the one of the biggest takeaways though is that this this study is to be a guiding document when projects are developed. So this isn't the beall end all. Um, but we certainly want to get council's feedback on what's being proposed through there. So, uh, to jump into this, there's three alternatives that are being provided and and council, you have a handout that Mindot prepared. Uh, the first is the no build, which is the current condition. Um, and then they're looking at an alternative with roundabouts and then an alternative with some non-traditional intersections. And I have some graphics to illustrate what some of those non-traditional intersections mean. So, uh, here's the corridor with the roundabouts alternatives. Um, so they show moving from west to east, uh, through Minotrista here. Uh, we have a a 3/4 access at, um, Wildwood, which is actually Hunter Hunter's Trail. Um, and that one initially there was some discussion about um, removing that access point, and I said, "No, Hunter Trail is a state aid route. We need that access to Highway 7. So, what this proposal shows is a what we call a a 3/4 access. So, um so folks going westbound on 7 could take that left turn into onto Hunters. Um but you would not be able to make a left-handed turn from Hunters onto Seven. So, the the traffic team has um you know, they look at what the turning movements are and those sorts of things. Um, so I know that, you know, certainly that it's a a more restrictive access than what's out there today, but again, that was just it it's an alternative that they're looking at along with this roundabout. Uh, they're also looking at putting a roundabout in at uh, County Road 92. Uh, leaving the Kings Point um, roundabout, but actually striping it back to a two-lane. And I know there's there's been consternation with that. and it was it was striped as a two-lane roundabout. Um, and so when we talked to the team about that and what the concerns from the city standpoint are with it being a two-lane is that people were using the two lanes in the roundabout to pass. Uh, what the team reported is that um when that round when the Kings Point roundabout was initially installed, um the design parameters at that time had a certain distance for um merging into the into the roundabout. Since then, those design standards have changed and what they would look at at the King's Point roundabout is a longer lane and and that that would mitigate the I I see shaking heads and I appreciate that. Um I just wanted to let you know that when we brought that up, that was the comment that these longer merge lanes would um alleviate that desire to do passing in the roundabout. So can we can certainly continue to um reiterate that concern with the team. Um and then again if if this comes to if and when this comes to a project standpoint and it shows a roundabout, we can certainly have uh the mindot team come and address the council and have those conversations. Uh they're also proposing a roundabout at uh County Road 44 and then um further east in the in the corridor. Um they're looking at some roundabouts as well. They just not like the stoplight at 44. Like why I mean so I know there's been accidents, but it's not like a massive accident area. Well, there was a there was a and why was what happened? It wasn't the light's fault. So, my understanding from from Chief Falls was that it was um a driver confusion on the left uh on the left turning um that they thought that a green meant that they could go no matter what. Um whereas a green means yield and turn if you can safely. So, couldn't we just put one of the stop lights that has the green arrow and the yellow arrow and seems like a much simpler. So, what one of the things that I I asked kind of a bunch of questions of Paul um from Mindot. One of the things they say roundabouts do is slow people down. And so, so then you still might have accidents, but they're going to be less severe. Yes. So, you're not going to have as many fatalities, and that's what they're trying to avoid. And once people know how to use roundabouts, data says they are safer. They are they are safer. And um if you travel overseas anywhere, everybody has roundabouts now all over the place. Um, so once we motans figure out how to use them, but they do slow traffic down and that's what creates the better the safer aspect of them. And then people hit at an angle rather than like correct. Yep. Right. Too. But um what I what I'm more concerned about is the intersection at Hunter Crest and the intersection at Highland Road because um for future So currently Highland Road is not a good intersection. I get that. But um to have it what they're what they're recommending would be a a right out only. Yeah. And then you'd have to go up who knows where maybe and then you'd have to turn around and it's it's confusing. Well, and I made the point I'm like I wouldn't be able to take Highland home from council if they do that which I don't like. I mean well that's but that's but that's not the only reason and we can't we can't make that decision based on on you. Sorry people there's plenty and want to go. That's right. but also for future development because if you were to look at a map and David knows this, you go up Highland and on the corner of Highland and 110 um on up here, there is about 40 acres that eventually will be developed. Um and when that develops, they can take 92, but they'll also take Highland and getting out onto Highway 7. And there's other areas too that Highland is going to be the um the main corridor. So I'm concerned about that. So currently it might not warrant it, but I think in the future it will. And I'm not I don't think it's a good expenditure of tax dollars to spend millions to create the Highland like they're saying. Why not just create it as a roundabout today? Yeah. Yeah. So, and so that that thank you for voice too for mentioning that mayor. So, this this shows what access points would remain either full access points or or partial like 3/4. The rest of them would be restricted to a right in right out. Meaning you if you're traveling along Highway 7, you can turn right onto the street. And if you're on a side street, you can turn right out onto Highway 7. and then you would need to utilize a roundabout or another intersection to turn and and redirect yourself. And so the comment regarding Highland Road has been made. I've made that comment every time that Minotaatric wouldn't support that. Um, and so we had some conversations with the design team as far as putting, you know, would a roundabout be appropriate there? and they're looking at, you know, the spacing of Highland Road with respect to the corridor cuz, you know, later on in the slide deck and included in the information you were provided, they have, you know, a matrix that shows um, you know, all these considerations that they're putting into these alternatives and and um, you know, the time the travel time through the corridor is I believe it's the capacity of maintaining capacity and free flow of of highway Highway 7 is one of those and so if you put another roundabout in it diminishes from that but it's certainly been a comment that Mandot has heard before. So well and to the point of slowing down traffic that would slow down traffic going into St. Bonnie substantially roundabout there right and and the comment that I provided to mind with regards to Highland is if that access is restricted to a right in right out the miniaturto traffic would be going through St. Bonnie right and I would be surprised if St. Bonnie residents andor council would be happy with that alternative as well. So um again this is this is high level stuff um you know looking at looking at this as a as a guiding document but they certainly do want to hear those comments they've heard some of them have come from me um but certainly I would be relaying any council comments as well. Um so the pros of this alternative is improve safety and reduce delays at the intersections. And then the cons that they identified are public acceptance because there are some access points that are being either restricted completely or um uh you know uh 3/4ers at the case of Hunters Trail um and some longer travel distances. So, um, another question, David, have you looked at this and have you been able to kind of make some comments because I know development we're talking about more develop the bowl property potentially possibly a Kate property. Have you been talking to or making comments on this? No, not not at this time. I mean, um, a lot of very hypothetical situations. Obviously, as soon as something's real and before us, we'll send it to them immediately given where they're at in the process, but um be a little premature, okay, for us to, you know, it's pure speculation at this point. And I think if there's going to be some development driven access point modifications, I think at that time the developer will propose those and that might change or possibly even drive these things to happen sooner. Um because right now I Allison indicated this is going to be potentially the earliest is 2029. Five years. So Oh, okay. If we have if we have a development that hits next year, we might be able to do some of these in certain areas a little bit sooner and and have it be paired with that development. Okay. So they can make those adjustments. I mean if they So this study doesn't um you know any development through the corridor would certainly warrant another discussion with mind. It's not this isn't meant to be like oh we have a development it's not consistent with what we showed for access points on on the highway 7 corridor. The what they've done though, the benefit of this when it comes to development is Mandot's already got all the data on safety and kind of the vision for the whole corridor so that when it time does come for development to occur along Highway 7, some of that background information is already available and it's been vetted. So I think that's a benefit for any development team coming into the city. And and again, they would go through as Dave as David mentioned, they would go through Mandot as far as access points and um uh review of their of their roadway system and connections. So, um go ahead. Oh, well, I was going to say um so I assume the roundabouts deal with the high incidence of fatalities from rear end collisions, which I think that was the number one cause of death. Um, but the second one was just single car going off the road. I don't see anything in here about that or is there anything you can do about that? Um, that's a good question and I'm not I'm not intimately familiar with with the the accidents that have occurred along the corridor. Um, you know, certainly they want to present an alternative that um would reduce the um likelihood of all accidents, but there might not be um something that's technically or economically feasible to address all of those because some of those are driver inattentiveness. And um you know they certainly looked at some of these curves through here and and and that um was uh part of uh their considerations with uh with what the alternatives they provided. Oh, we just lost it. Um I had Sorry. Oh, no. Sorry. I had the opportunity to listen to CH uh Chief Barno from Orno Barno Barnac and he said um this year or last year was the first time in the history of driving that um fatalities were caused by people texting and driving and on their phones opposed to being impaired. So, I think these problems are more we need to find judges that will actually punish people that are driving while they're on their cell phones than spending millions of dollars putting in roundabouts. And and I think the problem is distracted driving, not traffic and the lights. That's just kind of what I'm hearing. I drive on seven several times a day. I live right off of Highway 7 in one of those intersections. It is not a problem. No. And I think most people realize when they're looking at oncoming traffic and they have a green light that they can't turn right in front of somebody unless they have the the other thing that Mindot wants to do, they want to keep traffic flowing. And so what they look at um daily ADTS and and also projected AD daily traffic counts. Okay. And then they say, "Okay, how can we handle it's a two-lane highway. how can we handle this kind of volume and I think currently they have about 14,000 um traffic uh movements in this area just in this segment and they're projecting more like in the near future how do you future probably more like 20,000 and so so that's the other reason they're trying to figure out how to keep the traffic moving versus these traffic jams I don't know if any of you ever have have had to drive up 169 through Elk River on a weekend. Okay, I'm just telling you how awful it is. And I'm looking at Ally because she knows um it was just awful. I mean, it would be backed from Elk River. It would be backed up all the way to Rogers. I mean, I'm not kidding you. And so 35 going it's very difficult. So what they're what they do is they look at this and they do projections and they say, "Okay, how can we avoid that kind of traffic jam?" So it's it's the safety, but it's also keeping traffic moving. So it's is there a reason they just don't make it a limited access highway and get rid of 90% of the intersections? So they are they are removing a lot of intersections with but I mean what kind of No, no, no. Just frontage. You'd have a have to have a frontage. Have a frontage. I see. So um like further further east in this segment. So they they they um they're identifying this as two different segments. They kind of have more of the rural part here starting in Minotarista moving to the east and then they have another segment. Um, so I'm not I'm not familiar with intimately familiar with like absolute closures, but I know that was on the table at one point um with some of these access points because they do want to encourage if there's if there's a roadway system internal to a city available that they can remove access points, they certainly look at those alternatives. Um, but with that comes, you know, now you're looking at instead of just doing a a construction corridor through Highway 7, you're now looking at, you know, do you have to realign things in the cities as well? So, um, there they've certainly I I think they've left no stone unturned. They did have other alternatives through here. Um, but these are the the two alternatives that they're well, including the no builds, the two construction alternatives that they're bringing forward. raised medium between intersections in these that would that would be like 12. Yes, exactly. Yeah, that's exactly the the example they provided. Yeah, that did eliminate fatalities that that helped, right? But then yeah, you you can't obviously had to raise medians where there's an intersection, but um yeah, and and then I also asked, well, how far in advance of let's say a roundabout do those medians go away? you know the so they said about 200 feet so so you can visually see the the roundabout or whatever. Aruba has medians in their roundabout and so you can't cut over in them which I thought was genius. Yeah, that was the big takeaway on there. This one this alternative four where they show the three/4er intersection. So, if you wanted to go east on Highland Road, you'd have to go over three miles west to 10 right to that roundabout and then come back. Yeah. Yeah. If if you were to make a a a right turn on to seven. Yeah. If you were leaving Buddy Boys with alternative four, there is no roundabout close by and you can't make a Uturn. So, yeah, that would be horrible. They won't be going round trip. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Yeah. to that one. What is an rci? So an rci here, we'll go over to that. So an rci is and I these are terms that I am not. That's a reduced conflict intersection. So this one that's alternative number two that they're bringing forward or what they're calling non-traditional intersections alternatives. And so keep in mind, you know, again, these are guiding documents. Is it going to be is this exactly either of these alternatives what it would ultimately look like? Probably not. Um, but you know, these are certainly the the talking points that they want to bring forward. So, so here as we move through the corridor again, we're seeing the same 3/4 access at Hunter um at signal at at 92. They show the the 3/4 at Highland, which you know, at least we get access there, but still not the full access that um that they've been hearing from us uh hearing from me from a comment. uh the uh roundabout at Kings Point and then they do this green tea at 44 and I have a graphic on that that kind of explains it a little bit better and then um other Yeah. What is a green tea at? Green tea cuz I didn't So green tea is on the top left there. So if you look at it I I oriented it so that it would be it it aligns with how highway 7 is at Caner Road 44. So green T you can see that eastbound Highway 7 is split off from the turning traffic on coming off of County Road 44. So southbound so so drivers on 44 that want to make that left turn onto Highway 7, you can see that there's they have a signal there and then they have um it it's a little bit of a splitter there. So it's yeah they get a an acceleration lane to come in and merge then with highway 7 traffic. This graphic shows it as as multi-lane but highway 7 would still be you know the two one a lane in each direction but it keeps that eastbound highway 7 free flowing and separated. So essentially they don't have a stop condition there. The eastbound doesn't. Yes. Correct. But the westbound. You talk about um confusing. I mean but okay. Well, there's some interesting Yeah, interesting. Um, again, I I just think these um rcis are are not going to work. Now, we talked about the rci at um Marywood, and that I could see if they have a roundabout at 44. That would make some sense. Um we could maybe entertain that, but um because that's only a very short distance. So, if there's a roundabout at 44, people could come out of Mrywood, then go around the roundabout to go east. Um, and I asked that question and actually it Paul was saying, well, um, it would actually save people time at so it wouldn't have so much of a problem, but we have to talk to fire departments and police departments to see how that would work because when they're if they're on a call and they have to go in to Marywood, I would be concerned about the time it would take because then they would have to go all the way up to rolling acres and come back and that would be way out of the way. So we'd have to figure that out. Yeah. So certainly we want to have those conversations as we get deeper into the details and um and and providing some constructive feedback for them. That's certainly one thing that we would want our emergency services um uh response times looked at. So I think right now I would say the um rci at um Hunter Crest, Hunter Trail and Highland. No, but the other thing they said if they did the rci at Highland, they may have to improve that bridge. And then I said, "Well, you might as well just put in a roundabout then because then it might cost less." Yeah. So, just to clarify, three Yeah. Hunters and Highlander 3/4 access are done. RCI rcis are are outside of Minatrista. They're the eastern three at 13asha and 41. Um, but I just wanted three quarters, I'm sorry. Yeah. Three quarters. There's quarters. Mhm. So, anyhow, those are But the good news is, and it I don't see it in this packet, is they are talking about adding a trail along Highway 7. Um I think on the north side or south got to be south. Believe it's on the south side. Okay. South side. That would be nice. Yeah. And so in Minitrista, you know, we've we talked a little bit about frontage roads and and that sort of thing. The challenge in Minatrista is the the wetlands and the topography um along Highway 7. Um just to get some to try to get some internal, you know, within the city off the Highway 7 corridor to get those connections would be extremely challenging from an environmental standpoint. So, um you know, a a lot of things moving around there, but that's that's one that I don't know how we'd be able to get that some of those internal um right connections. via with a frontage road because it's just too difficult. So, um but before this so what happens is the city has to approve these improvements I believe. So ultimately what what the what MDOT's asking for right now is feedback. They got it from the technical folks. We've provided that. um they're looking to get council feedback and and quite frankly to have council see this before it goes out because it will be going out for public comment. So we wanted to make sure that councils saw this before um residents do so that um you know if you get any anybody calling you rest assured we you know you know what it's about and you can tell them what an rci is and what a three quarter intersection is right and so when we were looking through these um just to kind of finalize the conversation on the non-traditional and then we can talk about the matrix and the the um the feedback that we've already provided MIDOT again improve travel time along seven and improve safety are the pros and then the cons are increase and delay on the side roads potentially um pedestrian crossing safety where there's no and where there's uh no signal um increased cost these these non-traditional intersections tend to have a higher price tag on them and then some longer travel distances without having those those roundabouts through the corridor. So, um I don't want to go through it too quickly because there is a lot of information and I I fully anticipate that council would want to take the time to digest this, but I wanted to have this discussion before, you know, providing you all this information so we could have some context on this. This is um an alternatives evaluation and it's included in the packet that you have um where they're looking at you know each alternative does it really hit the mark on you know vehicle safety or walkability. Um and so this is something that uh Mandat looks at when they're considering certain alternatives um whether it be no build roundabouts or the non-traditional. So, I'm assuming if it's green, um, green is good. Green is good, red is bad, and yellow is inate. Yep. Yep. Okay. Um, and then again, the some of the feedback that we've already provided to date was the request be full access at Highland. Um, we did indicate that there was past issues with two lanes at Kings Point Roundabout. We talked about the increased potential increased emergency response time, particularly at Marywood. Um and then we did mention that access for future development along the corridor and mindot indicated that um again through this process any any development that occurs through the corridor it would having this study in place doesn't change h how their process to it. What's changed is that they now have a lot of background information on um you know what's the ultimate vision for the corridor. what are some of the volumes um traffic volumes that they're looking at um so that when these development plans come in they can look at it um from a corridor standpoint as well instead of just looking at it you know okay what's what's happening at where you're proposing if you're proposing an access or you know you're increasing traffic volumes on 92 or something like that. Um, so there's some background information that's already been done, some leg work. So, um, I know it's a lot of information. I know it's I mean, some of these are, um, when you see, uh, you know, a proposal for restricting access points to to other roads, it it can be um, a little shocking. Um, but again, it's we they were looking at this from a corridor standpoint. this is um you know it's it's the full corridor all the way to St. Louis Park um and so before they before they go through and and look at alternatives they're looking to get feedback. So if there's something right off the mark that council would like me to convey to mind um that we haven't conveyed already I'm certainly happy to do that. Um and it's it's not like you know if I don't hear from folks within a couple weeks that's we've missed our opportunity. That's not the case at all. Um, this is an ongoing um process. Um, oh, I thought I had in here the um the timeline. Um, but we're looking to Yeah, it is in here somewhere maybe in the packet. Yeah, it was like final design or something like that. September September report. they'll be getting it they'll be getting this out um you know out for review and and again just because it's it's a study that's in place any any project that were to come along the Highway 7 corridor would still come through a municipal consent process. This isn't this doesn't mean that you know if the city doesn't provide any comments besides what we've already provided them um that we're locking into it. it it's still it still goes through that process, but they want to know like, oh, you know, they're been pretty adamant about Highland being a full access the whole time. So, you know, taking that into consideration, I think we've kind of identified most of them and again, there might be some um they might have to look into something regarding the um access to Marywood for especially for emergencies. So, we need to do that. And I think everything else we've kind of identified a single single roundabout at Kings Point. Here's the thing. I don't see like so they have the double they have high highway 12 and as you're going you've gone through Maple Plane and now you're in Independence and they have that roundabout. It's a double roundabout but I don't know why or how that makes traffic flow better, you know, because you have to slow down no matter what. And also, um, so I don't know why we would say yes to a double roundabout when we've already already we've tried it and it's it's doesn't work. I I think it has to do with capacity. It's with moving more cars through that roundabout. So, and and when Macintothun went in, um, we were talking about what the traffic volumes were on seven and and we're, if I remember correctly, we're not at that level where the two-lane roundabout was needed from a capacity standpoint, but certainly when that roundabout went in and they looked at what are the future of volumes that are anticipated on seven, that's why the two-lane came into play. And so that's the benefit of having the two-lane roundabout is you can still get more vehicles through there. The challenge being in this instance there was there were people passing through there and and we can certainly ask the technical folks um that were you know KJ and and MDOT when you have more vehicles when you're getting closer to that capacity when you need that two lanes then can you add that? Right. Well, and and does that prevent people from trying to pass because now you've got two two vehicles going through there and pretty good consistent stretch because in rush hour that roundabout's getting getting pretty busy. But it's not I mean it it actually works out really nice to have the turn light get out if you need to. Is it a double out by mayor? Um no single I don't understand why you put a double one in. It's a single lane road. Like it's single single. It's not like you're turning into Yeah. you still you still have to merge back together. I I don't know. My my guess is they they striped it for what would ultimately be out there to get people used to this is how you maneuver through this particular roundabout. Um so that's a good question for the team and and they might not not know either, but I do remember when that was restriped from two to one because of those concerns. So no. So I think you've okay kind of covered I mean I think we've covered we like the trail. Okay. But as the trail goes under 11, for instance, that they should do an underpass, there's a underpass than under um seven. So they should figure out. So if you're on Highway 7 and you're on the trail and you get to 11, then you should go underneath so you can connect to the trail that goes underneath seven. Okay. So just, you know, saying Okay. Yeah. I mean, because you do not want to cross over at a roundabout. I They said I said that. I said, "Why would you put a crosswalk at a roundabout?" I mean, it's the worst possible place for a crosswalk. 41 of all those people crossing from the school there. That just seems like you're going to have more accidents and fatalities. Yeah. Well, and at 41 they're actually um they're putting in a roundabout on at 41 at the middle school and I think that's this summer if I remember correctly because that that one's been on the docket for a while now. Okay. So hopefully they can they can get some of those student movements pedestrian movements at the actual entrance to the middle school. I've actually seen roundabout swift lights to allow people to cross if there's a pedestrian. Yeah. Mhm. I should just leave the stop lights in that. Yeah. I mean, I could see pedestrian crossings at roundabouts that, you know, like we have one on H Hallstead. I mean, there maybe um sure there's not a lot of traffic, but on Highway 7 or 12, no, not a good idea. Possible to steer all walkers away from Highway 7. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Do you need any any other comments or questions of Allison? Otherwise, I'll keep the council apprised when when Mandot says it goes out for public comment just so that you might be aware that other folks might be seeing it. We'll certainly share that with city staff so that we could have a link on the city website so that folks can go ahead and comment on that. Thank you. Thank you. So, we'll move on to our fire our JPA um kind of a quick update. Yeah. I mean, um, so your fire GPA group as Mayor Whan, Council Member Refkin, and myself, we've had a series of meetings, a lot of meetings, and we've started talking more about the formula to determine who pays for what, and we've been doing a lot of back and forth with that. Um, we're working on JPA terms. We have a couple of those kind of worked out, I think, but there's going to be a series of other ones. I think we're kind of at a sticking point with the formula to try to figure out what we're going to do. Um, we've had meetings with Spring Park and St. Bonnie. We haven't met directly with Mound. Uh but we have put out that offer to meet directly because it seems like mound and miniaturista need to maybe get together to kind of work out the differences and what they think the formula should be since they're the two entities that are you know 80% plus of of the financial contributions. Um so we're kind of at that point where um we're talking about it. We're trying to work through the things. I think our group is looking for maybe some direction as far as the formula goes without getting into like we don't want to go into all the nitty-gritty details. Yeah. So, um Exactly. Because there's a lot of nuances, right? And we kind of tried to start the conversation by saying, well, what are your values as a group to form the formula? And that quickly went, we don't really care about that. We just want to know what the financial burden is going to be to each of the communities. And then it started going into this, well, what's better for each community? and we're trying to figure that out right now. So, it's it's it's becoming challenging. Um, right now, go ahead. So, right now we have contract with St. Bonnie and contract with Mount. And the formula for St. Bonnie is 50% u market value and 50% is based on um call hours. With Mound, it's a little different. It's um a threeprong thing approach. Population, market value, and call hours. I the group the one thing we do agree on is to do a simpler uh formula that's market value driven and and um call volume call volume and it's call hours. So here's where the sticking point is. We um were we would like it to be our our formula would like it to be 5050 50% market value 50% call hours for Minitrista that is and actually not just for Minitrista but that's actually the most fair way of doing it and that's the most fair way for all communities really. Um, but Mound doesn't want that because they would have to pay more and Spring Park doesn't want it because Spring Park's market value is is nowhere near ours, but their call volume is very high. So, they don't want that. So, here, so then another one was floated that 60% market value, 40% call volume. And then another one was floated uh 70% market value, 30% call volume. and Mound and Spring Park kind of want that formula. Well, and they want that formula with it eventually going 100% market value. They want to transition to 100% market value, which quite frankly in our mind, there's no reason Minister would ever do that. We'd be paying close to 1.9. We'd be paying close to $2 million by year 10, which if we're going to do that, we might as well start our own fire department. Yeah. It will I'll say that the nuance with the market value was there was this idea that after 10 years we would try to transition to a district that was really really put to bed that that wasn't the case at the last meeting. So I think the market value piece is off the table at this that's why we wanted to bring it to council. So we're hoping you will agree that we are completely against 100% market value and minister will not agree to those terms. So 100% market value. What that does for Minatrista is of course because we're the growing community. We're adding 100 or so new homes a year, which drives up our market value. Our market value has been going up about on average 8% a year. Whereas the other communities, St. Bonnie, none basically or very little and Spring Park very little and Mound also very little. So eventually we will be paying over 50% of the of the budget based on market value only. We decide we said we would be willing to go that route if we eventually after 10 years were to transition and uh go over into a fire district and that that was totally set aside immediately. So we can't we're not doing that. So we're coming to you. We need marching orders. So, Kathleen came up with another alternative which we we would like to pitch to the group to see if they would do this. And her plan I think is actually a good one, but um no, it is it I I think it it would be fair to everybody, but we would take a big hit the first year. So, her plan was doing 25 um call volume and 75 market value. the first year. What that means to Minatrista is it would give us a 2.61% levy hit the first year. In other words, we would have to raise our levy just for just for the fire department by 2.61% for that year. However, uh the spreadsheet that she did would then reduce would would bring it down to eventually a 50/50 split. So by year 2031 it would be 50/50 and then it would hold firm at 50/50. So basically we would be subsidizing the first couple years. So that way Spring Park and Mounds initial hits aren't as high initially which I'm hoping they would agree to. St. Bonnie is kind of irrelevant. They they stay at 5% of the cost no matter what kind of plan you put out there. They're just that steady so it doesn't really impact them. and they they specifically said, "We're we'll basically agree to whatever contract term fight you guys have, like whatever you three come up with." So, we thought this might be a good way to get Mound to agree. Mound and Spring Park are kind of getting the biggest are getting a big hit. We are too um the first year. So, we're trying to bring them on board and also with the idea that we're eventually going to do a 50/50 split. Um, so but we just we just don't think 100% market value is in our best interest. So we're going to try and negotiate and we just kind of want your feedback. Why would we be taking a bigger hit around who's then getting a a deal? So so that they will agree to a 5050 eventually because if we get to the 50, they won't agree. to just start at 50/50. We're fairly positive because the amount that Mound's budget would go up, they won't agree to it. Um, and Spring Parks would go up more than they can reasonably do that first year. So, we would be in a in a way we again we'd be subsidizing it to get them to agree to it because then by the time we get to uh year 2031 when it's 50/50, we're paying 40% of the budget. Mound's paying 41% of the budget, Spring Park's paying 12, and then it's just level from there. So, it's it's more of a step for them where they can budget better. Yeah. Whereas, if we did a market value only, we would be about 51% of the budget. 49 to 51 depending on But that's only after a certain number of years. Then, keep in mind, we're going to continue to grow. So, we're going to end up being more than 50% of the budget if you do just market value. I guess the way we look at it is, you know, I don't look at it necessarily in terms of what's what financial burden we have to carry. I look at what's fair, you know, what's fair for everyone. And and if our neighbors can't absorb a big hit the first year, okay, let's see how we can then make this work. That's kind of how I look. But at the end after four or five years, I think it needs to level out and it needs to be fair. And so that's kind and everybody needs um everybody needs fire service, you know, and everybody needs the apparatus and everybody, you know, whe it's kind of like the treatment plant, you know, everybody needs the treatment plant no matter how much water you use or don't use. So um what was the objection to the fire district? It seems like that would have been pretty equitable. We don't know. I think we we do. It's because nobody else there's only two in the state and there's some major opposition to it, but that's it. That's um it's it's literally that two one person in particular just doesn't want to do it. So, it's the discussion is over with. And that is also the point of us trying to find a comparable formula where we're not paying so much over the long term. like we'll we'll take the hit initially because we can gauge that better than like this mindset of like well Minatric is just going to be end up paying all of this later down the road like no but we'll take it initially to I guess reach a negotiable settlement to move forward with it. Yeah. I like the idea of essentially financially incenting them to get into it as long as it's a firm commitment that they're Oh yeah. And the the plan would be the terms lay out like the first year it's this percentage, the second year it's this percentage, the next one is this one and then that's where it holds. And also we've talked about which is probably more details than you want but the the budget would step up or it would it would be the first year it's a 12% budget increase just because of what they need for the two and then the next year it would be eight or seven and that would be in the terms too and then when it levels out at the 4% in year 2031 that's when you need votes to go over 4% increase and all that kind of stuff. So like the terms would be very very laid out of who's paying what the percentage and then where it levels out and that's where it stays. I would consider building in some financial penalties if somebody does try to back out. Oh yeah, there's Oh, yeah. The this we're just talking right now. We just need to get past the formula part before we get down to the the the agreement. So, there's a I don't know a 10page um J it's called a JPA agreement and all of what you're talking about that'll all be spelled out in that agreement what what it would take for somebody to back out if they wanted to. and it's going to be expensive. So, yeah, you want to make it financially not feasible for them to leave once we do all this work. So, anyhow, if you're we're just kind of hoping you're go for it and that we can say our council is adamant we will not agree to a 7030. Okay, that was that was the 100% market. I think we're being fair. Like you said, we're doing the right thing. All right. Well, we will do our best. Isn't it pretty common for when you look at these acquire agreements around the states for calls is 25 to 50% of affordance. Well, the problem is Excelsiars is 100% market value. Yeah. So, that's what Spring Park liked when they heard it and obviously Mountain loves hearing that idea. But, um like Chief um Greg said like the Madina um long um Madina Corkran camel. They do a 50-50 one. So they they ended up because Corkran and Madina are very similar to Minatrista. They're growing and they see that if it went 100% market value that they would be paying, you know, 80% or whatever. And well, whatever, you know, and they they ended up saying, "Hey, the most fair the fairest um is 5050." I don't know that we'll get there, but we'll we're going to keep trying. We're going to keep trying. And Mark, I tell you, it seems like it would make sense if the composition of the cities were very similar. Exactly. Retirement homes up there on which I'm sure is majority of the Yeah. Yeah. No, you're right. If if we were like let's say Madina Corkran and Minatrista were together then 100 it wouldn't matter. I mean 100 because we're the composition is very similar. Very similar. We're growing. Our demographics are similar. I mean Yeah. and then 100% market value might be the same. But when you're dealing with a big growing city, you're dealing with another medium city that's not growing. Um, and then two tiny cities, it's it's really difficult. So, we'll do our best. All right. Okay. We'll keep you posted. Next, um, we have to talk about residential chickens. [Laughter] All right. I I'll hand this off to David. David, very quick. Uh yeah, it sounds like chickens have come up here and especially over this last year, it has come up, you know, several times in my time here, but it seems more prevalent now here recently and as uh asked by the city council, they wanted to discuss this at a work session. Uh put the current definitions of city code um from some chapter 11 that regards animals. Um, quick overview, farm animals are allowed in 95% of our city because it's mostly zoned egg and egg preserve. Um, the residential zoned properties, you cannot have farm animals and that's where chicken falls under that purview unless you have a 10acre parcel. Then you can have chickens in the residential district and there's not obviously very many of those uh in the city. So again, we put the uh definitions in there for you for your consideration. And then it it would be a very simple um if if it is the direction of council that you do want to go down the path of allowing chickens in the residential district. Second page of the staff report, it'd be as simple as adding a a a B section there. It's highlighted in yellow where we um I think a few numbers been thrown around there, but I think one one that seems favorable um would be three egg laying chicken hens may be kept on residential lots would be a very simple and easy way if that is again something the council um wanted to go down the path of doing. um in our research and reaching out to specifically all the lake communities, we have a planners group um of all the lake communities that we talked to often and we asked um how many do do this? There are several that do, but um what the feedback we got is um if you're going to do it um make it simple. Uh you know, don't do permitting, don't you know, get in get into any nuances because it just gets more complicated. Um, and the other thing was don't o hold a neighborhood meeting regarding chickens cuz we'll never do that again because just as many people as you think are in support, there's that many that are not. So, I would be keep your neighbors happy. That was the one advice we got from one of the lake communities. Um, so I would urge you not to do that, but um, again, this is a simple fix uh to it. if if this is what the c the direction of the council uh would like to do would not require um uh a public hearing. This is not chapter 5. Um so it does not have to go to the planning commission is chapter 11. Um and so it's at the discretion of council if you so choose to to go down that path. Uh can I say something? Mhm. Luckily for councilwoman Ruffkin, she has an HOA. That supersedes the city. But who knows what will pass at the state level. So like you can't just rely on, hey, you have an HOA, you don't have to deal with it because the state is literally trying to take away my HOA's rights. Well, the bill housing bill or something like that. Yeah. Well, anyway, that's a whole another subject. I think um what what what I found out is that there are a lot of they call them outlaws in Minitista that have chickens and no one's complaining and no one knows and nobody cares. Um I don't know who these people are, but I've been told. Um I don't have any chickens, by the way. Um but I check come on over. I want chickens and as a council woman, I don't want chickens unless the city thinks it's okay. Um, I think that Min uh, Minatrista is much less populated than Minnetonka or Edina. They both allow chickens. Um, a couple people that I've spoken to that live here in Minatrista now have come from Chicago and had backyards that were 20 by 20 and they had chickens and they loved it and they never had any complaints. So, I think being that we're Minatrista, we should allow hens of course, no roosters. I do think we should adopt something a little bit more like Minnotonka, which is one hen per tenth of an acre. Um, I have seven ten of an acre. You know, if I had six hens, I don't really think that's a lot of h that's a lot of chickens. And then you have to think about the eggs and the things that come with like rodents come with them and other like other animals come to like coyotes will come and try and we have coyotes in our every single but like the it's not just where like they bring stuff with them like rodents and feces and I think you're really against chickens and there's a lot of people that are really fortunate. We have tons of acres in Minnesota they can buy and have all the chickens they want. That's the cool thing about Minatrista. We have the residential where it's not allowed and we have the rule where it is. It's blended. You have Minnetonka, you don't have the rule where they can do it. Chicago has no space to do anything like we and yet they're doing it successfully. But we have lots available to do it. Okay, there's a couple things. Okay, one, you'd have to have six or seven chickens does not work. And here's why. Because one, you have to think of the poop. Okay. too. You have to think about the eggs. They lay every chicken lay asked the resident um chicken owner. Um they lay one egg a day. So if you had seven I mean what are you going to do with all these eggs? I may have you have to harvest them. You have to pick them every single day. Otherwise you do because you know who likes eggs? Uh skunks like eggs. Uh, raccoons like eggs. Um, there's uh what a possums like eggs. I mean, and then and then there's the coyotes and the um what other ones that like the chickens. Okay, I'm back to I'm I'm back to our No, but bringing these these No, but I'm just saying into the neighborhoods that aren't necessarily expecting them to suddenly be there, but they're there and you just don't know about it. Well, they're all doing it very happily. And so if if so if if the city want if they want to do it, you have to have a maximum of two to three, you have to say hands only. You have to have a minimum, keep them locked up, but they have to be completely enclosed and and it has to be 100% on the owner's responsibility if they get loose and they do damage to other people's property. And it has to and it has to also say that the um HOA if it does not allow um hens that it doesn't supersede. I mean what I'm saying is all of those things but I'm I think the minimum lot size needs to be half an acre half an acre or something like that. I mean I I yeah I don't think it's so min uh Minnotonkas is one bird peret of an acre. Can we say one bird per 12th. No, because I live on a very large yacht. But how big is your It's like seven uh 3/4 3/4 of an acre. I could easily have in my backyard, which is huge. I feel, you know, three little chickens and you would never know. And and and I don't have chickens. One acre. One acre. I think there's a lot of people in this community that live on small lots. 4,000. We should allow them to have a little pen with two chickens in it. Well, I I haven't looked at a lot of cities, but I looked at Maple Plane and they allow them. But they do require a permit. Uh we don't want permits. We don't want permit, but they have a lot of restrictions on like how close the pen can be to the neighbors, the setbacks. Uh does it meet the does it need a permit? you know, if there's electrical work, does it have to, you know, be permitted? And that was true in Minneapolis and St. Paul. St. Paul actually inspects them. Um, which just raised a big red flag for me because that we don't want that. They Well, no, but I mean that means they're worried about it and and they're willing to put a lot of time and and city time, you know, effort into it. Did any of you read the letter from Joe Rogers? Did you send that out to everyone? I think everybody Yeah, everyone should have read this. It says it's a simple change to our ordinance. It simply says small exception for foul. Foreign exception shall be made to subsection for foul. Miniaturitrista residents may own chickens f one bird per and we can change this. Um uh he has here one bird onetenth of an acre but must follow these regulations. Hens only no roosters must be kept not kept in the front yard. must be um kept uh the area must be cleaned by the property owners. The shelter must be adequate in size, must be kept clean, the smell can't leave the property, etc., etc. It's that's why I'm saying it has to be more than, you know, 10 10,000 square ft. Um and those are the kind of lots or 20,000 square ft. Um those are the size lots that are like in Turtle Creek for instance. They're they're not the 40,000 square foot lots. Many of them aren't. But if you were to do a minimum lot size and setbacks and and no lights so that you know and they have to be completely enclosed and they have to stay enclosed. Um you know maybe you can make it work but it has to have a minimum lot size. How many complaints have we had for people that have chickens? We do we have we ever had a complaint Claudia? We don't have them. not allowed in red. The point is is there's a lot of people with chickens. We have had that's my point. There are a lot of people in Minatrista with chickens and we haven't had any complaints. So the neighbors must not care or they must not be a problem or these people branch road. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The in they were in the agricultural zone. Yeah. So it's a problem there. It's going to be a bigger problem. going to be I mean if we do this you're going to have people who put these in who don't take care of them who have the chickens they aren't contained I don't think people are going to come out of the woodwork and decide to go run out and buy chickens I think that people that want chickens have them now and we just don't know about it then that's fine they're then they're someone complains and that's fine well I would like to have two chickens and I'm not doing this for me but now that I've been educated by all of these people that are calling me I would never go get chickens unless the city allowed it because I am a council member. So, hold on. Let's just do a couple things. First of all, we haven't had a lot of complaints because we don't have a lot we don't have a lot of people on small lots in the residential area that currently have chickens. So, that's that's probably why we don't have a lot of What is a small lot? I'm talk in the residential area. I don't think we have a lot of people that have chickens. Oh, yeah, we do. Oh, okay. How many are people living? Well, I'm not I I on on County Road 44, there's one one homeowner that wants chickens. I I don't even know who that is. Yeah. I mean, I I I just know that um and I spoke to a woman the other day. I'm sure she wrote a letter. Um she's funny. She was an attorney. She's like, "I'm an attorney." I'm like, "Oh, I'm going to be really careful what I say." She was um very u passionate about chickens and just that so many people in these little tiny cities. I mean, didn't you say in Chicago? Wasn't you that uh No, I know in Minneapolis you're like in Minneapolis chickens in Minneapolis for Pete's sake. We're Minatrista. Okay. Let me just ask a question. Is any is anybody interested in a kind of a um how do you say something uh with big limitations? Anybody interested in allowing chickens with a lot of regulations or limitations? Yes. Okay. Brian. Yep. Okay. No. No. No. Oh, gee. And honestly, I view it more from a a federalist like this. If we if we're looking at if we're making it subject to HOA, I I don't have data, but I'm going to guess 90 plus% of people that own lots that we're talking about doing chickens on are subject to an HOA. The HOAs are closest to the will of the people. And so if I think that's probably the better spot to put a blanket chicken, you know, chicken regulations on that's going to serve the people rather than at the city level. So, so here's my my take on it. If we put a lot of regulations and and probably more than what you would want, but some regulations, maybe two chickens on on lot sizes that are at least what 20,000 square feet or something that is acreage. What is 20,000 quarter of an acre? Probably a little under half an acre. Half an acre. Just just a little under half an acre. Um, can you listen? Be happy in your literally that the chickens will be the least of your problems. No, they won't. Okay, we don't have to argue about it. We know we know your position and we know your position. And I love you, Kathleen. I understand. I don't want chickens next to me. I I know how big you're not going to have them. You have an HOA. It takes a different president on an HOA and you can change the rules. So, you can't just go, "We have an HOA. We're fine." Because the board on the HOAs change. That is true. So it what goes now for an HOA in any of the numerous ones could change next year. I mean like it's not we could say halfacre lots then which would really eliminate pretty much every lot in an HOA. Yes. In a current if you want to do a halfacre lot fine. But if it's it shouldn't be less than a half acre. They're too small. So that would be the compromise. I would think a quarter acre I think a quarter acre is fair. No. And one come on. That's a big I tell you what a bunny is a bunny. Okay. Okay. Hold on. Let's do this. Okay. Let's hold on just a second. Let's Let's do this. And this this is why David is saying do not do a public hearing because think about how emotional you guys are. I got a rule for this side and that side. So, here's the thing. Why don't we I'm going to ask David to do to do us a favor and come back and just tell us in Turtle Creek, Hunter Crest, and Woodland Cove. How many um halfacre or quarter acre lots do we have? What is the potential? Okay, then I I I kind of need to find out what is the potential in these developed areas, okay, for for chickens if and what should we do? Should we do a quarter acre? Should we do a third acre, half an acre? Let's just say it's going to be between a quarter and a half. Okay, somewhere in that range. And then we're going to set um then we're going to set the maximum at we're going to start out at two if somebody wants to change it later. And then we also have to know what the setbacks need to be. Okay. And then whatever other ideas or restrictions we want to put on this will bring this back. Is that it's a compromise but um I think we know it's fine. We saw it last week or last time. I'm fine being the only no. I'm just But but it's good to have nos and yeses and may because then hopefully we can have something that will be doable and still be um workable. Um do we do we know how many is there some magic button you can push that tells us how many uh quarter acre lots we have? Not in HOAs. there the So, you're going to have neighborhoods. I'm just clicking around. All of Turtle Creek's fine. I mean, like Saunders, you're going to have neighborhoods now that some of those neighborhoods, you're going to have lots that can and some cannot. You know, you're creating more problems there, obviously, because why can my neighbor have one and I can't. Um, so I, you know, versus 3. Put it this way. I think we have to have some more more conversation on this and we don't have time right now. So, if that's okay, uh, we'll bring it back with some maybe some recommendations. Can we do that? Well, I think what we can do is give you kind of a dichotomy of you want this or that, you know? Okay. Um, and I think we can do a kind of an analysis. I would stay away from like putting a acreage number on there just because it becomes problematic. Well, we have an acreage number on there already. Well, I know, but I think from the standpoint David just pointed out, like you might have neighbors that are, you know, 01 acres apart, you know, sizewise that one can have it, one can't. Um, and the county isn't completely accurate. We're not going to always have a registered land survey on file. Okay. All right. The wetlands, what what are you counting, dry land? Thank you. I mean, there's so many it it becomes more if you're gonna allow it just Okay. Can we say anything under Can we say something like under one acre the maximum is two chickens? No, I think these other cities have these rules in place. They do. Why can't we just some benchmarking that probably be restrictions and everything is they have problems with staff is going to bring back staff is going to bring back some information based on what they've heard here today and based on their their knowledge. We're going to depend on them their knowledge and I think you're making some good points. So, thank you. Um what we're also going to do is we're going to move the um council um let's see um we code of conduct. We're going to move that to our next work session because we just won't have time. And just kind of FYI, this has nothing to do with any of us. We're good. We're great. Um we don't have this issue. I was thinking we need to do this before we have an issue. So um that that's why we're doing it. And a lot of I checked with a lot of mayors and there's quite a few cities especially around us that either already have it or are currently doing it and we don't want to end up like a neighboring city. Anyhow, so that's why we're doing it. I just want to make it clear it's not because any of us are are a problem. So with that um I'm going to ask that somebody make a motion to adjurnn and we will be back at 7 o'clock for our regular meeting. So move. Thank you. And who's second? Second, Kathleen seconded that. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. 5. So, sorry staff to put it on you, but I know you'll do a great job.