So, an assembly use in this case would refer to a religious assembly. Um assembly uses are defined in our code. Religious assembly uses are defined in our code as a permitted use within the residential zoning districts.

right now, they're looking at probably at most up to 20 people for the current facility, but it could get if they reconstructed it, obviously, it depends on what that final site plan looks like.

we do have a requirement that they receive the proper inspection from Hennepin County uh services prior to the issuance of a building permit. Um this has been reviewed with the county. Um so, the septic system would be seen as um not in compliance, but at the same time the county did outlay that they would have to disconnect to city services within 3 years. They and the county was the one who was comfortable with that. So, they're looking to connect within the next year with the Brockton project not to have to close down Brockton twice.

I believe they followed the process as best as they could based on our code. Obviously, their preference would have been to just occupy and use the assembly as the current home until they got to the point where they can fully redo and build their own building. Um but the applicant has followed the process of doing the site plan process, submitting the building permit to make it the full sprinkler, every life safety, ADA issue, being compliant with that.

This is a staff-driven proposed amendment, mostly to bring us into conformance with state statute, and following some um discussions with our building official on some challenges that we're having with swimming pools and permitting as it currently sits today.

The way our current code is written, it's 5 ft from a setback marker. So, it gets a little confusing to residents that it's not the property line. So, it's 5 ft from the property line is what is being proposed, and it also clarifies that it's not just the pool structure itself, but also the surrounding concrete pads that may be added.

Right now, our code is not in conformance with state statute requirements. So, especially when you're doing permitting, that leads to issues because we're not in compliance with our state building code, is what you approve building permits based off of. So, this brings us into conformance with the state statute.

City is the lead on the project in collaboration with the county. And the construction project itself includes water up at the intersection of Territorial Road, on a multi-use trail and the new Trail Road 3.

for change order number two, the amount is $360,924.20 cents. And this is for additional subgrade correction south of the railroad tracks down to Territorial Road. We had to disc the existing material to a depth double what we had planned in in the construction.

The cumulative value of change orders one through four is $671,604.86 increasing the amount by 10.97% but that just as a reminder we started out at 24.3% under budget.

I think this is not unusual for a road project to encounter this stuff and as you mentioned, you don't have contingencies built in, but we all know it's kind of a discovery process when they go out and start moving dirt, and where you found it isn't totally shocking where it would be, and the costs seem to be in line with what it what a reasonable amount would be, so this all seems well in order to me, and not surprising on a project of this magnitude, so.

Um Mayor Council Members, we were actually working with MnDOT to use I-94 as the um detour route.

Madam Mayor, council members, it is set up a quiet zone with the median and with the curb and gutter and with the dual gates. So, each crossing both north and south will have gates and whistles or gates and bells.