Uh when we we talked about this in the workshop and I think we had some pretty good consensus on limiting the amount of money that we were going to spend on here on this comprehensive plan because we've done so much work for the 2040 plan not that long ago. Um, and uh, I was somewhat struck or surprised by the dollar amount of this contract. So, I'm just curious if I know it's a not to exceed contract, but does this contract that we'd enter into allow us with enough flexibility to reduce the scope and reduce the ultimate cost down the line uh, as we see fit?

Again, this is we haven't had our comprehensive plan contract and I don't recall any other contract of this level that we've added not to exceed amounts by essentially deliverable. Um so for every single chapter that we requested assistance with for the comprehensive plan, we asked for a not to exceed amount so that way we can monitor progress, monitor um budget throughout. So really we view this as an opportunity to as our like already the direction we received from the council is meet the minimum requirements of Met Council really build off the foundation of the 2040 comp plan.

The first is a setback variance which is a 9- foot variance from the required 10-ft setback um which would allow for a one- foot setback from the property line for the parking area. The second is a landscaping variance um a variance from the requirement of the screening and landscaping surrounding all exposed parking areas of four or more spaces. Um, so that would allow for the pro the limited screening um or limited space that staff believes there wouldn't be available space for screening there um within the 1-T setback area if approved. And then the third variance uh that we'll discuss is a compact stall variance. So that's a variance from the limitation of compact parking stalls in a parking lot that's under 40 spaces um which would allow for the 10 proposed compact parking stalls in this parking lot um that is being proposed with a total of 38 parking spaces.

I think the reason that the city forester recommended that condition was a couple of reasons. Um, first of all, his conclusion is that that tree would likely die as a result of what the applicant would do in the parking lot because even though the the visible part of the tree doesn't really the trunk is not on the property, the branches go over the property and certainly the critical root zones go underneath and into the applicant's property, but it's it's on the adjacent property's land. So his recommendation as part of the plan is whenever you have a tree that's going to be impacted like that and essentially die, it needs to be removed before the project begins. And so getting that permission from the adjacent property owner that says, 'Hey, are you okay with this project that will kill your tree and okay if we go over and remove it before the project commences?' That's what that written permission would provide.

Regarding uh, screening, um, one of our variance requests is to um, to not have a screening plan because we will not have enough room to do that. Um, but we will address that. Uh we we intend to address that by planting trees with McDonald's uh blessing and permission and uh cooperation on their site. Um these slides show the current grading or the current screening if you will on the site. There there are a few trees. Um there isn't really a screening to speak of. Uh there are some some low-lying uh liies and hostas. Um most of the hostas are eaten by the rabbits. the tallest screening on the site are weeds um that exist on McDonald's property and uh are not taken care of by McDonald's. Um we actually as the um property that sits above the retaining wall maintain that property because McDonald's does not.

I I I just thought of another question. I'm not sure what I want to do with this when I get the answer, but it seems to me that the catalyst for this whole thing was the uh need for the dental office to add a dentist. Is that right? ... That is totally in the control of the applicant. So I I I just can't get past that. So I'm going to be opposed to it tonight for that one reason. Otherwise, I think we're setting a precedent.

So assuming this is what's approved tonight, this is the amount that will go to the county um and that the Wise Res residents will see on their TNT notifications. ...And as you can see, the wise auto graph is pretty level there from year to year. So and just a reminder going forward the levy can only go down from here after the preliminary is approved. Um it can't go back up. Obviously, you can make budget adjustments within that, but the levy amount that we certified at the county um which is required by the 30th of the month cannot go up.

I'd just like to make a comment before we vote on it, please. Which is uh even though we're voting at six and a quarter percent, uh I think we can all safely say up here at the deis that we're looking to get that number, you know, fairly measurably lower than that. Um we're kind of targeting 5%. We're not sure we can get there, but certainly less than 6.25. So, I just wanted to re reiterate that.

So for revenues, um we have a little breakdown here and a graph kind of just depicting where those general fund revenues come from. Of course, most of it is taxes um at that 7 just under two million under 7.2 million. And then a number of other revenue sources, charges for services, which includes um like police services, fire services, permits, that sort of thing, or I'm sorry, not permits, um licenses and permits is where you'd find permits and general licenses. Intergovernmental is more of um grant revenue that comes in from several different sources.

I would just make a comment, Mr. Mayor. Um, I think it's important for residents to know that we have a we have a very financially strong position in our city and that's kudos to previous council people, mayors and staff and we want to maintain our AAA rating. Um, and uh I think we're um that's that's one of our goals, but also um let people know that we have a very extensive and thorough process to review budgets every year and we're most of the way through that. It started months ago, but uh certainly aware that any levy we put out there needs to be responsible making sure we're using city funds efficiently and um I think we're taking that very serious. So, I just want to get those comments out there.