I think we're going to get going, guys. I'll call the meeting to order. Welcome to the December 20 second 2nd, 2025 city council meeting. I hereby calling the meeting to order. Members of the public may attend the city council meeting in person or may watch list remotely by viewing the meeting on channel 8, WCTV, and the city's website at weisetta.org. Public comments during the public forum or public hearing portions of the meeting may be provided in person at the meeting in advance or by logging on to the team's call and raising your hand during the public hearing. When your name is called in the meeting, you will be seen and heard in our council chambers and the cable channel. You'll be asked to unmute, turn your camera on, and then you may begin your comments. All public comments must include your name uh and who you represent. Uh the next item on the uh agenda is our pledge of allegiance. If I could ask you to stand if you are able. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Next on our agenda is our uh roll call. uh let the record reflect that all council members are present tonight. I will also note that earlier this evening the council participated with staff in a workshop and discussed the following items. We conducted interviews for our open uh seats for boards and commission vacancies. We had a discussion about uh road closure, specifically the 600 block of Lake Street for uh pedestrian activities and events and then uh reference discussion of future council topics for workshop. The next uh item on our agenda is to approve the agenda. I need a motion to uh approve the agenda or any suggested changes. >> I'll make that motion, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. And a second. Second. >> Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. >> That passes. >> Next uh is our public forum. Um as a reminder uh for those in attendance or online if you're interested in speaking, you know, come to the dis and state your first name uh and who you're representing. Um is there anyone on teams? Uh >> Mr. Mayor, there is not. >> Okay. And no cards. So there are no um items for the public forum. So we'll move on to new agenda items. Uh does anyone on council have any uh new agenda items to discuss or bring up at a future meeting? Okay. Hearing none, we'll move on to the consent agenda. On our consent agenda this evening is the following. Approval of the city council workshop and regular meeting minutes of November 18th, 2025. Approval of our check register. Approval of municipal licenses. Approval of an engagement letter with Baker Tilly for a classification and comp study. Approval of a professional services agreement with Larsson Tree Service doing business as Grizzly Tree Care. Approval of a dedication plaque for a tree to honor uh Roger Fazidan. Approval of a joint powers agreement with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for Internet Crimes Against Children, known as the AC Task Force. I would need a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented or are there any items that need to be pulled for discussion? >> I'll make that motion, Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. Could I have a second? >> I'll second that. >> Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. That passes. >> Next is uh a public hearing. Um, and on our public hearing tonight is the consideration of adoption of resolution 532025, certifying to the county auditor the final property tax for taxes payable 2026 and adoption of resolution 542025 approving the final budgets and I believe I need to open the public hearing formally. Correct. >> Um, Mr. Mayor, you will. We can start with a brief presentation. >> Okay. So, we do the presentation then open the public hearing. Okay. over to you or to m >> um well I will turn it over to finance manager Peter Zimmerman. >> Thank you. All >> right. Good evening, mayor and council. Uh here we are finally our final approval of the budget. Um so we've been through a number of steps where we discussed a lot of topics related to budget CIP um enterprise fund budgets, general fund budgets, excess reserves. So there's kind of our timeline with our our two dates outstanding, which is tonight, which is the approval of the final levy and the final budget. And then in two weeks, we will review and approve the CIP and the 2026 projects. Um, as you stated, we have two resolutions tonight that we're going to that you'll consider. Um, 53-25 and 54-25. And tonight, we're just going to review um all of the 2026 budgets. the general fund, all of those utility funds, water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste. And then the liquor fund, marina, motor vehicle, cable TV, and cemetery. Um, and there was extensive materials included with your packet on all of those. We won't be going over those in detail here. Uh, for our general fund revenues, um, you can see all the dollar amounts there. The taxes in general make up about 68.6%. Um, charges for services 9.8, licenses and permits 7.8, 8 intergovernmental 4.6 uh transfers in is 5.1% on the revenue, excuse me. And then we have two little funds there at just under 1% the franchise fees and fines and forfeitures and then other which is 2.2 making up your total revenue for this budget of $9,835,590. And then on the expenditure side, we just have a breakdown of the expenditures by department. Um you can see there police is kind of leading the game with a 39% share of that expenditure budget followed by admin and general government at 22% public works um 11% parks and recreation 12% community development 8% and then fire at 7% and then the small 1% for capital improvement um transfers with a total expenditure budget of $9,835,590. So everything balances. Um on the enterprise and special revenue funds, I we have them listed here. Um and I can read through them if you'd like. I don't need to. But uh the liquor fund is just over 8 million. Um we have water and sewer which together are about a little over three million. And then our storm water fund at 398. Solid waste at 466,000. Motor vehicle at about 761,000. Cable TV is just under 89,000. the cemetery a meager 11,000 there and then the marina fund is a budget of 405,000 that's increased from last year um because of the capital basically is a big part of the budget so if you notice a change there from year to year that's the reason then all the budgets got all together we have $23,120,220 um broken up there as you can see general fund um at just under half and then the liquor fund making a big bulk of it and then utilities and then the other smaller funds kind of trailing behind. Um this is just a breakdown of the resolution that will be in front of you or that you'll be voting on a little later. Um listing those items again. Again, we have a total budget of $23,120,220. And now we'll take a real quick look at the levy. Um, this is what was presented to council at our September meeting with the preliminary levy that we did certify to the county. Um, which was 7,421,9 which was an increase of 7 and 12% um over the prior year. Oh, where's my and this is the 7 and 12% is what was reflected in the residents truth and taxation notices that they received. Since then, we've made um quite a bit of number of changes getting us down to a 4.9% increase over last year with a total levy of 7,241,697. Um you'll see the change was all in that general levy. We didn't change the city infrastructure piece. Um but getting us to that 4.9%. The main drivers of the levy increase are we added a full-time or fire chief um which will begin in quarter two of next year and then in general we have a 3% cola across the board. Um and then some quite sizable market increases for police officers union. Um just a little levy history of the last five years here. You can see levy has been slowly increasing. In 2024, we did have that debt service drop off, but uh we generally replace that with a capital um capital levy and you can see the the growth there over those five years. And then here's just the levy increase percentage trend. You can see kind of peaks up there in 2024 and then has decreased the last couple years bringing us to that 4.9 tonight. Um our levy comparison when we compare ourselves to the lake Mitanka cities of excelsier Minnitankka Minatrista Oro and Shorewood and then including Plymouth in in that mix uh were typically lower than the average levy increase as you can see in 2026 the average for their and this this is based on their preliminaries um obviously that average was 8.69% and we're at the 4.9 so considerably lower. Where's my And then here's just our tax rate comparison or how that levy impacts that tax rate. Um, again, this is estimated tax rate, but at 19.6% in 2026 will still be lower than most of those cities, which is good. And in terms of the property tax distribution that residents see, the city share is about 19% of what they pay on their um annual taxes with the school at 39%, county at 35, and then miscellaneous jurisdictions at 7%. So we're a small slice of that dollar bill. So here's the le or I'm sorry, the resolution for the levy. As you can see there, we have that general the general fund levy of $6,751,697 and then the city infrastructure at $490,000 for a total of 7,241,697. And that is that 4.9% increase again. So if there are questions uh questions of staff, I have a couple. Um if you could go back to um that dollar bill split. >> Yeah. >> Um do we have any sense of uh where the school and the county came down? I know what the preliminaries were. The school was 4% increase which is a little bit misleading and I'm going to have a comment on that in a second. The county came in at uh just under eight for their preliminary. Do we have any sense of what their final number is? Their preliminary spend increase was eight and four. Do we know what their final is? I don't I did not look that up before I came here and I don't know when I mean they have to certify their final the same I don't I don't even know where their meeting was to be honest with >> that's fine I just didn't know so but for the public the preliminary for the school district was at 4% the county was just a shade under eight for their preliminary but I want to make a comment about the school district it's a bit misleading because there's a planned referendum next year of nearly a half billion dollars and it's offcycle uh not being a uh voted on in the in the normal election period in November. It's being voted uh in the early part of the year. I just want residents to be aware of it um and tune into it because if if that levy is approved, it average uh uh implication to Weisetta is $33 for every $650,000 of home value. um if approved. And so if uh folks uh are interested, they should be contacting the school board and school administration uh and tune in to that referendum to decide uh where where they stand on it. Um I only mention that because uh the the 4% preliminary looks nice except when you look at a half billion dollar referendum. Not judging it one way or the other. I'm just trying to provide information. >> Yeah. >> Um that's the only questions I had. Okay, we can move on then. Um, so I think uh we need to open a public hearing on this matter and then we've got to take this uh budget in two motions. Go ahead. >> Sorry. Can I just add one comment? Um, from the it's it wasn't in the summary that you just went through. Uh, but it was in the uh budget kind of summary in our packet. Uh, and I it's it's important for me just to clarify like one of the ways that we cut to get down to the 4.9%. Um, there's a line item for it says in the packet that um, we decrease part-time wages and benefits in the police department by a reduction of one community service officer. I just want to make a point of clarification that we are not cutting an existing community service officer. that was a proposed addition of another community service officer and we got some input that that was maybe not necessary and had some um management challenges to that. And so I just want to make it a point of public record that we are not cutting an officer. We're just not increasing that. >> That that's a fair point. So we'll we'll maintain our three community service officers and not add a four. Thank you for that clarification. >> Yeah. >> Other comments or questions of staff? >> Okay. Okay, I'm going to open the public hearing on this matter um for uh either public comments or remote comments. I'll open the meeting. Do we have anyone uh that's filled out a card or online that would like to comment at the public hearing? >> Mr. Mayor, we do not. >> Okay, I'll close the public hearing and I'll bring it back. We need to take this in two parts. Um first is to certify the levy and then the second is the budget. So, um, basically, uh, I need to get a motion, uh, to adopt the resolution 532025 certifying to the county auditor the final property tax levy for taxes payable in 2026. I need a motion for that. >> I'll make that motion, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. Could I have a second? >> A second. >> Okay. Second. And any further discussion? >> Um, >> I'd just like to make a comment if I may. >> Yes, sir. >> Yeah. We're about to approve a 4.9% increase, but I'd like the the viewing audience to realize what went into that is uh we still invested very well into public safety and police and fire and our city staff. Uh and we didn't shortcut that at all and yet we still came in at 4.9% which I believe initially started at what 14.5% or something like that. So we were able to get that down to 4.9% uh and still not sacrificing public safety. Just want to put that on record. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Pleish. Um, I just have an additional comment. I'm going to vote no uh on this tonight. Um, and I wanted to state my reasons. Um, I I very much appreciate all the work that went in going back to June or July to take us from 14.5 down to 4.9. But uh there's some unique circumstances going on uh for forces outside of our control right now at the county and state level pushing a significant uh burden to our property tax. And it's the spending, but it's also the redistribution of value. Weisetta received a on average 22.1% increase of value, which was the highest in the entire county system. Meanwhile, on the eastern side of the county, we saw a commercial collapse of the commercial core of downtown and some devaluation. And if you understand the property tax system, it's about absolute dollars, but it's also about pratted distribution. And it's a double-edged sword for our residents and our commercial property owners. While their value is going up on exit, that's nice. But in the short term, it's placing burden on on residents and commercial to the tune of an exp just crazy numbers like uh you're seeing changes of 30% and 25% in one year. And um that's a significant burden. Most people didn't get a raise in their paycheck of 22% or maybe some did. I didn't. But yet your your your your tax bill for property tax can go up 10% 15%. I've seen 48% from a resident and for those reasons um I feel that in these circumstances we needed to work harder to control what we can control and I would have preserved preferred to see a number in the threes uh versus 4.9. I I do agree with council member Pleish. We we did accomplish a lot. We did a lot of tradeoffs but I just personally my own view only wanted to see it go deeper uh for those reasons. Um, and I'm concerned about that levy. Um, you coming up with the potential um, referendum, $33 more for pay 27 on a basis of $650,000 of value. We get held accountable for the full dollar amount even though we're only 9% of it, 19% of it. And so I just want to tell our residents, um, we all see it. We we we understand there's some pain going on. I think we did a good job of getting to a number that's reasonable. It just wasn't uh as far as I'd like to go. So, with those comments, I've got a motion, a second, a further uh conversation. I'll take a vote on um motion one. So, I need uh I guess we'll just say all in favor say I. >> I. >> And one no. Next motion is we need to have a motion to adopt the uh final budget for 2026. So, the first was the the actual levy, the second is the full budget. So, I need a motion to adopt resolution 542025 uh approving the final 2026 budget. >> So, move, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. Can I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor say I. Oh, sorry. Further conversation uh further discussions apologize. Any further discussion by anyone? >> Okay. All in favor say I. I. >> Uh and that passes five to zero. Thank you for that. Um Mr. Sorenson. >> Yeah. Um just a quick comment. I, you know, I just on the budget process, I think, you know, if you remember early in the year, we we said we we need to use this year to um to really make a deep dive in our budget. And I think overall, we did a a really nice job with that. I compliment staff. We had I don't know how many meetings, but it was a constant topic throughout the year. Um, so I think I think we we did take a hard look. We ask a lot of hard questions. Um, and it's a very collaborative process and I think productive. I think we ended up at a nice spot. Um, much lower than when we started. We all wish it were a little bit lower, but I think our overall strategy and a little conservativism has um has has played well with this city and and and I think we are continuing that although we're being a little more aggressive with it. So overall I think you know my comments uh are generally complimentary to um this team and to staff about the process we went through this year. >> Yeah, thank you Mr. Swanson. I completely agree. Um next is new business. Uh on our new business agenda is we have consider adoption of resolution 452025 approving support of a grant application for Henipin County environmental response for the property at 200 Lake Street East. uh turn it over to our interim city manager. >> Uh mayor and council, I'm going to turn this over to community development director Alex Sharp. >> Thank you, manager. Uh I'm going to be doing this one without a presentation this evening as it is a relatively light item. Essentially what uh the council's asked to do is certify the approval and a resolution of support for a grant application to the Henipin County environmental response fund for 200 lake uh here within the community. They've got some existing contamination within the site due to some of its past uses, namely petroleum, but there was also lumber mill yards and a number of things. uh you can see the full wrap approval form that's in and if uh anybody is interested we do have the full environmental assessment available for anybody to review. But uh at this time um Lake West has uh requested that the city support their application for uh $1.7 million in remediation to that site. Largely what that would be was removal of existing soils and then putting a uh top fill of clean soils over the top to provide a vapor barrier for the residences above. The other thing that I want to mention with this is that this would be the largest grant that Henipin County would uh award. Typically they're in the 600 to $700,000 range uh for their large end. So, we do anticipate a future grant where the city would support or potentially be the applicant to deed uh the Department of Employment and Economic Development come springtime as we suspect that that will need to supplement this grant. With that, if there are any questions uh or concerns, welcome to answer them. >> Questions of staff at this point, Mr. Puckish? >> Yeah. in in our packet um on page 193 there was a statement here and this is um this is from the actual application and the person that uh from the entity that's applying for it. It says at the bottom of the page here, the city of Weisetta has confirmed that they will sign a resolution of support for this er application. And it references an attachment three to verify that which wasn't in our packet. And I'm wondering how a claim can be made that that the city would sign something when we're debating it tonight. >> Perfectly understandable. Um, I think that this comes from the nature of the private applicant filling out this application. It is theirs. Staff has said that we would bring this forward. Um, we couldn't state how the city council would vote on it. However, it is a best practice for a city to assist private developments with this if staff and the council are willing. So, this is uh I think a symptom of why the city uh would want to be the take the lead on that future application because we'd be a little bit more uh precise in our wording for future applications. >> Nonetheless, a claim was made that we would sign it and we don't know that we will yet. And and I just did I didn't see the attachment. Was that something we had and didn't put in the packet or just we didn't get it? >> Attachment three will be this resolution if it is signed. >> Okay. So that's why it wasn't attached or within the packet is we don't have it signed yet. It's referring to a future attachment that hasn't yet been approved. >> Okay. One other question. Uh this property changed hands in 1990, did it not? It went from what it was before to a commercial property, the TCF building. And I'm wondering why is this environmental um issue a concern now? Should this not have been taken care of back then? Uh so mayor, council member, there's two factors for that. Uh the first being that uh they did some reme remediation underneath the existing building that's present. Uh the majority of the additional contamination is underneath the parking lots that were sealed with asphalt. Additionally, when you're putting housing over the top of contaminated sites, you have a greater responsibility for remediation than what you do for an office or business environment. So the combination of the two is requiring significantly more remediation than what would have been required when this was originally brought forward. >> So if in 1990 the concept plan that we're looking at now was going to be done back then they would have to do more remediation that they're doing now. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> I don't know that they would need to do the same level. the rules have been become more stringent particularly with housing but they would need to do more remediation than what they had done in 1990. >> Right. Thank you. >> Other questions of staff? >> I just have one. So if the the application is by a private group, but it's to the state, correct? So they're making a grant application to the state or who is the the body that would review and approve the grant and or provide the funding? Uh, mayor, apologies for the confusion. I may have slightly caused that. This grant is specifically to Henipin County and the Henipin County Environmental Response Fund. >> Got it. >> There will be a future grant to the state. >> That's what you were referencing. >> That the city would likely >> be the applicant on or is required to be the applicant on would support at a future date >> likely to supplement this grant. >> I just wanted to make it clear it's not city funds being used for the cleanup. That's all I really wanted to clarify. So, >> okay. Mr. Cook. >> Yeah. Is the application is up to a,772,000, but the county has the right to reduce that or is it all or none and they pick a big number and hope that they get it? >> Mayor, uh, council member, that is correct. My understanding is that the county will determine how much they decide to award based upon current applications, the this application and how it scores and a number of other factors. One of the large ones that they util utilize for determining with this grant is the potential property tax increase from the existing. And so they're utilizing uh the offset of this grant by essentially creating a site that is worth more tomorrow than what it would be today with this remediation that that'll be recaptured over time through taxes >> and be able to go back into a fund like this for future projects. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks. Any further questions of staff? Okay. So, um, any other comments about this before we accept a motion on it? All right. I would accept a motion adopting resolution 452025 approving the support of a grant application for Hampton County Environmental Response for 200 Lake Street East. Who would like to make that motion? >> I'd make that. Oh, >> I'll make that motion. >> Mr. Cook and a second, please. >> Second. >> Second by Mr. Sorenson. Any further conversation about this or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say I. I. >> I. That passes. >> Say nay. >> Okay. So, it goes four to one with a one uh nay. Um, next is a block of things that I'm going to actually uh rely on uh interim city manager Joerger. We're going to go through boards and commissions. So earlier this evening, we interviewed uh several applicants for open boards and we also affirmed um several folks that are reapplying. So you're going to take us through it and then we're going to go through these by each board and commission and do a separate motion for each affirming. So council or over to you, city manager Jerger. >> Um you got it. Um Mr. Mayor, I'm going to kind of highlight the process and then we'll move through new business items B through G. um as I kind of talk you through what we're going to fill in the blanks for those resolutions. So, as you mentioned, um we advertised for vacancies earlier this fall on our various boards and commissions. We held interviews earlier this evening based on how those interview went and the discussion with the council at the workshop. Um I've got some recommendations on folks that we can appoint to these commissions. Um but those are just recommendations. So, as we go through this, if you would like to make changes to those, please um speak up. Um so let's start um with uh new business item B which is to consider adoption of resolution 472025 appointing planning commissioners. Um so my recommendation would be that the council appoints Adam Elg and Bonnie Schwaldby both to serve a three-year term to expire December 31st, 2028. >> Okay. So you want us to take us each time. So, I would accept a motion to adopt resolution 472025 appointing planning commissioners noted by uh city manager Joerger. Could I accept that motion, please? >> So moved. >> Okay, get a second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Next. >> Okay. The next item is to consider um resolution 48-2025 appointing heritage preservation board members. We had three two-year terms um available and one one-year term available. Um staff's recommendation is to appoint uh Kim Gerity, Sonia Travante, and Stacy Dah to serve two-year terms that expire December 31st, 2027. >> Okay. I would accept a motion adopting resolution 48, 2025, appointing Heritage Preservation Board members as noted by city manager Joerger. Could I get that motion, please? >> So moved, Mr. Mayor. >> I get a second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. That passes. >> Okay. The next item to consider is resolution 49-2025 for appointing members to the public arts steering committee. This is technically a new committee. We have I mean um we've had a steering committee. This is the public art committee. Um this has five to seven positions available. There's going to be a mix this first time we're making appointments um of two-year and three-year terms just so there's a split of terms on um that com that committee and then after that it will always be three-year terms. So just kind of clarifying the difference there. So staff's recommendation is to appoint Molly McDonald, Joanie Cunningham, and Bruce Goodman to serve two-year terms that expire December 31st, 2027. and then to appoint Alex Pleish, Jud Nelson, and Roger Miller to serve three-year terms that expire December 31st, 2028. >> Did we have one missing Bruce? >> Did you say Bruce? >> Yeah, sorry. I listed Bruce Goodman as the two as someone who would be appointed to a two-year term expiring in 2020. >> That's why I just I just didn't pick up on it. That's fine. So, uh, I need a motion to adopt resolution 492025 appointing the individuals to the staggered terms that were outlined by, uh, city manager Joerger. >> I have a question before we do that. >> Certainly. >> Considering that two of the council members are in that motion, do we need to withdraw from the vote? >> Asking the city attorney. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor and Council, I I think you can make that vote. Yes. So vote for >> it's within your prerogative as a city council member to appoint yourselves to things. Yes. I don't think that's a conflict. You know I do Mr. Mayor I just one point of clarification. Maybe I just missed it. Is this the public art committee or the public art steering committee that we're appointing to? >> It's the committee. There was a there was a >> Okay. So So the word steering just should beized from that. Got it. >> I agree. So let me restate that again. >> Uh thank you for the question Mr. Pleish. Uh, I need a motion to adopt resolution 492025 to the public art committee with the lattered positions as noted by city manager Joerger. Could I receive that motion, please? >> So moved. >> Okay, a second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Next. >> Very good. Um, the next item is resolution 50-2025 appointing parks and trails board members. We had two positions available for three-year terms. Staff's recommendation is to appoint Jonathan Pine and Alexa um Milinin to serve three-year terms that expire December 31st, 2028. >> Any questions of staff on that one? Okay. I would accept a motion to approve resolution 502025 appointing two new park and trails board member as uh stated by interim city manager Joerger. Could I get that motion, please? >> So moved, Mr. Mayor. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Further discussion. Hearing none. All in favor say I. I. >> That passes. >> Next. >> Okay. The next is resolution 51-2025. Um, this is a resolution that suggests a charter commission appointment. Um, that designation is actually determined by the fourth judicial court. So, that's one that's different with this committee. we just recommend to the fourth court who and then they typically appoint but just want to note that difference there that they're actually making the appointment. Um staff's recommendation is to appoint um Elaine Ambrose and Bruce Goodman to serve four-year terms that expire December 31st, 2029. >> Any questions of staff on that one? So I would accept a motion uh for the adoption of resolution 502025 512025 appointing chartering commission member recommendations as noted by interim city manager Jerger. Can I get that motion please? >> So moved. >> A second please. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. That passes. Next. >> Okay. Okay. The next is resolution 52-2025 appointing energy and environment committee members. Um staff's recommendation is to appoint David Ferry and Megan Yaro to serve three-year terms that expire December 31st, 2028. >> Any questions of staff on that? Okay. Hearing none, I would accept a motion to adopt resolution I think there's a typo here because we're going >> 52-2024. Oh, but I said 52. Oh, that is right. So 522025. I would accept a motion to adopt that resolution, please. >> So moved, Mr. Mayor. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second that. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Thank you. And next. Or is that it? >> That's it. That was our slew of appointments. I would just note there are a couple of commissions that we still um have vacancies on. We have a couple of other um options open. So, we're going to um uh Energy and Environment has a couple of openings. The Charter Commission has more that could be appointed there. The Heritage Preservation Board, and we did not make an appointment tonight for the opening on our Housing and Redevelopment Authority. So, we're going to talk to those commissions, hope that they can recruit some other folks in the communities to get them fully filled. And those um if if we do get people interested, those will come back for future consideration. kind of handles on an ad hoc basis. >> Yep. Exactly. >> All right. >> Can I just make it a comment? I just want to express my appreciation for all the people who have stepped up. Uh the city does not run without the many volunteers who step up and serve on the various boards and commissions. And so it's always great to see uh people who who do that. Um people who like kind of live out their interests and um and um make this city run. So, we couldn't do it without that. Yeah. Yeah. The the big paycheck is obviously an attractive feature, but um no, I I I just appreciate the people who step up and >> uh yeah, we we couldn't do it without everybody. >> If I may add on to Dan's comment, which is >> I'm so heartened by how many returning reappoints there are, too. And I think that says a lot of staff and the community members who are already joining in. Um, so >> yes, thank you. >> Any comments from anyone else? Yeah, we have nearly 50 serving on various boards and commissions. So that's that's quite uh a statement about our civic engagement here. So thank you for that. Okay. Uh next is our city manager report. >> Okay, Mr. Mayor and Council, um my update are all about Clapbridge Park. So, we've started to get some questions um about rink flooding, when is the warming house going to be open, things like that. Um so, public works will begin flooding the rink this week. We have good weather for that. Um the warming house is going to be substantially complete December 15th. um we don't really have access to the equipment that we need to properly maintain the rink at like what's optimal skating condition until the warming house reopens. So potentially people could skate before then, but really we think the warming house, the bathrooms um and the parking lot will start to be open on December 15th. So that's kind of what people can be planning for. >> So just one of clarification on that. I mean, we've been discouraging use of the park, but if if it does get flooded, >> we're not going to chase people away if they want to go out there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Um but it won't be in like prime skating. We we're going to work on that. >> Basically, December 15th, we're going to start the process now for those brave souls that want to get out there, the shinny hockey players and the people that want to skate. >> You're welcome, but it's we're not going to be fully operational until the 15th, >> right? Um, and then I would also note um that to mark the completion of Clapbridgeidge Park, I want people to kind of put on their radar that um the parks and trails board is working to plan a celebratory ribbon cutting event um Saturday, January 10th from 1 to 3 at Clapbridge Park. There's going to be skating and hot chocolate and things like that. So, we really want to see people out there enjoying the new park. And I mean, winter time at skating at Clapbridge Park is just magical enough as it is. So, don't miss out on that. January 10th. And that's what I've got for you. >> All right. Questions of the city manager. Go ahead, Mr. Swson. >> Yeah. Um the playground area is fenced off now. So maybe just help us with the status of that part of the park. >> Yeah, that's a great question. I didn't inquire about um the latest, but it should also, I think, be mostly opened again by December 10th. Um Director Sharp, do you know any differently? >> Uh no. that the entire park project is set to be completed by the December 15th time frame. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions of city manager at this juncture? >> Go ahead, Miss McDonald. >> Did you say the time on the 10th was from 1 to 3? >> 1 to 3 p.m. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Uh do we have anyone on teams for public forum? >> Mr. Mayor, we do not. >> Okay. I would accept a motion to adjurnn tonight's meeting, please. >> I'll make that motion, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. Can I have a second? >> Not everybody at once. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Uh, we are journed. Thank you. >> Pretty good. >> Pretty good. We didn't. Yeah. Last last month's been pretty good.