Let's call the business meeting to order to the flag of the United States of America to the standice for all. Any changes to the agenda? Uh, no, Mr. Mayor. All right. No changes to the agenda. Any I'll make a motion to adop adopt the agenda. Want to second my motion. Thank you and ma'am. Motion by me, second by Amanda. All in favor? I. Agenda is adopted. We have no presentations, proclamations, or acknowledgements tonight. So, we'll open it up to public comment. Is there anyone here that cares to speak on anything that's not on the agenda tonight? Come on up. You know the drill, right? You know, street in my neighborhood about 12:00. This isn't an enforcement problem. This isn't an educational problem. There's a water restriction. The problem will go away. is a culture problem. They must think they can do whatever they want. These same people, they allow their 12 year old grandkids driving their golf carts. Again, it's not an educational problem. Yeah. I mean, you'd have to you'd have to catch it, enforce it, right? And I believe when they get a permit, they have to sign that they have the ordinances, they read the ordinances, they understand the ordinances, and they obey the ordinance. Every week I see a golf cart. No slow moving vehicles. You know, I'm not driving around town looking for this. You know, I leave the town driving or I went to a company picnic picnic last month. Two golf carts. Either one had a slow moving vehicle sign over all the way to the park over the grass. One minute. I don't know what the other one did. Anyway, the call. I said it before. I want to bring it up again. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, anyone else scared to speak under public comment tonight? Once, twice. All right, we'll close public comment on to consent. Does anyone have anything on consent they'd like or explanation. Motion to approve consent agenda. Second. Motion by Kate. Second by Gina. No, we haven't voted yet. Did you have a thing? I was on my way to say motion. Okay. All All in favor? I passes. So, no public hearing. So, we'll jump into general business. who's taking it from here. I'll take it from here, Mr. Mayor. Rene will take team with color commentary as appropriate. So, tonight um we're asking the council to respond to a request from the Wagner family um for uh some relief related to the victory fields deferred assessments. So, we just uh we've provided the memo. Um council's been updated on this issue individually in the past, so I won't dwell on it very long, but I just wanted to provide a little bit of background for our um viewers, so to speak. So, multiple development projects were proposed in 2009. Uh they were all uh one was the Eagle View Elementary. Uh the other one was on-site marketing which was going to be the Eagle View Estates project and the other one was Giles Properties which was going to be the Dakota Acres uh development. There were public improvements that were needed to occur as part of that. That was the construction of James Parkway uh Nevada Avenue and 255th serving all of those projects and through assessments with those various entities um that project was going to be supported. That is what you would consider to be the type of situation where the city would come in and do a 429 project which would be a public improvement that's assessed back to the various projects. There was a joint special assessment agreement between the city, the school district, and on-site marketing. A separate agreement with Giles Properties uh Victories Fields uh which was going to be the Eagle View Estates project. Their final assessment for the work upon completion was a little under $690,000. and the interest rate based on the actual bond sale was going to be 5.42%. The assessments were levity's deferred assessments that would be paid through the development of the property. Also not uncommon, a lump sum payments were expected to be paid as the phases of the development occurred. However, due to the recession, because this project really was coming online literally right before the bubble burst, um the development was abandoned and the assessments since there was no development weren't paid. We had bonded for the project to pay for all of those assessments and by the time we reached 2011, we could not afford the debt service or actually uh we would not be able to afford the debt service by 2011. So, we needed to restructure it. So in 2012, the debt was restructured. Um, and the city has since had to levy general property taxes to pay the outstanding debt because at the end of the day, these are GEO bonds. So the taxpayers on the hook um to make sure that that debt is paid. And so the city has increased its tax levy between 2018 and 2024 to cover the deficit based on the terms of the 2007 special assessment agreement. This was the second agreement, but it reflected the actual the actual project amount and the and was based on the actual bond sale. The amount due for the property would be a almost $1.1 million. Uh the debt service um that's been paid to date associated with the property is about $830,000. and the debt service for the property. So, this does not take into account um the one and a half percent on top of it, but just straight in what does the city have into it? Um would be $938,000 by the time the debt is retired in 2026. So, the remaining debt service on it would be $19,000. We've had discussions with the representative of the Victory Fields property uh regarding the potential sale of the property. We do know that there is development interest in the property. Uh the deferred assessments currently placed on the property are an obstacle to the sale and development of the property. This isn't just a current issue um before uh Leander Wagner um passed away. Over the years, there have been multiple developers since the recession that have looked at it and every time the assessments come up and they are viewed to be a barrier to the development of the property. Um the waiter property or the the the family or the heirs to the estate are basically indicating that in order for the property to develop this needs to be resolved and that the current assessments are such that it does provide a barrier to it. Um, I think staff um would also acknowledge that the market, the ratio, what worked at the time before the bubble burst isn't the same anymore. Costs have changed, values have changed. Um, and we are getting consistent feedback from the development community. So, one of the things that would be noted is that if the property develops, there's a benefit, right? Right now, the assessments against the property will legally expire under statute 30 years after they were levied. So in 2037, they go away. There is no legal ability or basis to pursue collection of those assessments at that time. Development of the property before then, regardless of whether or not you collect assessments, would provide financial benefit to the city. Um there's 50 acres. If we estimated a conservative 125 residential lots with a home value of $400,000, which quite honestly is probably on the low side if anybody's looked at the cost of new homes coming in. Um the developer would pay fees in the amount of $6667,000 estimated building permit fees that would come off the entirety of the development that would be at one time it would be over a period of years um would be close to $650,000. and the annual property taxes that would be paid on those $400,000 homes. Upon full buildout, we would collect a4 million a year in city property taxes off of that property. Now, it's a development. There'd be more streets to plow and all of that, but um right now we still have infrastructure out there um that is serving nothing except for fields that we have to pay to maintain, repair, and replace. So, for example, in the next couple years, we're going to have to come in and we're going to have to do a mill mil mill and overlay on the roads out there. They're at that point. They're 20 years old, and that's where they're lining up is probably in 2027. Um, and there's no and a larger amount of tax base would help pay for that. And I've talked about both of these. Um so there is go back go back a second. So the life of the so life expected the life expectancy of the improved street is approximately 40 years in total with minimum overlay around 20 years as a rule of thumb. Sometimes it can be more sometimes it's less but okay for planning purposes not just overlay it but dig it up and replace it like we're doing over here. So I guess where I'm going is like at what point are we having to start redoing the infrastructure? Did you cover that? I missed it or So the your sewer and water those have much longer lifespans. They could be 50 to 80 years. Yeah. Um but the road itself normally you have about 40 years before you have to do significant rehab and 20 before you have to do a mill and overlay. Two pavement cycles for every two road cycles for every utility. But that's generally speaking though. I mean, if there's not I mean, if there's no development around there, there's still traffic on it and there's still weather. So, it's probably split hairs a little bit. So, yeah. I mean, we're not going to replace it automatically just because right, but it will come. And if you and based on the condition of it, we're getting there. Okay. All right. We can keep going. Um so tonight the council's being asked to respond to the request um from the victory fields um ownership. Uh what about the possibility of providing relief on the deferred assessments and to what degree that might be if the council's interested in doing that and under what terms? So that's all we have for I can I add that um representatives of the family are both here in person but the main spokesperson that the city has been in contact with is on Zoom. Um so Ken I would ask that if you have any thing that you would like to address the council raise raise raise your hand. Well yeah I mean if there's if anyone has uh there's representatives from the family here. Did you have anything that you'd want to Ken's the one handling? Okay. So, we're just Oh, his hands up. Okay, got it. Um, Kenya, I think you have been unmuted and you can address the council if you have anything you'd like to add at this time. Great. Can you hear me? Yes. I guess I would just add that we want to be as constructive as possible. uh it'd be better if we were coming to you with some sort of a proposal, but uh the developers we've spoken with haven't even gotten so close as to have a proposal to share. And so um there's nothing urgent from our side. This isn't something where uh yes, within the last year, our father died, but that's not affecting our our interest or our drive to have something happen immediately. But this has been hanging out here for a long time, and we just want to open up the lines of communication since we haven't spoken with you yet. Dad was sort of the main point of contact. We appreciate it and I I'm sure on behalf of the council and the city, we are all very sorry for your loss. Um Leander was the key member of our community for a long time. Um thank you for your comments, Ken. Anything else to add? Okay, Richion is a major collector system and I believe this is kind of highlighting issue the city will face going forward is how do we fun I think Okay. All right. Council, what how do you want to start? Should we just start from like the philosophical perspective? Is this something we want to entertain doing? Um, Kate says, "Yes, I'm not quite certain what that would look like, but that's kind of where I'm at because I was thinking like, oh, well, what kind of a proposal?" But Ken answered my question before I asked it being that there's not really one on the table quite yet, but that Yeah, I mean, I'm open to intervening it, but um well, I think just kind of on on the heels of those all those comments, I mean, we're all in agreement. Um reality is we have we have a problem. We need to figure out a way to solve it. Um, and we have willing partners here that want to work with us to get a problem solved, but I don't know that we would want to start negotiating no negotiating against ourselves in terms of specifics um for dollar amounts, but I think conceptually that's something that we're all this is something that we're open to. Um, I don't know that right here we can give you numbers or anything like that. I I think we need a little bit more information. Well, so here's the here's the challenge. Um the the family is not the ultimate developer. They just know that they want to sell the property and they will determine any offers an appropriate dollar amount. The developer can't determine what they can afford to pay until they know their all-in costs. So they can't make an offer for the property until they know it. So we keep running in we have consistently over the years run into the chicken the egg issue where the city has also in the past indicated we're open to a discussion but nobody it can't get to a point because the question is well how much are you going to do? I don't know. I don't it depends on how much I have to pay for the property. I can't decide how much I have to pay for the property and we kind of have a a circular a circular discussion. I struggle to accept that. I mean, because if I'm if I'm a developer and I'm buying a property, I know I can do some assumptions and figure out where my gap is and what I actually need to fill that. And until we even have something like that, I I don't know how we can have that discussion. We need to know exactly what the problem is because we're not going to say we're going to forgive all of it. And it's hard to kind of figure out what percentage to drill down until we know what problem we're trying to solve. Well, I think the other piece of it is this has always been a bird in the hand versus two in the bush type of an issue, right? Every year that everybody's going that's another Tomism. But, um, for every year that this goes on, there's no development fees. There's no um utility fees being collected by users. There's no connection fees. There's no um there's no trunk fees. and we're certainly not collecting any meaningful property taxes like we would off of a developed residential neighborhood. Um, so in my mind, part of this is what's getting built. Would you provide tax relief and then it gets sold to a developer who buys it for investment purposes and then it sits for another five years or would you be selling it in the anticipation that there's actually somebody who's there that is planning to move like I'll ask the city attorney somebody that has will do this if you have a purchase agreement for a property and at least somebody that has a a plan um to move forward and then we can say okay this is there is a financial incentive for the city to be flexible on this because now we have anticipation of some level of revenue but we're saying we'll be flexible we just we're not going to negotiate against ourselves on it right that's what comes to my mind thinking about this is that real estate resetive competing with other develop investments we have working on or have happened. What did they have to invest in major collectors try and gauge what's a reasonable equal? Sure. Yeah, that's a good approach. Is this common in other cities to wave special assessments? No. Um the the situation here is not common. Although it did happen and I'm aware of similarish situations happening in other communities during the recession where basically projects failed. There was investment in public infrastructure and then that revenue wasn't there. Um and it also depends in this particular case the city extended itself. Um staff had recommended very strongly to the council that we required a security for the payment of the assessments. That's kind of standard or industry practice. Um the developer on-site marketing who was going to be selling the land to the to uh the school indicated that the cost for providing that security would make the project infeasible. The council at the time really really wanted the elementary school. They wanted the development and they believed that the risk was relatively low. And in fairness, we have to go into context. There was no hint of the bubble bursting. The market was white hot. Um in fairness, they did ask um Rich um Andre and myself our experience of how we had ever if we had ever even had to draw on letter of credits for payment of assessments, and we'd have to say no. It rarely happened. But also in fairness, um, for a number of years, the market had been so good that 429 projects were becoming not very common because private financing and whatnot was kind of overcoming it. So the council at the time believed that the risk was very low. If there was an issue, the market would correct it. And the only way that that could happen is if the impossible happened and the entire real estate market collapsed. Well, guess what happened? So, I'm I want to play devil's advocate just for a minute and just kind of I mean um I'm hearing the mayor say that you'd like to see the project. Um any project is going to be a single family residential development based on our comprehensive plan. Um, I saying I want to see specific costs so we know exactly how much we're being asked to forgive in assessments. Yeah. Okay. I mean, until we I don't know if I mean, you talk to developers all the time. Have you had any communication with this developer? I've had a communication with probably a dozen developers. Okay. since the time I've been here. Um, but I've had an extraordinary amount of communication with the developer that is currently has been most currently looking at the property. Have they I mean are they anywhere near giving us any idea what kind of gap they are looking for? I can't answer that question. Okay. Yeah. No, I just didn't know if you'd been asked that or if that's been came up in discussion or not. to develop work is it really is a backwards approach. They know what it costs to build and sell a house and they work backwards to see how much is left over that they can pay for the land. Yeah. Right. And there's, you know, a land cost that plays a part in this and what, you know, I I don't know that uh we don't know that detail either. So that's private information. So yeah, I I just don't like to have that burden on taxpayers and that number. Yeah, I I I feel we're kind we kind of I mean we've been taxing the taxpayers to pay this um the levy or the excuse me the bond for years now. I feel like we kind of owe something to them, but at the same time I mean we do want to see projects go forward. We do want to see developments. is just I think that where we're at right now is just figuring out what the number is. Yeah. Um I don't know that we're necessarily going to get there tonight. I think maybe we should think about what we need to get there to make a better informed decision. I'd suggest you give staff some time to meet and talk. I I've got some thoughts, but I'm not ready to give them out here. No. And I'm not asking for them out here either. No. Um I think we continue this to a future meeting and I hate things. But I think that's where we're at. But at least we can say we're willing to work to figure out some sort of a resolution. We just don't know the dollar amount until we do further in any further information the developers can provide is going to be extremely helpful and useful. We My apologies. Again, I hate continuing stuff, but is there kind of where we're at al together? Is there more you want us to tackle on this at the moment? I don't know if there is. Um, what I'm hearing from the council is you need you need specific numbers, specifics to respond to that. While um the council recognizes that some flexibility might be in the best interest of everybody including the city, you really can't say it's X and tell you know what Y is. Is that fair? That's very fair. Okay. As a thought, this doesn't seem all that different to me. Seems to me that the parties come together. For all intents and purposes, it is a subsidy. This is that's exactly what it is. I think we all get that and are okay with it. Um, yeah, that's a good way of putting it. Ask if there's anything more to get tonight. Give me a second here, Ken. Thank you. Oh, you're ready. There we go. You're unmuted, Ken. Oh, great. No, I was just going to say I think this is all fair. We were hopeful that the one developer might have come tonight. I think Renee, that was your thought that he might um be there, but but he's not. Um, you know, I think it's a it's a unique situation to the way the school and just the shape of New Market was made. The result was a lot of infrastructure going in to extend out to Texas Avenue and then it all got put onto one piece of property which is kind of affecting it there too. But I think um if we can work with city and at least encourage a developer to put some numbers on paper that they're willing to bring here to you, I I can understand why you need to see that. I appreciate that understanding and yeah, I think we're all on the same page. Okay. Well, this I mean there's no real resolution or anything. Do we need to make a formal motion to continue or just say we continue it? No, we have direction from from councel on this item and if there's further information and when there's further information that reflects what you're asking for, it'll come back. Okay, sounds good. Uh, next issue. Kate wants more permits. More permits. I presentation of any sort. Going to make a motion to approve resolution 2460 and resolution 2461. I'll second them. Motion by Amanda, second by myself. All in favor? I I for the record, you need to abstain the reason for the abstension. abstain because I'm the owner of Firehouse Grill. Do you bleep that out? Let's uh All right, so we're back into reports, but let's cover a couple more and then jump back to administration and parks. Um um the discussion on the licensing and zoning changes for cannabis. I think we don't have quite enough time for that. So I would suggest moving on to other items. Mr. Mayor. Sure. Um under public works, Corey did not have anything beyond his report that he wanted to provide. Chief, no report. Engineering. I'm sorry. I have no report. Dang it. All right. The community development report. Okay. Uh CCec. Yeah. I know I skipped parks. I'll circle back to it. Uh well, I'll just say is there anything from parks in addition? So Jake has presentation is going to be seeking feedback from the council. Jake right here. Oh, there he is. Um Is 10 minutes going to be enough? Yeah, I think so. All right. Yeah, we do have to fit some time in for questions. Uh, ready or you good? It's up. Okay. Okay. So, at the July 25th council meeting, the city council instructed uh the parks commission to discuss the city's reservation policy. Discussion was prompted by a resident request to use the Wagner Park ball fields for a private wedding. So, currently individuals may rent the Wagner Park shelter for private events, but the ball fields may only be rented by organizations uh based on a tiered system. Additionally, this is kind of a separate topic now, but ballfield reservations for anything other than practices are not allowed on the weekends due to limited parking for their shelter rentals. And uh the baseball uh New Market Baseball Association has been petitioning the parks commission to amend the current policy now for a while to allow for select ball field reservations on Saturdays in June and July. The parks commission and staff's response would has been that we wouldn't be opposed so long as they rent the shelter as well. So that eliminates the conflict with parking. The basis or rationale for the city's current policy uh is that ball fields are for public use typically associated with an athletic event. Examples of this include the ongoing utilization of the fields for baseball and softball through NMBA and community events which also utilize the fields for youth recreational events. uh staff believes that allowing for private reservations may negatively affect availabil availability of the facilities for their intended use and the rationale was recently affirmed by the parks commission and city council uh when the updated rental form was approved by the city council on April 11th. City staff have received and are likely to continue to receive requests for use of the ball fields for private events such as weddings and birthday graduation parties, likely due to rising costs associated with renting traditional venues. Likewise, staff are likely to continue to receive requests from the New Market Baseball Association for use of the ball fields for weekend reser rentals. Staff recommend that there be no one-time exceptions made and instead any changes shall be incorporated into an amended city policy moving forward. So, several considerations the city council, we don't have to go through them all tonight, but just if you wanted to provide direction, further direction to staff and the parks commission, these are some things to keep in mind. Uh, rental fee, obviously the number one, whether we want to allow for just receptions or ceremonies or both. Um, hours of activity, do we want to keep running with the normal park hours? Uh, we don't currently allow overnight parking. It's common that a lot of these cars will be left behind if there is a wedding. Uh so we'd have to address that as well. Um as well as there's no ADA access to the ball fields. Um parking is pretty limited on the site and think of the impact to the neighbors light noise parking and hours. Uh most cities that do allow for wedding ceremonies on public parks are much larger and none of the cities researched allow them for ball fields. Um, New M was actually the smallest city we found that allowed for rentals and that was at German Park. So, at the August 14th parks commission meeting, Mark Bergstrom of New Market Baseball Association was in the audience. Um, when the commission discussed the topic, commissioners West and Jones recommended that the current policy should remain in place and that no private reservations of the ball fields should be allowed. Uh, commissioners Vernon and Sutton agreed with that reasoning uh that the city's current policy is the result of many years of discussion and compromise to ensure that Wagner Park remains accessible for not only the shelter rental users um but organizations who use the park and then just members of the public who wish to utilize the playground, skate park, basketball court and the ball fields when they're not reserved for use. Here's some screenshots of the current policy. So that's the tier list up there. priorities one, two, three, and four. Um, that's ranked in priority. They get to apply earlier if you're a higher priority. So, you get kind of first come, first serve. And then this is the section of the policy that would need to be amended if we did want to allow for private events. Um, these sections here, E, F, and G. So, the city council is being asked to provide direction to staff on the following. First of all, does the city council wish to allow for private reservations of the Wagner Park ball fields? And if so, does the city council wish to allow these private reservations on the weekends only during normal park hours? And is there any additional restrictions you would wish to discuss? All right, council, what do you guys think? Slippery slope. Slippery slope. I don't think it's slippery. I think we open it up and allow our residents the opportunity to rent the ball fields along with Wagner Park. um that's extra income for the city and really I don't on a Friday or Saturday night I don't see a lot of people out at Wagner Park unless there's already somebody who's reserved it which I think it should be allowed require damage absolutely Amanda, you have any worry about it? I mean, are you guys really This is I would say this is probably the first one we've had since I've been here. Um Mike, who's been on the parks commission now for 20 plus years, I think he's had to deny some of these in the past. I don't know for weddings but private parties. I I think it's hard to tell because it hasn't been allowed. So it's it's generally come up as one-offs where people don't know or they are willing to ask us to change the rules. So it hasn't been I mean it's come up uh staff believes that if we open it up that the increase that we will see a dramatic increase in the requests to what degree we don't know because not everybody wants to do it in that due their stuff in that environment but the reality is that um the cost of venues has gone up so much and the availability of venues is decreasing that this would become an incredibly cost-effective option for people are looking to do something more low-key. So, we think it would become popular. Yeah. We couldn't limit it to just residents. Um I think it would be open to just anyone. Yeah. But we can limit it to residents and then someone that will be a big influence in our city will come and it will just make perfect sense that we amend the policy. I mean, that's kind of what we're doing and that's okay. Um I think there's a certain charm to having a longtime resident of our community. It's really important to them to get married on a ball field in I mean, how new market is that that's beautiful. I love that. But there are I mean some my concerns are only the logistical concerns. I mean are we tying up a ballpark where others might use it and it's a public thing. I mean are we you how are we really handling the parking venue? How are we handling the the sounds or the noise to the neighborhoods? Um I'm open to doing it. I just I think we need to make sure we're addressing all these things in a fair way to do it. Um that'd be my decision. So, as I understand it, the parks commission was generally like no. So, they didn't get into vetting all of the logistical aspects, as the mayor eloquently put it, of allowing it. So, I think the highest level is does the council want to try and allow it? because if you do, then we really need to dig into and have the parks commission deal into all of the aspects that would go into that. Here's my position, and I'm certainly don't have to be right on this, but you I think we we have to do some sort of costbenefit analysis of it. I mean, is this going to be something that we're going to be spending a ton of time on? Staff is going to be spending a ton of time on. And at the end of the day, what are we really doing? Are we doing something for one person? Is this a greater community thing? So, I mean, I think we do need to do some sort of analysis of this, which I know takes time and isn't going to help anything immediate, but I don't think we can do a oneoff for one individual. I'm certainly open to changing the policy. Um, I just think we really have to do due diligence. And until we do that, it's really hard to render any decision as to whether it's something we're going to want to do or not. That's my two cents. Anyone else? No, I agree. I would bring a lot of revenue into the city and we knew that we knew that would be different. Amanda, I think that we have them go through and make up a new allowance for private parties on Friday and Saturday nights. Obviously, it would have to be done at 10:00 when the park closes and we put a two or $3,000 rental fee on there. Yep. So, would Go ahead. Well, I say I'm on board with with like what Kate's saying and, you know, bringing it back to the parks commission. I mean, I think it's worth giving it a shot. If it doesn't work, then okay, it didn't work and we'll come back to the to the table and parks can be like, told you so. I love the idea of creating non- tax revenue for the city and this could be a great way to do it without putting too many people out. the the noise thing is the thing that really sticks out of me. And yeah, if it's if they're done at 10, then maybe that solves the problem. But I mean, I just go back to all the meetings where it was like skate park issues where people were ready to fight each other over skateboard equipment. It was I don't know. I just think we need to be cognizant of that as well. Yeah. I mean party so you got to expect a little party. When we're talking Wagner Park ball fields, that's just the two fields at Wagner Park or are we talking across the street? Rowena ponds as well. Okay, that's what I thought. So, I think the financial part's the easiest part. The part is you would say it would be the soft elements that you can't predict. How much demand is it going to put on staff to deal with brides moms um with with that? I just know from past experience when we've had receptions down there, it's really time consuming. Yeah, the expectations of the customer. I'm paying $2 to $3,000 to rent your venue. Well, what are you going to do for me? Those are things quite honestly we can't really we can speculate but really can't predict until we actually do it. But I do think we would need to have there would be some time to kind of work out how do we think the logistics will work, what would be a fair fee. Do we have to put rules in place to protect the ball field? What do we need to require for deposits? What are the basic parameters we would put on their use of the space? Um, but what I'm hearing from council is that you want to pursue it regardless of the recommendation, so to speak. You disagree with the parks commission and you want us to go and develop that along with a cost analysis. Is there no way we can just make an exception for this one person or you just we could, but that sets a precedent. Sets precedence that you did it for them. Why not for me? I mean, I also want to I don't I don't know that we're disagreeing necessarily with the parks commission. I just think they're looking at it from a different lens than us on it. Um I mean they're kind of they're I don't know their job is to kind of make a recommendation on to us, but I don't know that they're necessarily opposed to it. I don't know. Do you guys interpret it differently? Like Tom said at the meeting, we didn't really get into the details of Okay. everything. It was just kind of a high level discussion of if it should be allowed or not. I'm just really I don't know conscious about trying to undercut another committee that we've appointed. But all right. Uh anything more? Are you good? N uh we'll take that back to the parks commission and work on everything we discussed here tonight. Okay. Scale. Uh scale is tomorrow. The meeting host I think is Shakipi Schools. Is that right? Yes. Yeah. Okay. And and I think it's going to actually be all of the superintendents talking about well the panelists. Yeah. Okay. And then um but I will point out on the scale exec last week um you know we had previously had the discussion about the survey that was sent out to us. Um I was online Tom was in the meeting. He did a fantastic job of kind of articulating the way we uh what we were trying to say and um yeah so good job. Thank you for that. Um and the comments seemed well received. Okay. I was going to ask Yeah, actually there was uh after we initiated that topic, there was a lot um a lot of people echoed those thoughts um and and it was received the way it was intended that hey just for next year maybe we should improve the process a little bit um as to how it goes how they go about it and it was well received. Yeah. Anything for service delivery? Um we right now with regards to the insurance consortium topic um in October the discussion about what next phase of the analysis to keep the ball rolling uh that proposal won't be back until October um and I may have more to report at that time related to scale but not specifically on the agenda is the discussions related to the RTF and what the future of the RTF is going to be is we are kind of closing down the analysis to get the various members the information they would need to have to frame their internal discussions and we're closing in on that. So, I'm guessing before the end of the year, um, we'll be having staff levels between myself and the public safety chiefs, and at some point we'll be coming back to the council to get some direction about our opinion on um, where the scale facility is going and our participation in that. Okay. Um, is there anything for I35? I thought I saw an email. Well, no one has a specific report. We'll just refer to that. Uh, administration. Um, I don't have anything specific for myself unless there's any questions. Otherwise, Brandon has a presentation and will be seeking feedback from the council on uh cannabis ordinances and regulations. Okay. We finished parks, right? Yeah. All right. So, um, as you guys probably saw in the memo, um, I'm, this will be the first of many times we're discussing the various aspects of the zoning regulations and the administrative uh, regulations for our future ordinances for cannabis. Um, so I just wanted to start out by saying that this is kind of broken up into two sections. The first one is zoning related that have received feedback from the planning commission already and the second is administrative which is the first time being asked to you guys today. All right. So starting with the history in 2023 Governor Walls signed the adult use cannabis bill um into law making Minnesota the 23rd state to legalize it. Um this signing of this law also created the Office of Cannabis Management which will from here on out be referred to as OCM. um August 1st of 2023 the law went into effect and January 1 of next year the business licenses will begin to be dispersed. Um so currently the Minnesota law allows for 13 different types of business licenses related to cannabis um each which fulfill a unique role in the cannabis and hemp supply chain. So I've listed them out here for you but um we'll discuss in more detail which of these license types are as we progress throughout the presentation. Um here I just wanted to give a short explanation of the difference between hemp and marijuana for context. Um as some of the license types are specific to hemp. So hemp plants and marijuana plants are both the same species. Um legally hemp is defined as cannabis plant that contains.3% or less THC while marijuana is.3 or more. Um and CBD can be derived from both hemp and marijuana plants. Right. So now I'll start giving the brief description of each of the license types. um beginning with micro businesses. So a micro business may cultivate cannabis and manufacture cannabis and help and hemp products and package these products for sale to customers or another licensed cannabis business. Um these micro businesses may only operate a single retail location. Um and it does include indoor cultivation of plants up to 5,000 square feet indoors or up to a half an acre outdoors. um and one retail license that may be used on the same site as the grow operation. Uh mezo business may cultivate um and manufacture the cannabis and hemp um and products such as and package products um for sale to customers and other licensed cannabis businesses. Um, these mezo businesses may operate up to three retail retail locations. Um, and it includes cultivation of plants up to 15,000 square feet and up to three retail retail locations that may not be allowed on the same site as cultivation. Um, a cultivator is just what it sounds like. It cultivates cannabis and package um, the cannabis for sale to another licensed cannabis business. Um, this includes indoor cultivation of up to 30,000 square feet and up to two acres of outdoor cultivation. manufacturer may manufacture the cannabis and hemp products and package these products for sale to a licensed cannabis retailer. And the retailer uh may sell and mature cannabis plants and seedlings, cannabis, cannabis products, hemp products, and other products authorized by law to customers and patients. Um, a wholesaler may produce and or sell immature cannabis plants and seedlings, cannabis, cannabis products, and hemp products from another licensed cannabis business. Um, wholesalers may also import hemp derived consumer products and lower potency hemp edibles. A transporter may transport immature cannabis plants and seedlings, cannabis, cannabis products, and hemp products to licensed cannabis businesses. Um, a testing facility may obtain and test immature cannabis plants, seedlings, uh, cannabis cannabis products, and hemp products from licensed cannabis businesses. and an event organizer may organize a temporary cannabis event lasting no more than four days. A delivery service may purchase cannabis, cannabis products and hemp products from retailers or cannabis businesses with a retail endorsement for transport transport and delivery customers. And then the medical uh cannabis combination business. Um they may cultivate the cannabis and manufacture it um and package the products for sale to customers, patients and um or other licensed cannabis businesses. Um these combo businesses may operate up to one retail location in each congressional district. And then into the hemp stuff. So, lower potency hemp edible manufacturers may manufacture and package this lower uh potency hemp edible uh for consumer sale and sell the hemp concentrate and lower potency hemp edibles to other cannabis and hemp businesses. And then finally, the lower potency hemp edible retailers may sell lower potency hemp edibles to customers. Um, so now that we've looked at the different types of licenses, um, I wanted to transition into getting council feedback from the planning commission recommendations. Um, so, um, does the planning commission, this is what was asked to planning commission, does the planning commission want to establish a buffer zone, um, prohibiting the operation of cannabis businesses within a certain distance of the following? Um, the planning commission decided on no buffers as their recommendation via 3-2 vote. Um, so Does the council concur with this determination? I do. I'm fine with it. That's fine. So, you're saying that a cannabis store could go right next to a school? Well, not necessarily. If if the area was zoned for retail, if it was a retail use and the area was zoned for retail operations, it would be considered the same as a grocery, you know, as another retail type of use that would be in that area. And same with the other I I'm I'm going to say no. I I would prefer there be some distance from schools and parks, um, daycare. I just Yeah. Okay. And I also just want to point out that, you know, we kind of I'm kind of building this off the comparison of liquor. And in our city, we have no buffer zones for liquor stores. I get that. But this is this to me is a little bit different. I just don't want them walking out of there smoking it and going into Yeah, you still can't do that, right? No, you can't. But it doesn't mean that they won't. What about cigarettes? Walk out of a bar holding a beer. I mean, I could walk at a firehouse with the glass. Well, no, you can't because I wouldn't let you. Well, I'm the fast runner. I mean, I'm saying principally, it's the same thing. I mean, no, I get it. I understand. Um, prove it. Let's do it in a race. So, a question for I guess No, I just I I If you're against it, you're against it. It's okay. I just just So, a question for community development staff. Are there or where are they there areas where there might be a potential of close proximity based on current land use guidance and zoning of uh a cannabis use next to one of these more sensitive uses such as a school, a daycare or residential treatment facilities or parks. We did not perform the analysis. So it would to per to identify that um we would have had to perform a GIS analysis of all the daycare where the daycarees are and buffers. But I would say with almost 100% certainty, yes, there would be locations. There would be locations next to one of Yeah. Not the school, but more in the downtown New Market area, and churches and downtown Elco area. You have like a strip mall that may have a daycare or a treatment facility within that in the a retailer there as well? Well, we have we have leased retail space directly across the street from a church right now. So ours and liquor store handing me. Yeah, exactly. We can't buffer from a church though. So to be fair, does anyone change their opinion? No. All right, we can keep moving forward. All right. Yeah. So, um I meant to allude to this earlier, but so I've been making these recommendations based on the assumption that we could prohibit um outdoor cultivation. And I learned this morning that we cannot. So, that's why that there's that box there around cannabis cultivator outdoor. Um so, in this table here, it shows as not being uh proposed anywhere, but um we're going to have to take that back to the planning commission and get a recommendation for that now with the new information we've received. But everything else that we're asking here still stands. Um, so these are basically the places to which the planning commission was on board with or does anyone have any disagreements? I don't. Yeah. And the P obviously stands for it would just simply be permitted in those areas and the CUP would require, you know, conditional use permit through planning commission, city council. And it was staff's recommendation that um originally before Brandon's discovery this morning that um outdoor grow facilities would maybe be more appropriate in the rural areas and not in the municipal city limits. Yeah, I think we can keep moving forward. Cool. All right, so now we're going to switch over to the next set of questions. Um yeah, let's get right into it. All right. So, first question um we're requesting direction from from you is um do you want to limit the hours of operation for cannabis businesses? Um the state statute prohibits the sale of cannabis between 2 am and 8 8 a.m. Monday through Saturday and 2 to 10 on Sunday. Um I spoke with Chief Bell about it and he recommend matching the hours of operation to liquor stores. Um and in the state of Minnesota, liquor stores are available to be open from 8 to 10 Monday through Saturday and 10 to 6 on Sundays. Um, but the only difference is with cannabis is that local jurisdictions can't um force someone a cannabis business to close earlier than 9:00 p.m. So, we'd recommend matching liquor except on Sundays. Any disagreements? So strange. No, we're good. All right. Do you want to limit the number of retail registrations? As you know, we have to have at least one for every 12,000 people or 12,500 people. Um, you can choose to limit anything between one or whatever. I'm gonna stay out of this one because y'all are going to have to deal with this after I'm done. So, I'm gonna say you stay at one if we have to allow it then keep it at one. Is it one and the city if or is it just one one for 12,500 people? One in the city anywhere. Yeah. The city wants one at some point. and the city. Okay. So, technically, but so municipal license is completely separate. Okay. Got it. That's Sorry, that's what I was trying to say. Okay. All right. I won't stay. I just feel like I mean, sure, limit it to one. I don't feel strongly one way or the other just because I don't feel like there's going to be like people banging down the door to to get in. You know, we're not going to have a strip mall full of cannabis retailers. No, I I mean I think people might be hanging on the door. I don't I don't know. We'll see. I guess I mean do you want to limit it or do you want it open or if you want to limit it or strong either way on it? I mean, I think limiting it is fine. I'm I'm I'd be opposed to limiting, but again, I mean, yeah, step away if you guys are. How would we what if we get a few applicants at the same time or how does that work? How do you pick? How you going to the state does The state does. So, if we once we tell the state that we have a limit on it, they would only register one. So, we're not put in the position of first serve picking. Yeah. the state would issue the license for our jurisdiction through the state. Okay, I'll I'll say this. I don't want I don't like the idea that we can open bars, but we can't open or we could open more liquor stores, but we have but we're going to be restricted to this. I mean, it should be exactly the same in my opinion. Now, I agree with your logic. So, I logic. All right. You could have just said that to begin with. I I'm good at not good at shutting down. So, what I'm hearing is free market. Free market. Okay, perfect. But, okay, back up. I don't want I don't want 10 coming knocking on the door and having 10 of these. But shouldn't But shouldn't the market Yeah. figure it out. I mean, why aren't there like 30 bars in town? Because the market doesn't support it. So, I mean, wouldn't But do you really want somebody to invest in a place and start their business and then completely lose it? No. I just don't think it it needs to be specific to a to an industry. I mean, that could happen with any business. I feel like we're what I'm trying to avoid is like pointing a finger at marijuana and say, "No, you're bad." Even though it's legal, we should just So, I just I want to treat it the same. That's all. No, you're It's driving you nuts, Kate. I'm sorry. No, it's all right. I just That's fine. Go on. All right. Okay. So, sorry. Sorry, I don't have any information for comparison from nearby cities because we're still pretty ahead of the curve on this. Um, but how much should the penalty be for a cannabis retail business that sells to a customer or patient without a valid retail registration? Um, so the maximum will be 2,000. And again, if we're comparing with um liquor, city code does not address liquor specifically for this particular piece. Um, and as you see it towards the bottom of the slide, that's what liquor does in Minnesota. So what do you want to do with Kate? Okay. Anyone disagree? Okay. Whatever Kate says. Perfect. Whatever I say, I would say. So there isn't there hasn't been like penalties written up for selling cannabis like there is for selling liquor for Minnesota or in Minnesota. There's no crime. It's not on the books yet. So we have a crime. What do other states do? Do you know? Is the maximum 2,000? So, the state does set a maximum. That's pretty much it. Maximum is 2,000. Yeah. So, that civil there will be there would be criminal potentially as well and that's not been established yet because they can't legally sell it. processing license. So, what's the appropriate $2,000? That's kind of I don't know. I would say go in the middle. Let's do a thousand like a thousand per no matter how many. Or do we want like I like the like kind of steps like Yeah. And the suspension. Is that something we can put in there too or is it just talking money without valid registration? So there would be absolutely no suspension because they're selling it. Well, they could be bar or something or an inability to apply later, right? Whatever you guys want. Yeah. So, if they're going to continue doing it, if they're going to keep doing it regardless, I mean, the way it's laid out here for violations, I mean, is everyone does anyone have an issue with that? I don't still has that max of 2,00 and beyond 2,000. So what I'm hearing is take the take the numbers for liquor except obviously the licensing does suspension doesn't matter. So okay. All right. So how much should be charged to applicants for a registration fee? Um for all the different licenses there's a huge range. So it cannot accept exceed $500 or half of the amount of an initial state license fee whichever is less. Um like I said there's a big range. So it goes from $0 for a micro business to like 20,000 for a cultivator. Um so each of these has a unique fee schedule and it's outlined in the statute. Um if we compare it to liquor, the fee is set based on Minnesota statute as well. Um which is 310 for cities with our population. Um staff along with the city attorney would recommend starting at 500 or half the amount of an initial license fee, whichever is less, and just seeing how it goes and adjusting in the future if it's needed. I'm good with that recommendation. Okay. So, explain to me real quick registration fee. Is this their their their license that they're going to get through this city or is this So, they don't get a license from us, but they have to register that they're here. So, but our fee is $2,200 a year. Where's the three where where's that 310 come from for liquor? Just out of curiosity. I'm very confused on that dollar. State doesn't My state is like 965 through the state of Minnesota to have my liquor license through them and then I pay another additional 2,200 to the city. So if they're only going to have to pay 500, I think that's a crap of crap. You need to talk to your legislator. I will definitely have a discussion because I don't think that's fair at all. Interesting. Just saying. Sorry I went off on a soap box there, but interpret that that you're going to have to do the maximum 500 to get my vault. Fine with me. Good with that. Okay. I mean, yeah, we set our fees based on what takes to cover costs, right? We're not trying to make money off of it. So, if that's what it costs to process this, then let's do it. You think that's the right starting point? Okay. All right. Awesome. Okay. So, stop me if you have any questions on this one. It's kind of seems confusing a little bit, but do you want to treat location changes as a new registration or alternatively treat a location change as allowable? Um, which would still be subject to the compliance of the rest of the registration process with the OCM. Um, so the OCM must approve a business relocating and staff recommends treating a location change as allowable, subject to compliance with the rest of the registration process. Um, this is because when the OCM would get the request for a relocation, they would reach out to city staff. So, we could still do the exact same thing we would do if a new business license was coming into town, do our evaluation on zoning and all that kind of stuff. We would still need to do that. Um, their change in location functionally, it's no different than a new business coming into a location as it is evaluating them moving to a different location. So, how is this how How does it work with alcohol? So if I'm doing a different location, am I getting rid of the old location? It's treated as a new license. Yeah, new license. So it should be the same, right? The city has to do the same work that they do for the original to cover our cost, keep the same. Okay. Um, so does council want to limit signage for cannabis businesses differently than other businesses? Um, I'll just say that I staff's opinion is that the signed ordinance covers it and we don't need to put um, you know, specific regulations on cannabis bash on that too. Cool. All right. So, now we're going to move into the last section here, the temporary events. Um so um this slide has some background information on it because I think it'd be beneficial for you guys to hear before we move into the questions on the next slide. Um so any individual or business seeking to obtain a cannabis event license must provide OCM information about various things like the time, location, layout, number of participants and hours of operation. Um a cannabis event organizer u must receive local approval including obtaining any necessary permits or licenses which would be issued by us before they can hold the event. Um, a jurisdiction may establish standards for temporary cannabis events, uh, which the event organizer must meet, including restricting or prohibiting any on-site consumption. Um, so if there are any public health, safety, or welfare concerns associated with an event, the jurisdiction would presumably be authorized to deny the approval of that set event. All right, so now into the questions. So number one, um, should we restrict cannab cannabis events to be held at a specific place or places, and if so, where? And this is completely optional and does not need to be put into our ordinance. I'm just gonna sound like a broken record and whatever we do for alcohol is what we should be doing. Yeah, that makes sense. So, the attorney and Linda correct me if I'm wrong, but with alcohol, we do provide for temporary expansion of premise permits where it's on their own property. But Kate, for example, can't serve someplace else unless she's doing it with like a catering license or something like that. And that's not really part of this discussion. So difference is you don't need a catering license to bring marijuana around. Is that to sell that? There isn't there isn't an option in the ordinance to for that type of a license. So if we're to be as close as we can to liquor, they would be able to hold special events on that premise. So then that means that they're smoking outside. Is that what we're saying? Or just selling. Um we'll get to the one of the next questions is you guys have the opportunity to prohibit on-site consumption on the in these events or restrict it. So maybe there was going to be for a temporary event. They can you have to permit. So the question is if you have a temporary event, one of these four days events that no matter you don't know how huge that event could be. Um do you want to allow smoking at those events which could be outside or you could require them to be inside? Can I ask a question? Inside buildings in the state of Minnesota. So, how is that possible? Oh, that's right. They can't smoke if they're I know you guys keep compare comparing this to beer, but beer does not smell like marijuana does. Cigarettes. Yes, cigarettes stink. Yeah, smell is horrible, too. You want to do Kate? Why don't you guys answer this one because I'm I'm going to be the odd duck out here. I hate to discriminate when we have cigarettes and alcohol and I think cigarettes are are worse to be honest. I agree. I agree. I think I think the only difference between cigarettes and marijuana in this context is that you could get high from secondhand smoke from marijuana. cancer from secondhand smoke. I'm sorry about this one. Exactly. And it takes I think a lot to get high from secondhand smoke from marijuana. It's not that easy. To me, this kind of goes to a Why are we addressing a problem that hasn't been created? Exactly. Yeah. Okay. So, we're not restricting I would not want to restrict and I mean I don't want to restrict any businesses from anything. So just just go with that. I the one man out. I'm going to say that I I don't agree with smoking marijuana outside where Yeah. So location, you're restricted to your premise and you can do it outside with the special permit for the event. Is that where we're at? Yeah. I'm just I'm trying to think of a scenario in which that would No, I mean I'm fine with that. Okay. Can I ask a quick question real quick? Sorry. How does our law enforcement feel about this? They're all over the board, but me in particular, I guess, and most of my guys kind It's like alcohol. It's the only thing is secondhand smoke. can get high from it. Secondhand smoke, people can get high from it, unlike alcohol, obviously. But I mean, it's it's around there now. People are driving around, they're smoking it right now, and it's not an issue. So, I think you treat it like a a beer garden basically, and it'll be fine. I don't see any really any different, any big concerns. I guess you got to restrict people who aren't of age from being around it where they could get secondhand smoke. Um, that could be a concern. Is there some way that that can be in here? I mean, god forbid somebody bring their infant in a stroller into a place and is smoking weed with them there. Is there some way that that can be a restriction or are we not allowed to do that? I think Andrea, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to be 21 to enter. So, it's an adults only. Yes. But I mean could you are you restricting it to premises only and what happens if they want to have a festival in Wagner Park you know or if they want to they can't go offsite because they don't have a catering license to do that and that's really not it's kind of a apples and oranges but what we heard from council is that if they want to have a vite events on site That's fine. You're not you're not opening it up for them to have it in Farmer John's Field or in Wagner Park or other locations. Yeah, we're I think we'll be okay with it. I don't see a big issue. We haven't with the beer gardens or the other events, so I don't know that this will really be any different. Okay. Okay. Moving on. Um so we go to three then. Should we restrict the times um one of these events could be held? If so, when? And the only comp I have is Lakeville, and they've proposed 10 am to 10 pm. Um, unless extended by city council with approval of a special event permit. Do we like 10 to 10 or do we have other ideas? Whatever we do for alcohol with alcohol noise ordinance too because I mean like our outdoor events have to be done by so with alcohol it would be the business's normal service times their normal hours unless it's extended through a special event permit. Okay, good point. Linda, are do we for special events uh such as Kate's event in her parking lot that has to wrap up by 10 outside, right? No, it's not. Okay. No, with music. No. Um I was under the direction that if council approves it, they can extend the noise from a special from a outdoor event and concert. It can be um extended by council. Typically the council hasn't extended beyond 10 p.m. Yes, we have for most events. We haven't should I mean there has been there has been yes yearly and there's going to be one coming up that was asked was request requested next council meeting. Amanda, what do you think? You make the call. I don't think we need to restrict it outside of business hours. I'm on board. Y against this. No, I'm fine. If I'm going to lose at this at least, I mean, keep it 10 to 10. I'm fine with that. So, just for clarification, do we want 10 to 10 or normal business hours? Normal business hours is what I'm suggesting. So, like Oh, that's fine. Yeah, it would be 8 to 10. What? 8 to 10? Yeah, it's two hours difference. Yeah, but it well in fairness it's outside. So it here's the reality. We're going to put we're going to offer a lot of thoughts. We have never seen anything like this before and we are going to be coming back a lot to make amendments. So let's not get too caught up. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Get your time to shine. Yeah. Remember when I disagreed with all? So, just out of curiosity, Brand, just to clarify, they need they would need an a permit for this event, correct? Yes. From the OCM, they would need an event permit. Oh, not from us. And then the OCM would reach out to us. Okay. So, then let me ask another question. If are we going to require a permit that they have to pay $200 for to do an outdoor permit? like, well, if they if they check the boxes for an outdoor concert and event permit, that has nothing to do with them. That has nothing to do with they have still have to pull that regardless. They'll still have to do one for the city as well. If what they're doing checks the boxes, but that generally is amplified sound. Um, what are some of the other criteria, Linda, that would trigger it? The amount of people. Um, yeah, amount of people. Um, if it's a not a priv a private party. I there's criteria on who's invited. Okay. But you would treat it the same as anyone else. Even though the OCM is going to give them their permit, you guys are still going to We would be just treating it as an outdoor concert event permit. It wouldn't matter whether it's a pancake breakfast, an outside religious service or rock concert. Um I I was thinking the same thing, but but I think the mayor the council in the past has taken this approach. I think the mayor's right that this is one of those things where until we kick the tires on it, you just don't know. I do have a concern because not all not all sites are created equal. There are potential premise locations that are close to residential areas and 10:00 in the morning there might be different from some place that's buffered by distance or 8:00 in the morning than other places which are farther from residential. Um, is there a way for us to differentiate that or is it Yes, you can establish your own conditions for this permit. So, you could mirror the outdoor uh concert and events permit and have also some separate conditions for a temporary cannabis out permit. Because without with the outdoor concert and event permit basically it has to go to council. So there's an opportunity to customize to the specifics of every event. Would we have that? Would we approach it the same way Andrea or would we need to have some preset conditions? The next question asks that. Okay. Yes. Do do you want it to come to council? Question. Yes. Sure. Cool. So cool. That was the last question was that. So I think staff would recommend that treat it similarly and um bring it here in a form of resolution an ordinance. Ordinance is it ordinance? Linda is that resolutions for the permit. Yeah. Just the exact same as a yes outdoor concert. Okay. I thought you meant the whole ordinance. Oh, no. Sorry. They would have to do the temporary. Okay, I'm good with that. That was my That was my last question. Um Okay. If there's any additional questions or comments, let me know. But that was it. I think that covers all reports. Did I miss anything? Yes. All right. Well, on to discussion by council. Anyone have anything? I think that's what we just agreed to. any motions to um before you okay close her out. I had some contact with the interested party to have a wedding at Wagner Park and they are no longer pursuing this option if we wanted to change any of our parks decisions. literally just came in as we were saying. No, I mean we're talking about just a general ordinance. I don't know. I wouldn't I don't want to think we're all like having this discussion for one person. I mean, we got to make it for the broader group, right? No, I think it would be interesting to be able to see what we could come up with. I mean, I'm not saying you're going to have a wedding there every weekend, but you know, the extra two or $3,000 a month, that might be kind of nice. I mean, I don't know, for the Halloween party or something, you know, I I think that we will continue to have these requests coming in regardless. So, I don't know if I I don't know if I love it because I can see people from all over coming here to have their weddings. It's cheaper, available, you said. I agree. You guys want to go with it? And I think there's potential for more damage that I don't know if the revenue would be worth it, but it goes back to like what we were saying. I mean, we need to really see a costbenefit analysis and see if this is worth the time to be doing. I don't think so. I mean, I I think I wish I could keep it to families who've been here forever and live here, but if we could do that, Yes. But condition of your event permit is that you must been a resident for right because like Joe I think it's cool that you know lived here you want to be married here but um I don't know I don't know if I want to open it up to the world and I know that sounds dramatic but people will use it for the things all right so are we we going to adjourn or what are we doing what do you guys want to do I'm Motion to adjurnn. Okay. Motion by Gina. Second. Second by Amanda. All in favor? Mean journ. Thank you all.