I actually went and spoke to some of the Indian friends that we have about this. And to be honest with you it was I was it was a little nervous, but I went out there and I I I spoke to several of them I know. And quite honestly I would ask them about the new state flag and they hate it.

I back the mayor's idea of flying both flags. I think that takes the the legs off of the new flag that frankly only stands on on on its claim that it gets rid of the old one. So if you fly both it can't claim that.

I've raised this concern in the past and it's not the county or the city's doing but the state's. And it seems like we're taking a county CDA tax, a city EDA tax, a utility sales tax, state tax. All of these taxes are coming from existing properties and many that are struggling. So, we're making other households more unaffordable by taking their money. Um and I think we're we're doing this backward. We're trying to catch up on the back end instead of addressing the problem on the front end. Not our issue, it's the state issue, but I just wanted to say that.

To your questions, so the CDA will be selling the property to Trellis, so they will be paying uh for that property and then they will be applying for funding from the state for the project.

I lived with that fear for 60 years before I was able to learn to swim. To date, we have had 195 participants. Our session which starts in July has 24 participants. Both classes are full and we have a wait list. We've added a water aerobics warm-up to classes. Safety topics were added to each class. Swimming in a lake, rip tides, proper safety gear, ice safety, etc.

We've talked about it, but with a lot of our instructors being volunteers and already giving us 12 Sundays every year for this program, a lot of them we don't want to overextend our welcome with our volunteers, but seeing how quickly this last session did fill up, Sue and I have talked about adding like maybe a 4:00 class as well if space and time allow for that in the future, but it it's awesome to see the demand come and just to see how much these women appreciate it and they come back and there's new people and yeah.

The Minnesota Plumbing Board has proposed language that appears to ban stormwater from irrigation and other non-potable uses through the plumbing code. This would kill a proven cost-effective practice that protects our lakes, conserves drinking water, improves water quality, reduces flooding, improves climate resiliency, and supports local jobs, all while conflicting with state law and putting millions in taxpayer investments at risk.

Mayor and Council, it's also the Minnesota Department of Health. Um and part of the reason is when rainwater is collected in storm water management bases, you get runoff from fertilizers and dog feces and other things like that. And if they have high concentrations and those are irrigated back into green spaces, that's our concern from a health standpoint.

I'm on on board. I don't I don't like this restriction, especially if it's a one-off. If the restriction is bulk municipal, then maybe I'm more amenable to looking at it, but if it's individual residents using it for their gardens and stuff, I'm absolutely opposed to the government intervening.