All right, with it being right at 6 o'clock, we'll get started here this evening. And Jolene, could you please take a roll call? >> Council members Ericson >> here. >> Excuse me. Larson >> here. >> Miller >> here. >> Valento here. >> Mayor Roberts >> here. If you're able, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance 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. >> All right, council. We have an um an agenda in front of us. Anyone willing to make a motion to approve? >> Also move. >> I'll second. Motion a second. Any further discuss discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> We have an agenda. Uh awards and presentations. None this evening. Uh open forum. This is uh something we have at every meeting. Gives any one of the public a couple minutes to speak about any city issue. Please state your name and address when you come forward and limited to around three minutes. All right. Doesn't look like we have anyone this evening. We have a consent agenda in front of us. Anyone interested in making a motion on that? >> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull a couple items off the consent agenda for consent agenda for discussion. Item A, I or A number one, maybe it's what it is, and G. >> Okay. Motion. Is there a second? >> Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I >> opposed. We have our consent agenda. With that, we will move um those items to the first part of our uh regular agenda. And so, uh Council Member Miller, if you want to talk about some of your questions there on both the general invoices and then also G Castlewood Management Agreement. >> Mr. Mayor, just could I clarify that last motion? >> I'm sorry, >> Council Miller. Was that a motion to approve the consent agenda without those couple items? It was just a little >> Yes. I'm sorry. >> Oh, and the secondary. Was that clear to everybody? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Mayor, uh city uh council members, I was looking through the uh general invoices and I came across a check number 118528 lease payment that we make to an annual lease to St. Peter's Catholic Church for some parking lot uses at Belts at Belts Park. Um, as I looked at that, I was kind of curious and wondering why we pay uh St. Peters that much money for a parking area when we have plenty, I believe, parking on the street that's very well marked uh and and and and painted off uh both around the two sides of the park. And I just thought it was something that I'm not sure when this was put into place, but maybe the parks committee uh could review that lease and review that parking to see if that's something we really need to be spending $5,500 on. And I guess I'm throwing it out for discussion with you guys. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, I think it was just last year we approved that. >> Okay. >> Um and it was long conversation been long in the works. >> Okay. And uh the reality is is that people park there uh in the St. Peters parking lot and and so there was just a lot of back and forth between the city and the and the the church over there. And we came to an agreement where we'd have a formal a formal agreement that would allow people to park and use the tennis courts, basketball courts, and facilities. And there was a an annual payment and some plowing of of a sidewalk as a part of that. >> Yeah. So, when I looked at it, um it was hard for me to imagine people coming from that parking lot down to the park. There's really no walkway or sidewalk or path there. It looks to me like you have to go all the way down to the street over and up the sidewalk. So, again, I'm not sure if that's really a great access and a and a in a >> one was It's the one that was happening though. Yeah, >> you know, it wasn't designed initially that way. I think there's actually might be a better sidewalk there now with the redo of the of the basketball courts and and tennis courts. Um, there may or may I think there's a a sidewalk along those courts now. >> Yeah, I didn't notice, but it could have been there. >> So, any chance we should revisit it or you think it's good the way it is? uh you know so if I can weigh in I um I would be open to maybe pushing that back to parks commission to see if that they unless they've already approved it and I missed that somewhere if they've approved it for the second year. Uh we when we made this uh decision I was unaware of that we were going to have nice striped spots uh along Southshore there uh and you know there is talk of a future potential parking lot in there so maybe that we wouldn't need that. Um, so I'm I'm open either way uh to either approve this and have that conversation or not approve it and come back and approve it after that conversation has been had with the parks commission. >> I'd be fine um pushing it to the parks and recreation commission. I when we voted on this, I thought the $5,500 was a little pricey for it being a parking lot um sharing, especially with the street parking that we have now. But next to it, it's the church gets a neighbor of a park. And what better neighbor would you want than a park? Um, so I'd be fine kicking it to the parks and recreation commission because I don't believe the parks and recreation commission was in place when we approved this. Correct. >> That's correct, council member. Um, we the council reviewed and considered this contract in November of 2024, so a year ago, just about today, which is why you're seeing that annual invoice on your bills this week. Um, but we did not have a parks commission seated at that time. >> Mr. Mayor, if I might weigh in, I it would be my suggestion, of course, you guys can do as as you wish, but um it' be my suggestion to honor the contract and make the payment of this invoice certainly doesn't preclude us from having a discussion going forward, but um I think withholding the payment uh here to discuss what happens next year is is a bit that doesn't operate in good faith and I think I would suggest making the payment on this year's and then certainly having that conversation going forward. you uh you couldn't I suppose would you say then having that doing it prrated would not be the best if if let's say that decision was made >> there's provisions in the contract to for cancellation of the contract a 60-day um notice and so you know after you went to the parks commission and I know it's at the end of November so we're up against that 60 days and um but I I think just you know the invoice that's in front of you is for summer, right? I mean, for all intents and purposes, which is over now that the pickle ball courts are down. Um, and so I think that would be the be my recommendation that you make that. >> So, this is back in the rear basically paying this shape over there. >> Mr. Mayor, can I just clarify? So, when the contract was signed last year, um, it included an annual um, automatic renewal. Um, but there is provisions within the contract language that does allow for termination upon 90 days notice. And it's very clear that there is a reimbursement provision for any prepaid rent for the year. So the $5,500 which is on your invoices tonight pays for this November to next November. However, if the city were to wish to terminate, we follow the termination language in the contract. We could get reimbursement. I would assume that'd be prrated. Then then that may I mean I'm comfortable with that. You know if we can have the parks commission will honor this have the parks commission have that conversation and their suggestion to us and then we have the ability to get that money back after the if we decide not to move forward. >> And you're saying it's prudent to review it. >> Okay. So that we need a motion on this then. Correct. I would make a motion that we refer the lease with uh St. Peters Catholic Church for the parking lot usage uh back to the parks commission for their review and their opinion uh to come back to us at council for approval. >> I'll second. >> Can I make a friendly amendment? I think we're looking for an approval of the city invoices. So approving item 7A with that condition. >> I'm sorry. Yes. re re approving the uh general invoices item 7A with that provision. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. >> We have a motion second. Any further discussion? >> All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. >> Next item uh 7G out of the consent agenda, Castlewood management agreement. And I was looking to pull this as well just for some uh public conversation about this, but go ahead, council member Miller. >> Yeah, exactly. Uh Mr. mayor and council members. That's really what I wanted to do myself is uh again not being real familiar with this particular uh golf course and how the city's been handling it. Uh looking at invoices and looking at profit and loss, uh I think there's some discussion that needs to happen around the golf course and especially with the the maintenance and the fees and that's really why I wanted to pull it. >> Okay. >> Mr. Mayor, I know Dave has some um updated information on kind of where we're at for the year. >> Just background for the the Castwood agreement. I don't know if you read through the agreement at all. Um we we hire this or we have this agreement with the the management group and we g guarantee them basically $50,000 by the end of the year. If we're short of $50,000 profit, then the city would pay them to true it up to $50,000. And anything we're above $50,000, uh, the city and the manager splits that that profit. So when we initially started the first two years, we paid them uh the true up to that $50,000. Last year, there was a profit of a little over $3,000 that was split. And at this point in time through October, we're $26,000 positive. So it's been trending year after year above. This is the first year that simulators have been running all year long. There's it kind of they started halfway through one year when they didn't have any leagues. So, this isn't even accounting for if they have fall simulator leagues as well. So, I don't see us profiting much more between now and December just because they're not golfing anymore. But, I I think last year they lost about $6,000 between now and the end of the year just paying wages and and utilities. But, I would think we'd have a probably a split profit around $20,000. It's pretty much our only park and recreation thing that is actually making money for the city. So, it's it's quite uh it's a quite good uh partnership. The only thing we have um for expenses out there are electric utilities that run the um wellhouse. So, manager has to run the irrigation, but we pay for the power. So, they're just responsible to irrigate, but we still pay for the power of the irrigation system. and we have a a budget of I believe five $5,000 just in operating maintenance if a culvert fails or we need to have a tree cut down or something like that. So I think we have budgeted $11,000 total in that that fund annually just on city expenses. >> Dave, uh just a question. Um so in addition to that that you mentioned with expenses, we have expenses when it comes to maintenance and repairs. Uh so if there's a a cost that exceeds certain amounts of money, whether it be uh equipment or whether it be uh uh other things uh like um minor repairs, uh that cost is split between us and them or we pay all that cost after it exceeds a certain amount of money. Sounds it sounds like we have they have to get approval over a certain amount of money and then >> it would it would still show up in the P&L statement, but they just have it's more to equipment like say if a mower breaks and they say it's going to cost $10,000 repair, the city wants to look at that piece of equipment and verify that it's worth repairing otherwise buying new. But it would still go on their P&L statement and we won't split that cost. It just we have to explain or they have to ask our permission basically to to spend those dollars just like on irrigation. If there's a valve that goes wrong or a controller box that's that expensive, we just are asking that they run it by us first before they make those bigger purchases. >> But that would not affect our profit. >> Would affect our profit, >> right? So if they spent $10,000, we would share in that cost or would be 10,000 off the total profit. >> Correct. So that 20 could be 10 as an example. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure of. >> No, go ahead. >> Uh the previous one was longer term. This is a two-year contract if I'm reading correctly. And uh when we met with the folks out there, I thought maybe they were talking about a one-year based on potential retirement of of the the main interest in that business. Um was there reason where do we land on two years? Uh they've historically they've always wanted like three-year contracts and the city's always come back with a one year, maybe a two-year because they wanted to see how this kind of um flushed out. But I they're the ones who kind of agreed to this two-year. I know um one of the owners of Forsome has been talking about return from his 9 toive job. I think their investment group or the Forsome Group himself, I haven't heard that. They have three or four other golf courses that they manage. So, I haven't heard that they're plan on getting out of the game anytime soon. So, I think they didn't raise any flags about a two-year two-year deal. So, I wouldn't have any concerns on it that way either. >> And then, can you uh remind us of the number that we spent out there on some of the drainage issues this summer? Do you know that ballpark? >> Uh that was a CIP project for about $80,000. Uh it um expanded two greens. Uh fixed one or two tea boxes and then fixed a bunch of drainage issues. Ran a bunch of drain tile and just making some of the playable areas more playable. That was well well needed. It's there was some holes that were always underwater. Even if you got a half inch of rain, it was they couldn't drive currents through it. So I think that was probably one of the first times we probably threw any money into that course for a lot of years other than the clubhouse itself. But as far as the play area, it's it was was a well needed. >> And then in the um in the parks park rec meeting I I was watching and they were talking about whether or not the irrigation we do something next year or wait or that that's still we decide that next year once we get things fired back up. >> Yep. It's it's in the CIP for $900,000. That's the estimated cost to replace the entire irrigation system. Uh the parks commission did not recommend that project go forward until an audit was done. So they they directed staff to get a contractor out there to audit the entire system to see if in fact it is completely shot or if some of it is salvageable or there's different ways that could be fixed more or less expensively. Um so once spring comes out and that irrigation is up and running, we will find a contractor to kind of do an evaluation on that. bring your findings back to the parks commission and then get get kind of what their thoughts are on on that expense. It's a it's an old system and it's still hand watering. So, I mean it's most of us go to bed and our irrigation happens overnight and most golf courses they're out during the middle of the day putting in connect, you know, quick connects watering green. So, it's just technology and the age of that is you come to a decision of if you want a golf course with irrigation at some it's going to need to get done. But to answer your question, yes, it's in the books, but it's not planned yet until more evaluation's done. >> I I think, you know, as as we move forward on this, it Castlewood is a a great amendment to the city. Um, one of our most used parks, but we're going to have to substantially invest some money into this park, and that's a decisions council. I mean, it is in the CIP, but it um some big dollars. $900,000 for irrigation is is a big number to put into one park. Um so um be interested to see how what comes back with the parks commission and appreciate their their time on it. Um if the only thing I would like to see a little bit and I brought this up to their attention when we went out there this summer was that uh boulevard in between the fence area and 97 not being mowed on a regular basis. They mentioned it was because of the moisture and the amount of rain we received this summer, but even into the fall when it did dry out, it just wasn't maintained or mowed like the rest of the golf course was. And then the other question would be, you know, as you see that fence line, there's a lot of areas where that fence knocked down and there's it's the old type old school um fencing. Is there some thought about fixing that and that obviously would be on us on the city or is that a shared cost or >> Yeah, it'd be on us. A couple years ago, we went through and fixed a lot of those those panels or those posts. Um, it's probably due for some more. It's getting to that point where they're the weed whip have taken those posts down to almost nothing. Um, probably to that point of either replacement and we've had a couple incidents too of cars getting hit with um golf balls and a couple insurance claims that um there may be a discussion point of putting up, you know, a netting there or something off that that last T as well. Number nine. So, it's another CIP project, but it's something something as we develop our CAP next year to probably include that in at least get costs on that. And I think public works for sure will at least fix the ones that are, you know, have fallen out of the post and and at least get it looking not so horrid, but um at some point I don't think we can fix anymore. It'll just fall over. So, >> any other questions on this? Um, yeah, I have a lot of questions, but um um you know, so I don't know this, so I'm gonna ask the question. Can can the city sell that golf course? >> It's dedicated parkland, so you could It has to always stay a park, >> but we could sell it to someone who would like to keep it as a golf course and always manage it as a golf course. So that takes us out of it >> as long as this maintain. I'm going to ask my legal legal attorney that's sitting at the end there that knows these answers. >> Uh your honor, councel, >> the answer is it depends >> because it would need to be for the benefit of the public, right? So there could be some limitations on being owned privately. Um we would have to look at what the deed currently says and and what our pathway would be to get it into private ownership. That could be tricky. And the only reason I ask is when you look at $900,000 potentially and a number of miscellaneous costs, the golf course hasn't made the city a lot of money over the years and it's not going to make money for many more years if we go and invest a million dollars into it. I'm just there's besides raising the fees for golf, there's got to be some other options. And I love the golf course, don't get me wrong. I golf there a lot. I I only smile because I I asked that I made that same comment to Forsome and he he he asked me which of our parks makes any money. >> Well, I agree. I agree. >> Yeah, I um I am challenged with it at at times as well. Does a municipality municipality or city belong in the golf business? That's a that's a good question. A lot of them I know Mountains View over the years had was into one and got out of out of it. Um it's a tough situation. uh we've got a great partnership here I think short term but long term all these questions need to be vetted out and I agree with you I'm challenged with some of the same questions or thoughts. >> Yeah and you know obviously we we've had some opportunities out there when they rebuilt the clubhouse. You know they could have potentially we could look at or we should have maybe could have looked at or maybe they did look at is is ways to use the clubhouse more than just for the you know the golf simulators. And maybe you could have had weddings out there. Maybe you could have had banquetss out there, different things like that that the city can make money on. I know a lot of public golf courses that's how they make a little bit of money and it doesn't look like we have that opportunity at all. Just food for thought. >> Yep. Well, it's good good conversation to have. So, any other questions on this particular item? Anyone just make a motion? >> I'll make a motion that we approve item 7G. >> A motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. Okay, we'll go back to our regular agenda item 8A, median refresh project, phase two. Uh Dave, mayor and council, phase one of the median project wrapped up this fall. Um it looks great. Um the next step would be moving down the way um on this time on the east side of I35 up to 12th Avenue Walgreens in that intersection. Um just kind of discuss even last year that it would be nice if we get these projects done in the spring to give a full grow season and um we just kind of approve this way too late in the year that it just didn't line up that we had to do it in the fall. So, um, the thought was is getting these services, get the plans, and specs done and getting this out to bid in January, February, and get on the books for some contractor right away to be a first project in the spring. That way, it would be freshened up right away in the beginning of the year. We get to kind of enjoy it that first year right away. Um, so that first step would be um signing them back up with MWI, who did the professional services for the last one. um in your packet or on the pa second page is his um contract for services that would take care of him from right now all the way through the end of construction. Um that would handle putting the bid documents, putting out for bid um working with the selected contractor and then being being out there for inspections when the project happens and then final close out. Um once we have the plans and specs, we'd come back hopefully already in January, that first meeting or so, and approve plans and specs and authorize uh the project go out to bid and then hopefully get that on the docket for spring. Just a reminder, if you don't remember, it's estimated the second project is about $300,000, 300 to 310,000. Um we're funded with 145,000 every year for the next five years for this project. So this would basically take our underage from this year and then 26 and 27 funding to pay for this one. >> Question. >> Does this include uh adding that some concrete on one of the islands for safety for public works changing the flags out? >> Yep. They're multiple kind of like the one you saw last year. It short it's every one of these planters gets shortened up with concrete. Um there's three in this one that'll get get shortened up. Um, it also involves redoing all the irrigation. All irrigation probably froze when it was initially put in. So, it accounts for redoing all the irrigation, all brand new trees. Um, I guess the one discussion would be we we're assuming we we go forward with hydrangeas and rudekas like we made that change in this last one. It's kind of already my thought and planned into doing that plan change. We can always discuss that, but that's kind of the plan I was going to keep them consistent through. >> All right. Thank you. >> I think it's important that that public realizes, you know, looks like it might just be landscape, but we are shrinking down some of those spaces to for less maintenance, more safety for public works staff. Uh, and then the irrigation thing. So, that's where the majority of this cost is. It's not just in plants. And so that number gets to be a little bit large, but that really is just longterm just to to save on money and maintenance and look better. So anyone interested in making a motion? Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve the professional services with MWI for the medium refresh project phase 2 project in the amount of $39,296. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion second. Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Motion carries. Okay, we're at 8B Force Lake cannabis interm use permit. Uh I uh I've stated publicly a number of times I uh have a interest and ownership interest in a similar type business here in Forest Lake. And so like every other thing that's come forward since making that announcement, I have excused myself and I will ask uh Council Member Valento and acting mayor Valento to take this next item over >> and we will take a few seconds for Mayor Roberts to step out of the room and have it be on on the record that Mayor Roberts is out of the room. So with this um it looks like on the agenda it is Abby. >> Yes. Thank you acting Mayor Valento. Members of the council tonight before you is an interim use permit from budding measured movement LLC otherwise going to be known as Forest Lake Cannabis. Um this is the third interimuse permit of this nature. I think you've seen them fairly recently. There's not much difference here, but we will run through it just like we have with all the others. Um, budding measure movement LLC is proposing to go at 1467 Lake Street South. It's a request for retail sales in the MU2 zoning district. That zoning district does allow for retail cannabis. Hours will be 8 to 8:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, 11 to 6 on Sundays. Um, it meets the standards for the MU2 zoning district in this multi-tenant space. As a reminder, an interim use permit is a temporary use permit. It doesn't run with the land forever. There is an expiration. And the reason we've um zoned or using the interimm use tool permit tool is that the city is um city believes that there could be changes at the state level and we want to be able to have that flexibility with these types of uses that if there are statutory changes that we aren't locked into some of our uses for forever and then we can re-evaluate these as time goes on. Um tonight the action before you is to approve table or deny or table the IUP. So, a quick review summary. Departments reviewed this. Um, the security plan was approved by a police department. Interior building permits will be required. Um, when we look at the, um, zoning requirements for this type of use, we do require all of these have odor mitigation that they have future signage uh, will comply with the city standards. Something that is interesting with this application is this is the first application that has disclosed the type of license that they are seeking from the state. So Forest Lake cannabis um has informed us they will be seeking a micro business license and in the city we do not allow for micro businesses within 250 ft of residential properties. What's interesting is when we established our zoning code, legal counsel and staff really looked at trying to make sure our zoning ordinance talked about use. All of our zoning districts indicate what types of cannabis uses are allowed, retail, cultivation, manufacturing, and identified those uses appropriate in the districts. Um, however, we have this one clause in the code that does indicate micro businesses are not allowed within residential. And Amanda might be able to speak a little better. It's been over a year now that we drafted this, but I do believe when we drafted this, we did that because we knew that micro businesses along with some of the other types of licenses had more intense uses associated with them. So while you can have a retail endorsement with a micro business or a mezzo business um you can also have cultiv cultivation and manufacturing and or distribution. Maybe micro business doesn't allow for distribution but some of these higher intensity uses we didn't believe were appropriate next to residential uses on a um within the zoning code. So, that is one area that we've identified as being a challenge in the application of our new zoning ordinance because we don't believe the intent was to prohibit retail next to residential necessarily. Um, if the license type that they were applying for was retail, the buffer requirement wouldn't apply. So, what's before you tonight is the discussion on the findings and consideration. The operations are compatible with the surrounding uses. There's no negative impacts on traffic, utilities, property values. It's consistent with the 2040 comp plan, and it meets the zoning intent for retail cannabis uses. Tonight, before review for consideration is conditional approval of resolution uh 11242502, and this authorizes retailon cannabis operations. The IUP strictly states cultivation, manufacturing, processing, extraction, packaging, or other cannabis production activities would not be pro prohibited. Furthermore, in the staff report that was presented to you before the meeting, staff does is seeking your direction. Um, we did bring this matter to the planning commission. The planning commission also recommends approval of this, but also with the recommendation, this council directs staff to change the ordinance that references state licenses, micro business, messo business, the distribution, the transporter, and change that to a buffer requirement for the types of uses next to residential as we believe the ordinance was intended to be. Tonight, uh, representatives from, uh, Forest Lake Cannabis are here if you have any questions for them. It's not a public hearing, but they are available. Um, if you do have questions of them, are there questions uh uh from me? And I will say I do know that one was raised by council member Larson earlier today and I said I would address it. The question came up of whether or not we should be tableabling consideration of this until a new ordinance is amended or an ordinance is approved. Um, we do have time. Our 60-day timeline with an extension isn't up until the early part of February for consideration of this. We could have an ordinance amendment back before the planning commission. It their first meeting in January, which would then put this potentially on your second meeting in January. Um, the only risk that we maybe run is that there's tweaks to an ordinance on a planning commission level and they're not quite ready to bring that forward to you. Um the one thing that I will say the risk that we run in tableabling the request is that or I can't say a risk that we run tonight. All you're considering is the use permit. So this is a multi-step licensing process through the state. The state has given them a um pre-approval. They come to us to get their zoning approvals, building permits. They build out their site. they come back to the city for their local registration. That would be the time that we would um have to determine again that they're in compliance with their IUP and the zoning code. And by that time, we would have had that opportunity to change the code. All of that needs to happen before their state license is issued. Does that answer at least the question that I think council member Larson was just about to ask me? >> Good job. Thank you. I have one question. I noticed in the building department review that uh they said that the restrooms noted on the plan as employee only are required to be accessible to the public. Is there any clarity as far as how they'll meet that condition? As you look at the map in the packet, looks like the restrooms are in the far back um opposite end of the building as the customer area. And I imagine that there's going to be high security to get back to those restrooms. >> Yeah, they have not at this time, but building permits have not been submitted. So those plans that you took a look at were preliminary plans and can always get changed um before the building permit is issued. >> Um Miss Madame Mayor and council members um and Abby, my question I guess I have two of them. Um, when you talk about micro breweries or micro businesses, does that include like micro breweries and and different things like that or is it just for this cannabis type? >> It's just for this cannabis type. So, the state has certain different types of licenses which allow for different kinds of aspects of the cannabis based business. >> Okay. And at some of our recent meetings regarding this, we had talked about limiting the amount of licenses or limiting uh issue of licenses in our state or in our city. Um would this then be the last one that we could issue based on what we talked about if I remember right or did we not do the limiting? I'm trying to remember. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, that's a great question. So, we did limit the total number of local registrations in the city to one more than the state requirements. So the state requires us to have two, one more is three. So while this is the third interim use permit that you're considering, again the what we're limiting is the retail registration. It does bring up a really great discussion point that the council may want to talk about um or we certainly would be discussing at the time of an ordinance amendment of whether or not the policy would be we would not allow for more interim use permits than local registrations to try to keep them in track. Um legal council may need to weigh in on that one. Um, but I will say from a city's uh zoning standpoint, um, we could take in right now a hundred IT IUPs and none of them could material may not none of them may materialize in an actual registration. And so there I don't know that there's a better way to do it, but from an administration on a zoning perspective only, we would love it if as many IUPs as we could consider are the ones that would be permitted to have the registrations in the community. Did that answer your question, Commission? Council member Miller, >> it did. Would League like to weigh in? >> Sure. Thank you, your honor, councel. Um I so as Abby mentioned we technically somebody could come in and apply for an IUP even though hypothetically there are three IUPs that have or two that have already been approved potentially a third tonight if they all three of those individual uh businesses applied for the registration and received the registration. There would be no more available registrations because we're capped at three. So we could certainly do a code amendment that would say um IUPs are, you know, some some sort of language that this is only available if there's also registrations available. Um, it may be a solution without a problem because it may be that when somebody calls and says, "Hi, I'd like to get an IUP." And we say, "Well, we're full. Registrations are full. You could get an IUP, spend a bunch of money, but you won't be able to open a shop here." It may just stop the inquiry right there. Um, but if it seems like it's something that Abby wants a little bit more teeth in the code, that's definitely something that we could talk about doing. >> Yep, it does. Thank you. U, which I agree we probably need to address. And then one last question. Um, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the statement that it no negative impact on property values. Um, but I do have a concern about the 250 foot buffer uh in that residential area around it. Um, and I guess you know, planning looked at it and they didn't seem to have too much concern with it, but it seems uh we have those rules for a reason. Um, and being that close to residential and you know, if it was in a school area that could be a negative or it could be a problem as well. There are other locations along 61 where I think they could do the same thing that uh maybe would work even better because they wouldn't have that buffer ruling that would affect them. Um, so that's just a concern of mine uh in that particular location. >> Well, Council Member Miller uh referenced the planning commission that they did uh share a concern with the residential uh mobile home park and things like that. Um they were surprised that the gentleman that manages that did not come to the meeting, but I believe he shared some concerns. Whether he could make the meeting or not, I don't know. Um but they didn't concerns about that and they also had concerns about availability of parking spaces since it's a multi- business complex. So, they were inquiring is it more like a business where you would run in, pick up your order and leave or are you shopping around or what? So, uh that's some of the things that they kind of brought up which was kind of worked through through the evening with Abby on that. Can I um state just for the record, counselor, um I think the staff does believe that that 250 foot buffer was intended for those higher intensity uses. Um but I do think that there is still an argument to be made that retail may be directly next to residential um when it's directly adjacent to or touching bordering that there could be some cause for concern. you know, the intent of zoning is to separate land uses and we indicated that um this type of retail use was allowed anywhere that retail was allowed. And I think that this is a great question to be raised and discussed by the council of whether or not this specific type of retail right next to residential is is is appropriate. Um I think that 250 foot buffer would limit a lot of properties and if the other two IUPs we've issued were also seeking micro business licenses because we won't know until the time of registration unless they disclose it to us upfront. um then we would not be able to issue registrations to the two other IUPs already permitted as well because they are also within 250 ft of residential. >> And then maybe the potential uh business owners if they're here could elaborate a little bit. I notice there's a very complicated and very nice uh air system that's being put in there, a ventilation system. Is that because the I don't know. I don't know much about dispensaries. Can you smoke right on site? And if that's the case, is that being vented up and out or what is that ventilation system for? I don't know. >> Sure. Um, retail licenses do not allow for on-site consumption. Um, there is some provisions in the code allowing for sampling or in the state lure for sampling. Those would need to occur indoors. they wouldn't be able to occur outside in public property. >> So when you say sampling, is there if that ventilation is it smoking type stuff or is it just edibles? >> I would assume that a retail cannabis shop would have both. >> So if it's smoking type stuff and you have a ventilation system taking that out of the building and out into the air, that's what concerns me about being by those residential areas. >> Quite understandable. And the smell in general is something that the regardless um of the type of use that we did address with the cannabis ordinance in that we do not want to have any outside odor um detected for any of our cannabis based businesses. Hence why they're putting in these air filtration systems that's essentially putting out fresh air back out to um not push those uh smells out. That make sense? >> Okay. Then one last question is how is it monitored then? uh if it's not filtering that smell or maybe not necessarily addictive but that that odor out into the public, how do you correct that? >> Um well, we can determine it to be a violation of their IUP, a violation of city code and we would start an administrative citation or administrative um code enforcement process to first would give them a nice pretty please letter say pretty please get this done by state and if they don't then we start with um citations. >> Thank you very much. >> You are welcome. >> One follow-up question. The the registration limit that we put on for three is that or one plus the minimum required is that just for retail or is that for any related cannabis businesses? >> Just for retail. >> Just for retail. >> Yep. >> Great questions. Any other questions? >> Madame city attorney, I noticed on your uh findings of fact or your review of this uh with the office of cannabis management. Um it's unclear on how they will interpret such situations as they viewed the micro business licenses authorizing all activities allowed by the state. um for this reason. If they do get approval for their um their micro business or mezzo business um and the they go outside, they say they're not going to use or grow and all of a sudden something happens. Then it's not going to be, you know, they're going to say you allowed them to come in. What protections do we have other than our IUP, if you may? >> Yeah, your honor, council. So, um I believe you're referencing the fact that the micro business is allowed to do growing, manufacturing, and selling. A retail license can only sell. So, but what we've discovered, and I'm just want to quick step back for one second. When we first did all of these uh ordinances, what we did not know at the time or did not realize was that because of the caps on the retail licenses uh and the fact that there is no caps on the micro businesses in terms of if you recall the social equity applicant versus a regular applicant kind of a situation. Um, the vast majority of people who fully intend to just operate a retail establishment went and got a micro or applying for a micro business license instead of a retail license. But the intent is to use it as a retail shop. That was not something that we understood when we were building our ordinances. Nor was that something we considered. Which is why the um dimensional distance requirement of the 250 ft talks about these micro businesses and mezo businesses, cultivators, manufacturers because the thought was if you can do the super intense, you know, uses that's not supposed to be by residential. Um, so we have a little bit of a mismatch with how the the licenses are actually being issued. I have uh reached out to the Office of Cannabis Management and received no response. So, unfortunately, I can't say for certain what they would do. Um, but my concern is that if we have approved a micro business license and our IUP says you can only do retail, we understand that the license says you get to do all these things, but we are saying your IUP, your your interim use permit says you get to sell cannabis, you do not get to grow it, you do not get to manufacture it. Um, and then the business says great, okay, we're going to sell. and a year from now or two years from now, whenever that might be, they start manufacturing on site or they start growing on site and we say, "You're in violation of the IUP. We're going to potentially revoke your IUP and we're going to revoke your registration." Our authority under the statute to revoke a registration. We don't we don't have any. We are allowed to suspend a registration for up to 30 days. and we must notify OCM that we've suspended a registration and we must give the reason why. So in the scenario that I'm hypothetical example that I'm providing, we would say they're doing more than we are giving them permission to do. What I don't know is what OCM's response to that is going to be because we can only uh suspend for 30 days and then OCM is responsible to make a final decision. And it is possible, it is in the realm of possibility that their reaction would be, well, you approved them with their license. It's a micro business. A micro business lets them do all of these things. You need to let them do all of those things. Um, or they could say, "We respect your zoning authority, city, and we understand that they're not allowed to do more than selling uh product, even though they have a license that would allow them to do more than sell product." And so, yes, we agree the registration is revoked. Carry on. Uh, I have no way of knowing what they're going to do. And unfortunately, all interactions with OCM to date have not I can't say based on what we've experienced. It seems likely they'll head in this direction. It's kind of the wild west still on that. >> Thank you, >> Madame Mayor and council members. Um, I think we might want to consider uh based on our earlier discussion, tableabling this uh to get our ordinance and some of that stuff in better order before we approve this would be my recommendation. I'm going to ask I know a young young lady out in the audience was the spokesperson on behalf at the planning commission meeting. Uh, would you mind stepping up to the podium, please, if you don't mind? >> Just state your name and thank you. >> My name is Jamie White. Address as well. >> Please. >> Yeah. My I live at 5054 93rd Avenue North in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Zip code 55443. And I am Mr. Krestler's consultant. He does send his apologies. He wanted to be here tonight, but he has a two daughters. One is three and one is four months. And he got called into dad duty. So, he does apologize. I do have a prepared statement um that I'd like to read and then I will be more than happy to answer your concerns from the knowledge that I have being on the other side of the room. So, Budding Measured Movement LLC does seek an intermuse permit to operate a cannabis retail use at 1467 Lake Street South within an existing multi-tenant retail building in the general mixeduse district. The company is owned by Mr. Dr. Jeff Krestler, a Minnesota raised recent father of two who has long aspired to responsibly operate his own cannabis retail business that is compliant, secure, and community-minded. The proposed operation is retail sales only within an approximately 2100 square foot tenant space. No cultivation, manufacturing, processing, or production activities are proposed or will occur on site. That the use aligns with the city's framework for cannabis retail in the MU2 of an IUP. and this site plan involves only minor interior improvements. Exterior conditions will remain unchanged. The applicant has been pre-approved by the state office of cannabis management for a micro business license. The multi-tenant plaza provides shared customer parking and separate rear employee parking. No adverse parking impacts are expected on our end. The applicant will observe retail hours compliant with city standards Monday through Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Sunday 11 to 6. Deliveries will be managed discreetly and in accordance with state and local rules. A comprehensive security plan has been reviewed by the police chief who reported no operational security concerns. Odor will be managed through enhanced HVAC filtration systems to ensure no detectable odor at the property line or adjacent tenants spaces. The applicant accepts city review of odor controls as a condition of approval and will implement improvements if needed. No exterior site work is proposed. As stated, the applicant will obtain all required building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire, signage, and any SACE or other determinations or permits prior to occupancy and operation. The watershed and public works reviews identified no issues for interioronly project given the applicant's retail only commitment and willingness to accept strict conditions. the sorry that prohibit any non- retail use of the micro business license at this site. We respectfully request that the council recommend approval of our IUP subject to standard cannabis retail conditions that include retail only operations ongoing ongoing compliance with state lensure and city registration police approved security odor control meeting city standards adherence to hours signage review and all permitting annual review/renewal of mechanisms typical of cannabis IUPs this approach advances the city's policy's goals for safe, orderly retail while honoring the applicant's state licensing status. Now, I would like to say I've heard your concerns concerning the micro business license with the ability to grow, cultivate, anything like that, and there has been a lot of misunderstanding on what we can actually do. Our license allows us to apply for those uses. It is just it is not an automatic availability. We can't apply for a retail use within a city, get approved, and then begin to grow a year later. We would have to write an entire plan of record for that. We would have to go through a city process again and receive local approval before the state would even look at our plan and come and inspect for a grow operation. So, that is not something that you can just do. It is something that you still have to follow the state's process and receive approval. Even on the retail side, like you were saying, you know, our bathrooms are a concern. Um, those are very preliminary because we have a lease, but we have not even taken over the space entirely yet. Being that we have not received local approval. Um, and after we would receive local approval, if that's something that we're capable of doing, the state would have to come out and we would have to comply with everything as well as they'd look over our permits and make sure that we're compliant on a city and a state level. I know a lot of people are very concerned with what the state is not communicating and that is why we try our very best to communicate with the councils for what is not being informed so that we can help you guys understand that we want to partner with your communities and be a compliant business not oh the state says this you have to do it that's definitely not our intention and Mr. Chrysler just wants to be a nice family man, provide money for his daughters, and you know, be a part of a community. >> So, I guess a quick question would be, so you're stretching it to go to that micro business thing. Why not just have a retail store? >> Good license? >> Yeah. Under the licensing, just a retail license versus going to the micro. As your attorney stated, not a lot of retail licenses were available. It was very, very slim. >> You stepped up a little bit. >> You stepped up then to the next >> to the micro business. Yes. Because it does allow for a retail use, which is definitely what Mr. Krestler wanted. He just wants to run a retail operation. But being that there were not a lot of retail only licenses available, that made it very hard to get into the application pool as a whole. Um, and many different cities ran a few different ways to even accept retail licenses. A lot of cities have put strict standards on retail or strict standards on micro. So, he saw this as his way to have at least a little bit more option for what he wanted to do without putting him in a I can only do this pool. >> Okay. I see the gentleman. He was at the planning commission. He's your counsel. That's correct. Um, I guess the thing that I kind of struggle with, we're and I think a lot of us are sharing the same thing is we're just a little concerned. I know you stated that you don't plan on doing any type of cultivation or anything like that, but if we get the business in there and something happens, we're concerned about the the Office of Cannabis Management saying, "Well, you already let them in there to under your agreement or whatever." I think we're kind of struggling a little bit in that line uh with things >> and like I stated we would have to completely apply for new plans. We would have to write an entire narrative. The OCM refers to them as a plan of record. I would have to go back to the state and apply entirely for that type of lensure and then we would once again have to come in front of a planning commission meeting and say hey we've been in this space as retail use for a year or two years whatever it may be and we'd like to grow there and you and your commission can say no and we have to go okay and that would make us have to find another location that we'd want to grow out of um and that would make us take an entirely different turn But you cannot just switch your type of license that you have in a spot and just say we're doing this now. We'd have to follow the state ruling. We'd have they would push it back to the city and we would have to do this process all over again. >> Yeah, I think we just share a little bit of I don't know protection with our uh intram use permit too. So I think that is that but I know we do share a little bit of concern with the possibility of grow or whatever going on. So, thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Um, Madame Mayor, Council Abby, maybe you could weigh in again. You'd mentioned because of this license application, we should really revisit some of our intramuse ordinances and and things like that and maybe make some changes. If we don't do that before we approve this, does that affect this in the future or are they under the old rules then or do we have to do something in advance before we'd approve this? So the interimm use permit is memorializing the use and the use as retail at the time of the cannab the local cannabis res registration. If our ordinance has not changed, we lawfully cannot approve their local registration. >> So we'd have to change that first. >> We would have to change that first. The other thing I'm hearing is just that concern over what happens if they change their type of uses in the building and OCMS. uh allowance for local enforcement. Intermuse permits are designed to be temporary. And the reason we wanted them to be temporary is because we wanted to make sure that the state was done tinkering with the rules and that if they were going to tinker with the rules as those IUPs come back up for renewal, we'd have the opportunity to re-evaluate that use with the state regulations andor regulations in effect. At the time that we um and uh looked at our first IUP. The planning commission was really concerned for offering an IUP greater than three years um and really wanted to have a one-year IUP and staff said, "Hey, these are pretty big investments. We should be allowing a little bit more time." Um the planning commission made the recommendation in the first application for a three-year IUP and the council opted to go with five recognizing that each business has some pretty significant investment and to allow them to have some asurances that you know their business wasn't going to have to change within the first five years. Another opportunity with the IUP is setting that endp specific timeline. Right now, the resolution before you is consistent with the other IUPs that it is five years. Um, you could also have that opportunity tonight to not grant it for as much time as um the other ones in the past. Recognizing that there could be greater limitations in the future, um I do believe we should be changing that ordinance as soon as we can. Um to if we would still like to allow for retail uses near residential um teasing that apart from that uh micro business um license, the buffer from the license. Um, that is something I would recommend that we do regardless of of what we do with any other sections of the code. Again, I had made a motion earlier to table this uh to have further discussion about it. >> Can we continue without ing it right away or not? >> If I'm hearing you correctly, Abby, if if we were to approve this IUP as staff has recommended and we move forward with modifying the the policies, the ordinance. Anything that we approve tonight, correct me if I'm wrong, would fall under the updated ordinance. Correct. their use would stand it's at the time of their local registration is when we'd be re-evaluating for its final conformity with the the code. Ideally what we would do is we would take out that reference to the micro business license with the buffer distance from the residential uses and we would say hey we want to have some buffers from residential uses specifically these types of uses cultivation manufacturing and really removing the word micro business from the um city code. >> So approving this IUP doesn't lock us into anything because we're still going to go through the registration process. >> Correct. as so long as we would one change the code. Um what it would do is it would give them a false home tonight and if we didn't change the code tend they make their investments and come back through local registration then we'd be denying it at that point and I don't think that that's necessarily fair to the applicant. >> I hear um Commissioner Miller say he made a motion. I didn't quite hear the motion, but that's I heard he say making a motion. Um, knowing that legal counsel has reached out to OCM and to see if we can get an OCM legal opinion on this matter. I don't think that it is there is not harm in waiting um another 30 days or 60 days up to our state statutory maximum 120 days um with their extension to see if we can't get that legal opinion. and also help give us some leg room, you know, some some time to get an ordinance working through the city's um planning commission and back to you. >> That acceptable. >> Um, so Abby, are you asking me to withdraw my motion? >> I didn't really hear >> I'm sorry. So, I had made a motion, I thought, to table this discussion until we had a chance to hear back from legal and and re look at re revising the ordinance. >> Council member Miller, if I may, Madame >> I'm sorry, mayor. >> My recollection is that you recommended we discuss, but I don't believe that you made a formal motion yet. >> Okay. Um, was that a formal motion or >> if you could be very clear in what your intention is. Uh my motion to table would be in regards to hearing back from legal with what they hear as well as reviewing our ordinance and looking at changing some of the the language with the buffer zone in our ordinance before we finalize this. I think I think there's no need to rush. Um I'm very pro business. I want to help everybody in the business in the community uh do as much things as they can in our city, but I also want to get it right and I don't want to deal with maybe things that change at the state and then we've locked oursel into something that we can't maybe change. So my opinion would be just to hold out a little bit. >> There is a motion. Is there a second? >> I would second that. >> Any discussion? >> Can I ask for a point of clarification? Um you had said uh the couple things we'd be the reasons for tableabling are hearing from legal and OCM, review the ordinance and change the buffer. Um staff would just maybe be seeking some direction on that buffer. There was some discussion about the 250 ft from residential, but then there was also some early conversation about it this particular retail shop right next to residential. And I would really like to know if the council has an opinion of whether or not you would like to um have an increased retail distance from residential or a a buffer distance from residential. >> Talking about two things I think one is a buffer by just straight line but also adjoining properties is a secondary thing. Well, the first was uh 250 ft was the micro business, but we didn't staff didn't believe the intent was for retail. So, do you still believe a 250 ft from retail to residential is appropriate? And then if you are favorable to seeing a retail closer than that, are you as comfortable as d a directly adjacent property? >> How far is this building to residential? >> It's right next door. So, yeah. So, our our we really don't have a buffer for retail is what you're saying. >> Really? No. >> Got it. >> Like the other sites that are currently issued an IUP as well. >> They're about to 150 to to 300 ft or to 150 to 250. Um, you know, that one right downtown is very close to um I forget the name of the condo building uh to the south. sign. >> Yeah. And then um the other uh at um Lakes Floral is with our purely residential properties about 150 ft away. Um but there is some potential long-term rent residential in an old strip motel. Um very very close. And so um not none of them are directly adjacent to those residential uses. Um, but there this would this is not the only >> business that could be affected if the other two IUPs are were also intending for a micro business license. >> So, Council Member Miller, were you concerned about the not having a buffer for retail or was it just a concern about the well for residential but the the other aspects of the micro business? mainly the micro business the you know there's plenty of retail in town that residential right there so wasn't necessarily that it was more of the the micro business >> the other types of uses the cultivation the manufacturing >> correct >> I'm hearing at least from commissioner Miller that the 250 ft from those higher intensity uses what staff believes was the intent of the ordinance is still something you'd like to us to pursue but there was less concern with the CA retail cannabis next to residential >> for me that that would be yes >> but I'm just >> and I see a lot of shaking heads that you'd agree with that >> yes >> what commissioner Miller stated okay I appreciate that opportunity to just have a little bit of discussion so that staff has direction coming back um and direction maybe moving forward to the planning commission before coming back before you so >> okay there was a motion there was a second there was a point clarification. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? And the IUP has been approved. >> No, that was tabled. >> Or tabled. Sorry. >> Sorry. >> Tabled. Um, with all the clarifications. So, with that, we will bring Mayor Roberts back into the room and then move on to item C. you have a question. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, we are at item uh AC resolution regarding the med council statement and Abby. Thank you. Uh, Mayor Roberts, members of the council, at your workshop last week, we, uh, I brought forth to you the 20 2040 system statement. So, as a reminder, the Met Council has this every 10-year planning process when throughout the process, they end up issuing us their system statement. And that system statement is the document that says, "Hey, Forest Lake, here's how you need to um here's some things you need to consider and put into your comp plan to make sure your comp plan um aligns with the 2040 imagine 2040 plan. Um so there were three areas that the council and staff talked about at the last meeting. One was the um city's community classification as suburban edge. As a reminder, the Met Council is proposing to change our density requirement from three units per acre to 3.5 units per acre. So, I have discussed all of these things with Met Council staff. Um, and one of the things that Met Council staff has said is if you don't like 3.5 units per acre, what would you change in the um in you know, you have to have a specific thing. and staff's um specific amendment request that I'm proposing is not that we would change our number necessarily, though we'd like that number to be reduced down. It is the lowest in the urban service area density. Um, so what I'm asking the council to consider in the resolution is to ask the Met Council to memorialize the density flexibilities. Excuse me, memorialize the density flexibilities that the Met Council said that they would end up having for cities in determining in trying to have for cities to be able to achieve these densities. I'm really struggling with my words. Um so what staff is specifically outlining in the exhibit is that we would request that the Met Council look to memorialize um land areas for storm potter storm ponds be that they're in um outlawed or easement and then also their maintenance access needs. Additionally, land areas required for reasonably sized roadways. The second thing that uh staff is asking the M council to amend is the forecasted households. So right now they are proposing in 20 by 2030 that we would be capped at 9300 housing units and staff is proposing those to go to 9750. It's a small increase but I do believe that that is sufficient enough to get us to 2030. When you look at the housing starts that we had had within the first three years, we were averaging 160 a year. I'm not sure where those housing units went, but I do think we had some apartment complex that really bumped those numbers up really quickly. If we kept on that 160 unit per year, we would hit the 9,300 before the adoption of this plan. Matt Council has staff has stated they have administrative abilities to change these, but I do believe that we should still be including them in the resolution as an objection. And then lastly, um the resolution also objects to the affordable housing calculation, not just our total number, 600 units, but also the allocation or the the bands of affordability. As a reminder, most of the units that they're um stating the city would need to produce are within the 30 to 60% 30 to 50% AMI, the like kind of deeply affordable housing. I do include in my staff report some analysis of how those numbers get get developed. And in talking with the Met Council staff, these are very much a a math equation. They take our future households and they the our future households and the total developable land area in the metro and they say okay city ABC D here's your number they just slightly our number did get adjusted down slightly to 600. They've also just asked us not necessarily that we um meet this requirement in the next 10 years but that we just show that we're guiding the land area for that. So when you look at our land guidance area, staff is very confident that we're going to be able to guide the acreage to show that we have land sufficient to accommodate the affordable housing calculation assigned to the city of Forest Lake. Um staff in the resolution still states the objection to the affordable housing allocation but does not request a change. Specifically, if our forecasted households go up, our allocation number goes up. So, I say, "Hey, while you're considering our forecasted households to go up, let's not change those affordable housing allocations." I don't know that that will be the circumstance. So, tonight before you is a resolution 11242506. It was slightly amended from the packet. There's one on the day before you because not only does it object to those three things, but it does request a hearing with the Met Council's land use advisory committee. The resolution that was before you um in the packet said the advisory committee or an administrative law judge in consultation with our legal council. We believe it would be better suited in front of their land use advisory committee. If the council approves this tonight, I'll send it over to the Met Council this evening. Today is the last day we could submit this and request a hearing. >> Um, there is always the opportunity for staff and the Met Council to work out these issues before going to a hearing. Um, but this definitely puts them on notice that we are we want to advocate for ourselves in these ways and we're willing to have that hearing. If the council approves this tonight, that hearing would be scheduled within 60 days. So with just the turn of um after the new year, I'd imagine we'd be having that hearing and within 30 days after that be going back to the formal Met Council for their consideration of amendments. >> Any questions? >> I feel like I'm talking a lot tonight. Mayor, that's fine. >> Mr. Mayor, Council members, Abby, could you um remind me again, was there some sort of penalty that the Met Council can uh levy against the city or put against the city if we don't hit those numbers? >> Not with our affordable housing allocations, but with our housing density. Yes. Met council um is our sewer authority and if our developments aren't in line with the densities called for in the comp plan and we are not keeping up with the minimum density requirement of our community classification then that council can um reject connections to the um service system. So increasing that number might not might not even though we feel confident we'll hit those numbers might not be in our benefit. >> Um the housing forecasts aren't something we have to hit. I should have said >> that's what I'm asking. Yeah, >> I should have said that. Um our density requirements the how many units per acre. >> Okay. >> On each individual piece of property in each future land use in the city. So >> okay, >> um those we have to hit the forecast we don't have to hit. The future allocations we don't have to hit. Okay. >> In fact, the uh future uh the forecast could change even just as they said they're willing to administratively change those even in a year from now. If all of a sudden we got a boom or things just slam to a halt, those are ways that they administratively can improve that. So, those are conversations we'll be having over the next probably couple weeks with the Met Council before the hearing to see if we can get those forecasted numbers bumped up a little bit higher. The last thing we want though is our forecast number being at 9,300. And if we really if interest rates turn around, if a few of these plats that we've been in conversations with, one piece of property sells, those numbers could really get we could exceed that pretty significantly. We can't exceed our forecasted numbers without going through a met council comp plan amendment. So that's the fear is that I'd want to start a little higher if we could. Um, also looking just at what it seems like we could do for growth over this first 10 year period. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Um, I just have one comment. Um, on the exhibit A, the second paragraph, seven lines down the So, the sentence says, "As a result, we are building neighborhoods with lots with small front and rear ears." Is that the correct language or should it be yards? >> It should be yards. Thank you very much for putting that out. >> That's all interested in making motion. I just I appreciate staff's work on this. This is very important. >> Yeah. Thank you for crafting this >> and and um this this puts them on notice and we want to be good partners, but um this these three things here are very important for us to point out when moving forward in this new comp plan. >> So I'll make a motion to approve resolution 11240506, a resolution objecting the metropolitan council's imagine 2050 city of Forest Lake system statement and requesting a hearing. >> Second motion to second. Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. >> Next item 8D, franchise fees. And Mark. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor and Council. Um, this item is in front of you again uh simply because we u erroneously left out corresponding franchise fee for Kexus Energy uh territory. So, the city is served by two different uh power companies when it comes to electricity. So we have Excel territory in the Kexus energy territory. If we're going to add franchise fees or change franchise fees, I should say one of those utilities, we have to do it for the other one as well. And we certainly intended to do that. We simply missed having that uh resolution in front of you to add Kexus in. So um we were going to bring that one back uh by itself and in reviewing that um you know just noticed a few typos that needed to be corrected. So a few references to the past ordinances that we're amending. Um, and so in the end, it just seemed easier to uh re do the whole package. And so what's important to note here is that these ordinances we passed did not become law because we did not publish them. So we recognize the issue before we published them. And if you don't publish them, they don't go into law. So we did not publish them. if you would pass the kind of just re approve all of those Nexus um electricity uh Excel electricity and Excel gas are the three franchises that we would be implementing the changes to. So >> any questions comments? >> I just question before the meeting to say what changed because you look through it it's almost identical but uh Thank you for explaining that. So, I'll move to resend the uh November 10th, 2025 approval of ordinances 760 and 761 and then further move to approve ordinances 760,61 and 763 as well as to approve resolution 20 11240504, a summary publication. >> Motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Any further discussion? >> All in favor? I >> I opposed. Motion carries. Right. We move to our discussion portion of the meeting. Uh these are discussion items. No more no formal decisions will be made on these two items. Uh and the first thing is the 2026 budget proposal. >> And Mr. Mayor and Council, we um you know, at the last workshop, we had some discussion about um trying to find a spot to land for the final uh levy and budget. Um as you know, we have a preliminary levy increase of 12.59% that was uh approved back in September. That's what the truth and taxation notices that went out to the public was based on. Um since then we've had numerous discussions with the council um on ways to lower that number and um at the last meeting we sort of presented this um 9.25 25 scenario in your packet. And then by the time the the the workshop rolled around, we had a option for 8.9 uh% increase. And fairly immediately after that workshop, I received some feedback from other various members of the council on um different ways they saw that we could lower the levy as well. And so I wanted to coalesce all that into one document here. and Ellie's done a nice job of sort of graphically doing that. In front of you, you have a a little cheat sheet here that shows you um the various budget scenarios. Again, all of those are sort of up for um debate. Um but sort of the question in front of me tonight is what do we want to have um in terms of options available to us uh at the truth and taxation hearing or immediately thereafter um for final budget adoption. Do we want to simply have the 12.59 option and one of these other options or do we want to have all three prepared? Um, you know, we have various resolutions and things that need to be um prepared to pass that night is the intent. So, we want to have some clarity on where we're we're headed and um if if these scenarios make any sense to to you as well. Um, I could just run through the differences again. 12.59 is sort of the all everything that was on the initial list um from our tenure plan, all the staffing plans. Um and so that included the the four um police employees, a patrol sergeant, two patrol officers, and a police administrative assistant. Um and then a public works maintenance operator and a deputy fire chief. Uh the 9.25 25 uh% plan, eliminated the police sergeant, and um also then took advantage of the increase in franchise fees to lower the levy as opposed to just adding to the amount we put into the capital fund to the streets. the 8.9% plan um just simply delayed the hire of those remaining uh five um staff positions to February 1st. So small change but a small reduction of the budget from 9.25 to 8.9. Then finally the 7.9% um option here has some um use of what we are anticipating will be surplus funds from the 2025 budget. We had a number of staff vacancies for a number of months. Um, so we feel like there's uh enough funds there to have a small what we would call roll back of the capital equipment fund. So we would sort of reduce the amount we're putting into that capital fund. Um, but then use surplus funds to reinject that money into the fund to kind of square things up and not actually reduce the amount of things we're buying. That would just be a swap of those offsets to the general fund levy. So with with all of those things deducted, the uh levy increase uh would be at 7.9% if we took advantage of all those opportunities. Um obviously each one the opportunities quote unquote comes with a consequence and um and as you can see the various options there are sort of laid out for you. So wanted to have just a little bit of discussion, take advantage of tonight's forum to be able to give us any further direction. >> The one thing that maybe was a part of this conversation that got us down to the nine and a quarter was there's new revenue for public work or for police, right? >> Yeah. And we, you know, we didn't include that in this chart because it's it's something it wasn't a a cost cutting measure more than just a a >> windfall >> a revelation that we were going to have yeah a windfall of about $100,000 or so based on some conservative budgeting we had done a while back with some assumptions based on feedback we got from the state. The state kind of finally came out with their numbers and it was much better than they had been telling us. So that was kind of a a no-brainer. Just a a question. The in here this the public works maintenance operator is the same on this second uh budget alternatives as the public works parks person. Is that correct? >> Yes, correct. Mixing the terms there, but yes, the public works maintenance operator is the one that we're the new hire that would be for doing primarily work it would be in with the rest of the so the public works department sort of divided into two we have utilities and streets and parks have a separate parks division at this point in time but um so I think the intent of course of that position is to um offset some of the additional hours we've been seeing in our parks and I know Dave has some information on that if you if you would like him to share some of that we can certainly do that that that hire has um you know has been thought through in terms of how much uh the the number of hours that we're putting in the parks are folks take good care to track that time and um we've seen in the last year that we are putting more time into the parks maintenance than um and because of that we're losing hours in the street department and sometimes in the utility departments and those hours need to be made back up you want elaborate on that at all? >> Yeah, I don't know if you see that in January, I usually send out that um job description of what everybody kind of does throughout the year. Well, it also breaks it down through departments. Um and just looking at um in 2024, we're still not all the way in 2025, but in 2024, there was over 12,000 hours spent doing parks activities. And currently right now we're we're funded for eight or for four employees in parks. So that that accounts for about 8,000 hours of work. So what that means is that 4,000 hours is either being done by a streets department funded or a utility operator. Um actually what it broke down to more about almost 400 hours of park jobs were being done by people in the utility department. So if you what we try to do is balance the hours out. So by adding a parks position, you're infusing 2,000 more hours of manpower into that spot, which should absorb 2,000 hours, which should then put 2,000 hours back into other departments. It's not only that other departments are doing the work in parks, but it's also you're losing the services in those departments. Like if you should be I mean typical service should be grading roads every day. We're doing it maybe once every other week. And you know, pothole patching, we're doing it once every couple weeks, you should be out there every day. You know, so those hours that are going to parks should actually be in streets. So what you're trying to do is fund positions. You're actually not hiring this specific person to do parks activities. You're hiring these 2,000 hours to account for more parks parks, you know, activities to be done. In a long way, you're not hiring that that exact person to do a certain thing. You're hiring those hours to account for the hours that you're losing in that department. And actually in hire that person in parks, you'll probably actually see increased service in streets to be fair because somebody in the streets department will actually be able to go back and do what they're supposed to be doing in their department versus doing a parks activity. You you're not going to go backwards in parks, but does that make sense what I'm kind of saying there? You're trying to balance hours out in each department to equal what your time you're spending in each department. Is there so it sounds like, correct if I'm wrong, it sounds like we're giving a lot of weight to parks to the detriment of our streets or utilities. Am I tracking you >> the most? There's should zoom in. It depends. I mean just the count of between parks and parks is by far the highest um stress department if you want to say that it's the most time is spent in parks activities and it's if I go back to 2015 and do this pie chart all the way through you would consistently see parks continue to increase but it doesn't really get backfunded with positions. just keeps adding more things to do without really I mean really you should have six people in the parks department if they're doing 12,000 hours worth of work. >> So just out of curiosity I mean is there is there an avenue to draw back or claw back some of the the level of service in streets to or not streets but parks? I mean, if I'm just trying to reconcile like we hired these people for these hours in these departments, you know, we're cheating in one area to accomplish, you know, something else in parks and we know that the level of service is reduced then in streets because of the demand that parks has. I mean, is there are we are we aligning our level of service accordingly? I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. >> I think majority of the things that I get asked by the counselor, by residents is parks based, you know, pulling weeds, uh fixing the medians, you know, this park needs to be cut. It's um just youth moms and dads saying this grass needs I mean it's the the now we're at that expectation that Fenway field gets mowed twice a week and every park in the city gets mowed weekly and the trash is cleared three times a week and all ball fields are dragged two to three times a week. You know, it's that expectation that soon as you keep building it, it you don't unless we make an announcement and say, "Hey, we're not going to do this anymore." I mean, that's kind of the assumed level of service that we do now. >> Thank you. >> So, can I just clarify something you just said there? Are you saying that medians in public spaces are fall under parks? >> Yes, that would be a park activity. >> It's interesting. Any other questions on that particular that position? It it I was I believe I read somewhere that this is a I'm get this wrong step or level three as opposed to a starting position and I think the question was asked at the workshop um is this hireer going to have any specific knowledge to some something that is park related or field turf management related and the question was the answer was no. So, is there a reason why we are offering a higher wage for this position? >> I was always taught when I proposed a person that you hired at a three because you the worst case scenario you' hired at three. If you budgeted as hiring at a step one and this person comes in with multiple licenses and a long background and you want to offer them to three to get them into this place, you're already over budget. So, worst case scenario, you'd hit your budget. Best case scenario, you'd be under budget for that position. So, every time I've put it in the budget for a position, I put it at a step three for that reason because we wouldn't hire anybody higher than that because it would be detrimental to your staff if you hired somebody at a four and somebody sitting right next to them has been there for five years and was getting already paid less than them. But really, that's why it's in there. It doesn't say that I'm going to hire somebody at a three. I mean, over the last five hires, I've hired a three. I've hired two ones. I've hired a two. It It all depends on what they bring to the table. The last hire we had in last month is a certified arborist, has a class A license, has a whole bunch of licenses. They came in at a three. If somebody comes in that has a class B and knows how to run a shovel, they're going to be a step one. So, I mean, that's that's kind of unless I get directed differently to hire that. That's why I've always put that number in is you don't want to already be over budget when you when you start. >> Yeah, that's I was just going to make the point, you know, it if if the if we're trying to shave money off the budget, you could certainly just direct that that staff member be hired at a that be the hiring limitation is that it can only be a step one hire. Just that sometimes you get a pool of candidates and you see a person, you go, boy, that person really fits what we're looking for. to lose that person that might have some experience as a lateral move from somewhere else or whatever to because the budget isn't set up to accommodate that. So >> yeah, well that's all good good news. New new news to me. I don't know about the rest council, but that's good to know. That's the the process. >> So you're looking for just direction as to >> general direction. I mean, you know, again, the the 7.9 option um you know, that surplus is um normally directed into the capital fund and that that's exactly what we would do here. Just uh a little less of that would be um realized in that fund, right? Because we'd be lowering the contribution from the general fund. So, next year that general fund contribution would need to up um maybe not as much because we've seated that capital fund, but um sort of the two lines on the bottom there, roll back and then the using surplus funds. The roll back will affect your next year's budget. It's a small roll back. I think it's a $50,000 roll back, but that puts you essentially $50,000 in the whole if you're trying to keep that number steady going into that fund. So, I guess the long saying that is that this reduction um will likely result in next year's projected budget being a little budget increase being a little higher. >> Yeah. I mean, I think the vision was I mean this year we had a surplus and we bought down the capital equipment fund on the 10-year plan. And like the idea here is to cut that capital equipment fund but then use the surplus to kind of buy it back up, right? >> Yeah. I don't think it gets all the way there. >> Yeah, there might be a delta, >> right? There's a there's a small delta. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I I you know we've done a heck of a lot of work to get to below eight um compared to where we started and hopefully those who may come out in December to hear more about where we're at will appreciate the work that everybody in this room has done. So appreciate staff's hard work on it. >> I I agree. I I think if you know presenting all this on the ETH for those and I and I hope that as many people are able to can attend on the ETH to to speak their mind on this to present this and kind of show how we've backed this down would be we good to to prove that we have really listened to the public uh and that that we're we're working real hard to try to get this as reasonable as possible and still keep services at a high level and bring on um some positions that were in need that the city's been in need for years. And I'll just make a comment as I researched the the property tax levies, preliminary tax levies throughout the all the counties in Minnesota and even in the cities, the average in the counties right now is 8.1 increase and the average in the cities is 8.7 increase. So I'm really impressed with how we've whittleled this down to where from where we started to where we're at today. And I think this is a great piece by the way. >> So the intent would be then if um if uh the general consensus was that these options are all palable to us and we would bring that piece there for both the so 12.59% sort of so so people can see what the preliminary budget lays out and then we would bring a piece like that that shows the 7.9% I believe that's the one the scenario that you guys have in the packet there >> and then throughout the presentation we will also walk through where we started the year at and then prior to actually getting into it, we will walk through here's what we started at and then here's where we're at so that people then do can they can see that this wasn't just something that we're like oh here's what we're going to do and here's what we're moving forward with but we will actually walk through there'll be a lot of repeated information at that truth and taxation meeting so I will apologize for that in advance you'll see the same charts you've seen 47 times but just so that then people can start to see that reoccurring document and they can start to see the reipeing changes that we were making to bring that Great. Appreciate your work this and rest staff. So, thanks. >> Discussion item 9B 2026 city meeting calendar. Jolene. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. Um, thanks uh to this not being an election year for us, we have a little bit more flexibility with looking at what our meeting schedule is going to look like for 2026. Generally, we would bring forward a recommendation for a meeting calendar adoption at our first meeting in January. But because we are not dealing with a change in council, we're going to have some stability, um, I would like to have some discussion about what we would like to do moving into 2026 for our meetings. If you recall, in July, we made an amendment to our meeting calendar. We changed our regular city council meeting times and our city council workshops to all be a 6 pm start. We also changed our planning commission to be a 6 pm start. Um, and EDA meetings were moved from the first council meeting, the second meeting, I'm sorry, the second Monday of the month preceding the council meeting to the first Monday of the month so that they had their standalone day so they could the EDA could have more time to work through u meeting items. So, I'm just looking for some council discussion and direction on where we'd like to go for 2026. If council's comfortable with keeping our meeting start times at 6 pm for those meeting groups, if council would like to consider moving all of our meetings to a 6 pm start time just for consistency across the board, or if council would prefer to move back to a 700 p.m. start time, I would vote no on that. Or we could start at 4 pm. We could throw that out there, too. So, um, any questions for me? Otherwise, I'd like to hear your discussion, your thoughts on where we go for our 2026 meetings. >> I really like the six o'clock start time. >> Yep. Me, too. >> I'm comfortable with it. >> And I wouldn't mind seeing the EDA move to six o'clock as well, just for consistency. >> I I would agree in that. I don't know if the parks commission if they I mean if we would have to check with them and make sure that there was an issue because they're the other one that's at 5:30. >> They are. I could I'm happy to do a poll with those um meeting groups um and then to bring that recommendation to the council. Um I I do know that there have been a couple occasions with the parks group where members have said, "Oh, I thought we started at six, so they showed up late or didn't make the meeting at all." So, um I think having these staggered start times has led to a little bit of confusion with meeting groups and generally consistency is key. So, >> and currently is the airport commission. Is that at six o'clock? >> It is at 6 o'clock. >> I'm not sure if we can necessarily dictate the EDA's time or if they would need to decide that themselves. Certainly, we can chair that forward. >> Yeah, we can bring that up on next Monday night. Great. Oh, I think that makes sense if if if the uh other the commissions are agreeable uh for the most part. I I think it makes sense to everything at six o'clock. Um it's, you know, we've got a close session yet tonight. So, if this was at 7 o'clock, we'd be a whole another hour later and so I I think the six o'clock move has been beneficial for council and and staff. >> Great. Thank you. Okay, we will move into staff updates and we'll start with Ellie. >> The only update I have is that on December 8th, we will have our truth and taxation meeting. Um, all of my contact information is available on the website. Feel free to reach out if you have any additional questions prior to that or if you have anything else you'd like to add. Feel free to reach out. >> Thank you, Ryan. >> Mayor, city council, no updates unless you have any questions. questions. >> Ryan, do you want to just update people on Eureka where we're at with that project? >> Yep. So, you might have seen some equipment stored out there or dropped off today. Uh they're waiting on some correspondence from the geotechnical uh sub consultant and once we know a real schedule, we'll then uh get some message boards set up and let pe the public know when we'll be starting that. Uh the decision has been made that they're going to allow them to place a search charge with road closures in place so they can go faster, but they'll reopen it each night. So, we've already coordinated and communicated that with the city of Columbus and some members here in the city. So, but more information to come on that when that actual start date will occur. Just to be clear that those road closures are would just be for about um what do they say maybe two and a half weeks worth of work. Um again, kind of a 9 to four type of closure and reopening it each evening so get Not to match my understanding, some savings without having to have flaggers there. So, some financial gain savings as well. >> That has been the conversation as well. >> Julie, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, on your consent agenda this evening, you approve the hire of our new deputy city clerk, and he happens to be in our audience tonight. I'm hoping we didn't scare him off. So, um, this is Kyle. We're excited to bring him on board. he'll be coming on board on December 9th. So, we'll be seeing more of him as we go forward. Um, secondly, city hall is going to be closed Thursday and Friday in observance of the Thanksgiving holiday. So, just be aware of that. Staff will be hopefully enjoying time with their family and friends during those days. Um, happy Thanksgiving to all of you, to the community. Um, I did post some information about the Eureka Project on our website and our Facebook page. It has gotten quite the attention. Um, but I would encourage folks to go ahead and sign up for updates on that project. Bolton and Mink has their project page up and they do great work at keeping folks updated on what's going on. So, there's a link to the project page on our website so folks can go there and sign up for that. >> Welcome, Kyle. >> Thank you, >> Abby. Uh, I just want to let you know that the county has approved the local affordable housing agreement that you passed a little over a month ago or so. So, that will um that's the trigger for us to start working to transfer our local affordable housing dollars for to them for their management. And as a reminder, a big portion of what we really want to aim to do with those is the preservation of our local affordable housing stock. So, fortunately, those don't count for our affordable housing allocation. Those are always new units, but it's still something I think for existing homeowners is a um an opportunity for investment in their properties. I also have been talking um with the county and um the Met Council and community thread who are going to have another kind of roundt transportation meeting after the new year to talk about ongoing operations. Um, one of the things that's really exciting though is the county is going to be dedicating some funds to expansion of our circulator program um, in the community and that we should be seeing that coming forward after the new year as well. And then um, I also just want to extend my thanks actually to the council for supporting the community development department this year. Um, because I don't think we could do it without more people. Um, and I know that we there's a lot of work to do and I'm really excited with the team that we've got on board. So, thank you very much, >> Dave. >> Uh, bridge lights were turned on today along with the snowflakes and the Christmas trees or the evergreen trees in the roundabouts. So, if you're going that way, you'll see them up uh tonight. Um, hometown holiday is December 5th. We won't meet again until then. I believe Cal sent out some information to the to the council. Uh that begins I believe at 4:00 and goes three lightnings right before 7. Uh and I was just watching the computer and we just got um in our first winter weather advisory for tomorrow night. So uh the time is here. So just want to tell everybody drive safe. Just because you took the road yesterday to 85 doesn't mean you can probably take it uh Wednesday morning at 85. All the updates I have. >> Thank you, Chief Peterson. Hopefully nobody's going 85 miles an hour, but uh mayor and city council members, no updates from Captain Hanigraph or myself. >> Thanks, Amanda. >> Yeah, council, I just have one um that I thought you might like to know. So, if you recall, you um earlier this year passed ordinance regarding Bitcoin kiosks largely due to the work of uh Detective Nathan Olstad. And the beginning of this month, um, a woman was coerced to, um, remove $17,000 from her bank account. Uh, she attempted to deposit the money at the Bitcoin kiosks that did not exist in the city because of what you passed. Um, and so eventually she got frustrated, realized that maybe she was being scammed, went back to her bank, deposited the $17,000 back into her bank, and then went to the police uh, department, I believe, the very next morning, realizing something wasn't right. you know, wanting to talk to somebody. So, um, on behalf of your community, thank you for passing that ordinance. It obviously made the difference in at least this, uh, this woman's life. So, there you go. >> Um, just a quick question on that. How many So, if I remember correctly, they had a they got I don't know in violation of whatever, then they was taken away. Have we removed any? >> Yeah, we removed all of them. >> So, none. >> So, everybody either couldn't become a licensed operator because they had uh massive amounts of fraud or uh ultimately decided that the um you know the the cost or the administration was not something they wanted to monkey with and so either through one of those two ways all four kiosks have been removed in the city. >> That's great. We handle it without being heavy-handed and let them make that decision. So thank you for work on that and your work. >> So >> Mark Can't top that one. That was a pretty good one. We do have the airport commission uh meeting on December 3rd um six o'clock right here. And um number of agenda items including the grant that we made us aware that we're in line for now uh to extend the taxi way and runway. So a big item to discuss there. So uh aside from that, I think that's all the updates I have. >> Council member Miller, >> um two things. Um Dave, I would like to say as I drove through town today, um it'll look even better tonight. So, thank you for all your hard work. Uh the city already looks really nice for the holidays coming up. Uh second one would be uh schoolboard update. Um some of you have probably heard that one of the schoolboard members has resigned. Uh there's been a lot of controversy. Uh they're trying to they're trying to appoint a replacement. uh they've now divided into two committees and on December 3rd they'll go and appoint uh two more potential people to be on the school board and hopefully by either the third or the fourth they'll have the new school board member appointed if they can agree. >> Council member Valento >> um just a happy Thanksgiving to everyone and I appreciate everyone's hard work on the budget and everything you do for the city. That's it. Council member Erikson. >> Yeah, I noticed the lights when I came from my office tonight and they look great. So, thank you for that and no further updates. >> Council member Larson, >> that's nothing further. Thank you. >> I don't have anything either other than just to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving. So, we are going to just go into someone needs to make a motion to go into close session. I move to close the meeting pursuant to Minnesota statute section 13 DO3 subdivision 1B for the purpose of labor negotiation strategy. The close session will be held in the forest lake conference room and will commence immediately. Once the close session is completed, the city council will reconvene the regular meeting in council chambers and as there are no other items on the agenda, we'll adjourn the meeting. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Any further discussion? >> All in favor? I >> opposed. We're in close session.