I don't understand why you would eliminate the frontage road while maintaining that um because it it doesn't show any crash data. It's not any harm to that intersection other than past experiences that the state has had and where they have eliminated that right turn lane.

Under the cost participation policy, improvement is funded under this cost participation policy where MINDOT will participate in local frontage cost, including rightaway costs when access to the trunk highway is being eliminated. The improvements provide safety and operational improvement benefit to the trunk highway. So, that's directly out of the cost participation policy, meaning we can participate in local frontage road construction and pay for those improvements with the elimination of of an access point.

I fully agree it there's no discernable data to show there's a safety issue going eastbound to south. I see no reason for any tax dollars from a state, county, or city level to be used to eliminate something when the number one goal of this project is safety.

By extending hours, it simply creates flexibility uh for extended hours or weekends as needed really just to help ensure um the project is completed on time.

Currently, we have bed and breakfastes that are um allowed, but they have to be owner occupied. So we don't get too many requests, but we do get requests from time to time to people that want to essentially apply for a bed and breakfast, but they don't want to live there, right?

I'm I do not support that any change. I think we should avoid short-term rentals as much as we can. We're a quiet residential community. That's part of our character. And I don't see what we get from benefit from short-term rentals as a community.

I I personally don't have an an issue itself with short-term rentals within a itself. But obviously in terms of scale and scope that's nothing. I don't want it everywhere. I would want it a specific limit, specific zoning.

So I kind of like to have some guard rails on it. But I also think sometimes that government should just stay out of some of those things.

This process is really meant to take all of those puzzle pieces and bring them together into our uh an overall look of the the city as a whole.

I want the city to be sustainable 25 years, 50 years from now. And a really large portion of that is going to be making sure that we plan ahead for those financial investments that are needed um especially for our infrastructure.

I think one thing to consider because I mean when the mayor and myself and a previous council member joined, you know, we were told at a very high level, well, this is what the, you know, staff has, you know, one staff member has decided is is our fiscal plan, but we really have the plan and the amount of work that you've done, you and and Nina and others have done over the last year, two years to compile this. I I don't know what what you have then for moving forward. We'll all be gone at some point, but to make sure that there is something uh an easy to um consume educational feature for all incoming council members to say, look, this is where we're at. This is kind of the the 20 year, 30-year picture. here's the reasons why certain decisions were made and here's how this affects this because usually when when I didn't run for council to be like I you know this topic we ran on for various reasons for but not necessarily to discuss the ins and outs of this exact topic.

Councelor Hearn had a concern about just the overall magnitude of it, right?

The first five years, maybe six years are already neighborhoods that need reconstruction as they stand today. The recommendation today would be so not five years from now, but today. So, they're still part of that catchup.

We have almost $4 million in debt service, a great portion of which is related to streets. We have $4 million a year in street construction. That's $8 million for streets and we have $600,000 for maintenance. We have close somewhere between eight and n million we spend every year on streets one way or the other. and we have 6 million we spend to operate the entire rest of the city for operating people person. So it you know it it seems like there's this imbalance there somewhere.

I would be fine with even all cost for a priority five never be tallied as well would be my two cents because to me if it's number five it's not even something that we've it's literally not under actual consideration it's it's a high level placeholder.