I'm here to ask the city if they would help us by supporting us with a letter of intent. And our intent in doing if we do get the money would be to do a full lake treatment for the lake to deal with Eurasian mil foil and curly pond weed.

I would sincerely hope that the city council would consider possibly maybe might bring back a street dance because that's something that we had when I was younger and and growing up. It would be fun to have some kind of a festival or something going on in Lake Elmo for the residents.

pretty good news actually. Um the geotechnical investigation supports a um pavement reclaim existing roadways in the project area. This is very this is identical to many of the similar past projects including the 2025 project that we're uh finishing up right now.

So, I would say the end, the final funding is still to be determined because we're sort of piecing together sort of the strategic plan and the levies and such. Um, so we'll have a little bit more information, but yes, the goal of those infrastructure leveies is to fund these capital projects, which have largely been funded only through bonds for the for a number of years.

This is another project. We have storm water utility improvements in here and we should be using our storm water utility fund to pay for those improvements. Um because that's why we have the fund.

Our total levy uh currently proposed is 11,497,785, an increase of just over 1.4 million, which is a 14% over uh increase over 2025.

However, if you look at other data and you look at the amount of property taxes paid by a median valued home in those same communities... So, we're on the high end of property tax, actual property taxes paid by median valued homes in the county, even though our tax rate is on the low end because of our high values.

I think if we can approach it in a in a slower approach versus um and again I know like you said it's not ripping off the band-aid even I know you feel that way but I think this projection again I know it's a projection it's not perfect but neither is the other one then right so but if that's the data that is presented in front of us and I can see that in 12 to 13 years we would improve from being at $60 million of debt lower that down to $23 million of debt versus to $20 million a debt. I think that that shows that that slower approach could work just fine.

My two cents would be on the premise of the rate of essentially savings. No matter what you have to pay the piper and whether you start the savings at a faster rate now and then there's a smaller hit down the road for for the projections that we cannot have for certainty what the exact cost will be in the year 2039... I would prefer to do it in this way now to try to not have a substantial jump five years or 10 years or 15 years from now where all of a sudden you need to go out for a bond for 15 million bucks on a because you are that large of a shortfall.

I guess I've seen too many of my friends and my cohorts colleagues in other cities that have run into issues where the I'm just coming at it from an infrastructure standpoint. That's that's what I know. That's that's what I think about. And if we look at the amount of infrastructure that we have, I I think that cliff can get higher if it's not taken care of appropriately at the time it you know the right fix at the or the the right road with the right fix at the right time, right?