6:31. It is Tuesday, April 14th, 2026. This is the meeting of the city council workshop for the city of Lake Elmo. We are now in order. First item on the agenda. As Mayor Caden Head is not here to celebrate his birthday with us, you can all sing in your heads happy birthday to him later. But broadband franchise discussion, Mr. Michael Bradley. >> Oh, >> I'm not Mike Bradley. I'm Mary Klene, the production and content manager for Suburban Community Channels. Um, I have been with SEC for as long as we've been using beta tapes. And for those of you who don't know what beta tapes are, it means I've been with the organization for a very long time. Um, but the reason that I've invested so much of my career into community television is my steadfast belief in it. It is a unique gem unlike any other medium. And during my time at SEC, I have seen Lake Elmo's growth just explode. And all along the way, we've served as a partner to keep you connected to your community. I know some of you in this room, but those of you who do not know me or know what we do, I'm going to show a brief video and then I'm going to touch on some of the points. SEC or the Ramsay Washington Suburban Cable Commission is part of a joint powers agreement with nine member cities. Obviously, they're listed here, Lake Elmo included. We are a small but committed staff. We have just three full-time employees, me being one of them, and we rely primarily on two part-time employees, our production and technology specialist. We also have an AVIT consultant and we use cable casters and freelancers. Our master control manages the cablecast system that brings your meetings to your residents. We have the cable cer that's here in the chamber. That cable cer works with that's Kenny there waving. That cable cer works with a person who's always on duty during live meetings at SEC to make sure that there's a signal to make sure that the live stream is going and to make sure that it's recorded. SEC hires and schedules the cable casters. We provide technical support for your chamber. So, if something goes wrong in the control room or here in the chamber, we help provide troubleshooting for those issues. We manage it. We manage your um video on demand and channel playback. As I showed in the video, uh Lake Elmo, we facilitate about 58 meetings a year, which is 80 hours of content. And overall for our nine member cities, we usually cover just under 250 meetings. The cable commission provides expertise and decades of expertise in administration of cable franchising, decades of experience managing public rights of way. We act to ensure equitable rates and customer service. So here's an example. Just last week, it was after hours and a gentleman was knocking on our office door and I I went to speak with him and it was a Comcast customer who was frustrated because his internet um cable and and telephone services had gone down. Well, I had just I had just learned shortly before that inadvertently a uh a fiber was cut. So, I was able to explain to him what happened, what steps were being taken to uh restore his services. And you know, sometimes people just like a face to talk to or a person. Now, typically customers will call our business manager, Cindy Arco, but people do show up at the commission from time to time. When fibers get inadvertently cut, we also help restore the connections to our city halls. We also develop and promote award-winning content and we have worked with decades uh for decades with Mike Bradley. >> That's the best one. >> Indeed. SEC also provides coverage of your community events. So, congratulations. Last year you had your centennial celebration. We produced a promotional video ahead of that celebration. We also covered the event. We covered light up Lake Elmo. We cover your community meetings. So, your water information meetings, um crime prevention, we cover those. He's not here tonight, but Mayor Kaden had and I uh had several years back we did a profile. It rained the entire time, but it did not dampen the experience because it was so much fun getting to know him and getting to know uh his perspective of the city. People love to know their local officials and this is a way for them to get to know city officials they might not otherwise. Uh we do business features. So during COVID, I reached out to Lake Elmo's business community. How can we help you? We did several stories on businesses who shared their unique challenges, how the community could help and how they were helping. We produced candidate forums again, you know, again to promote civic engagement and keep your residents informed. We also produce recruitment videos for city departments and city services. And as I mentioned in the video, much of this is awardwinning content. The commission is funded through 5% cable franchise fees, 2.75 PEG fees, but people are consuming their content differently. We've seen a 43% decrease in revenue, and we simply need to modernize our funding model. I hope to continue bringing Lake Elmo and all our member cities, all these services. You continue to grow. We want to grow with you. And uh I just hope that we keep it not only local, but hyper local. And Mike Bradley is gonna I'm gonna uh let him speak here. But I do love to hear feedback. Good. Constructive criticism. if you have story ideas, if you want us to schedule something, please. I love to hear from people. I put some business cards back there, but please reach out. This is how you can see our content and of course on your city channel as well. So, thank you again uh for your time tonight. >> Thank you. Any questions for Mary? >> We'll save them. Thank you, Miss Klein and Mr. Bradley. All right. Well, good evening everybody. Um, thanks for having me back. You might recall I was here a couple of months ago to talk about broadband franchising. Um, I did bring a few slides just to give you a little bit more information uh on that and thank thank you for that. I think Mary um did a nice job really at the end there, especially of talking about what's happening in uh the franchising world when when it comes to franchise fees generated by um the operators uh using your public right ofway. And with cable television, they're obviously going down and going down significantly. when I saw 43%. You know, that's a significant drop in what used to be a fairly static um revenue source for the city and for the uh commission CCTV. Um I want to talk now about um you know, when we talk about the future of franchising for local governments, in my view, the future of franchising really is in broadband. And it's really easy to to see when when we talk to our kids or um maybe for some of us grandchildren. Um when we talk to them about what they want to see, um they're not interested in what's on cable television necessarily anymore, right? What do they want? They want to know what the internet situation is. What's the Wi-Fi? What's the Wi-Fi password? That's the future. Um I think there's no question about that. Um, >> no commercials on the internet, >> right? Oh, I with my kids, they have zero tolerance for um commercials of any kind, whether it's on the radio, but there's no such thing as a radio anymore either for them. It's all Spotify or whatever. And um same thing with television. It's funny. Uh it's funny for those of us that can remember uh I can still remember commercial slogans and jingles and all that kind of stuff, but yeah, kids don't don't want that. Um but anyway, I did want to share with you um you know what we did, you know, recently in South Washington County as far as um the first broadband franchise in the state. Um wanted to point out just a few uh benefits. As you can see, there's there's actually two slides on benefits because there's so many benefits from broadband franchising. I'm just going to mention just a handful of them if that's all right with you. Uh the first is making sure that everyone in your city has equal access to the same quality of service of broadband. So when you franchise a company, you're going to make sure that um that they provide the same quality of service across the entire footprint. There's not little spots of good, bad, and real bad. Okay. Um the other one is the buildout of the city. requiring a reasonable buildout of your city over a period of time. So, in in the case of South Washington County, your neighboring commission, uh they negotiate a five-year buildout by the broadband company. They also negotiated some public benefits. So, they negotiated um internet service for local government buildings as well as some dark fiber connections. What is dark fiber? >> Dark fiber is fiber that's not lit, meaning it's uh it's up to the city to um to to get service over that wire. So, it's a it's a connection without the internet service. >> And would that be like in future development areas? Is that where they >> No, it was for actually it was for the city itself. >> Oh, okay. >> So, um I I don't recall the type of building. Let's say it's a public works building. Okay, we're we're building a new public works building on the outskirts of town. We want that building served. It's not presently served uh with anything yet. And so we have this agreement that that line is going to be constructed and then that can connect into the city network. >> Okay. >> Once it's done. >> Once it's done. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah, it does. Yeah. Thank you. >> Good. Um, some of the other things is is we we negotiated customer service provisions. Now, Mary just was telling you about how she helps um residents get relief when they can't get answers that they need from the operator and in that case the cable television operator because they have a cable television franchise. Um, but now if you have a broadband company here and uh you have a neighbor who can't get through on a billing issue or there's a connectivity issue, where do they call besides the, you know, the 800 stand in line number? Who do they call then? There's really nobody to call there's nobody. The state doesn't handle it, right? The FCC doesn't handle it. Who handles it? if you have a franchise, you handle it or Mary handles it for you actually. Um, and that's part of the benefit of being in the commission. Um, so it's important to have those customer service provisions. How quickly are people going to get service delivered to them? How quickly are issues going to be resolved? Those types of things. >> Can you say more on that? When you say who handles it, we handle it. In other words, each city then uses its staff because it has the franchise and the wires are in a right ofway. They're under contracts. Therefore, the city is >> Yeah. The local franchising authority handles it. That's um in your case, that's your commission. They handle the complaints from the entire area for their nine cities. >> And then does the franchise agreement then call out who repairs? Like which staff are responsible for going out and making that repair? because it >> well it doesn't get into into the got that kind of detail but it does require the uh the franchise e to provide information to the city and the commission >> on who we can contact to make sure that we get relief. So we have a local person that we can contact >> because potentially it could be a third party, it could be a crew that specializes in that but it's not Comcast. It's not ex company that >> Right. Well, it'll be somebody through the the franchised company. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Can I just jump off that real quick, too? So, >> for sure. So, if more cities end up doing this and and franchising and and then there are more customer service calls for the SEC, does the SEC envision them having to expand workforce to take on more of this customer service or do you think the volume from previous experiences where you're handling customer service that the volume actually isn't going to increase that much? Anyways, >> I was going to say, you know, it's an unknown But I mean if it got to the point where we it required more then you have to invest you know. >> Yeah. >> And because because you do the customer service currently and do you get a lot of calls or are they usually able to handle it at the company level before having to you know figure out okay I'm not getting the answer I need here. I need to talk to my cable commission. >> Yeah. Usually we're able to manage it or at least point them in the right direction. And >> Miss Clyde, can you go to the microphone? >> Sorry. I'm sorry. >> The cable commission would like to hear your voice. >> Yes. Um, so typically we are able to handle the volume and if we can't handle the issue ourselves, we can point them in the right direction. Currently, it's been a it's been a manageable scenario thus far, but um you know, if >> Oh, yeah. If it required more, then we'd have to look into more, but it's >> kind of like I said, an unknown >> variable right now. So, >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> We're getting inudated with calls. >> That's that's that's telling us there's a larger problem. >> Sure. >> Right. Okay. and and we're able to deal with those larger problems too through franchising because we have penalty provisions. >> Okay. >> And then we provide notice that the franchisee is not complying with the franchise. >> There'll be a a per day penalty. >> And do those I mean does that have pretty good teeth too where it can get them to Oh yeah. move. Okay. >> They don't want Yeah. A franchisee does not want a notice of franchise violation. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And that's worked too uh over the years with cable television. So with the cable television franchises, >> you know, we're not doing it all the time. Sure. But we have done it over the years and um and that brings the issue to the forefront and the issues get resolved. >> Yeah. I suppose just knowing that that option is there, they're trying to avoid it obviously. So >> okay, >> they for sure want to avoid it. Um and actually that was the last benefit on this slide was the liquidated damages. That's the penalty provision, but wasn't one of the ones I was going to talk about. But the customer service is important. I think the the senior and disabled person discount um is a really nice benefit for your residents. So um those people that are seniors or disabled will get up to 10% or no less, excuse me, no less than 10% discount uh on their services. Um, so there's a lot of benefits to uh franchising and you know, and just to kind of remind you what a franchise is, a franchise is a really unique document. It's an ordinance and it's a contract. Um, it allows the the company the privilege to do business in your city and to occupy your rightway, you know, permanently, okay? At least while they're franchised. um and allows them to provide services to the residents and in return they pay um well actually on that last slide there was another one that I was supposed to go over. Which one did I miss? It was the consideration and the consideration that we negotiated was a 5% franchise fee. 5% franchise fee is um the same that the current cable television operator pays. So that is um another significant benefit to the city and to your um to your commission. Um and when you compare franchising to um permitting there there really isn't um there there's there's just no question that franchising is better uh than permitting. And franchising, by the way, does not eliminate permitting. Okay? It's an addition to permitting. So, um you'll be uh continuing to do the permitting, but you'll have this overwriting document um that has these other benefits for your residents and for your city. >> Am I correct to presume because it's not just city rightway. We have residents where the driveways and access is on a county right away. We do have some residents where their access is actually on a state highway. >> So, it it would still be the city franchise, but it applies to all government rightways. It's to your It's to your uh local government right ofway. If they need additional um um uh authority from the state or county, they'll have to get that. And we'll still do the permitting though because the permitting is in our in our city. And there and there um and that doesn't change the consideration that's due. The consideration that's due is franchise fees on all revenue from broadband services. I guess the example I'm thinking of and I I know we have residents that don't have broadband that are on city streets. What I don't know is as an example say on you know the gun range on 10th street for those residents who are on the south side they're on a county road if they have broadband. I don't know if the residents along Highway 36 there's a couple driveways there. I don't know if they have broadband but that's where the question >> Yeah. you know, and that's something, you know, when we >> with the building, >> you when we start doing the the franchising, that's when we can really figure out >> um you know, what are the needs that we want to address and we we know what the kind of the big ones are. But these other ones where you're drilling down to specific neighborhoods, it's a perfect time to talk about that with the the franchisee, you know, and say, "Okay, what about this area?" And we, you know, this is an important area that that needs to be addressed, you know, hypothetically speaking, as far as what we're talking about here. >> I was starting to hear a >> Well, no, I'm I was just going to ask when you mentioned that they would have to figure out the permitting then if it was a state or or county level >> easement, they're construction, they got to figure it out, >> right? >> And they being Intrepid or the franchisee, >> right? Okay. >> The franchisee. >> Correct. not your public works department. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um why did we why are why are we talking about broadband franchising now? Um >> uh and and really I I think I went over this with you before, but um there was a a significant case that came down called Ohio Telecom versus FCC. And that's where the FCC or excuse me, the the Court of Appeals ruled that broadband is an information service, not a telecommunication service. And when that decision came down, we um internally we were looking at well, you know, if broadband isn't a telecommunication service, and we know it's not a cable television service, um and in federal law, there's kind of three buckets where these services fall. It's information service, it's telecommunications, or cable television. So, we know it's not cable television, we know it's not telecommunications. The court ruled that it's in this bucket called information services. But in state law, we don't have a bucket for information services. We have a bucket for telecommunications. And if it's a telecommunications service, then we're prohibited from franchising the company. Okay. We still can permit but can't franchise. If it's a cable communication system, which in Minnesota law is defined broader than a cable television system, then if you find that that that broadband is a broadband system is a cable communication system, then we as cities are required to franchise. Okay? And so that's really where our choices are under state law right now. Telecommunications or cable communication system. and one you can't franchise, the other one you can one there's no benefits really to your residents other than your permitting. The other one there's lots and that's your choice as as a city on on on where to fall. So we did this reassessment. Um in our view uh cities have a very good argument that broadband systems are cable communication systems. We know that uh there's solid case law in the eighth circuit probably better case law than anywhere else in the country frankly that uh broadband is an information service and that the edge services provided over the system are also broadband information services. What I mean by that is they'll offer a lot of these companies will offer broadband internet access but they'll also offer a product called voice over internet protocol VOIPE service and under uh precedent in the eighth circuit those services like VOIPE are also information services they're not telecommunication services and it gets a little bit confusing right because sometimes it's voice and you think phone you think telephone Um that's not the way it's um it's not the way the cases hold in this um in this uh area. >> Yeah, >> Mike, if these are uh not telecommunication systems but information systems, is a franchise fee limited to 5%. >> It's not. It's a great question. Yeah, the the franchise fee limitation for cable television services is in uh federal law and it's in that bucket that I call title six and there is uh an expressed preeemption of local governments. We can't charge more than 5% franchise fee. Um here with in the broadband system, cable communication system, title one, um there's almost no regulations. um uh affecting broadband systems and there's no cap. What we did in in Woodbury and South Washington County is we just did a balancing of of uh of sorts where we where we thought, okay, you know, maybe we could ask for more than 5%. But it seemed to us to make um sense that um knowing that this was also going to be passed through to residents that we charge basically the same franchise fee even though it's on different services broadband versus cable television uh that it made some sense to go with 5%. >> Yeah. >> And I wasn't suggesting more than five. I just I was thinking I remember five being a telecommunications act but I didn't think it applied in this case. >> Yep. No, that's you got to listen to Nick. He's he has a lot of experience in this area. >> Do you know do you recall when that process was happening at this for then the city level when they were dealing with the fees that are collected from that? Were they making decisions to say hey we need to set some of this money aside because when they are digging we're now be responsible for moving lines because the franchise agreement says certain duties we have. So we're going to start to build up money for that >> as a city. >> Yes. As I recall, we had that conversation, council member J, do you recall that? >> Usually in a franchise agreement, they're responsible for moving the lines if you have a public improvement or some other need for them to relocate their line. >> So, I had my memory was completely the opposite. Okay, solid. >> Yeah, that they're they're generally respons, but um the provider will be responsible for those costs. I take back my question. >> It's a good question. What other questions do you have? >> And did you say Woodbury was kind of the kickoff city for testing this out or and how's that been going? Any roadblocks that were unforeseen? >> Uh, none so far really. Uh, we just did a an amendment to that franchise, but um, none of that changed what I just shared with you as far as the first broadband franchise. Um, I understand construction is is on its way and um, I haven't heard if there's service being lit up yet, but it's moving forward. >> Okay. And how does, and now this is a might be a dumb question, but how does because this is fiber internet we're talking about, correct? So, how does that work to get to people's houses? Does the fiber go into the house or is there just a main line and you have a router in your house or how does that work? >> Yeah, that that's kind of a fun question really. Um, it it will work um you know on the outside. Do you have a house? >> Mhm. >> Yeah. So, on the outside of your house, there's a box, right? Um, might be by your garage or somewhere like that, and that's where the phone line comes in. There'll be a box for that. There'll be another box for where the cable line comes in. >> Maybe on the other side of the house, there'll be a place where the electricity and gas comes in. Um, it'll be similar to that. The the cable line or the fiber will be delivered right to your house and it'll there'll be a demarc place at your house. >> Got it. Okay. So it was discussed and was mentioned you know 43% drop in revenue Miss Klein for the commission is it so in the case when Sawashko did this did they then put in the franchise agreements how the revenue is then distributed based upon here's a percent that's going to their um cable commission as a substitute for revenue stream or or how how is this solving then the the revenue stream decrease that you were mentioning? Well, I I can I can speak to that. Um the the franchise fees in that area, all the franchise fees go to the commission >> and then they are returned in part to the the member cities and it's done through the budgeting process. I think it's also maybe done through their joint powers agreement uh as well. Um, but it it will be an issue that will need to be, you know, continue to be looked at as we enter in kind of to this new generation of of franchises. >> Are other members of the SEC looking or considering or discussing this? >> You know, I I've spoken to uh Oakdale. Um I I think I'll be going back to Oakdale sometime soon about that. Um, you were quick enough to get me to come back a little bit earlier than they did. Um, and I'm not sure where the others are. White Bear is, I think, in the thinking about it stage right now. I can tell you that there's there's about um 20 cities now that have said that they're moving forward with franchising and have started notifying the broadband providers. >> So, not just considering doing >> not just considering doing Yeah, they are doing it. And um you know uh I think a reasonable question then is to ask well how are the broadband companies reacting to that you know are they just agreeing for example and the answer is they're not just agreeing they are questioning the authority that local governments have to franchise. So that's a process that's going on right now um and may continue to go on you know as we go through the the spring and into the summer. um you know what are let's see what well I already went over the the benefits what are the risks I think that's a legitimate question to ask what are the risks by going into this um I think there's primarily two risks really there's one the risk of possible litigation over the authority of the local government to require a franchise um you know in our view we're just following state law state law as cable communication system has to get a franchise. We're requiring a franchise. Get a franchise. And if they want to bring that to court, okay, fine. We'll have a binding president across the entire state of Minnesota that says you got to get a franchise. Fine. Um it's a when you when you look at your insurance, I always encourage the local governments that we're working with to look at your insurance coverage to make sure you're covered uh in the event that litigation was brought. Um, so far all of the cities that I've worked with have said that they they are covered, okay, for that risk. The other risk is that a company decides they're just not going to come. We're just not going to build in your city. Okay, that's that is another possible risk that you should know of. Or at least maybe they'll initially say, you know, because council member so and so is requiring a franchise of us, we're not going to come. Okay, that is a risk. So, it is good to know the risks. Now, like I said, I went through the benefits. So, and and you can say right back, it's like, well, yeah, I did require a franchise and I want a franchise because I want customer service provisions. I want everybody to be served. I want everybody to have the same quality of service. I want our uh seniors and disabled folks here to have discounts on their services. Those are all good things. Um so just know that that that can be raised. >> You mentioned the minimum for that discount is 10%. Is that something that's negotiated in the franchise? >> It is. >> Yes. >> Is there a max? >> Uh no. >> Wow. What constitutes disabled? Is that based upon a statuto definition? I know we have disabled for property tax purposes. We have the VA has a certain definition for thresholds. >> Yeah, we we intentionally left that vague so that we could work that out later. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> That's a great question though because we thought about it too. You know, how detailed do we get? We chose not to get real detailed. That doesn't mean that a franchise here couldn't be. That's just what we chose there. >> Does that make sense? >> Yes. I just think we should elevate that senior citizen discount. >> I I second that. Yeah. >> I mean, Charles just had a birthday today. He might qualify. >> U just just the last thing I I'll I'll mention here and and that's on price impacts because I I think somebody mentioned price impacts and a concern with price impact because there's a franchise fee and a couple of things there. Um, the way we handled the franchise fee, and I think the way we would handle it here too is, um, we allow the company, the franchisee to pass through the franchise fee to residents just like the cable operator does, just like Excel does for electric and gas. Um, you know, there's probably an argument that we could not allow that, but I think that invites litigation more than anything. So, I think to be, you know, consistent with how we've dealt with the providers that have franchises now, I think it makes sense to allow that continue to happen. Um, now, does that mean that the company absolutely will? So, I can tell you I've had conversations with operators that have broadband companies that have said they're not going to pass it through. their their business model is we want we want to be different than our competitors meaning the cable industry and we want to give one price and that's what you pay. So if it's 75 bucks it's 75 bucks. Okay, that's what they say. Now will the uh will the 5% franchise fee um not allow the broadband companies to to build out uh quickly and there's there's no real good independent studies that are out there on that. But I can tell you from experience with cable television when cable television really started um growing which was starting in the early 1980s. In the early 1980s I remember all the cable television providers paid franchise fees. Okay. Um, let let's let's just say they they had no subscribers in 1980. By 1990, they had 10 they had 50 million subscribers nationwide. So, did the franchise fee impact the buildout of cable television systems? I think the answer to that is no. And I'm of the I'm of the opinion personally, not being an economist or having done any big studies on this, but I think the answer is going to be the same with broadband. >> I do. You almost think maybe it did impact it, but in an uh in an increased it way in the sense of with that franchising, now the utilities are going everywhere. Now it's available to more people. as a result of that it actually did impact it but not in a negative way >> not in a negative way positive way >> in a positive way >> could have I I think also you know when you look at local cable franchising and and Mary's commission uh they required in the late 1990s they required cable system upgrades and what happened as a result of those cable system upgrades it allowed the provision of broadband. And that was a huge development because we went from, you know, no penetration for cable television to really massive penetration, right? Meaning residents served in just a short period of time. If you look at that same time for the phone industry, phone company went from 100% penetration. There was a time that at least some of us can remember that we all had phone phone service. We all had a phone on our wall, right? There's a reason why there's a phone jack on your wall if you have a house that was built. You know, >> Nick, that's a thing that you hold and you pick it up. >> There's a cord >> and then you uh I've got another slide just as an aside. I have another slide that I when I do presentations and it's a harvest gold kitchen with a phone, you know, phone on the wall with the cord and everything. Well, anyway, my point is phone subscriptions went from 100% down to 25%. Like that. And I I I really believe that in part that was due to the the local requirements that these companies upgrade their systems. Phone companies, by the way, aren't subject to local jurisdiction. And I think that's, you know, at least arguably, that's why when you get DSL service in places, probably here, you see some with lightning fast service, depending on how close they are to the >> Yep. >> the thing, right? Um, and others that have terrible, you know, close to dialup speeds. So hypothetically, if we have our discussion and we let staff know, sure, let's let's move forward. What would be a reasonable time frame for next steps? What would be an unreasonable time frame from how Sawashko did it from what's reasonable from legal standpoint, from staffing standpoint, logistics? What does this look like? >> Well, uh, I'll tell you what it looked like exactly from, uh, the city of Woodbury. City of Woodbury made the decision. It was um uh when when it was made um as soon as they made it, they referred the franchising to their franchising authority, which is the commission. Same thing here. Um the commission immediately started um you know the connection with the providers. Once the provider said that they were willing to get the franchise, then we went through the time and expense of going through the franchising process because there's a franchising process that's laid out in statute. From the time that we published notice, which is the first step of the process, we have to publish notice once a week for two successive weeks. Uh from that time to the time that we negotiated and adopted the franchise, it was 59 days. Thank you. >> So, we are prepared. I can tell you that we as a commission are prepared. We we have we'll have a franchise application ready to go. We know the process. We know how to, you know, do all that. So, we're ready to go and we have a good template from what we did in South Washington. So, we're ready to go and ready to go quickly as long as our dance partner is willing to go. >> Additional questions for Mr. Bradley or Miss Klein before we have a chat? >> Yeah, I have one more question. So, when it comes to the risks, you were saying that one of the risks could be that a company would look at the franchise fee and go, you know what, we're not going to bring our service to that city. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Now, have there been any cities that have adopted that franchise and the companies have avoided that said city? >> No. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. So, a couple of follow-ups on that and maybe some of this is more discussion, but I'm just trying to understand a little bit more as well. >> And and so I think it's me here and it's tough because I know this is new, so there isn't a lot of this information. >> Woodberry, for example, right? So, Intrepid is coming in. They're the wholesaler. They're the one that is they're putting in the infrastructure for other ISPs or uh information service providers to use. Is that correct? one or more and >> one or more information service providers will use the infrastructure that Intrepid puts in. >> Yeah. >> So, Intrepid is the they're the franchisee, correct? >> They are. >> And then they're going to rent their infrastructure to these different information service providers. >> Yeah. It's not a rent, but Yeah. Yes. Eric was, >> you know, you know, the best way that I can describe what Intrepid does, you know, um is they kind of white label their products. If you know what white labeling means, basically they're um they're providing the service. They're providing all the services, but the company that they work through, which I don't think it's any I don't think this is a secret, but it's T-Mobile. uh then T-Mobile resells basically that service over the >> but Intrepid is the the franchisee. There isn't multiple franchises and and I guess that was one of my questions is there wouldn't be a situation where multiple companies would want to come in and and put in infrastructure. Do you see that being a possibility multi two intrepid like companies wanting to come in and put in infrastructure? I I don't see any reason for that. Correct. I I can't explain all the economics that are going on right now. We are seeing, you know, companies like Intrepid. We still see uh Quantum Fiber, which is here. >> Yep. >> Um and um so that's two fiber to the home companies. Now, Quantum Fiber was just recently sold as you probably know. >> Yeah. >> And the deal closed in February. So Quantum Fiber is now used to be run by Lumen and now it's being run by AT&T. >> Okay. Perfect. >> So So you're going to have I mean you have you probably Yeah. You probably are going to have multiples. >> Okay. >> Now the economics breaks down at some point >> for these providers. Right. >> Correct. And so all right again. So Woodbury as the example, right? Intrepid is the the wholesaler or the they're the one that's going to white label it. They're the one the franchisee. >> How many have they had information service providers already approach them and say, "Yes, we do want to we want to white label. We want to use this infrastructure. >> Have they already had those companies approach them and ask about that >> or is it too early the process?" >> I don't know all the ins and outs of of Intrepid's dealings and who's contacted them. I know they have one. >> Okay. And where I'm going with this is I'm trying to figure out if I think it can be a really positive uh for for the end users >> if there's more competition, right? And so in general with the free market, government should stay out of it for the most part, right? It's going to make it worse. Now in a situation where I and I think sometimes this industry it can be a little bit more monopolistic where if there's only one provider we do run into issues right and so that is where having a little bit more government regulation super important what I and I think could actually happen as a result of having a franchisee who does put in this infrastructure is I actually think it's going to create an opportunity for more of these information service providers to want to come and compete is. And again, that's I'm just asking if maybe you've seen that. I'm speculating that that could be a result of this. And I think that would be a a positive. Um, you know, from the the cost perspective. I was asking about that last time. >> You know, if it was just one person franchising it, I I would be very concerned that that cost gets passed through, right? Because now they're in control. Mhm. >> But if the wholesaler has three, four ISPs that are using that infrastructure, now they have to compete. And so that is going to be a differentiator. So I guess that's something I think this could be a really good opportunity to get all these uh benefits that they're talking about. I I'm a little concerned about that happening if it is just one company, but through this infrastructure, I I I do think it's going to bring in more competition actually. Um, and I kind of moving into discussion there. Sorry. Um, >> but your point's well taken. I mean, the Intrepid system is built for that. >> Yeah. >> For multiple providers using the system. >> It's an open access system. So, it has it can have multiple providers. >> Okay. Um, >> I know I sent you some of these questions here. So, >> is there a cap to the multiple providers or is it just >> just whatever their system can handle? >> Okay. The question again probably hard to answer because you know it's in the process but you mentioned all right obviously you said hey there's going to be better buildout standards um better system performance standards again you know my comment that I I said was okay hey you know I'm a little concerned about that um typically the free market handles that better than government can handle it but again if this is a situation where as a result of that infrastructure coming in instead of having just Comcast being the provider for an area, right? You know, so like with my business that that was my option, you know, I had one option. So that's what I have to go with. So with this, I I I don't think the the franchisee necessarily is going to be the one that necessarily leads to the better customer service, the better um well hopefully the better infrastructure, but I think it's going to be the information service providers that are utilizing that system that are going to be forced to provide better services. >> Is there a contract with Intrepid or whomever will require it? >> Correct. Yes. And that that is happening as as a direct result of this is is the contracts between the the infrastructure provider and the user of it, the company using it. >> Yes. >> In their contracts, they're required to um >> the standard terms. Yeah. Okay. So, does this apply to broadband that is already in the city or only to future installation of broadband? >> Yeah. No, that's a that's a great question. Um, actually, it's the first one on this bullet point that that that we're looking at here. Um, it applies to everybody, all broadband only providers. >> So, all of So, Comcast, who has lines here, is will have to come to terms with the franchise. >> Comcast is different. Comcast Comcast is in this title six box. Okay. Title six has restrictions on cities that title one does not have. And right now the way the FCC has interpreted title six um we cannot regulate we as cities cannot regulate the non-cable services. >> Okay. >> Even though the the infrastructure itself is broadband. >> Correct. And I'm not saying it makes sense. I mean, >> no, it makes zero sense whatsoever. But >> can I follow up on that, too? And so, >> no. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Because Comcast is in Woodbury, correct? >> Correct. >> So, now there's two again more competition, right? Because Comcast is going to continue to deliver their services. >> Intrepid is coming in with their infrastructure. They're going to be able to directly compete with Comcast now. And that's going to hold Comcast to a higher standard, >> which I think every resident would love to see that. >> As as Intrepid looks to build out with fiber, has Comcast made a statement about converting their system to fiber? >> That's a great question. I I have I I don't have any evidence one way or the other yet. >> I don't know if they've made some, you know, some statement with the competition. >> Yeah. Um my my guess is they they will um try to lock in customers in that area for longer periods of time with really good deals. >> Got to ask one more question. Sorry. >> Yes. And then let's have a chat. >> Um as far as for future development, how is that handed handled with the franchisee? Is it >> for for perpetuity? If we 30 years from now have future development, they're on the hook for bringing that infrastructure. Yeah. Yeah. We we address what we address uh annexed areas for example, but otherwise the franchise is for the entire corporate boundaries of the city typically. >> Thank you, Mr. Werner and Ms. Klene. Let's have a chat. So, thoughts. >> Kind of gave mine already on it. >> Yes, you did. >> I think it's a good opportunity. Um I was there anything in there about how long it would take for the infrastructure to build out here? >> As I recall, yeah, as I recall from our discussion last time, it's a multi-year process >> and they set the terms for five years for it to be built out. >> Okay. And is that for the entirety of the city? >> Okay, got it. I mean, I think it's a great opportunity for us. So, I would be totally for this. Um, I don't really have any anything else to add, but before adding this franchise to the city, >> the the thing that gets me is not just the customer service because I customer service matters. We all have stories about certain providers, not going to say any names, where that could be improved. Um, but this is one of the rare instances where government has the opportunity to help force customer services to be improved. >> Uh, and I think that has a value gained. To me, the big thing is helping to ensure that there are areas of our community that have broadband >> and I find it absolutely abhorentt in the year 2026 that we have areas that don't have it when we're a second ring suburb. Like, that's just inexcusable. So, I think this is a very good vehicle for it. I I think the interesting conversation because that 43% drop in revenue for a a quality partner of ours, the SEC is problematic. Fully agreed this revenue stream has to be modernized. I hope say hypothetically we move forward. I don't want to see a situation where in the SEC well lake Elmo is helping to improve the revenue stream but no one else is. So I I hope and you mentioned other cities are going that route. I don't want to be the only ones helping that process, but I optimistic it'll be many entities helping that because that revenue is necessary for a a good provider that has been our partner for many years. >> You know, I think it's it's a good opportunity for us for for two reasons. First, Matt, you said just like when we moved to Lake Camel, you had one provider. Yeah. >> Take it or leave it. >> Yep. >> And um that's what it was, right? And it's copper. And the other thing is if you go out in the rural parts of the state, the state of Minnesota's been paying for fiber to the premises. I mean, I have friends who live in the middle of nowhere on the iron range. You got fiber to their house and I'm sitting with copper at mine. Um, and so, you know, I think that by going to broadband and providing competition, two things. First, it'll expedite the opportunity for fiber. Number two, it'll provide competition, which will keep prices more competitive. And you know it will also say improve customer service because now you have the ability to change. I mean you can go to satellite now I see you know as on TV but I don't know how good that is or bad. I'm not sure but I mean it's still not the same as having the fiber. And so I I don't think where we have anything to lose in this deal. Um personally unless I'm missing something. I mean, yeah, we're going to put fiber in our rightway, and anytime you add more to your rightway, that creates, you know, additional challenges for the city. Um, but our choice is to be, you know, have one provider, which is never healthy. >> What are the what piece of information would staff like to know from this discussion? Because what I'm hearing is, yep, there are some risks that we want to work through, but general consensus is let's move the ball. What are things that would help you for the next time? >> Um, I don't think we need anything else. I I would work with Mike Bradley and Mary to figure out the next steps and when we would come back to council. >> I would just add so one concern council last time >> when we had this discussion she did raise some concerns. So, I think it would be important to >> have Sarah there as well for those conversations so she can bring that perspective of the risks. >> Um, because she obviously raised some of those concerns. >> Um, >> but again, I mean, it sounds like it's a a riskreward situation here. So, we got to figure that out. >> Then we would likely be covered, we would be covered by the league cities regardless. So, um, I think a very good conversation down the road is then that the piece for the senior and disabled discount. I'd be very looking forward to how that plays out, what discussion we can have because we do have a large population of seniors. I have no idea what our population is of disabled people. Um, but we do often hear from our seniors about cost of living. So, I I think that is a very advantageous uh item that can come out of this. Above and beyond that, good chat. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. Thank you, Miss Klein. Enjoy your evening. Next up, community forecast and the 2050 comp plan. Mr. Stoopa, please explain the broadband incorporating into the 2050 comp plan. Okay, good evening. We're here tonight to talk about the community forecast for the 20150 comprehensive plan. As you may know, the system statement um starts the process for the comprehensive plan and uh there's a limited time to appeal the system statement. majority of communities do not appeal the system statement. And one thing that we found out recently is that our population numbers that we knew they were seem low, but that they were um low because of the White Bear Lake case that the Met Council took that into consideration and lowered numbers for a few cities around the area. So that was something we learned later on. And uh so the issue before the council tonight is we have a couple ways to work through the through this is should the city amend its 2040 plan to adopt new projections. So we have a current plan and we've been talking to the Met Council. This could be a way to make our population numbers more accurate to what they actually are. And then also the strategies because this would not address the 2050 number. So how to work through the comp plan and that 2050 number and the planning efforts that are go along with that through through this whole process with the 2050 comp plan. So the system statements are are released and they address transportation, land use, water resources, um parks, trails, and there's others. Um and then once it's released, communities have three years to amend and update their comprehensive plans to comply with these regional systems. Here is the 2050 system statement just for we want to focus on population households. So the 2030 number that they have for us is 15,200. Um and then the 2040 16900 and 18900. So this is concerning when we get this because it appears that our 2025 number is going to be um really close to that 15,000 um number. So the implications of forecasts this guides our comprehensive plan understanding um our need to accommodate the regional growth households and population employment. It also assists with our sewer planning um and all you know wastewater planning and then there's concerns that if these numbers get locked in at a lower lower number that other agencies may use it to keep us from growing or you know that it may prevent us in some ways when they're doing review memos. So just give you a timeline of events. September 22nd is when they officially release the system statement. that's kind of the time where they release it and then you can start the process with the comprehensive plan. So we met and discussed it internally and we wanted to know what their data sources were and the trends, what informed their population, household estimates um and then what happens if development exceeds the forecasted growth because we believe that would occur. So, a couple days later, we met with the council sector rep. Um, and what we learned is that the primary changes the forecast were due to regional trends that they just believe that the trend regionally is going to decrease in terms of population, people moving out. Um, and the White Bear Lake issue was not talked about at that meeting. Um, there was openness from the Met Council on adjusting forecasts as we go along. So the conversation was, you know, it's not very difficult to amend your population when you need to and there's processes that we go through to do that. So you wouldn't be penalized or punished for growing. Um so we followed up asked questions just to kind of understand their methodology. Nothing about White Bear Lake. Um and then the clarification like could we adjust the forecast and really the only issue was as long as the there was sewer capacity we could you know increase population and the interceptors are in different areas with different >> director stoppa. >> Yes. Do you have a hypothesis why at two different instances when discussing the change in the trend the White Bear Lake issue was not cited by them as changing their trend? Like it on the 28th and the 29th at both instances their methodologies for regional forecast the White Bear Lake issue was not cited. It's difficult to say because talking to um I believe the board member she wasn't aware until much later and it's possible that the sector rep wasn't made aware of the memo too. So it's it's unclear and I'm assuming that um the person that did the projections was made aware of it because how could they do it without knowing that? Um and I believe that memo did come out >> later. it just wasn't um shared with us. Even when we asked questions related to it, >> okay, >> because we did ask questions like is the issue with the White Bear Lake lawsuit a reason why these numbers seem low, they don't seem to be correct. >> Back up one uh slide at the bottom, you talk about um the clarific clarification forecast could be adjusted unless regional systems could not support growth. So if we're actually growing faster than what their projections are showing, they may not be building enough sewer capacity for that growth and we could have our growth restricted by sewer capacity. That that's correct. And then the the question is there's different interceptors in different areas. So if you look at the southwest corner when if you remember High Point Crossing wanted to come in with this um sewer open space. Well, at that time there wasn't the capacity. They had some construction projects that they needed to complete for that to move forward. So that area in the southwest is almost built out and is almost at sewer capacity. It's a little bit different for the 180 acres and then obviously there's a lot of unbuilt Musa area to the southeast. So that was concerning um because that was a caveat of well you know this is one of the um the things that could uh prevent you but it's hard to know what the capacity looks like when you have different areas and interceptors. So the period of appeals for the system statement closed um we did not recommend an appeal uh the ability to um because we were under the impression that we could adjust our forecasts as needed through the process and also this whole time we were talking about leading up to the comp plan we really needed a better understanding of our land uses and what those population numbers would be going forward because when we talk about the numbers they're they we believe they are too low but it's not like a big adjustment. We could decide to reggu areas which would reduce our household population and that has independent of like trying to get our numbers lower. We just might think okay but this area is better if it's commercial right so obviously you still need sewer there but the household population would be a little bit different. So we wanted to go through that process to understand understand where we were. Um so then on January 15th we received the White Bear Lake methodology memo from the city of Hugo. Um so they were very concerned and they essentially um stated that we should be concerned and that they could possibly prevent um prevent growth. So we compiled permitting data and then the development pipeline were sent to the met council uh countering the low forecast. Um and then after we met with them the council of forecast or sector rep acknowledge that the peritting they looked through the data we have pretty good data with the peritting data and the forecasts specifically the forecast um are very detailed um and they agreed that a solution is needed to for more reasonable forecasts. So one of the things that we provided were just the permitting data for essentially the last 10 years. It's single family, detached and attached. And what you're missing here is apartment buildings because we didn't have very many of them. But we are going to see a a trend towards apartments and single family attached. But we're still over um I think the projection if we end up at 18900 was like under a 100red units a year going forward. So we'll we'll probably see more than that. We project to see more than that. So this is the next slide that is really interesting. I think it it made it clear to them um just how low the numbers are. So one of the things that we do on our financial side is we have development projections to track sewer availability charge, water available availability charge, and then permitting fees that we think we're going to receive in the next 20 years. We have every parcel that's in the Musa with their acreage and their density ranges kind of worked in to estimate what we would get on those properties. We don't look at uh areas outside of the Musa until they're in the pipeline. So if we know um an OPD is coming in, we'll add that to the to the chart and then we can plan for it. So we put this together units per year. You can see at the top column we're over you know 200 I'm sorry for 226 278 491 316 413 some of this a lot of the numbers increase has to do with limmerick and that going through the process uh you could see unit totals and then we're basing off a 2.5 or 2.7 really the 2.5 is the better one for us to use because our average household size is decreasing as we add apartments and town houses. So if you look at that, if you look at 2030, um the population that we have is 18,952. So that is going to exceed the 2050 number that they provided. Um and that number is 15,200. And you can see our very conservative estimate in 2026 will have 15,127. We won't get the true number for 2025 from the Met Council until about July of 26. It's always a year behind. Um, so as you can see in the 2040 number, we're estimating about 22,000 and it's 16,900. >> Can you just speak to So the projections kind of beyond a couple years here. Is that just based off of uh current zoning? Is that based off of permits already applied for? I I guess does the speculation become pretty spec does it become pretty speculative beyond a few years here of what that growth is going to be? >> It is interesting. So everything that we have post 2030 it's very speculative right >> and then everything is pretty good between 2030 it's pretty accurate maybe off a year um obviously Limmerch is such a big project for our population because our population isn't >> that great it's 15,000 a little bit over that could have like a 5% change right in total population it's one project what we did here was we basically took the unit count and then moved it to two years. Met Council when they do theirs is they use a one-year delay on single family and a two-year delay on um apartments because the start of construction it usually takes two years to to complete and fill the part the apartments. So you can see here this is the projection that we have. Um obviously the permit numbers decrease as you go along but you know there's also large areas that aren't scheduled to be built out till later. So you see like one year is 364. I mean that's because we just took that one project and dropped it instead of trying to like split it over years >> based upon the phasing that's in the comp plan. >> Yeah. >> Is that the intersection of Lake Elmo and Hudson that area? >> I I believe Lake Elmo and Hudson um that area is mixeduse commercial mixeduse business park. So those are high densities pretty large area. So that would be something that's not in the current phasing and I'm not sure but there's areas in the village that are a little bit higher. Um but that area you're referring to is the one that is phased out. >> Chris, could you just restate again? It what of these numbers from uh 2026, 2027, 2028 do we know for sure are already we've approved? We know is going forward. Are any of those numbers not even speculative? They're they're pretty accurate. I mean, yeah, the one the one project that's included >> that should go forward because they're moving through the process is Limmerch, which is over 600 units. It's just a matter of when that hits, but we also have taken their units and we know it's not going to be we spread them out, >> but that's what we're seeing there with the 491 in 2027 heavily coming from Limmerick, >> right? >> Okay. when Hugo provided their concern um because they're they're in a similar boat, not totally the same ocean, but similar boat. Did they mention concerns at all about the concept of potentially what happens if a government changes a zoning to a lower density and how that might affect the property owner who is an investor or a farmer who that's a taking >> they haven't mentioned that but typically you can do that especially if it's phased out if you need to adjust it. I mean, that is the challenge with this is that we're required to meet a 3.5 um uh 3.5 units per acre through their plan and we have a certain amount of acreage in the Musa, right? So, it's that's definitely a challenge and it's hard to say, but one of the things that we're able to do through this is have a pretty good understanding of the Musa and we've talked about it. If even if we kind of upzoned everything and everyone wanted to go in that direction, that council, we pretty much cap out at around 25,000 in the current MUSA. So I was just going to say because I was thinking a lot about that as well and even from like the you know legally is there a challenge but there is again my thought is no there wouldn't be you know when uh people choose to sell their land or not choose to sell their land or a developer chooses to purchase land or chooses not to purchase land it's it's total speculation right and so um that because that was going through my mind is like does that cause concerns from land that's been purchased by developers And my thought would be no, right? If if these the comp plan does have to change as a result of these new projections. Well, it it changed the other way previously. Now it's going back, right? And people who sold their land two years before it went up wish they would have waited, you know, and so I think it's just speculation. So I don't think and I guess, you know, Sarah might be able to speak on that better, but >> I don't think there would be. Typically downzoning is not considered a taking though because you are giving them rights to develop their land. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So after this they reviewed it the demographer reviewed it at the Met Council. Uh we received um an update from Angela Torres who is their senior manager of planning at the Met Council. And what they advised was for us to amend our 2040 plan so that we could use our updated numbers that we feel are very accurate and to adjust that which would essentially increase the number for 2030 and 2040 when you compare to the 2050 plans. So it would raise the forecast in 2030 from and this is for the 2040 plan from 6,500 households to 7200 households and our average household size would be 2.66 for a population of 19,200 for 2030. Um, and then for 2040 it would go from 6 6500 to 8,250 with uh 2.59 household size and it would be 21,400. So that is what we've been told is if we go forward with a comp plan amendment to our current comp plan, they would carry those numbers forward into our 2050 plan for 2030 and 2040. What they stated is that they don't feel comfortable changing the policy position beyond 2040 due to the White Bear Lake memo. We can talk about that a little bit. >> So So you're just saying they wouldn't want to go above 21,400. >> 21,400. So essentially if cap Yeah. If if Whitebear Lake isn't resolved, they don't want to change the 2050 number. So the 20 24 number defaults to the 2050 number. >> Okay. But as you know, we'll be back here 10 years later working on a new plan. >> Yeah. >> So, >> so overall summary for for the White Bear Lake memo is that the Met Council determined it's prudent to withhold its consent of additional growth in local jurisdictions affected by the White Bear Lake area court decision until the council is assured additional growth does not conflict with court orders that cities must abide. And then if a request is made, it must only be considered after modification of the court order, a change in local conditions or solution to water supply constraints uh determined are determined and implemented. So that's the concern that we have is that there really the deadline for this um Clark's here, Clark has a lot of information on this, but 20 I'm sorry, June 30th, 2027. So what they're asking us to do is you could go forward with a comp plan amendment to increase your 2030 2040 number and then possibly after the 2027 date amend the 2050 comp plan number prior to finalizing the 2050 comp plan. So this is the bottom line is um used to allow a higher population projection than the 2040 plan. uh they agree that the September 25 forecasts are low and that the city has the option to amend Thrive 20 240. So you can see the numbers. We just went through them, but essentially the 2050 number would stay at 21,400 and then they are willing to discuss an expanded 2050 forecast in mid 2027 after the White Bear Lake area comprehensive plan work group concludes. So if you're looking at amending the plan, that's a question before the council at the workshop. You would see that our household would uh they would increase. But uh some of the numbers like for example the number increases, this is just for the 2040 plan. The population um households would actually um increase the population would increase in the 2040 plan. The households in 2040 would go up slightly from 8200 to 8250, but our population would decrease slightly because we know that our average household size is decreasing since the last time the plan was done. >> All right, so that that's a key takeaway. Ignoring the 20 imagine 2050, this would actually have a reduction by 900 people for the 2040 because right now our 2040 says 22,304. >> That's correct. And that's based on the decrease of the average household. >> Our current comp plan for 2040 has the 22,000. >> Yep. >> So it was surprising to us too because the numbers were much higher and then came in lower >> which essentially is the same as what Still Water has for 2040. >> Wait, so this isn't that's not the number when we did the 2040 comp plan. That's not the number that we were at. Correct. The 22,000. >> No, the total number population at I think it was 11,000. projected that it would go all the way by 2040 to 22,304. >> So I just I thought that projection was higher when they originally gave us the numbers that we were aiming for for 2030, 2040, 2050. That was the number. >> You don't have anything. >> So if I can jump in. So the the numbers that are not in parenthesis, these are in your current adopted comprehensive plan. So that would have been the forecast that the city adopted in 201819 when the 2040 plan was adopted. Okay. So, >> so essentially the discussion here tonight is to completely ignore the imagine 2050 just anything they sent us and would we be interested in essentially codifying what we see is happening is a faster increase but then we would have an understanding that the 2040 and the 2050 are flatlined until the issue that needs to be resolved doesn't get resolved. >> That's that's correct. That's correct. And then that amendment is typical to an amendment to the Met Council. >> Hey Jason, sorry quick question because can you go back to slide five because I have a question about >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So the the population projection is 16,900 here. Am I >> am I confused on that? So that 16,900 is in our 2050 plan that we haven't started yet. They are projecting that in 2040 we will have 16,900. >> So that's the new numbers that they gave out to us that aren't official yet that we >> and that's the 21,000 number that we're talking about. >> So the amendment that they're suggesting from their original system statement is to go up to 21,000. Got it. Okay. And then what was the reduction that it goes on? There wasn't there a reduction from 22,000. >> So then the 20 or 2040i was going to be 22,000 was what we had in our comp plan originally. >> Yep. So >> right now as of today >> as of today. >> Yep. So council, yeah, you're you're understanding that correctly. The images on the screen here, these are from the system statement that was released in September of last year. >> These are the problematic projections because they're too low. The table contains the 2040 comprehensive plan forecasts that we're basically hoping to go back to because they were at higher at the time. So instead of having this new lower projection, it's basically going back to what we had basically already had an agree agreed agreement upon with the Met Council back when they approved that plan. >> Got it. Do we know did the staffer who did this at the Met Council or their supervisor or their supervisor have any discussions with the court because that seems like a pretty big information gap. >> So, we've been talking to Gail Cedarberg who is our representative on the on the Met Council itself. She was not aware of this White Bear Lake memo. Um they say they posted it, their notice was just put it on the website without telling anybody about it. Um so she basically the it's never it's it's basically a staff level decision. So basically the head of the community development department was the one for whatever reason um came up with this idea and we don't have any idea if they've coordinated with the courts. Uh the feeling is they haven't coordinated with the DNR. That's my impression, but um yeah, we don't have any idea really. >> Thank you. Uh, acting mayor and council, I would like to add um a meeting that was missing from the timeline is our Washington County partners did put together a meeting with county commissioners and then two Met Council members as well as um myself representing Lake Elmo and then Hugo in Oakdale to talk about this White Bear Lake um methodology memo. And so our big ask was for them to go back and um have the staff policy that was put in place reversed and so um we are still awaiting a response from that meeting but that did happen um mid-March. >> Thank you. I assume there's also our modeling for our utilities and for our uh building inspectors for the permits is also based upon the same methodology. Obviously 5 years is one thing, 15 years is another. >> And I am I correct to presume the imagine 2050 numbers have an impact on our modeling that we have for our utility and our revenue streams. >> They would so >> a bad impact. >> It would we have modeling that isn't based on 2050 on the 2050 plan. It's based on the MUSA and the densities that we've adopted. So, we're projecting that out with concerns about permit revenues and everything else that we, you know, or revenues. We just want to know kind of like how that looks like in the next 10 to 15 years. But if they said you only have this many households, then we would really need to do a deep dive on the land use and figure out how we would restrict that number and reduce it. Possibly having more areas for commercial or whatever that looks like, lower densities if that was the case. But I will say that if we move forward with this amendment and bring the number up to 219, it it's in line with our projection. So we should be good um for the next 10 years. >> Hypothetically, if we all say the heck with this, no. Um what would it look like with the the imagine 2050? I mean the 152, 169, 189 when our 2040 is zoned for 22,000 a has a city staff have city staff thought of hypothetical ways as to how we would downzone that certain areas where it might be more appropriate or is that just so so far down the road for steps that that's >> Yeah, so I looked at that. Um, essentially we try to keep certain densities high enough to meet the affordable housing standards that we have to meet. It's about closing kind of the density ranges because if you give provide someone with a range, they typically build to a higher range. Um, so just kind of working those numbers down. Um, and then you would obviously have to look at land use and then determine um where you could reduce households in certain areas. I think I I would say like the 189 you possibly >> could if you did everything that I'm talking about you could possibly guide it down to around like I think I had like 19,200 but so I think they I think they did that um in terms of understanding like what's the kind of minimum that you can have um that'd be a quantum change fiscally for the city to basically stop the machine that we put in place you As far as development goes, it would be a very big fiscal challenge. >> Well, there's going to be a fiscal challenge if we keep growing as well, though. >> Well, it's one or the other. Um, >> can down the road. I mean, we'd be in the same situation if we keep developing. I mean, development does not lower costs. It taxes go up with development. So, >> at at some point, the music stops on the dance. >> What if we stop the music now versus stop the music 10 years from now? we're going to have to have the music stop 10 years from now as well, right? So, I just I want to be real clear about that that regardless, yes, there is going to be likely a tax impact if growth stops. There's going to be a tax impact if growth continues and when that growth stops. So, we're not going to get out of that either way. >> Yeah. And and staff have not analyzed that from the as part of this discussion. um you know we've not looked at the fiscal impacts uh today or tomorrow on that. Maybe just to quick to state on to because I was thinking the same thing with you know if that was the course we went is okay well we want to aim for those numbers. What does that look like for the next year or two before we have the 20 imagine 2050 we have a 2040 comp plan. We would have to be looking at making amendments to our 2040 comp plan over the next couple years and pretty over the next year pretty significantly. Is there >> issues with Met C I mean Met Council would probably have to be understanding of us making amendments to our comp plan if we're trying to meet these new numbers that they originally provided us with. So I'm just trying to So if you're saying when the 2050 plan is adopted at a low number, how would we go about that? Because right now our population >> uh before we complete the 2050 plan, right? We're going off the 24 comp plan right now that was approved by Met Council. >> If if we said yes, Met Council, we the system statement numbers that you gave us of 15,200, >> 16,900, we want to go with those numbers. We're gonna have to take steps immediately to start reszoning and and amending our 2040 land usage that we we put in the 2040 comp plan to to try to stay on track with those numbers if if we actually want to try to not go above. >> If the game was like we need to make these numbers match, we probably can't even do that at this point. There's probably enough projects that have been entitled that that would be a that would be a big, you know, gray area. I don't know how that would work with them. But >> can you go back to the slide that has all the way out to the yearbyear that so likely we already have ones that are titled a population of are 189. I think our population in 2025 will be 15,127. I I you know this was very conservative, right? We don't have the 2025 number. We do have the 24 number. So >> I mean I'm looking at the units because as you said like Limmerick is a big one as well and have they already put in for preliminary plat >> they've submitted. >> Yes. We're reviewing for completeness we'll say right now. So, >> so hypothetically and if they I'm not going to say it. Okay. So, you know, you've laid out potentially 445. Oh, wait. We're in 2026. Gez, 278, 491, 316, 413. Your your statement is that those are things that are likely already entitled. >> Yes. I mean, >> which and if I go downward, that puts us at a population of in the 18s with things that are already titled. You if you look at 2026 that is the building construction start year. So from 2024 counting you know from 2023. So everything that occurred in 2024 25 and what we are planning for 2026 it grows to a total of almost a thousand units in those three years which is you know roughly 2500 people. So >> because it's also roar is it roars? Roars is is counted in this, but there are about 200 units. >> So, >> we also have inwood town homes, inwood apartments. >> So, when you look at we're talking about 900 people over the next 14 years. I don't know why we're having such stress over that, you know. >> Well, I I mean, I think part of it is people fought pretty darn hard to keep these numbers as low as possible. I mean, went to Supreme Court in an effort to to keep these numbers as low as possible. I I I almost would have to imagine Met Council was probably had their head snap when we started saying, "Hey, we want these numbers to go up given the the kind of the fight that we've given them." You know, now I get it from like obviously from the staff perspective like what are you supposed to do? These are the the predictions or projections that we've given. You know, you're going off of that and you want to make sure that there's enough infrastructure. So, I completely get the ask for that amendment, right, based off of what we've made decisions on. I just I think those decisions were were forced in the sense because Met Council said you have to do this despite Lake Elmo not wanting to to do those things, right? And so I it is challenging because I I look at this I'm like man we have an opportunity to get kind of what we were originally looking for when we had this debate with Met Council years ago. Um we're we're unfortunately so far along with development that it is kind of it's a hard train to stop. Um, and so I guess that's where I'm just trying to figure out, well, how do we I I think the residents would be pissed off if we don't try to minimize it as much as possible, just given the history of of how hard we've worked to make sure that number doesn't go up. >> I'm just saying for 900 people, the the re rel the sensitivity of our estimates, you know, is much worse than the 900 people. I mean, if we actually hit 21,400, it probably would be a miracle. I mean, we're, you know, you're going out six 14 years and predicting this development, our chance of actually hitting it, you know, who knows? I mean, what what do you say our sensitivities 20 25% on these numbers? Say that again. >> Our sensitivity on these projections? >> Yeah. I mean, I think they're pretty solid, but there's like you know, the density ranges could throw. But we're estimating at some point. I think the range so it's difficult. >> Um it's also the timing is is challenging too. >> We asking how many houses we're going to build, you know, >> 10 years from now. We you can't tell me how we're going to build five five years from now. >> We just don't know that number. >> And that's we're in a different kind of boat than other people too because we are talking about possibly 900 or a thousand additional people at the end at 2050. like at the end if it could be very minimal if you don't expand the MUSA. So that's another conversation that we're you know we're not having tonight but like your numbers would expand if the MUSA expanded but no one including the Met Council is is asking for that right now. >> How um I I guess I would be very curious to know the the financial impact one way or the other in terms of because we do have the modeling it impacts our budget and our utilities. Um because there's several different possible outcomes here. I I would be very curious. The presumptions we use right now for our modeling are based upon the current 2040 plan. What would that look like with the imagined 2050, the original, and what would it look like with the hybrid that Met Council has recommended and that we're discussing here? So there's really three different paths there. I would be curious to know uh how that affects our utility fund, how that affects our the revenue stream that we presume to be occurring based upon permitting fees. Obviously, that this is one component and I I don't disagree with you, council member Hearn. There are many residents who would jump for joy at the thought that we could put a cap on. And the other reality is we have a population around 18 to 19 that's already titled. The other question that we have for you tonight that we haven't really talked about is there is the amendment to the 2040 plan to kind of write the number and get it back to where it is. There's the other question of is the 214 for 2040 okay to move forward in 20150 or should we proactively work with the Met Council and essentially have an alternative growth scenario when we go forward starting very soon the comprehensive plan. So if >> you say an alternative like an alternative where a situation where our white bear lake issue is resolved and it's no longer hovering over us alternative, >> right? So the timing isn't great. So the idea is we could wait for the White Bear Lake issue to be resolved. We that would be ideal, but we can't really wait. We have to have this completed and we're running up against other timelines. >> Our our comp plans are due December of 28. Um the uh report to the legislators from the Wiper Lake group is due obviously as you all know June of 27. Um we'll be coming back to you. Um we're going to get our final studies done um by July of this year and we're going to spend maybe four or five months as a group trying to come up with a consensus of what we feel is the most bang for the buck for stabilizing the lake. We'll be coming back to you here in the fall and January to see if get buy in from 14 different cities for the preferred solution. Once we get that through, hopefully all 14 cities will approve this. Uh it won't hit the legislators till the uh 2028 session if it's going to be funded by the state. So the funding is is one of the big components. We don't know where or how it's going to be funded. Uh there's a lot of contention to to say the least to have individual cities pay for this recreational improvement. Um in my in in my assumption here is you really can't wait for this White Bear Lake issue to be solved to address your 2050 comp plan at all. Um because it's just not going to happen in a timely fashion. So >> So the option with the alternative would be to set a number. We would work with the Met Council. It would be an estimate. We think it's anywhere total build out in the Musa currently with the land use is 225 to about 25,000. So trying to get a better idea at when we move forward with land uses to provide that number to them. And should we move forward with that number? The alternative to not doing that would be if you agreed to amend the 2040 plan, we would have a 214 for 40 and then we would just plan for that for 2050. >> Would we have to amend the 2040 as well to if we wanted to go to their system statement numbers? We'd have to amend our comp plan as well then >> to go to the 15,200. you're trying to reduce it, we wouldn't have to do anything. We would just move forward with the process, adopt the 2050 plan. We'd probably be above the population. >> Um, >> okay. >> By how much? You know, I don't know. But it puts us in a >> it puts us in a spot where it's unsure how we'd move forward with the entitled properties and the sewer capacity and doing the sewer study that's going to go along. Can I make a little discussion point on that? >> Absolutely. >> So, and I think you you mentioned it, council, about like or I can't remember who said it, but the development's going to happen when the development wants to happen. And I, you know, okay, we're ahead of we're ahead of our our determined schedule as of right now. And that's probably because Lake Alma was such a hot market for developing and so so much occurred early on, right? And then it was going to slow down as a result of that. So, I think we've seen a large amount of that development happen. I think if we if we set these new numbers that they allowed us to have of the 16,900 18,900 yes we we may we may be above that in 2040 but I think we can make adjustments to our 2050 plan to put us closer to that 18,900. I would rather us have to go back to that council and ask for an increase >> because we can't ask for a decrease. >> I mean, I when they issued the imagine 2050, they weren't aware that we already have a population based upon what's been entitled that is well over 169. They they're not aware of that. So, they threw out that 169 number. They have no idea that we already have with what's been approved a population that >> correct. Yeah, >> that that's the I wish they Well, again, they're not going to ask how many cities are there in the seven county. I mean, there's 200 cities. They're not going to be checking in on everything. So, I I'll give them some difference there. >> I take great issue with how this even came to be on their end, but >> it looks to me like with the 413 homes in 2029, we'll be at 18162. our population those are already committed. >> Let me go to the slide so I can see it. >> Is that confirm that is committed? >> The the first is the building construction start year. >> Sorry, say that again. >> I just I don't I'm just I don't know the question but you were referring to this chart. The building construction start year is the top portion. >> Yep. >> So that's 2024. That is units that were started in 24. >> That is accurate. 25 is accurate. 26 is an estimate that's fairly accurate. And 27 is where the limmerick development starts to push those numbers up. But if you take the way the chart is set up, and this is before we knew the Met Council's population methodology, because we were working on this very quickly, you would take that 24 number, which is a population of 598, and then just apply it to the 2024 population and it skips a year and it shows that the population like after the construction, after everything's done, we expect in two years those units to be occupied. That's the methodology of that. from the construction start year there's two years to fully occupy those units. >> So in 2027 491 units built the population as a result that will be 18162 years later. >> Yep. That's correct. >> So we're already pretty much 1816 just pretty much guaranteed >> based on current development plans. >> That that is true. I mean, just to throw this out here because I know we're not talking about um projects that are not entitled, but we have other projects. People come all the time. They know what the land use is. They're looking to develop land between Lake Elmo and Keats and trying to figure out plans for that. So, I see the this if it goes forward, we have a 10-year window where we're going to have a lot of um developers looking to develop. We talk to developers all the time in different parcels. So, >> so if we adopt the 21,400, that's not a lot more growth beyond what we kind of have committed to already. >> Yeah. >> And we'd have to we have to slow things down quite a bit. >> I mean, the way the way I'm seeing this is >> what the because the mech council now is aware, at least some staffers are, of the issue, the60 and the 2070 plan. We're not hopefully it means we're not then projecting a 25,000 and 30,000 and 35,000 population because technically absent of that there's no reason that is not a part of the city projections down the road based upon what's available along 36 and buildouts and all all the other additional areas that that is absolutely possible. you you obviously can't subdivide two and a half acre lots but the 10acre the 20 acre the 40 acre lots the city potentially could be 35 to 40,000 when it's all built out and as I recall Mr. Schroeder that's what some of the numbers are that have been given to the White Bear Lake subgroup in the hypotheticals of what's the worst case not worst case the highest case population numbers. >> Yeah. So for the 14 cities we're using the term called ultimate development. So basically where there there is no more land to put one more house on. And in conjunction with the staff here we kind of took a you know wild guess at 20 I think it was like 25,000 or something like that. We thought every when every single piece of land was developed, we thought we'd have around 25 to 26 somewhere in there. >> Oh, yeah. >> Based on current zoning, >> can I can add something too also with the we're not projecting farmland either, just or rural areas, >> the rural uh open space PUB, >> right? It's when they actually go through the process, do we add them to this chart. So like there's areas of unsurred that could increase the population. So maybe this is an opportunity and that if we say okay we'll accept the 214 now as we work on our 2050 comp plan we can plan our development to slow it down and you know build a plan that says we we reached that but if our residents come in during that process and say no we want to see continuing growth well maybe we have an opportunity to up we you know it gives us a chance to get their input and say we can we can we can keep it in that 214 range through 2040 because that's what the bet council will allow us or we can, you know, have more growth if that's what the community wants. It's part of that discussion we would have. I just think the 204 is a no-brainer at this point. >> Yeah. >> Can the council >> whe whether we get more than that is part of our planning. Can the Met Council keep moving that goalpost so to speak on what our population range should be at because I know that we're was it 189 was what where they want us to be for 20 40 2050 >> so >> before they suggested the recommended amendments. So, could they keep pushing that I mean 2060 2070 could they keep pushing that to that 30 35,000 or once we hit 21,000 we've hit the Met Council's goal and now we can slow down construction with houses here. Does that make sense? >> But they they they could and would will keep going up I assume. >> I mean I have an answer but I think I would like staff to answer that one. >> I can answer partly. I think Nathan wants to answer too, but if if the Musa doesn't expand, you you're it will be built out and then you're basically looking at rural development >> and then it's a question of when they do the6070 plan, are they going to require Musa expansion? So, >> yeah. So, I just wanted to Yeah, I'll first say that and then I wanted to underscore something Jason said earlier. So, what we have seen in the last two comp plan cycles is that density requirements for communities have risen. So 2040 the requirement was for Lake Elmo in developing areas within the Musa to be at 3.0 units per acre and now you're required to be at 3.5. So you're seeing over time the required density for this area of the metro is increasing and so I guess it could stay the same. It could go down but what we have seen is that it's going up and I think we might expect that that might continue as well. So that might be reasonable to to expect. So that is one thing. Um >> I just wanted to underscore the comment about the forecasts being used for wastewater planning. Particularly the Met Council's wastewater staff um use these forecasts to plan for uh capital improvement projects to the regional interceptors. And so we had the situation with High Point where because the Met Council frankly was behind on projects that from my standpoint as a planner I would have liked them to be way further ahead on. Um because they were behind there was no not enough capacity for the city to add a project in that was a good project or at least that could be you know considered to be a good project. And so, um, I think you'll want to consider that if in your discussion, you know, uh, for reasons that it might be prudent to kind of land the plane with the density kind of with 2040 numbers is just that there have been kind of expectations on the capital improvement side for where the the community will be at. Um, and yeah, so I think that's just important because you can't just snap your fingers and have sewer capacity if this if the city decides to approve a project and you don't have the forecast to support it. So that would be a big concern I would have. Um, and I think the other piece is just the land supply that Jason built into this is I think that that's why this feels right. It's just it takes into account like what land's available within the Musa. And I think you would reasonably expect your 2050 number kind of as Jason said to be in that range between 22 to 25,000 just based on there not being a ton of land that would develop >> between 24 beyond 2040. >> And that 25 is also based on land use policy too. So if you know you increase density and the numbers change, that's where that could come into >> because technically if they increased it in their 2060 plan to 4.0. >> Yep. >> In our areas that we have Musa, it then adds to it. >> Yes. But it's also a scenario where we're running out of land in the Musa where it could be built out by 2040. The other the other issue with water is um you know the DNR when we're looking at allocations and that's you guys are well verssed in that are 472 million gallons is based on 7590 um they're looking at and they don't want to do allocations on a yearly basis. They want to make an allocation for what's out here for 10 or 15 years. If we all of a sudden say we want to have a 2050 number of 189, you probably are going to run out of water because you won't have the allocation when you grow go past that number. That would be a real concern of mine. Um I'd rather have a bigger allocation and not use it than have an allocation that stops and all of a sudden what do you do? >> Now there's in that hypothetical because that there are a lot of cities that do that. Their allocation is something that was created 15 years ago based upon a long-term projection to that you make the request, hey, our new 2050 number is 21,400. Now, let's do the math with this horrible court case and do it at 7590. Make the formula. Here's your appropriation. So they weren't willing to they weren't willing to with their amendments give a 2050 number. Am I thinking of that correct? It would >> that's correct. >> My understanding is there because there isn't a 2050 number in the 2040 plan. This is a way to amend the 2040 plan to a more accurate number while we have the time ability to make an amendment. I mean, do you think they would be open to the 2050 number being 21,400? Like you said, where you know, that's kind of where it is right now. The 2040 number is 19,800. >> So, yeah, we're not getting their original 18,900, but we're also saying, hey, we're not going to go above 21,400. They're giving us an opportunity to slow down our development, which we've asked for for years. And I just I can't imagine trying to get at least something. >> I I think the slow down development if you wanted it to end at 21,400 by 2050, then you would um just have the development phased in and land uses match that projection. If that's >> we have time to do that with the 20 imagine 2050 and make those changes to the land use, >> right? So if you amend it and everything goes based on what they've told us, the 214 would be the number for 2040. You would have a 2050 number that would default to 214 and then the decision is whether you hold back land in phasing. You could build out to the 214. You could phase everything um in a almost in a current phase and just build it to 214 and stop there. Um you could phase it out and know that you can't really meet 214 because you changed land use guidance and phasing and if you don't allow the phasing to move up then they're going to hit a limit within that 2040 time frame. If that makes sense. I hope that's clear. >> No, I think that does. I just don't know. Maybe I'm not saying this right too though cuz like I'm wondering if their original number 18,900 for 2050. The recommend amendment was hey we're not even going to give you a number for 2050. Technically it's going to be the 21,400 but we're not going to even give you a number. We're going to reconsider that number after the White Bear Lake situation is figured out. Would they be open to an amendment where 2030 is 19,200, 2040 is I'm just going to make this up. 20,500 in 2050 is 21,400. So instead of us having to risk this number going up further after the White Bear Lake case is figured out and going from 21,400 in 2040 to now they say, "Okay, hey, White Bear Lake is figured out. You guys can have as much water as you want. >> We want you to >> get to 25,000. Now, >> now we've at least taken an opportunity to slow down the growth, >> cap it. And I just I because I go back to like I I mean my main frustration with this is why do we have to I know some of the answers this but why do we have to be told when to develop how to develop from a from a from a different level. The city should decide that right development should happen when development needs to happen or wants to happen. having someone else come into our local community and tell us how to develop it. Now, yes, I understand shared resources, etc., but we fought really hard saying we don't want that. We want to slow this growth down. So, I think if we're given an opportunity to to minimize that, I think we have to take whatever we can can get with it. And I'd rather heir on the side of going too low and you know asking for more down the road. >> So what I'm hearing is for the 2030 no matter number no matter what. Yeah. The 192 seems practical. >> And I would like to add I think we need to use that as a discussion point with the DNR and the 192 is what we asked for on a 7590 because that would be far more of appropriation than what we have now especially since we know we can show to them the properties that are already in agreement. um 214 start to do maybe discussions as to how we can maybe slow things in terms of additional um phasing in the comp plan. Is that along lines what you were thinking? >> But either way, it's still at 214. To council member Dreich's point, and to my point as well, I do have concerns about the the impacts to the utilities and the revenue streams, but it seems like that we're overall on the same page. It's just maybe the the details of it. But yeah, if there are tools to help slow it, but absolutely the 192 and the 214 and if there are ways that we can cap and slow, we should look into those. >> So, one thing I just want to bring up though is the 2030 19200. I'm just showing this slide. That would be a 10-year. If you were try to slow it from the 214 and reduce it at 2040, that's only roughly a thousand units in 10 years. It would be a drastic emergency break >> for it almost would make more sense to build it out, you know, and get the revenue and start getting the tax base and have a plan to say this is where we want to stop if this is the direction you want to take as opposed to slowing it down and then getting to like 50 units a year when we could just build it to the way you want it and then you have your tax revenue and you know this could be built out and locked in at what you're saying. go for the 214 at 2030. >> No, I'm saying make sure like I wouldn't try to have a 2050 at 214 and then try to bring the 2040 down if that makes sense. I believe that was the discussion. So, I think it makes sense to have the 1920 because we're close to that in terms of our where we're headed. go forward with the 214 and then if you don't want more growth, you would have that 214 plan for the entire Musa if that's the direction you want to take. >> So we could ask for the amendment to say hey we actually do want you to include for 2050. We want you to include our number is 21,400. Please don't leave it blank. >> So that's what I'm hearing from >> that's your solution. >> That's what I'm hearing is your solution. If it's we don't want to grow, then at least we would align the numbers to where we think we're going. It would give us time to modify the land use. It could look at phasing and just figure that out. And then you would basically end with 214 if that's what the council wanted to do. We haven't done any we haven't done a study in terms of how that would affect the city's finances, but that >> that would be pretty close to what the full development from the 2040 comp plan though, right? Like that would be >> yes within 5 within 800 of that. If I can add why that might make some sense as well, it's just that you would have an adopted comp plan that's in effect between 2030 and 2040 when most of that growth is occurring. So you will have less, you know, in this in this hypothetical scenario, you would have less vacant land uh when you're preparing your 20 60 count plan that would be potentially uh needing to get guided at a higher density. So >> help protect from that, right? So, if you're, you know, if you're really, if if the goal is to kind of, I'll call it land the plane, but like, you know, get to that end goal, I think, um, getting the development if it does, if it can and will occur, getting it now does make some sense. Just from that numbers perspective, >> it's better for us to do it at three or three and a half per acre than potentially four or four and a half an acre down the road, which would really tick people off. >> That's where the Met Council start. They actually started at four units per acre this cycle and so many communities >> voiced their concern. Uh folks like Nicole and Jason were reaching out to the Met Council that they ended up moving it back to 3.5. >> Gotcha. Do you need further feedback from Council J? The only other thing I would add is, you know, there's article in the strip. They're back at that um increasing density in existing cities bill in the legislature allowing the um what do you call accessory dwelling units and things like that and this that could affect our plan. I mean, you know, when when you build a mud apartment in your backyard, your mud lab moves in, it can affect that. >> Not happening. >> Not happening. Do you need further feedback from us at this time? >> Be careful here. >> I'm sending her a letter. YouTube. >> Yeah. >> So, I think just clarification as we move forward because we are working on the comp plan. Um, we will start that the so the alternative forecast number. We do not want to use that and just use the 214 currently as a 2050 number >> and identify the 2050 as 214 as well. And that we talk with the DNR using 192 for an appropriation. Okay, >> since we can now show because of the data that came from this, we can show that that's a >> a number. Again, my so I I think that is great. Again, I just want to be clear if there is any way we could get that 214 number down closer to the number they are offering us, I I think we should take whatever measure we can. So if again I you know based off of those p predictions by 2030 we're already close to that 19,000 number. Um you know is there a way to bring that 21,400 number down to 20,500. You know it just I am having a hard time figuring out how I'm going to explain this to people who come up and ask me hey you had an opportunity to drop the number And you we're taking steps to try to mitigate it going higher which I think is great. I just if there is any other way to drop that lower you know and if that means we have to make amendments and change land use sooner than later like I would like to do that but maybe it's just not possible. I think the challenge to that is that we approached them with data and said these are real numbers, right? And this is what we think we're going to I we're talking about very minimal. I mean, I think it'd be difficult. I mean, you want to reduce 500 people. I don't know what the rationale is. I think like they've given us an option to kind of work this into a very >> range and then you know if we were to say well >> our numbers are showing this is the density what could happen is we could either just end up with just areas that are commercial business park where you wouldn't want them that's what we are talking about like with in terms of land use guidance so I I don't know this is what they are using their projections household averages Um >> what I would answer if to that resident because yeah we'll get the question absolutely as the question should be raised >> a response I would provide is number one >> because I've had the statement come up oh you have to meet this population no you don't it's the zoning has to provide for that possible population but our our densities have so much of a range in each zone 214 is just a number within those ranges it could end up being 19,000 based upon what gets approved because what came in now obviously developers come in and want the most right and then maybe density bonus but my response to them would be we we c that's a number but the ranges within each zone still it's a give or take probably a thousand. So I think that begs the question is if that's something you want to do in terms of giving us a range that we can work on when we move forward because we have to establish land use guidance and density ranges. We can tell we can tell you there's this many developable acres. This is the range and this is what we should expect. There are some issues with netting that get complicated with storm water ponds. So it's very difficult to get like exact but if we could work in a range for um for that 2040 number 2050 number >> I mean can both of those be a range of 20 to 214 if it because again our densities allow for that range anyways so it's just codifying what already exists it's not >> and we'll know that too if we can't meet 20 because the density doesn't line up 3.5 we would come back to you and say, "Well, the lowest that we can really do is this number." Do you want to take a parcel that you really believe should be residential and just make it commercial and it doesn't really make sense? I mean, that's kind of the challenge with the population >> thoughts. Yeah, I I um I I I think that may be the best compromise that we can really come up come with. You know, again, I just >> put like a range in there, >> a range in there. I I just one maybe point that I just want to make here as well is like I know sometimes these numbers when we say, "Oh, hey, it's we're only going from 21,400 to 21,000." Like what's the why does that even matter? Well, you know, in 800 unit development of quarter acre lots, that could be 400 half halfacre lots, right? So, it does make a big difference and and what we're talking about as far as like from a development standpoint for the >> and that was a huge push back uh when this originally came up with the Met Council where we had to increase the population density where people were saying, well, hey, like, you know, Lake Elmo, it it fits these 1acre lots. I can't believe we're going from two to one. I can't believe we're going from one to half. I can't believe we're going from half to a quarter. And so, yes, it may not seem like a lot when we say, you know, only 400 less, but that is a big difference in a development that's going to go in. Now, we're saying, hey, you can develop 400 homes here instead of 800 homes. That's a big difference. Um, so I just I I think that sometimes when you have these large numbers, it can be like, well, what does that even mean? That can mean a pretty big difference of somebody's neighborhood that's going in next to them of what that looks like. What if they're all in fourstory apartment buildings? >> Yeah, >> assuming they're all going be single family, right? They're all in fourstory apartment buildings. You know, not not an issue. >> I think we have covered. So, what I'm hearing is if we can get a range in there, Council Member Hearn will take you golfing. >> Okay. I tried. >> Legion Avenue Properties. Yeah, there was a fire there. Got it. There there was a big fire. I don't know if you saw it. >> Successful fire. Successful. >> While this is being pulled up for those watching, yes, there is the fire department did an amazing job. Uh we were out there on Saturday. Uh it was well attended. It was responsible. It was safe and it was amazing. council. Um the Valley Branch Watershed District is one of three wersheds um that serve the lake the city of Lake Elmo. Uh Legion Pond, which is adjacent to Legion Avenue, is a 17 acre body of water without an outlet. Over the last 10 years, the Valley Ranch has done several amendments to improve the shoreline to minimize flooding in these properties. As a result of the of evaluation that was done um about five years ago, the Valley Branch has acquired five properties along Legion Avenue due to high water flooding that impacted the homes. They have since hired a contractor to remove the homes that will which will occur in 2026. Four homes along Legion Avenue are scheduled to be removed um this month into into May and the fifth will be uh is expected to be removed later this summer. The Valley Branch intends to restore the site by preserving as many of the existing trees as possible and planting native grasses around the area. Following uh a one-year to three-year monitoring of that shoreline, um they plan to turn it over. The district is offering the property to the city for potential use as a public amenity or open space. If the city declines, the district plans to sell the par the parcels to on public auction with um with conservation easements which place um which will will restrict any building on those sites. If the choose if the city chooses to acquire the property, they may set conditions with the agreement that would benefit the area um in the future for the outlook. So if that would include just um you know the rightway access to it um just preserving it for the future to come. concept plans that were provided by um the Valley Branch Watershed District um show um just a overall view of what it could look like, you know, uh with some of those amendments that we could that we looking as the city to impose on that. Um would just be, you know, some of those things that they could that we could view uh that could be a view of this property uh forthcoming. One of the conditions that are of a concern to the city is the rightway area in there. If we do not um select to take any of the properties or um we select um just to take one or none um staff did meet with the engineering department and the final property on the far left or sorry far right um would is it of interest to the city u for the purposes of improving that culde-sac area. Right now, it is a T-bone intersection. Um, and staff does believe that improving that to a culde-sac would benefit traffic flow through that area, uh, especially for emergency vehicles. Additionally to that, to the south of that is additional property that is owned by the city that goes out to a wide open parcel. um just working with city staff and our planning department. We have looked at that as a possible access or entryway from um actually the golf course area as a trail connection point to downtown. Currently, we have a lot of complaints of of I shouldn't say complaints, more concerns of people walking down uh Lake Elmo Avenue where there isn't a sidewalk for um a good portion of that. Um, and this would possibly a trail connection or an access way from um from the golf course area down to um Blue Legion area to the Reed area where there's actually sidewalks on 30th to get you to the downtown area. So staff is looking for um direction from city council in regards to if they're interested in acquiring their properties. Um, you know, if that involves uh f future discussions with the wershed district to acquiring the properties or if it's just one or none or none at all, uh they would just sell the properties. Um fiscal impacts to the city, they are willing to give the property to the um to the city. um they're more interested in giving all of the property to the city versus just selecting one or none um for the purposes of they could really restore that wetland area fully um and really prep it for future future growth as far as native grasses and things like that. individually selling those properties off as a concern of theirs because that new homeowner um although would be an agreement from no building there uh may be subject to doing additional mowing in areas where they want to preserve that wetland area. Have they So in these discussions um the cost for them restoring they that's on them >> correct >> and are there options for I waterershed is the waterershed like they have to follow the regulations how much wiggle room is there for what that looks like obviously there wonderful image here but I assume there's probably not too many options here in terms of what can and cannot be done for how that restoration looks like. >> Yeah, that restoration is going to be pretty native, right? So, um I did speak with our engineering. Uh they did indicate like you're going to be restricted to like the trees. Um very limited building at all. Uh maybe a park bench or two. Uh even the trail was likely going to be a mowable area, not not patunamis or any type of gravel. Wash outs do occur, they you know they they would suggest mulch in those areas, right? So I think we would be limited uh on future of that if it'd be wild flowers, it'd be nature preserve, it'd be uh more of a visible viewing area if anything >> because that that was going to be my question in terms of it's not going to have active things. We're not putting a pickle ball court there. >> Correct. >> But in terms of if you're there for viewing a bench, obviously that is on concrete and that's impervious surface. Is that an issue? >> Yeah. I know that's something that they we could definitely work with them if it's limited in size, you know, uh a bench size. We want those to 3x6, right? Just for footing purposes >> because I could see like maybe a bench and or a a picnic table, not shade structure that's 18 by 20, but because if I was in the neighborhood, I would foresee this as yes, this is a place you are out and hanging out for literally an hour or two because you're just sitting there next to a it's a really cool look. It's a lake, but it it's a pond. It is very cool looking and it would be very tranquil, especially if they're doing those prairie grasses and restoration. >> Yeah. >> Can we not have a shaded structure there? >> My thought was just because it's additional impervious because the concrete slab and >> Okay. >> So, I'll just say straight up, I think it would be all parcels, >> do it all at once, but they do all the restoration. Um, I just have additional thoughts regarding because that that.3 acres that the city owns to the south and the trail connection. I think that is a very good conversation, but that's additional be above and beyond that. Um, I fully support all this. I had a resident ask when I was out there, yeah, I heard the city's looking at putting a townhouse there. Like, no, you didn't. No, no, not I something along these lines. Yes. I I think is brilliant. And I was talking with the homeowner who was right there at uh Al Copper Schmidt. He was a fireman for over 20 years for Lake Olo Fire Department. And his description was Legion Pond when his kids were growing up. You could literally walk in it and you'd be at knee height in the middle of it. But it's gotten deeper over the last couple decades as there's been more impervious around the area as the thing has increased in how much it floods each time. and it just hasn't lost as much water and it's one of the one of our uh landlocked basins but it has changed tremendously and now it it is an asset in that regard but I will I will stop I said my two cents >> how's this fence with the park plan that we did recent rec recently is anything mentioned in there >> so um one of the things that was mentioned in there you know and um Mayor Kaden had brought it up maybe at our last actually meeting. He's like, "Has the city ever thought about selling park land?" Right? And one of the things that does come up on our parks master plan is like we do have a number of properties throughout the community through in some of our developments that are on the back side of properties that aren't developed. They're small. They're not able to be incorporated into anything if it's a play structure or anything like that. One thing unique with this one, it's going to be more your nature, your sightseeing things like that of more of a passer by. if you look at those features of that trail connection, things like that. But yes, uh, council member Dragus, going back to your conver your question, um, the parks master plan looks more at like minimizing minimizing or not taking on properties that are this small in size, uh, if they have no value. >> I still think we should take it on, by the way. I just didn't know where it fit in, you know. thoughts. >> I too much. >> I think it's great. I can you um explain again who would be I thought you said something about certain residents taking care of like the mowing of the properties and stuff like that. Can you explain that again? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, only if they were to sell it off individually. If they were to sell off these lots or they put them on a public site, likely they'd be bought up by one, two, maybe maybe five different people, right? And so then they would all have to their little mowing plan and things like that. They'd all be separate and you'd have people driving down there likely >> and they wouldn't even be able to put a business on there. It would be unbuildable. >> It's not buildable either by the city or by additional property owners. So anybody else that buys it, they'd be restricted to the same conditions. Um >> they might they might you might have five boardwalks out there at some point, you know, if it was sold off individually, but um they'd be still be restricted to the same things that we would. >> And does public works have the bandwidth FTE wise to take care of a property like this? We would need to hire a seasonal person or how would that work? >> So with with a concept like this, there'll be very minimal. Um >> yeah, >> very minimal. Our mowing contractor currently mows our lift station down uh just south or sorry to the north of this park or this proposed area. Um likely they would do any type of mowing if we did do anything there. Likely it just be right along the curb edge to make a curb appeal. >> Sure. >> Um as well as that mowed trail potentially. That would be about it. Um additional trees could be planted in there. Uh we can make that a recommendation possibly. Uh but otherwise we as a as a parks commission that's one of their philosophies to continue adding trees to some of our our open space or our park areas. >> And this is probably way further down the road, but I see some canoes in there. Those be cityowned. Do we have rental? >> Yeah, this is just a concept. Again, that's just something they kind of threw out there as like, hey, potential uh of what what could happen there. A canoe area is not a permanent structure. So that's kind of kind of a concept they threw there. very quick concept. >> Are the large trees identified on that? Are those the ones that already exist on the properties? >> Uh several of them are uh some of them closer to the curb are uh newly transplanted ones, but uh uh but most of those are current ones that are >> because I would just my two cents would also be not to plant any additional trees that are going to be large because the homeowners on the east side of the street now are like we now can see the lake >> and that's that's a fantastic view for them. So, I wouldn't want to be adding any additional trees that would uh limit that view. >> Yeah, >> unless they're like the miniature three-foot ones that are just for cool, but that would not fit in this area anyways. >> Yeah, I think this completely makes sense to do $500 at the most. It looks like what we'd spend for this. I mean, if the city is is uh I think be careful here like I could I would donate that to buy I mean this would be a very nice feature. Um I just and obviously this will happen. I can't wait to hear the parks commission's feedback and suggestions for this. We already got a email from one of them with some great ideas. And so I just think that will I assume that would be part of the process, right? like this would go to parks commission and they'd give their suggestions and feedback because I think they're going to have a lot of really good feedback and suggestions for this as well. But I definitely am on board with moving forward. So related unrelated to that, the 1.8 8 acres that the city owns on the other side of the houses on the east side, which used to be the old sewer infrastructure for the system they had 30 years ago. What a resident there was asking me about that. What how does that fit in our long-term because it's not a public works site. It's it's technically an engineering site, but do we have thoughts like does it get mowed by the city? What is it amenity in any way? Like, >> yeah, I I'll let Jason speak, but we do mow once a year. So, >> we have the EDA work plan. We're going to look at all the parcels this year and come up with a plan for each parcel. So, basically, should we sell it? Should we keep it? If we keep it, why? And then how we should approach selling property. So, >> seeing as it's completely landlocked, there's no connections to it whatsoever. >> Thank you. Do you need further feedback from us? >> Uh, no. I think >> this amazing idea that's very affordable. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Future agenda items, Miss Miller. >> Um, we did have a change I uh our engineer sent out today. So, um I don't have it pulled up right now, but I do know we went over it earlier. And so, it looks like the only thing that will be on the regular agenda will be the quarterly goals update. and then a few consent items. So, right now it looks to be pretty light agenda. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Miller. Above and beyond that, it's time to go home. We are adjourned at 8:50. Happy birthday, Mayor.