All right, we've got a pretty full agenda this evening. So, I'm going to call this city council meeting for the city of Lake Elmo to order here on May 19th. Please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance. [clears throat] Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. June second. >> All right. Thank you for that. We do have agenda that was prepared. >> If uh I could [clears throat] I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> Motion to approve the agenda as written. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> I. >> Agenda is hereby approved. Do we have any public comments or inquiries this evening? Did anybody hand in a piece of paper? >> No, they did not. >> All right. We uh have the minutes from the council meeting on the 19th of uh May. If I can get if there's no nothing wrong. Nobody caught anything that was uh incorrect in there. I'll I'll entertain a motion to approve those meeting minutes. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to approve the meetings for 51926. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Minutes are hereby approved. On the consent agenda this evening, we have approved payments and dispersements. Approved new hire public works operator. Approving fire captain hiring Hathaway. Approve fire captain hiring Prester. Approve fire captain hiring Wagner. Approve community development intern posting. Approve public works lawnmower purchase. Approve security reduction for Lake Elmo town homes eight at home apartments. Uh the 2025 state performance measures data. I'll entertain a motion on the consent agenda. >> Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> We have a motion, a second. All those in favor of approving the consent agenda is presented, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Consent agenda is approved. First on the regular agenda, we have uh Old Village Gardens improvements phase two. >> [snorts] >> All right. Good evening, mayor and council members. Um, tonight I'm presenting to you uh with a HKGI. Patrick's with me here as a representative the Old Village Gardens phase 2 project. uh last year was a phase one project. So we'll presenting today for phase two. Um I'm going to go over the project uh overview the purpose BC selections and motions expected project purpose. Um project purpose is 2025 goals of the work beautifification recommendation by uh connect lake Elmo that was done in September 10th of 2024 at the council workshop. [clears throat] uh informal general public, local residents, businesses of the proposed work uh and obtain their feedback about planting preferences uh to update the fresh planting beds to make more inviting the downtown area. Uh the sites selected sites appropriate plants and improved beds for successful establishment. The project purpose of this year for 2026 goals of the uh work [clears throat] to build on momentum phase one install installation of bulbs, perennials, shrubs and trees along Lake Elmo Avenue. Installed two new trees locations to enhance the consistency of Ry along Lake Elmo Avenue. Recommend to replace three additional trees on the east side of Lake Elmo Avenue with small ornamental trees more suitable for the spaces. recommend pruning of existing trees on the west side of Lake Emel Avenue from the phase one project. Um the species selections for the 2026 selection pollinator friendly species seasonal stress [clears throat] was was looked at. Common name Patriot elm botanical name is patriot uh these trees average height is about 35 feet and width is about 25 feet and a low maintenance fast growing tree. Uh the second tree was a common name is a triumph elm a botanical name known as Morton glossy and that tree gets a height of roughly 45 ft with a width of 30 feet. Um they're also moderate maintenance tree growth rate in those that particular tree species is fast growing. Um [clears throat] part of the tree plantings is the phasing. Um spoke with Washington County engineers about uh tree planting considerations. Three trees were installed in the planting beds for 2025 where soil volumes are most favorable and utility conflicts were minimal. Um we've identified space for two additional trees along Lake Elmo Avenue North that could be added in 2026. Uh this will require hardscape work to be create new plant beds. Three existing trees along Lake Elo Avenue are smaller ornamental species and don't accomplish the desired sight lines should be they should be relocated and replaced with larger shade tree species like we were discussing [cough and clears throat] too far. Okay. Uh recommendation. We're looking for a motion to approve the 2026 HKGI proposal for coordination, construction, drawings, contractor selection, bidding, and construction administration for the implementation of the new and replacement trees along Lake Elway Avenue not to exceed $16,470 in 2026. I can uh also say that this money will be coming out of streets funds which will be under contracted services. There's $53,000 budgeted for this. [clears throat] I be coming back to council at a later date for uh recommendations or for approval for the contractor for the work to be completed then. So this is just the first part of it to authorize for the scope of work for HKGI. So on that any questions for myself or Patrick here from HKGI? Any questions? >> Any questions? Yeah. >> Maybe this I can't remember because this is I when we did this last year, it was before there, but how much did we end up spending on what we've done so far up to this point for this >> for the the the flower beds? >> Sure. I would have to take a couple minutes and research that. >> Okay. because I just I know in my head it was around that 50,000 mark [clears throat] that we had had the conversation, but I couldn't remember if that included money for putting in trees that we had talked about here or if that was simply for what we did last summer. >> It was for Yeah, we talked about last fall that there would be additional costs for trees. Okay. Because of the hardcape that needs to be done, I believe is what's the driving cost, but I can look to see how much we already spent on this project, too. >> Patrick was saying that's correct. It was done. Correct. Yeah, we we were approved to do the work last year for phase one and so this is what we were considering phase two [clears throat] project and so the money hadn't been allocated at this point. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any further questions? >> Yes. >> Um so again kind of with what has already been done um it did seem like it looked like one of the tulip beds this year did struggle a little bit. I guess I just was kind of looking for a little clarification on maybe what happened there. >> What the process is moving forward or what the correction for that is. >> Yeah, you're I think you're talking about the southern uh east side >> correct. Exactly. >> Yeah. It was ran over by a snow vehicle. >> Got it. >> Yep. Okay. >> So, the recommendation is to put reflectors in those beds. So again with those plants, will they regrow next year as a perennial or is it do they have to be replanted? Both. Uh so some of the bulbs are expected to come back. Other plant material in the bed does need to be replaced, but we're still under warranty right now under the first year or under the installation. So those should I think the city is working with Hoff and McNamera the contractor to figure out how to handle the cost for that. >> Yes. Yeah. So, HKGI just got me the final walkthrough or what they suggested. So, now I'll be in contact with Hoffman McNamera to to follow up with the warranty work. >> So, the hope is that it with the warranty those would be replaced at no extra cost. >> There may be, but I'm thinking with the damage being done by a another vehicle that we will the city will have cost to it. >> Was it a Lake Elmo plow or Washington County? >> County. >> County. Okay. We're speculating. >> Yeah, >> it's hard to say. Just from the alignment or the bump out there looked like not knowing the operator didn't know that that was there and kept straight. >> Okay, >> that's all I had. >> All right. Yes, council member Holtz. >> Timing wise, I assume plantings would not be in the middle of the summer for trees. Are you looking fall or am I completely wrong? >> I think we would be talking about the fall. Yeah, the fall of 2026. Right. Thank you. >> Maybe maybe late summer, early fall, August, September this year. >> And I presume with the irrigation bags or are we [clears throat] looking to do watering? >> I think irrigation bags would be the easiest solution. Um, you could suggest to local business owners to continue watering at a later date, but I think the irrigation [clears throat] solution. >> Okay, [snorts] I entertain a motion. Motion to approve the 2026 HKGI proposal for coordination construction drawings contractor selection bidding and construction administration for the implementation of new and replacement trees along Lake Elmo Avenue not to exceed $16,470. >> Second. >> All right, discussion. I will say [clears throat] that I've gotten a few compliments from people down there. I'm sure Matt's down there more than more than I am for his business, but uh I had to get my ice cream on yesterday and got some compliments from people. So, job well done. I mean, [clears throat] excluding the plants that were damaged by a plow, but uh I think some people really like the color. So, thank you. >> Thank you, >> Council Member Hearn. >> Yeah. So, I Yes. So, I I I've definitely benefited from this. a businesses right down on that street and it's it's absolutely been gorgeous to look at. Um I [clears throat] was I was a little bit hesitant even in phase one um with spending this money just from the standpoint of um I feel like the businesses on that street benefit from quite a bit. Obviously the residents as well and you know it's a highly used area so I do want to make sure it does look nice. Um I I guess from my perspective I feel like the city has invested a pretty large sum of money into this already. Um, I I feel like the city's done their part. I I I I I don't really want to spend any more money specifically here. You know, I mean, this is we're just looking at getting ready to do it, you know, and then what those expenses are [clears throat] going to look like to actually do the construction, purchase the materials. I'm guessing we're probably going to be looking at another $50,000, you know, going down that range, just going off the numbers that we saw from the projects last year. I could be wrong. Um, I I I guess I am opposed to this. I I don't think we need to spend any more money on it. I think if the businesses in that area want to see this beautifification, I think they need to step up a little more in the the the property owners in this area. Um so council member Holtz I I fully support this on the standpoint of um it is beautifification of an area that requires beautifification. Um we've done it in similar areas. We made it a priority on Fifth Street to update the medians to provide watering and plantings there based upon feedback from the community. And I didn't feel there's something that homeowners or property owners nearby should be doing. Um, while this is a county road, it is our downtown. And I if [clears throat] we were in the $200,000 range, if we're in the half million, I think that's a vastly different story. But I consider this an investment in the community. No different than our discussions for our celebration in September. Um, ongoing costs are obviously something that we have to be aware of. You know, how much is public works being asked? How much does this add into the yearly totals for all the things that happened in the summer? But that's also why we specifically look in terms of the plantings, what are the lowest maintenance items that we can do. Uh so I I fully support this and I when I think of downtowns and we appreciate that the concept of a small town value and downtowns are part of that and I I go to other small towns all the time in greater Minnesota and your your visuals in downtown are a part of that. Your businesses are kept up. You have landscaping. you have vegetation and eventually we'll have the conversation about our flag poles, but that that to me is a part of downtown. Um, so I I support it. >> Okay. Anyone else? >> Yeah, I mean I would I I second what you're saying, Councilman Holtz. Um, I think that that beautifification is necessary for our downtown. like you were saying, when you come into a small downtown, it should look the part. I mean, we're a beautiful city. We should have a beautiful downtown as well. Um, I don't think the business owner should be responsible for a county road or a city downtown. So, I'd be in support of it as well. >> All right. >> Oops. I was going to say, if I may, I did find the cost if you're interested. Last year um the contract was for 21,400 for the plantings and then we do have a annual maintenance cost right like $4,000 >> $4,000. Yeah. I will say that I appreciate uh council member Hearn's concern as much as the businesses are there. Uh and and but I but I also think as a city we we want to support those businesses because those businesses are good for the city and what what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? So um I want that area gets a lot of attention. It's our old village area. While we have 24 square miles, um I think it's important to make it inviting for the businesses because the businesses are part of our community and and so for that reason, I'm I'm going to I'm going to vote in favor of it. So, um I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion to approve the 2026 HKGI proposal, please signify by saying I. I >> I those opposed same sign >> I >> All right pass for one. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> Next we have Lions Park master plan. Mr. Swanapole. >> Thank you mayor and council. Uh park Lions Park master plan. Updates to the Lions Park um started in 2024 with the with staff presenting that to the parks commission. We met with them on two different occasions to go over the scope. This this project was identified as part of the 2024 parks master plan. They identified Lions Park being an individual park that should have its own master plan. As we began to put items [clears throat] in the CIP for updates there, that item got brought back on into conversation about having its own master plan. The commission requested that the master plan process be directly in line with the recommendations outlined in the 202024 master plan which identifies the areas as a potential destination community park uh which would serve residents uh visitors and larger gatherings. Um the issue before the council tonight is would we like to seek the Lions Park master plan based off the current scope. Uh the city is initiating a development of the the Lions Park to guide the park's long-term vision. City staff will collaborate with uh uh with a consultant to assess the current needs and evaluate the existing facilities and infrastructure within Lions Park. Um we plan to facilitate community engagement along with development and uh development and distribution of surveys and other outreach methods to gather public input, perspectives, and priorities for the park's future. The consultant will be asked to prepare two alternative plans to reflect the community's feedback and to identify the needs of the park. Um the current master plan at Lions Park is estimated to be about $15,000. Um that is budgeted in the 2026 uh public works budget for parks. Our options tonight are approve the scope that we have presented uh amend that scope or approve the scope and wait until the 76 acre parcel is uh proposal is completed. As you know, um, our current community devel director presented, uh, just several months ago in regards to the 76 acre. We are seeking consultant for that right now. That proposal does go over a number of amenities that could potentially be at, uh, another site within town. So, there are some pros and cons to doing these together or separate. Um, [clears throat] you can go both ways, and I think that's partially one of the reasons why we have one of our parks commissioners voted against it. Um, sometimes when you put two of these concepts together like that, you don't get uh the variations that that you might have if they're separated where if it doesn't fit here, maybe we could do it here type situation. So, um, with that, I'll take any questions. So, motion. >> Council member Craigness. >> No, do you have an idea of if there's any savings there with doing them at once, the two proposals at once? And if there is, what's the difference of having like monetarily what's the difference of having two different proposals essentially not doing that at once? >> I think the scopes are the the biggest issue there. Two different whole two different set points. But okay, um cost effective wise um this one might get a little lost because of its size >> based off you know uh a consultant really looking at the big picture of a of of that 76 acre. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else questions? >> Council member Holtz. >> To refresh my memory, within the parks um report that was created a couple years ago. We didn't necessarily discuss a phasing and a timing approach for this, did we? In terms of what comes first. It was just these are several ideas and yes updating Lions Park with a somewhat of a master plan maybe centralized items but we didn't necessarily discuss what comes first overall between that or the sports complex. >> Correct. Um they were itemized as like I believe a one through four as priorities. Right. Um don't quote me at this time what the what the master plan was was was set at, but that's how it was prioritized through that um master plan. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Council member Dragusich. >> I don't see any RFQ. Maybe I missed it. Were you asking for a price for the services? Is this just an RFQ and later on you'll negotiate a price with the qualified consultant? >> Yes, we're looking for a quote kind of at this point to like really identify those consultants to because one of the biggest things is community engagement. I think our parks commission is very heavily on what what what is involved, how much input are we going to have? And so they really want to use that as an option as all a cart option to say, "Yeah, we want you to come back to us and have this discussion two times. We want you to be able to uh seek three different things in the community to get feedback. Um but be able to really pick and choose from that to stay within our budget." >> Okay. Thank you. >> Was there any discussion on where you would post the RFQA? >> No. Yeah, council member, >> that did spark a kind of a thought or question here. So, with the [clears throat] when you mentioned the parks commission really wanting that community feedback, would this be something with the new software with the survey software that we're acquiring that we'd be able to get some of that information from so we'd be able to get community engagement that way? >> Yeah, I mean, we do have the poll platform right now. So, we are initiating um the community surveys such as the one that's out there for the 180 acres. Um but if you're asking about the national community survey like the statistically sound one, yes, >> if this if this were to come later then you when we're creating our custom questions um we could look at creating custom questions specifically related to Lion's Park. >> Okay, maybe a better way to ask it would be based off the non-custom questions. So, the defaulted questions Would we be able to pull information regarding what community members might want to see in the community from that or is that not going to be specific? >> There are some questions in general terms about parks. Um but we can create a survey and on any topic and questions. >> Okay. >> But we would um just like we plan to do um other with hiring a consultant. They will be helping create those questions for the 76 acres. Same type of thing. If there's a consultant for this, we would um partner with them to create the questions, but then we could use our tool. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I Adam, I didn't see this in the park plan must include what you're doing. Um, I'm assuming that something with that uh concession thing would be included in that. And this is all about how to do it and phase it and costs and what >> do how to phase it, what that might look like on those concept plans. Yeah. Uh funds, things like that. >> Right. Right. Okay. >> All right. I understand it. No. Anybody else? Right. Is there a Is there a motion on this? >> Yes, there is. >> No, >> I'm missing it. >> Move >> motion to approve the outline scope and RFQ and seek consultants for the Lions Park master plan. Am >> I missing that? >> On the first page. >> On the first page. Thank you. >> Under recommendations. >> Oh, I was too far down. Thank you, sir. I'll entertain a motion. >> I just made it. >> Oh, you did make it. That was That was a the motion tricky way to make it. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second discussion. [clears throat] >> Council member Hearn. >> Again, I might be kind of the lone one on this. I think I do agree a little bit more with that the parks commissioner. I I just I don't know about the timing of this. I I kind of I feel like with the 76 acres, the sports complex, I have concern that if we do these at the same time, we get community engagement with both at the same time. We're going to get community members who are assuming that maybe stuff that will happen at the 76 acres isn't coming. They won't know that that's going to be there. Um and then we get requests for what should happen at Line Park. And then there's uh doubling of items or redundancies that we don't need. And so I I like the idea of the the the um [clears throat] the lines park master plan. I just I don't know about the timing and I and so you know one of the options that you guys gave us was approve the SCA scope but wait until completion of the 76 acre. I mean, I I kind of tend towards being okay with that of I think the scope is fine if we already know what's going on at the 76 acres, but I I still would be a little bit concerned of the community feedback, the community input of something that's not developed, something that hasn't been created and used yet, getting appropriate community feedback of of what the the residents need. Right? If they say, "Hey, we need more baseball fields." but they don't realize four baseball fields are going in there. How useful is that information at this point? So, I I love the scope. I just don't love the timing of it right now, I guess, is where I'm at. And I'm open if there's like a specific item that the commission really thinks is important. The the concessions or the the [clears throat] sun shade, I think that's something we absolutely visit, but just like on an item by item basis. And I I just I think Lions Park right now suits a lot of needs. I maybe you do hear a lot of complaints about issues or lack of amenities there. Um but I I feel like it's one of our best parks, if not our best park at this point. Um and so I I guess mine is the timing issue is my main issue here with it. [snorts] >> Council member Holtz, I fully concur with that. I fully support going down the route of the master plan for this. I just don't support it this time. Um I don't want to go down that road of there are possible amenities to start looking into when it turns out some of those amenities might be more advantageous to go at the 76 acres. And I want to make sure we're using our resources effectively and that we're being held accountable for our for our resources. I I think there's also there's also the impact of we want to have feedback from the community. I hesitate to have multiple things going on where we're asking for feedback. I'm already starting to see some mixing of ideas regarding the 180 and the 72 on social media. And so I don't want to necessarily add a a third item to that mix. I would rather be very intentional and purposeful and progress through this and make sure that we are going one at a time. Again, fully support going down this road. There's always things to improve upon. I just do not support it at this time. Council member Jang, >> you know, I I appreciate your concern about the confusion, but I think if it's explained correctly to the public, they'll understand this is Lion's Park and not the 180 acres, not the 76 acres. You know, right now what's going on is there's confusion because they haven't explained exactly what the scope of this study would be to gain an understanding and in the context. So, we do have the 76 acres that we'll be dealing with as well. I I just give the public a little more credit than being able to distinguish between those. And I think the consultant's task will be to make sure they understand this is in the four corners of the Lions Park and doesn't include anything else. Just my opinion, for whatever it's worth. I'm all for the plan, but I I would like to see it wait until the completion of the 76 acre parcel proposal because you do need to plan out and phase things so that you can budget for them appropriately and understand what's needed and what's wanted [clears throat] and what you can you can take on. So to that end, I'm I'm probably also on that uh approving and and waiting until completion. I I like the scope. I know there's a lot of things we got to do there. Um you know, primarily the thing I hear about is the the uh pickle ball court deterioration because of the hockey rink and that's freeze thaw stuff happens. Um so I guess that's where I sit. Yeah, I I agree. I think I'm in lock step with with you guys there of love the scope. I think we should wait. I like Councilman Holt's comment about being intentional about let's go one by one. Make sure we don't have any redundancies like Councilman Hearn was saying. I I would be in favor of scopees. Great. Let's wait for the 76 acre And I understand where council member Draasich is coming from with having multiple things because if you don't start the plan now, you uh you know, you just potentially delay things out there and 76 acres is is a big piece and um certainly it can encompass a lot and it's maybe a little bit demographic for some of the things that Lions Park is a pretty contained area, right? I mean, I I don't think you're going to fit more than one ball field in that park and just it's and still have the other stuff that's there, right? So, >> um >> given the opposition, maybe I'll just withdraw my motion. >> Could we just amend the motion? Sure. Council member Jagasich to friendly amendment to move to approve the outline scope and RF key uh and seek it a consultant for the Lions Park master plan upon the completion of the 876 parcel proposal. >> I can agree with that. Okay. >> Majority of my counselors would like to wait until then. I'm okay with that. >> Thank you. >> So, do I need to have that friendly amendment voted on there or can he just >> Mr. Mayor if the seconder is okay with that? >> Is the seconder okay with that? Who seconded that? >> Pragnness. >> Nick. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You cool with that? >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. >> Sorry, that was I got a little lost there. >> Motion to approve the outline scope and RFP and seek consultant for the Lions Park master plan upon the completion of the 76 acre parcel proposal. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> All right. There we go. Thank you very much. You get to stay up there, right? And and I as just point out that was done in the nick of time. [laughter] >> All right. >> By two nicks. >> By tunics. >> By tunics. >> The water transfer station, also referred to as booster station. >> Thank you, mayor and councel. Uh the water transfer station uh also referred to as the booster station is an important piece of the city infrastructure and transfers water from the ideal tower up by public works down inwood to the other our other tower um serving the south. That current water tower is a million gallons and it currently serves about 1500 residents or homes along with 80 businesses. 80 businesses including irrigation um irrigation meters and uh regular residential meters uh in that area. The booster uh station contains two large pumps. Both those pumps pump about 2500 gallons of water per minute down to that um down to that water tower. Uh during the week of May 18th, one of these pumps failed because and became inoperatable. Um, after the pump was removed and inspected, it was determined that the internal components were severely damaged, causing the pump to be taken out of service. Um, just in in conversation with our consultant, they did take out the pump. They reviewed that. Um, one of their recommendations is to review that secondary pump as well. Um, a lot of times these are done within a 10-year period. At this current time, uh, this pump was installed in 2016. So, we're at about nine month or nine years, 11 months in two days, right? So, um, our purpose would [clears throat] be to inspect that secondary pump after completion of repairing this pump if it's tonight. [clears throat] Um, so tonight, uh, should the council proceed with making the repairs to that current booster pump to help with serving that southern community. Um, currently two options we have in front of us are to repair it for about 52,000. That would be replacing the guts with stainless steel. U, what they found with the old one was that those the brass or the um components of that did fail inside there. So they're referring to as using a stainless steel option that is uh definitely more costly and uh time weight is about 12 weeks for that. Um on my personal perspective I don't have 12 weeks uh with our irrigation being as high as it was this last two weeks. Um we [clears throat] have our fingers crossed at night right now. So our second option is to go with the exact same thing that was in there. It's a bronze fitted rotating assembly. Uh we should have that within one to two weeks costing approximately $20,000. um talked a little bit about the rebuild of that pump and what's recommended with that secondary pump after that. Um the cost with that again $20,000 for the pump. Um some inspections of the old pump and motor while that motor is out of commission. We are having that inspected now uh versus so we don't have any problems with that in the future. Um those are normally inspected every year. Uh but this is a full inspection on that motor. So, um, we're looking at a total of not to exceed $30,000 for this repair. This repair wasn't budgeted in our public works budget. However, we currently have $58,000 sitting um roughly in our um contracted services budget that we take that from >> question. So, [clears throat] you know, typically I see a contingency on something in the order of 10% or something like that. This one looks to be 30% contingent over the 19,000. Is there something I'm not adding into that 19,000 that you want another 10 over that? >> So, we have >> What is the total? I guess >> we have first contractor that took it out. Wells Key Drilling uh took out the pump. So, we have expenses there. Okay. >> Adding on top >> and that Oh, you're adding on top of the 19. And that was that 6,800. >> Uh correct. >> Okay. >> So, take it out. So, still got to put it in. >> Clears it out for me. Thank you, >> Council Member Jarassich. >> Does it make any sense once you get this pump going to evaluate the other one and make sure that's we're not done on pending failure and mode in that one? >> Correct. >> So, um maybe something Oh, I'll do that in discussion. And maybe this is what you're going to discuss being the engineer, but yeah, I guess my question is, can you just go into the the technical aspects performance-wise, the difference between the two, the lifespan of the two? >> If you could just touch on that a little bit, >> uh, stainless steel versus the current brass or bronze that's in there. >> Correct. >> Um, the stainless steel is likely going to not be affected by the minerals and the chlorine and the fluoride that's in our water. uh our current um consultants thinks that that's likely some of the problems that may have been caused by the current failure right now. So likelihood the stainless steel could probably last a lot longer. Um looking at our current buildout of the city, the booster station be could become non-existent, non-usable within the next five to six years. Um, if we do end up well six and seven, that booster pump likely wouldn't be needed to fill that tower like it has. >> And it's a 10-year life expectancy on these brass ones, correct? Is what you mentioned. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Per last. Performance-wise, does it impact the performance of the water pressure at all between the two? Obviously, if one's not working, it's not very good. But when they're both working, performance-wise, is there a difference? >> Performance-wise, they're exactly the same. We set our VFDs as far as ampers and hertz in order to just push same amount of water out. >> Sure. Okay, great. Thank you, >> Council Member Holtz. In normal circumstances, would they both be running right right now at the same time, just not full? >> Correct. They both be running >> and right now obviously that is not the case. And so the one that's remaining >> is running about twice as long >> solid. Um so question then there's [clears throat] you know specific money that's allocated in contracted services in the water enterprise fund. Is that something where on an annual basis we are appropriating from the water enterprise fund and trying to estimate the contracted services or is that just a remaining amount that's been there for several years and we just haven't dipped into it for a while. >> We budget every year for contracted services. So these these are funds that we would typically use on other services. think if there's a water main break this winter. We don't have any. So these those are funds that would still remain in there. Um as far as the other part of your question, I don't have the answers. >> Should we have should we be having that conversation next couple weeks just about potentially needing to move more over from the enterprise fund overall specifically into contracted services? Do you you can't anticipate a break, but is this a concern for the We're only in June. Just to make sure that within that budget that you have what you need. >> Yeah, with I think with only $30,000 left in there, I think it's believe 12,000 is being used as a um from our finance director for a a water sewer um um survey or not survey but um >> oh the like um fees looking at the fees. So there. Yeah, that is dramatically reduced as far as what we would have to be able to use throughout the rest of the season. >> All right, sounds good. Thank you. >> Yeah, I'll entertain a motion. >> Motion to approve making the necessary repairs to the booster station pump not to exceed $30,000. >> Second. >> We have a motion and second. Discussion. >> Council member Jagich. With regard to the 58,000 in the budget, you have other funds available in the water utility if we need to make additional repairs that we can move at any time. That fund is not broke. I think it's like memory is like5 or $6 million in cash and investments in that fund. That's my memory. So, um, we could make a motion to amend the budget if we wanted, but if something else came up, we do have the funds to move in there and make those repairs, >> but we don't need to do it now. >> We don't need to do it now. No. >> All right. I like it. I mean, like you said, if we can get Wells five and six, hopefully, [clears throat] you know, this will be well into the life. And I think we need it sooner than 12 weeks. I know what that's about. So, I can appreciate the urgency by which this is, so I'm all for uh what you've got here in front of us. All right. [snorts] I'll call the question. And all those in favor of the motion to approve making the necessary repairs to the booster station pump not to exceed $30,000, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion passes. Thank you very much. >> Next we have 9960 57th Street front yard setback variance. Miranda. Thank you, mayor and councel. Uh, tonight's applicant and contractor is Jeff McDonald. He has applied on behalf of the owner, Richard Edgarsdorf, for a variance at 996057th Street North. Current zoning is residential estate. Future zoning is rural single family. And the request is for a front yard setback encroachment. The applicant is proposing to build a 1,156 square foot accessory building within the front yard setback. And as part of the request, the applicant is proposing to remove an existing gravel driveway to come into compliance with the impervious surface limits. This slide shows the proposed site plan. The applicant will be removing the gravel driveway access on the north side and the gravel parking pad where the new structure will be located. Uh the proposed structure is shown in green. Uh in the residential estate zoning district, an accessory structure may not be located closer to that front property line than the primary structure. In this case, the primary structure is located 143.7 ft from the front property line. The proposed structure would be located 98.7 feet from the front property line. Also in that zoning district, uh the imperous surface coverage is limited to 15%. The property is currently slightly above that and the applicant is proposing to bring the property into compliance by reducing the impervious surface area to 13.4%. So the yellow area shows the city setback area. As I said, accessory structures can't be located closer to that front property line than the primary structure. And in the case of a corner lot such as this one, the front property line is the boundary with the shortest dimension which abuts a public street. So for this property, the front property line is Keats Avenue. The property is also subject to unique site constraints. It is within the Clawwater Pond subwaterhed which has a natural overflow elevation of 974.8 8 ft. So the minimum floor elevation for a new building must be the higher of 2 feet above the natural overflow elevation or 2 ft above the 100year flood level. So the minimum floor elevation for a new building is 976.8 ft which is shown in the orange line. Again the yellow is the city setback area. This substantially reduces the buildable area on the lot. Um the area just to the north of the house is compliant with the city setback and that elevation requirements. However, due to the natural slope of that area, u building in there would require substantial grading activity which would disturb wetland areas, cause tree removals, disturb the septic area, and a building in that location would limit access to the septic manhole pointed out in red. >> [clears throat] >> An applicant must meet the four variance criteria required by city code and state statute. First, the applicant has proven that strict enforcement of the code would cause practical difficulties. Strict enforcement of the code would not allow for a reasonably sized detached structure in an accessible location on the property. Building in a location which complies with the city setback requirement and valley branch regulations would require substantial grading which would disturb wetlands, cause significant tree removal, disturb the septic area and restrict access to the septic manhole. Staff find that this criteria is met. Second, the applicant has established that the plight of the land owner is due to unique circumstances not created by the landowner. The unique site conditions of the nearby pond and its associated elevation restrictions as well as the location of the septic manhole are existing and not created by the landowner. Staff find that this criteria is met. The proposed variance would not alter the essential character of the area. The scale and use of the proposed structure is consistent with the surrounding properties and with the request the site's impervious surface will be reduced and brought into conformance. Staff find that this criteria is met. And lastly, the variance does not impair adjacent properties. It should not have any negative effect on light and air to adjacent properties. The accessory structure would not encroach easements and would remain a fair distance from neighboring dwelling units while also being screened by existing vegetation. Property value should not be diminished from the request and the request should not increase congestion in a public street. Staff find that this criteria is met. The request was distributed for agency review on April 13th. The city engineer commented that the proposal does not impact public streets or utilities and it does not encroach on the public rideway or easements. Valley branch wershed district commented that the minimum floor elevation is 976.8 8 ft and that a permit is not required from them. And the fire department and public works department had no comments. The request was sent for a public hearing notice to the local paper and to surrounding property owners. Staff received one comment in support of the variance from Joan Zman who commented that the location will not impact neighbors and that trees will provide screening. Staff are recommending four conditions of approval. First, that the applicant remove the gravel driveway and reestablish pvious cover. Second, that the building materials be aesthetically [clears throat] similar to the existing home. Third, that the variance is only for a reduced setback to the front property line to 98.7 ft. And last, the variance will expire if work does not commence within 12 months. The planning commission voted to recommend approval of the request and staff are also recommending approval. Uh the applicant is here tonight and I can also stand for questions. >> Any questions from Mr. Miranda? Yes, Council Member Dragoich. >> The only question I have is um in the practical difficulties you cite that the uh the location of septic manhole are existing and not created by the landowner. Didn't the land owner install the septic system when they built the house? >> Yes. But uh where a septic system can go is limited based on the soil contents. So it's not entirely up to the owner of the home. >> Okay. Gotcha. Any further questions? Not I'll entertain a motion. >> Move to approve resolution 2026-040 approving the variance request to reduce accessory structure front yard setback requirement to 98.7 ft in the residential estate zoning district for the property located at 9960 57th Street North with the conditions of approval and findings of fact listed in the staff report. >> Support. We have a motion and a second discussion. I did visit uh his property and he showed me where I was going to be and I agree with removing the the gravel there. Brings down the impervious surface. Um I think you drive by there, you hardly know that building's there unless he puts a neon light, Bud Light, neon light in the window or something. >> Then I have a new conditions of approval. [laughter] But I I think it's I think it's going to be great. It'll help him out. And I think only because of the way the house is oriented in a corner lot, I think sometimes corner lots get a little they get a little hairy and um yeah, I I've been out there. I've looked at it. It It looks like a really nice place for it and I think it'd be good for the owner. So, I'm in favor of it. All right. I'll call the question. All those in favor to approve resolution 2026-040, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> It's approved. Thank you very much. Next on the agenda, we have Lake Elmo Medical Center conditional use permit and variance 8650 Hudson Boulevard North, otherwise I think known as uh High Point. >> Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So tonight's request comes from Clay Quering with Amcon Construction who has supplied on behalf of Matt Brandt with Lake Elmo Medical Center for the property located at 8650 Hudson which is currently the Highpoint Health Campus. Current and future zoning is business park and the request is for a conditional use permit for a medical facility and variance for reduced sideyard setback. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing 65,000 square foot building for a total of about 114,100 square ft of medical facility and office space and they will also expand the parking lot. The facility will provide a variety of medical services such as specialized treatment, urgent care, medical imaging, ambulatory surgical procedures, and primary care. The medical facility use is a permitted use by conditional use permit in the B business park zoning district and offices are a permitted use in the business park zoning district. The applicant is also requesting reduced sideyard setback to 27 ft due to site constraints and the recent resoning of the adjacent property. This slide shows the proposed site plan with proposed expansion areas outlined in blue. So, the 114,100 ft building will consist of 26,000 square ft of medical facility area and 88,100 square ft of medical office area. The facility will employ between 100 and 125 full-time employees and the proposed hours of operation are 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The proposal will expand the parking area to include an additional 195 stalls with a total count of 435 stalls. City code requires a minimum of 396 stalls. So, the proposed plan will exceed the minimum parking requirement. City code also requires that medical facilities have a minimum of two access points and no changes are proposed to the existing two access points. The applicant is also requesting flexibility to the number of wall signs allowed. Um, eight total wall signs are proposed to advertise the medical practices in the shared building. In the case of shared buildings with multiple tenants, a comprehensive sign plan can be used to create visual harmony, a fair distribution of square footage, and allow signs of appropriate scale. The table shows the proposed signs and their uh sizes. I'll also point out that there are two existing monument signs and two parking lot directional signs on the property, and no changes are proposed to those signs at this time. And this slide shows the building elevations with their proposed signs. The applicant is also requesting a variance for reduced setback to the west side property line. A variance is needed due to the recent reszoning of the adjacent property on the west side which is Amamira Apartments that was reszoned from mixeduse business park to highdensity residential on November 1st, 2022. and the new residential zoning designation increased the setback on that side from 30 feet to 150 ft. The yellow area shows the city's setback area. Um the site was originally developed with the intent that the open grass area on the south side of the building would be designated for future expansion. The planned location preserves the wetland on site and existing landscaping and the proposed location also accommodates the existing layout of the building, parking lot, utilities, and access road. The request was sent for agency review on April 13th. We received responses from the city engineer, fire department, landscape architect, and south Washington wershed district. The landscape architect commented that revisions are needed for the tree preservation and landscaping plans. These have been added as a condition of approval. The city engineer commented that the project is subject to revisions related to storm water management plan sets uh traffic impact study and that approval will be subject to meeting the review requirements. [snorts] I can circle back to these two if if questions um are needed. and the fire department provided standard comments on drive lanes, access, addressing, and lock boxes. The South Washington Watershed District commented that the applicant is working with them on design and permitting. Staff are proposing 12 findings of fact for the conditional use permit, which are summarized here. Um, the proposed use should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. And the proposed use should not create nuisances or traffic congestion. The proposed use conforms to the comprehensive plan, meets specific development standards and flood plane management requirements. The proposed use is compatible with the existing neighborhood and should not impact natural or scenic features. And the proposed use should be served adequately by essential public facilities and not create excessive uh requirements at public cost. The applicant must meet the four variance criteria required by city code and state statute. First, the applicant has proven that strict enforcement of the code would cause practical difficulties. Strict enforcement of the code would not allow for reasonable expansion of the medical facility. Uh the recent zoning change on the adjacent western property from commercial to residential introduced new setback requirements substantially reducing the buildable area on site. The existing layout, the wetland and the road access present further constraints limiting potential locations for expansion. The applicant has established that the plight of the land owner is due to unique circumstances not created by the land owner. The unique site conditions of the neighboring property's recent zoning change and associated setback requirements. The wetland and the existing layout were not created by the land owner. The current owner purchased the property in 2025 and the original development intent identified the open grass area on the south side of the building as the designated location for future expansion. The proposed site plan places the addition within that previously reserved area, avoiding disturbance of the wetland and maintaining landscaping. Staff find that this criteria is met. The proposed variant should not alter the character of the locality. The scale and use of the proposed expansion is consistent with nearby properties. The surrounding properties consist of a mix of business park and highdensity residential. and the residential apartments to the west of the property will be buffered by the existing wetland and storm water pond. Staff find that this criteria is met. Uh the proposed variance does not impair adjacent properties should not have a negative effect on light and air to adjacent properties. The property value should not be diminished from the request. The addition would be buffered from the apartments to the west by the storm water pond wetland and proposed landscaping. and the apartment building will be more than 150 feet from the proposed expansion. The request should not substantially increase congestion in the public street. Staff find that this criteria is met. Staff are recommending 12 conditions of approval for the conditional use permit. They are listed in the staff report and summarized here. That the applicant obtain all necessary permits. That the applicant meets the review memo requirements. that proposed signs comply with the comprehensive sign plan. That the applicant execute and record a storm water maintenance and easement agreement and a site improvement agreement. That the variance is only oh excuse me that uh the all past CUPs shall be null and void and that any expansion beyond this approval requires a CUP amendment um and the conditional use permit will become void after 12 months. Uh and then the staff are recommending three conditions of approval for the variance. First, that the applicant meet all conditions of the cup. That the variance approval is for reduced setback to the west side property line to 27 ft. And that if substantial construction has not taken place within 12 months, the variance shall become void. The request was sent for public hearing notice in the local paper and to surrounding property owners. Staff have not received any comments at this time. The planning commission voted to recommend approval of the request. Staff are also recommending approval of both requests and I can take any questions. >> Questions? Council member Holtz. >> Clarifying question just on the process. Does that mean every resident in Amir got sent by mail a notice or how does that work? >> Um my understanding is only that the owner of the property got sent a letter >> because they are renters. They are not homeowners. >> Correct. >> Gotcha. Thank you. Any further questions? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion. >> Oh, sorry. You know what? Maybe >> you have a question. Council member, >> are the uh developers here? >> Just a quick question on the proposed layout. So, on that western aspect of the new um portion of the building, I obviously there's like kind of the road that comes up and it looks like there's a structure just to the left of it. Just curious what that is, you know, since that is going to be the closest thing to the apartments. I just trying to figure out what's in that area, what that's trying to depict. >> Yeah, that is actually, excuse [clears throat] me, that's actually a trailer park where or trailer parking area to put a pet CT scanner. >> Got it. >> So, it'll be for a pet. So that's where that would park. >> Yeah, park. It's actually dropped below the grade. So it's look at you look at it be like kind of like it's almost drops down below the grade a little bit. So you'll only see the top half. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You actually wouldn't be able to see it over the trees probably at all. >> Okay. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Any further questions? >> Okay. Still entertain a motion. Motion to approve resolution 2026-037 approving a cup for a medical facility at the property located at 8650 Hudson Boulevard North based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report >> support >> discussion hearing none I'll call the question all those in favor to move to to approve resolution 2026-37 please signify by saying I >> I >> I >> motion passes. >> Motion to approve resolution 2026-038 approving a variance request to reduce the westside yard setback to 27 ft at the property located at 8650 Hudson Boulevard North based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. >> Support motion to second. Any discussion on the variance? >> Council member Holtz. >> Due diligence due diligence occurred here. The staff report I think is valid. I think the planning commission did it correct as well. I all four findings are agreeable and I think this is not only good variance but also going back to the cup. I thank you property owners for investing in the community for doing this expansion. Uh it's greatly appreciated that you want to do this and uh you are a valued member of the community. So thank you for taking the time to do this. >> And it's now it's not going to be called High Point. Will it be called Lake Elmo Medical? >> Medical. >> You know, hey, >> approved big time now. >> All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor of motion to approve resolution 2026-038, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion passes. Thank you very much. Move on to authorize preliminary design geotechnical services and feasibility report for the 2027 street utility [clears throat] improvements. [snorts] Mr. Stanley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [clears throat] Uh summary of some of the items we're going to talk about tonight, the location of the project, [clears throat] um some of the existing street conditions, uh what we're planning on doing scope-wise, um project schedule, touch on the uh the budget and project costs, and then we'll get to the requested action. So, the 2027 street utility project is in, I believe it's pronounced the O acres neighborhood. Um, it's in the Tri Lakes area about a half mile north of public works. Uh, this map is detailing that location. Um, the existing street conditions are um all generally poor. Uh, the red indicates uh poor streets. Um, I've driven the area a couple of times. Um, I concur with uh the numbers. Uh, and I just want to note that these um these ratings were were done last year, so they're very current. So, [clears throat] similar to past three projects, we are we we're going to go in and and uh do a g geotechnical investigation that will help inform um whether it's a reclaim project or whether we have to do some more invasive payment removal and reconstruction. Um there's no concrete curb and gutter out there. I I want to stop actually there is in a portion of the neighborhood um a portion of that neighborhood has been reconstructed has concrete curb and gutter for the city standard. The streets that are proposed within this project area though have no concrete edging on them. Um as with other projects we are proposing to put [clears throat] concrete curb and gutter on the edge of the road. Uh the street geometrics and widths are will generally be um [clears throat] u met but improved as necessary. We'll also be reviewing um any sort of uh areas that may need to parking restriction per city policy. We'll look at the drainage system and existing storm sewer and recommend corrections as necessary. And these these streets [clears throat] are outside of the city's musa boundary. Um and city water is not there's no trunk lines to the site. So um we're not uh proposing to do any sort of public sewer construction or water main construction. [clears throat] So today I'm before you um presenting about uh you know presenting on what we'd like to do uh looking for authorization. Uh if council is decides to order the feasibility report and preliminary design, I'll come back to council in October uh with the report. Um and then we'll move forward through the fall. Um uh [clears throat] continuing on the 429 process and hoping to have plans prepared um over the winter and be back to uh um get bids advertised start [clears throat] excuse me advertise bids in mid- winter so we're ready to go um right away in the spring and keep things moving for the community. Okay. So I've heard council's comments in the past trying to provide a little more detail here for um project costs and in the budget. Um I've worked with the finance director to try to provide a little more detailed information here. So the in the CIP for this project, we have $2.9 million and it breaks down um as shown on the slide. And I just do want to note um there has been discussion uh in front of council about uh using the storm water uh utility fund for uh those those applicable costs. We are planning on doing that this year. It just it was kind of I think this CIP update was completed before we had a chance to incorporate that. But we are working with the finance department uh to do so. So um I just have kind of a blanket statement that these resources are tentative and subject to future adjustment. Uh as far as project costs right now, um we're we're uh we've submitted a task order with uh $83,625 for uh the preliminary design and survey. Uh just shy of $23,000 for the feasibility process. And then we're estimating uh $25,000 kind of that's been the the number we've used in past projects for geotechnical services. So, the total preliminary design fiscal impact is estimated uh just over $131,000. And I I just want to take a moment, it's not on the slide here, but if if council remembers last year's project, which is similar in scope, similar in size, [clears throat] but the areas are drastically different in nature. Um, we do have a higher cost for our preliminary design and feasibility um, and survey cost here uh, to the tune of right just under $20,000 from last year. And I just wanted to provide a little explanation behind that. If you've driven through the project that's going on this year, the 2026 project, it's a large lot, kind of a state neighborhood, you know, the Lake EML Heights neighborhood, very wide open. Um, not not heavily treated at all. Um, and I would describe the topography as kind of like gently rolling. Um, the Ores neighborhood is an old small lot neighborhood um wedged into um the woods essentially. Um it's it's heavily wooded, heavily treed, a lot of topography, um a lot of curve linear nature to the streets. Um so our our survey uh folks when they were putting together their estimate went out and visited the site and took a look and there's it's just going to involve a lot more field work and that's where that increased cost is coming from. Um so I just wanted to put that out there. That's when I look at the costs between 26 and 27 that's the that's the delta really. So, and with that, um, I have a recommended motion, um, or two actually. Uh, council is asked to consider approving the resolution ordering a the preparation of a preliminary design, the preparation of preliminary design and a feasibility for the a feasibility report for the 2027 street utility improvements. and council has asked to authorize the city administrator to sign an agreement in the amount of not to exceed $25,000 for geotechnical services. And with that questions, questions for Mr. Stanley? All right, there are no questions. I'll entertain a motion. Where's the motion? Motion to approve resolution number 2026-036 ordering preparation of preliminary design feasibility report for the 2027 street utility improvements. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? And I just dialed this slide back to location just you know >> based on my my recent uh comments. >> Any discussion? No discussion. All right. I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion please respond by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed same sign. Hearing none. Motion passes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have is OPLDDR update. >> There's a second motion required on that. >> Oh, is there? I'm sorry. >> Yep. >> I jumped to it. Nate left us. I thought we moved on. >> Motion to authorize the city administrator >> authority to sign a geotechnical services agreement in the amount not to exceed 25,000. >> Second. >> Motion in a second. Any discussion? Call the question. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> All the same sign hearing none. Motion passes. Now we can move on to Mr. First. All right. The other Nate. Uh good evening, mayor, members of the council. I'll bring this open space um OPLDDR update presentation in front of you here. So, uh, this item is, uh, coming back to or, uh, is it's a discussion item that staff wanted to bring to you this evening to get kind of start to get ahead of this topic a little bit, uh, and get the discussion started so that it's not urgent by the time you're you're faced with this question in the future. So, uh, just as some background for you, the city explored the idea of an open space, lowdensity residential, uh, future land use category with the High Point crossing project. At that time, as you'll recall, the developers trying to get creative and bring sewer into their open space development. Uh that project in particular couldn't move forward uh due to a very specific issue uh with sewer capacity for that very, you know, specific area of the community. Um, after re-evaluating this category, staff still find that it can be a kind of a useful tool in the kind of the land use guidance tool belt as it were for uh achieving desirable development that the community has kind of discussed before. So, uh, what would this future land use category entail? Uh, the future land use category's purpose would be to really enable uh more of a new development type within sewward areas. uh a a development type that you've seen before with your open space uh developments that are served by community septic systems. Uh these are these would entail publicly accessible open space which could include greenways and trail corridors and um this also could be a workaround in in future cases for community septic um problems. uh the main features or regulations or policies for this category uh number one it would be used within the Musa. It would have it would have to have a density range of between two to three units per acre. the housing [cough] the the housing within this category would be um primarily or exclusively sorry primarily single family homes and uh the the big uh piece here the big requirement is that open space the open space being 50% of the development um would allow that open space to get netted out of the density so that that's going to be workable within your density tables in your comp plan um for us to be able to net that area out and keep it as open space. Uh the the the kind of the hook from the Met Council side of things is that land has to be publicly owned so that it won't be redeveloped in the future. So that that is an important consideration for the city because if you are going to be considering owning you know in some cases 20 or or more acres that that is a you know maintenance consideration for you. So that's that's the big thing. Uh one thing that we can further explore as we as we go through this process is just you know can we look at um developer maintenance of these or HOA rather maintenance of these areas. That is something that we could consider exploring. >> HOA excuse [clears throat] sorry HOA management of the publicly owned areas. >> Just trying to get creative about you know reducing the city's costs for maintenance. And it's not >> the city paying a fee to the HOA. Uh it could be it could be that the you know as the primary beneficiary of the open space area that the HOAs that maybe there's a reason they can mow it yearly or something of that nature. >> So again that that definitely an area that will have to be explored in a lot more detail as you're >> as you're coming up with those questions. >> So impacts and application we've talked about this a little bit. I think one thing to just be aware of is that, you know, because the future land use range would be between two to three units per acre, that would generally decrease density in the in sewer areas of the city. And as you know, the Met Council in the future uh is going to be requiring you the the next comp plan cycle to be at 3.5 units per acre in sewer areas with new development. So there's a little I'll say there's like a little bit of a math game there, right, to work through. Um I think really thoughtful application of this future land use category could be uh could be would be very important. So thinking about those areas of transition between rural and urban development. Maybe it's u areas where um you're you're sewer you're within the musa but you're abudding an open area. Maybe it's the lake park reserve just for an example. Um and then uh this future land use category if adopted by the city prior to the adoption of the comp plan could certainly be used within the comp plan moving forward in the future land use map. So again as I mentioned there's a little bit of a math game there that would be this category would be taken into account. So uh we're bringing this in front of you for discussion uh because this it could be part of a conversation around the future uh city water treatment plant. Uh, as you may know, that property owner is potentially interested in looking at options for their the rest of their property that's not, uh, you know, provided to the city for the development of that water treatment plant. And so, um, you know, just staff were thinking about options and this could be a good option for for that land should the the city decide to move in that direction. And um so that's that's just one specific application that we can think of right now based on the the the process or the progress that's being made on the water treatment plant uh exploration site exploration and all that negotiations. Um there may not be uh many more opportunities to kind of bring this back in front of you as a discussion. So we just wanted to get ahead of that. And um you also know that the the process to amend the comp plan is rather long. the city goes through its own approval process and then after the city approves it, that approval needs to then go to the Met Council for their approval. So quite a long process to get in front of. So with that, um I think we've kind of hit the high points here and just looking again, this is a discussion. So really staff are looking for feedback on number one are, you know, does the council see a reason to create that new future land use category? Are there questions around it, concerns? And then in particular in that area that we discussed. So, >> Council Member Holtz, >> I would talk, but apparently my button is uncapable of being unmuted. >> You need mine. >> There you go. >> Uh, thank you. Yeah, thank you. I mean, my general take, I I supported this concept before when we were talking about a specific parcel. To me, the feedback that we we hear over and over again that I think can be applied across the city is the concept of open spaces being useful. The visual as much as possible. Now, obviously, there's a spectrum for that, but in knowing what we can control and what we cannot control, I find this to be a very reasonable approach to try to leverage that that passion, that goal as much as possible. So I I think it's very useful to move forward with it. I guess I have a question. This might be related, might not be, but in terms of what is considered MUSA, if you had a neighborhood that was, say it's two acre parcels and they have their own system for pipes, and instead of having a a uh its own plant, its own septic, community septic, if they all just went to the main line that's at the street and it just all dumped into a Met Council. I don't know the right word for it, but just dumped into the place on say 10th Street. >> Interceptor. >> An interceptor. Would those places be considered a part of the Musa? >> So, the Musa is a specific boundary that's established in your comprehensive plan. It's established on the future land use map or in other more specific uh figures. And so for a property to be served by public sewer, it must be located within the Musa. And so if for example someone's on the boundary of the Musa, it's like a thick dashed line. If you're able to see any detail on that map on the screen, um if someone's let's say adjacent to the Musa but not within it, they would need to request the Musa extension for their property to be able to get served by public sewer. So even in that hypothetical which again is extremely might be very uninformed all those places would have to be in the Musa because they eventually go into an interceptor of the Met Council. >> Correct. Anything that's going to be on the public sewer system the city's sewer is generally gravity generally the gravity sewer system that the city has flows into those met council interceptors. So if someone's going to connect to the public sewer system it must be through a mis amendment if they're not within. And I would also agree with the concept that this is good for those transition areas. There's many properties that border the Lake Emel Park Reserve that I think this would be very advantageous. Um but I'll I'll leave it at that. I'm sure others have feedback. I guess just to clarify, so it sounds like some of the major differences that we're having to consider here compared to the OP PUDS that we've done in the past, >> which it seems again that you know, majority of the council seem to really be in favor of those for all the reasons you mentioned. It sounds like kind of the major distinctions here that we have to weigh against now is now we have this 50% of the land that the city now has to maintain, which is one of the big factors. and that if if we do go forward with this by taking areas and doing this OP LDR and having maybe lower density in some of these areas, we're going to have to increase to higher densities in other areas of the MUSA as a result of this. So, yeah, there's yeah, the two questions there. Uh the one is kind of what what's the major distinction between this and the rural development that you've seen before? Um the opuds we've called them in the past, a high point crossing was one previously. Um they are uh very similar to this type of development. Um in in in in function, you might not notice many differences to be honest. Um however, the big distinction is the the land, the ownership of the land. We've confirmed multiple times with the Met Council that yes, that land has to be publicly owned. It cannot be privately owned and under a public easement. it actually does need to be publicly owned. Um they they don't necessarily speak to maintenance. And so I think that's why when we're thinking about what are the cons of public ownership, the pro is that this the city owns and you know can control the use of that land and make it publicly accessible. Uh but the con is definitely the maintenance. And so just looking at how how do we explore that a little bit more? So that that was the first question. Um the second question you're gonna have to help me. >> Yeah, sorry maybe it wasn't even a question but kind of like a statement just for us for discussion too to the math problem. I was told there'd be no math but explain the math. >> So in the upcoming comprehensive plan the city is going to have to identify all future areas of development. So u those future areas uh are potential green field developments that might occur within the next 20 years. uh you know farmland that might be converted into development. It might also be parcels that we know are imminent for redevelopment in Lake Elmo. I think most of the new development will be through green field development. So those are the areas that you have to identify in your comp plan. And then uh of those areas the density on average across the city has to be a minimum of 3.5. >> So when I talk about this is a little bit of a math game. It's really just okay. So, we're as a city allowed to have lower areas of lower density that that is allowed provided that there are other areas that are of higher density that average out to 3.5 units per acre across the city. So, um, that's that's exactly what that kind of match, >> but isn't that what what had to happen in the 2040 comp plan with the, >> you know, we get the Yes. >> the red spots and the >> Yep. [snorts] >> you know, the high density commercial and the >> mayor, that's exactly correct. In the 2040 plan, the city's used that same approach. And I think actually Lake Elmo is maybe a good example of using that approach and really trying to understand what are the areas, for example, the village where we want to have maybe our our density clustered a little bit better so that we can have that lower density elsewhere within the Musa. So I think Lake Elmo has definitely used that strategy before. Um you have LDR areas that have a minimum of 1.5 units per acre where the current requirement across the city is three. So, >> so then would it be then in identifying areas within the city that OPLDR >> would fit as a possible zoning mechanism? Is that >> Yep. So, we have one good example or potential example that we that we know about right now, the area around the water treatment plant possibly. Um, there could be other areas that are identified. I will say staff have not, you know, picked any specific parcels at this time. I think we might have some ideas if we were going to talk about it, but uh really I think we're just trying to see, you know, does the council support this the concept of this uh category generally and so that we can uh start to if opportunity provides uh amend the comp plan before 20150. >> If I could add something really quick with [clears throat] the 3.5, one of the changes the Met Council made is they're allowing for netting out of the storm water ponds. So the 3.5 isn't actually the same as the, you know, as the 2040 calculation. It's kind of a little bit lower. >> Um, also with this, the way we're thinking of OPLDDR, it's similar to just low density residential. So if you're thinking of asking the question like, do we have to have higher density? Like technically you would, but it's the same thing as adding the typical um a low density residential development. So because you get to net out so you know the land. The other thing to add too about the maintenance and something we probably should talk about more but I believe in when we talk about the opdrs that exist that are not on sewer. Uh the maintenance in some of those open areas is pretty minimal when we talk to the land owners. So I think it's one of those things if it's you know high level of maintenance that's something we want to talk about but >> you're like wildflower field prairie stuff. >> Exactly. or if you try to reforest space. I mean, is that is that usable space for if that was a a determined location that a park made sense? Is that open space since it's public space? Could we put a park there or is that out of the realm then of open space? >> You could. Yeah. I mean, just real quickly, the Met Council wants it to be owned by the city. They want it to be publicly accessible >> and so they want people to have access to it. So, if it's trail a good way if we did need additional park locations, this would be >> You want to put some pickle ball courts there? >> I bet you they'd love that. [laughter] >> That'd be great. >> Sorry. >> You don't want anyone moving in. >> I I like the I like the idea of having another tool in the toolbox. Um, you know, to to make things happen for uh various reasons, but I I I like to have opportunities to find solutions. uh however we can do that. So, council member Jesus, >> I agree, mayor. I think this is um a good opportunity to provide another kind of zoning that makes that transition. Uh we struggle as a city between, you know, the urban development and the rural development and this provides another tool for us to you make that different types of land use fit and keep the character of the community more consistent. Council member Holtz, >> one thing that just came to mind because the legislature passed many things, but one of the things they did this past year was they did update the laws to say cities cannot make it mandatory that HOA is created for and blah blah blah blah blah. So, I would just be curious how that would apply to make sure that because I think that would be a reasonable thing to talk about management agreements or something with their DA to show that yes, the HOA helps or assist with in a certain way just to make sure it's passing that legal muster. Obviously, that's 20 steps down the road, but just something that came to mind that I personally on my own asked multiple members of the legislature for love of God not to do that, but it did not go anywhere. shows your influence. >> I have no influence. >> No, no, just I guess yeah, just to add to that, I'm a big fan of of these open space uses. I think it's a great tool. There's the the two factors that are just a little bit different, but I think I I don't see concern with those making this a that wouldn't make sense to not move forward with this. So, I I do really like these open space uses. I like having this tool in the tool belt, as you mentioned. I see council member Kraus nodding his head and you concur. >> Yeah, I agree. I think it's an elegant solution to to what you're saying, adding another tool to the toolbox. So, I I do agree. >> Elegant. >> You just made us all look way less elegant. >> Yeah. >> So, is that kind of what you were looking for? I think you getting the nod. >> It's helpful. Yeah. Just understand that there's generally generally a consensus here that we should, you know, consider this. >> No, I I like this shows some initiative. I like it. Thank you. >> Yep. All right. Um, next we have sketch plan review summergate assemblage. You get to stay up there. >> All right. That's me again. So, um, we have a concept plan application in front of you this evening. Uh, this is submitted by Summergate Development and this is for, uh, what staff kind of generally refer to as the south growth area of the city. Um you can see on the screen the the general call it section where this proposed concept plan is located. There are three parcels that comprise the site. They're generally circled in that yellow outline. These are currently what we consider to be like residential or farmstead parcels. U the site in total is just under 120 acres with less than an acre of wetland across it according to the developer. Um we've got uh two different concept plans that were submitted which we've referred to as alternatives A and B in the staff report. Uh one thing I really quickly want to mention is just that due to the number of units in both alternatives environmental review would be mandatory for this project. So you would uh should this project move forward the next step along the way would be an EAW. Uh just to kind of distill what we're looking to get out of you this evening. This is a discussion item again uh it's a non-binding feedback to be provided to the developer. Uh but I think the the the the critical question is uh should the city allow for the development in this growth area ahead of the comprehensive plans 2030 phasing? So uh this site is located within the city's Musa, but it's not phased for development until after 2030. So if the city did allow for this project to be moved up, there are a number of considerations that are equally kind of coming from that or equally as important. Um the first would be that Fifth Street North uh connection. Fifth Street North would continue kind of east to west through the the center of the section. Um the timeline for that road, the feasibility of that road, a lot of that stuff hasn't really been explored uh given the phasing of the site. Uh so I've talked about that utilities uh utility feasibility is equally you know there's another question there uh and then um the development development plans would need to be modified a little bit to meet the standards for the LDR and MDR. So, alternative A shows you uh a mix of different uh single family lot sizes in addition to attached town homes, 122 attached town homes and somewhere in the ballpark of um just over 250 or so single family lots. Uh concept or alternative B shows you all single family lots. And I'll go to the next slide here and then I can come back. uh the the land use analysis slide here shows the future land use map. You can see that the the area which is now circled in red uh does have a small uh southwest corner which is guided medium density residential. That lighter yellow is LDR, low density. Uh so if I go back you can see that there are smaller single family lots proposed within the MDR area. Uh over 350 single family lots are proposed in alternative B. The zoning is currently rural transitional. Uh that is a zoning district that's kind of the kind of the holding district for future developing areas. Um a unique part about this site is that it's got a little bit of the land within the shoreland and a little bit of the land is also within an overlay uh from the Oakdale Gun Club. You'll remember from the Lake Elmo Elementary project that there is a statutory buffer that protects uh gun clubs from development around them. Basically, a noise study would be needed here. The shoreline overlay uh does also create some regulatory requirements particularly around um impervious surface and um in residential PUDS there's something called the tearing analysis. So, uh we've talked about the future land use categories. What's shown on the screen now is um is the the Musa phasing map. And so a portion of this site or most of the area is within the 2030 to 2040 development phase. And then a small portion uh if you can see the cursor on the screen, not really. It's that little yellow tail that's on the far east side of the site. That's within the 2035 to 2040 Musa boundary. So um projects [clears throat] that are not within the current phase of m of development within the MUSA must receive a comp plan amendment in order to be moved into the current phase. Um it's important, this is important, um as a coord basically a piece of coordination between the city and the Met Council because the Met Council is not expecting to have to serve this level of development until 2030 or 2035 when the uh development is shown in the phasing plan. And so they do require amendments to come through if not in the same phase. Just we've kind of talked about utilities and roads here, but the red uh dashed line is that general alignment of uh fifth street north and you can see the the city utility map is also shown here on the screen. Uh sewer connections generally are available. Water main looping another very important uh requirement for for new development would be required through this section to create redundancy in the city's water system. And so these are just a number of the different complexities with a non-ontiguous development. This development is in the middle of a section with no real immediate available infrastructure. And so we've got a lot of these kind of big questions about how to get it served with utilities. This map here is just from your comprehensive plan. That blue dash squiggly line is the general alignment of Fifth Street North. So there really aren't any, you know, serious uh roadway alignment plans or studies at this time um because the the development was not in the in this decade. So uh I just want to touch on some of the possible PUD flexibilities. Um we talked about the lots being a little small. So lot area for both concepts of those single family lots. That's the big point. Um if the attached town home concept were preferred, uh there would be additional flexibilities required there as well. So just coming back to the key considerations for the council, um the big question, you know, whether to move the the site up and then the questions that come from that. If if we move it up, then there does have to be a conversation about Fifth Street North. Should it be developerled? Should it be cityled? uh it's kind of unclear if the rest of the area will develop uh imminently and so you know um property owners really haven't been brought into a conversation about constructing that roadway. Um additionally we've got uh feasibility studies that would be needed for water and sewer utilities if the project were moved up. [snorts] [clears throat] And then uh just also questions. We've got ongoing conversations as you know about the city's population. Uh we've got a 2040 comprehensive plan amendment that's going to come in front of the planning commission pretty soon here uh to propose amending the forecasts in conversation with the Met Council. So that's kind of a part of this discussion as well. So those are those are kind of the the highlights from me. Uh I will note that Summergate Development is here and we'll be uh excited to tell you a little bit more about their project, but uh you know just looking for any questions you have for me right now. questions for Nate? >> I'm sure I'll have more once we hear more. You want to hear from the developer? Let's hear from see what we got to say. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. My name is Brian Tucker with Summergate Development. We're a residential development uh developer out of Lakeville. Uh with me I have Casey Walsher and John Ra who's al who are also with Summergate as well as Corey Meyer with Westwood who's our planner for the project. Uh just by way of a little bit of quick background on the project. Uh Nathan did a good job of kind of given [snorts] all the uh comp plan and zoning considerations so I won't belver those. But uh couple things. Uh we do have contracts on these properties and we've been working with them for some time to try to design a site that uh may be workable with the city. We've had ongoing dialogue with city staff. We understand some of the complexities uh with this area. Um I think a key thing to to recognize is that our timeline is not to start developing right away. We're looking at more of a 2028 window, which obviously would uh speed up that uh timeline a little bit from what the city currently has. Uh we know that there are a number of design considerations that are reflected in the staff report and the engineers memo that get worked out through the process. You know, a concept plan, as you guys are aware, is conceptual and just a starting point for discussion. Um and we also understand there's multiple layers of approvals that are needed to begin a project like this. Um, with respect to the concept plans that you see, I think a couple of takeaways are that uh, we uh, we're not a builder per se. We work with a lot of different builders throughout the Twin Cities. Uh, so we have a lot of flexibility in terms of unit styles and densities and those type of things. So, uh, we're happy to try to work with the city to achieve whatever desired, uh, density might be wanted, uh, for these sites, including lower density if that's something that, uh, furthers the city city's goals in this area. Uh, [clears throat] one thing I would point out just uh, for reference purposes is the smaller lots we show on one of the concepts. We're seeing a lot of traction throughout the Twin Cities for smaller single family lots, which in effect are like taking the attached town homes and detaching them because uh, there's a market uh, there for folks that want more privacy and kind of want their own space to to uh, to deal with. But we still get the same kind of densities and you can hit a price point that would be more comparable with your traditional attached town home. There is nearby development to the west and southeast. We understand that there's a need to figure out how to run utility corridors to this site. We have had some dialogue with those property owners and could explore whatever necessary easements might be required to to make those connections for looping and connection to the city city system. Uh with respect to Fifth Street, we have had dialogue with those property owners to the south both in terms of potentially purchasing property or uh acquiring easements right away that would be needed to jumpstart that uh street corridor. At this point, we understand that there are some legal considerations with those properties that make the timing difficult, and we can elaborate on that as needed. Uh, what we had proposed to the city is as a means to to kind of jump start that corridor. And frankly, from a fairness standpoint, you know, if we were to be able to move forward with this project, we should be contributing to that corridor. So there's been a discussion of, you know, identifying an amount that we would set aside for a project like [snorts] this that would be earmarked for that future construction. U obviously there's environmental review considerations. we're agreeable to doing the EAW that would be required or if the city wants to look at a larger uh AU for the entire area, we could certainly participate in that if that's more cost-effective and and helps advance the city's PL planning goals for this area. Um so, as as Nathan mentioned, really our main takeaway tonight or our main uh request is just the council is willing to consider uh moving this up on the development timeline. uh and would uh support or at least allow us to consider a comprehensive plan amendment to accomplish that that timeline. Um the 2028 timeline that I mentioned earlier does allow for some of those other issues to get worked out. Um you know, obviously there's utility considerations, feasibility studies that are have been mentioned, the environmental reviews. So, uh, the fact that we're not looking at trying to get something going right away kind of bakes in a timeline that allows us to work with the city for, uh, addressing some of those questions and concerns. Um, with that, um, I'll turn it over to Casey Walshagger, who's also with Summergate Development, just to elaborate on some of our development strategy and, uh, timing with the project. [clears throat] >> Good evening. My name is Casey Walsh here with Summergate Development. a lot of what he said. That's what I think. But, uh, yeah, I mean, I I think from our perspective, we recognize there's a couple things that are happening right now in every city with the 2050 plan that's coming up and that planning process. And if we were to move this project ahead uh now, it isn't really now, it's two years from now before we would ever begin construction or anything like that. Uh but one of the things that we have to consider because of the planning process uh or the 2050 planning process is that come October and maybe Nathan can confirm this but I'm pretty sure I'm right uh the Met Council has kind of set a deadline that any comp plan amendments won't be processed on their end basically from October of this year until >> October. >> Yeah. So it's like a two-year hold for comp plan amendments. Uh, so if we were going to ever do this thing in 2028, we almost have to do a comp plan amendment this year to move it from 20 or from 30 or even part of it from 35, but uh from 30 to 28. So that way in the background while the oops, excuse me, while the 2050 plans being processed, we can still do all these studies and all the road studies and all the appropriate things related to the EAW or AAR whichever is needed. Uh so that stuff can happen simultaneous to the you know the comp plan the 2050 plan being processed by the city. So that's kind of one of the things that he's already brought it up but that's kind of how we look at is if if it's something that the city would be receptive to now is the chance to do it kind of in the next couple three four months or whatever before the cut off time hits. Uh other than that, you know, if you guys had some questions, me or Brian and definitely Westwood who did the land planning, we can try to answer those for you. >> You know, I just uh I'm trying to think of the sewer lines that run down 17, all the stuff from uh Savona and stuff, that all goes west out to the interceptor off of Inwood. Correct. >> So the the sewage from this site actually would go to Lake Elmo Avenue. >> Okay. >> And that's the Cottage Grove interceptor. That's the that that there's no capacity issues there right now. >> Yeah. That's what I was concerned about is which way it would go >> uh to create some capacity because we we we know there's capacity issues on the east side. >> Yep. This is or the west side. >> Yep. This is this would go to to a different line than what we're working with Met Council to get some clarity on. Yep. >> Okay. That that's a tough part about the site is that the sewer's on the east side, the water well part of the water, >> you've got an island there >> is on the other side and getting all sides to actually happen simultaneously would be fairly difficult. >> Yeah. >> Especially the whole fifth street part of it or you know we've kind of analyzed that. We've talked to a lot of the land owners involved in the area and the odds of actually putting together, you know, 12 different people and getting them all to say yes and agreeing to timelines and all that kind of stuff is going to be from my experience extremely difficult and probably not practical. So it's a >> sitting here wishing we would have had a workshop to uh discuss this fifth street prior to the I mean I in my mind if you'll forgive me uh seem to be well we this is going to have to be looked at in the 2050 comp plan because some things are going to have to be reconsidered uh and you know so my my questions were what are we going to do with this street? How are we going to get that finished? Um, so I'm a little on my heels on this one, just to be completely honest. Council member Holtz, I'm I mean, I'm in a similar boat. I I guess I was never anticipating that this year we'd be having a discussion about something that is this far out. And I understand there's reason for it. Obviously, property owners are asking and it's fair to ask the question. I I didn't have this on my bingo card. So, to me, from a city standpoint, the first priority is how we view phasings. And two, we there is a long-term goal for Fifth Street. To me, that's the conversation. Do we feel the need to be finishing Fifth Street, which we can do ourselves? We can do it as an assessment to property owners. And if so, how does that affect the phasing that is in the comp plan and do we need to amend it? But I will be honest, I have not received any piece of feedback from our community asking that we speed up development. I haven't. And so it's a fair question to ask. I fully understand it, but I I don't I'm not necessarily seeing what the the value gain is for the city. I am curious in terms of Fifth Street. It was mentioned that there's a potential property legal issue. Is that something that anyone wants to elaborate on or is that just not really necessary? >> I could share that there's a number of the land owners that are in a legal dispute between each other. >> Oh, >> and that may play out in years or months or years is probably very likely, but we're not a party to it directly, so I can't tell you anything other than that much I heard. And I as I recall, God, where's Jack the city when I with LAR and the fifth street that exists over by Savona? Did we not as a city take the lead on that only because there was a need to because there wasn't necessarily I feel like Jack has mentioned that before, but otherwise I don't think we really have taken that lead of going that that route of assessing the property owners to get infrastructure in. >> It was from the design side. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I I apologize. I don't I don't have the history on that one. >> You don't have that memorized. You haven't sat down for hours and hours. >> We'll have to ping Jack on that one >> cuz I mean, and I've mentioned before, I have no problems having the city go down that road when there's a value gained and there's intention and there's a need for it. I think the prime example is Village Parkway to get it across the fields to the to uh 14. There's a need now for it. I I don't necessarily see a need for this at this point right now. Um, yeah. I I don't love the fact that we in in some way kind of have a little bit of a control over the landowners timing and ability to sell. Uh, however, we do have to plan these things out. Um, we have to have the infrastructure for it. We already obviously have some other water issues that we're trying to work with. We got a lot going on with the comp planning process going on here. I think there's a lot of moving pieces. I it just I guess right now I it it doesn't seem like the right time right now to be moving on this. And I I guess just moving beyond that topic, I I I'll just hit right away as well on some of the deviation requests, you know, right away from this plan as well. This has been my stance consistently with every developer. I I I'm not open to any deviation requests for uh decreases in lot areas or decreases in minimum lot widths unless that unless you get to a point where the density is at the lower end of what's allowed. I don't see the need for us to allow variances for lot areas or lot with minimums because you can just decrease the number of units. And so if you get to that point where you've you've hit the bottom of the density, you know, then we can talk about giving you a variance for if you want to do less units still to to get to within those or then at that point we can have that conversation of all right, yes, all right, you're at the minimum density based off of how the the land is laid out. You can't meet these minimum lot areas, minimum lot lit lot widths. I think that's when that discussion's had. Um, but I'm just I'm really opposed to having those variances when the density is not at the the bottom end of where it can be allowed. So, I just wanted to those are my thoughts. I' I've been really consistent with all development that I just I feel pretty strongly about that. Um, maybe doesn't matter at this point either because I just I do think this is too early. I think we have to stick with the phasing that we have. >> I agree. I I would oppose that, too. I think it's we're pushing this too too far forward here to look at that. So, I agree. I feel I feel like it's too soon. There you go. All right. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. So I think that is the last thing on our agenda. We can move to council reports. Council member Jagasich. >> No report. >> Council member Holtz. >> Thank you to the Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce for doing a ribbon cutting today at Lions Park for the playground. Uh Adam, wonderful speech. I expect more speeches from you. That's fantastic. It was recorded by many. It'll be all over the news. So, good job. Uh, it was great. There's good attendance there and uh staff and the contractors did a great job getting that installed. It looks awesome. Kids are enjoying it. So, thank you for that work. Yeah, that uh that playground is far exceeds the uh the metal and pavement I had when I was growing up. I'm a little jealous to be honest. So, you uh did not try the slide out, but uh my kids are they probably [snorts] won't use it either, but you've got some younger ones that could certainly enjoy that. >> And I think earlier I mentioned it, went and uh got some ice cream Monday >> and uh they have a celebrity scooper there and and um for donations. >> Celebrity. It was the children's uh fund for uh kids with disabilities. So >> you were the celebrity? >> No, I wasn't I wasn't I ate the ice cream. I wasn't scooping it. And uh so anyway, but that's where I heard some comments from some people liking the tulips and things of that nature on on uh 17 there as it goes through the old village. So that was great to see. So, Council Member Herd, >> no report. >> No report. >> All right, staff. >> Yeah. >> Um, good news today. I did receive notification from Excel that they're going to approve us our permanent banners on the street lights on Lake Avenue. They are going to um still be drawing up a formal agreement to send over. So, then the next steps will be ordering um the banner flags. And so what I wanted to know from council is if um a member or two wants to be part of selecting the banner [snorts] design or does council want staff to work with say a member or two of connect to select the banner flags. And just a reminder um we the council had had wanted to do um a banner flag that is the United States flag. Um, now it won't be the typical flag because it's a a banner. Um, and then a custom like Elmo flag and then a seasonal flag. >> Okay. >> So, I just wanted to see where the council wants to go from here. >> I don't need to be on it. >> I can gladly volunteer, but I I don't think there's a right or wrong for what that looks like. I don't want a committee upon committee upon committee. Like, that's doesn't help anything. So I I would personally defer to you for what makes sense from for getting it done, but I will gladly help out and provide insight. I whether that's a member of Lake Elmo Connect, whether that is an additional member of staff, whether that's a certain member of the of the public who I a member of the planning commission like I don't think there's a right or wrong. I just I don't want it to be a bureaucracy. whatever can be done efficiently and where you get the feedback that you need. >> Yeah, we will have to move swiftly on uh ordering the flag to get it up by the 4th of July. Um so, but I can so I'll connect. Why don't you why don't you uh work with Council Member Holtz and get somebody that wants to volunteer that's in connection with the the businesses and stuff and connecting like Elmo sounds like maybe if they have somebody in their group that would like to chime in. >> Sounds great. >> All right, we'll do. >> Mr. Doyle, >> no report. >> No report. >> No report. >> No report. Thank you. >> No report. No report. >> No report. No report. >> Uh just a reminder to stick around for the close session after this. >> You were waiting to say that. >> I didn't want to I didn't want to forget Chief back there. You have anything? >> Join us tomorrow night. >> Oh yeah. >> 4 to 7. >> 4 to 7% of the proceeds during that time. Go back to the fire department. >> Oh. >> Cool. All right, good note. All right, with that, we're going to adjourn the meeting at 8. >> Mr. Mayor, this will just be a motion to go into close session. >> Oh, I got to do the motion before I adjourn the regular meeting and not do the and then do the Okay, >> motion to move into close session in accordance with Minnesota statute 13D.02. >> Second. >> We have a motion to go into close session. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay, we'll go. Uh, point of preference will uh convene back in 5 minutes.