[Music] we are a little past 7 o' so I'm going to call tonight's city council meeting to order and julan could we have a roll call please council member Ericson is absent tonight um council member husnik here council member valento here council member Roberts here mayor Bane here I'd like to invite everyone to rise and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance flag United States the it stands Nation indivisible andice for all Council we have an agenda before you this evening I will entertain a motion to approve or any changes I'll make a motion to approve the agenda we have a motion is there a second second we have a motion in a second all those in favor signal by saying I I oppose and our agenda is approved our next item this evening is open Forum open forum is any interested parties opportunity to address Council on any topic of your choosing and is there anybody signed up for open Forum this evening there is not nobody signed up is there anybody in the room tonight that would like to speak in open Forum all right not seeing anybody come forward is there anybody online Jolene there's no observers online this evening mayor okay with that we will close open forum and bring agenda back to council Council for your consideration tonight is the consent agenda We Have Tonight consent agenda items 6 a through 6m I will entertain a motion or any changes I will uh make a motion to approve consent agenda a through m there's a motion is there a second a second we have a motion in a second and all those in favor signal by saying I I I oppose and our consent agenda is approved okay our next item this evening on our regular agenda is item 7A consideration of amot State fiscal year 2025 airport grants and I believe Silas you are kicking us off on this tonight thank you mayor Bame and memb of council for the opportunity to discuss with you the state funding uh Grant offers that mindat Aeronautics has offered the city of forest lake for improvement projects at the Forest Lake Airport the state of Minnesota for State fiscal year 2025 has offered grant funding to the city of forest lake for three projects at the airport um the three projects include a 300 foot extension to Runway 1331 design an Associated grant for a 3 300t extension to the parallel taxi way to uh Runway 1331 that coincides with the runway extension and then the third Grant offer that the state offered was for completion of a clear Zone acquisition plan so I'll go ahead and detail all three of the projects here for Council what mindat is looking for is acceptance of the funding by August 31st that the city of Forest Lake intends to pursue each project so if feel welcome to stop me as I discuss any of the projects here to ask any questions that you have so I'll start with the the 300t extension to Runway 1331 so in 2021 the city of forest lake and the airport completed a Master Plan update as part of that Master Plan update an analysis of the length of the runway was completed the current length is 2700 ft by 75 ft wide and what the master plan did is in accordance with FAA runway length uh advisory circular standards you know identified what the recommended runway length for the airport should be based on the current aircraft that are operating at the airport so what that study concluded is that the recommended length for the runway is 3,000 ft so where aircraft require the most length of Runway is during takeoff conditions and with the current length at 2700 ft certain aircraft are making load concessions so that they can get up in the air safely with the length of Runway that exists or during certain periods of severe weather they're are they are not able to operate safely at the airport so by completing a 300t extension of the runway what that project will do was increase the operational safety for Pilots that are operating at the airport so for this particular project what mindat has put forth is in state fiscal 2025 so the state fiscal year runs July 1st through June 30th they recommended that the city complete design and bid Administration and then in state fiscal 202 six mindat will provide grant funding for construction so they set this up this way to kind of break up the the dollars amount that the city is requesting um knowing that the state funds are limited for projects moving forward so for State fiscal 2025 for design only the estimated total project cost is 175,000 and the state share would be 95% and the city share would be 5% and then the construction cost estimate for State fiscal 26 is 900,000 which again would be a 95% State 5% local cost participation so for State fiscal 25 the estimated local share is 8,750 for design and bid Administration and then in 26 the estimated local share for construction would be 45,000 so I'll pause there if any anyone has questions or comments about the uh the proposed project is is there any harm if something were to happen either US city looking at airport fund um airport fund balance us just deciding sequencing of projects if we were to in 2025 do the first portion but then not be committed to pulling the trigger in 2026 is there any harm in us unbundling or creating some distance between those or would that be in bad form and we really need to think of these as two sequential projects so if the city moves forward with design and then tells mindat that we'd like to postpone construction the design is still valid until the city says okay now we're ready you know to cover the local share to move forward with construction so there aren't any penalties for not pursuing a construction Grant in 2026 if that's the direction from the city is part of that design also bid Administration conceivably if you're holding off time frame you're not going to execute on that part of it right correct is that a large portion of the project or is it it's not a large portion it's bid advertising which is covered locally which isn't a which isn't a huge cost and then it's bolt in a bank to answer any questions from contractors during the bidding process and then a bid opening which the the costs for a bid Administration are very small compared to the total cost of the project okay and I'm not sure if I feel strongly about that I just want I'm just trying to understand what our options are and sequencing that so thank you and before we went out to bid I think there would be consensus about whether or not the city would entertain a construction Grant in 2026 and if if there's a different direction we would likely not bid the project because why incur those costs if you know you're not going to follow up with the construction Grant and just hold the uh the plans and specs on the Shelf until the city would be ready to move forwarded Council I jumped in with questions on this one any other questions related to this component of the project Pro thoughts right go ahead and then so the the second Grant like I mentioned is the associated 300 foot extension of the taxa a to become a full parallel to the extended Runway so very similar to the 300 foot Runway extension mot has provided grant funding for design and bid Administration for that project and then would follow up in 2026 with a construction Grant so the funding participation for the taxi Way Extension is the same 955 so the the estimated uh cost for design for the taxiway extension is 75,000 and then the estimated construction cost being 500,000 so the estimated local share for State fiscal 25 for the design and bid Administration would be 3750 and then for construction would be 25,000 in state fiscal 26 any questions or was that last number sorry that our portion of the actual 25,000 my apologies council member 25 any questions on the state Grant offer for the taxi Way Extension design I don't all right and then the last project that mot provided a grant for is for completion of a clear Zone acquisition plan so mindat has a policy that they you know highly recommend that air airports sponsors own and fee all the land under the clear zone so there's a graphic in your in the packet there that kind of depicts what the clear zone is so what that is it's a trapezoidal shape you know that's off the end of each Runway that serves the purpose of the protection of people and property so that there's not you know Congregation of people there's not a home there's not you know large groups of people gathering in the event there's an aborted takeoff or an incident with the landing so the menot policy you know states that any airport that does not own and fee all the land under the clear Zone you know is subject to then not receiving as much date funding as they could so in 2022 mot came out with the funding prioritization which is also included in your packet that scores each project So currently the way it sits with with forest lake is that on the the runway 31 you know the south end the the city owns all the land under the clear zone for the existing 27 100 foot length and then even a 300t extension but on the North End Fenway Avenue cuts through a portion of the minda clear zone so mot also understands that it's not feasible for each airport sponsor to own all the land into the clear zone for infrastructure reasons cost reasons a multitude of reasons so for those airports mindat allows them to submit a clear Zone acquisition plan which will request an exemption to their policy so if the city of Forest Lake moves forward with this project it'll request an exemption from mindat to then allow the the airport to have better opportunity to receive funding moving forward so that's that's kind of the proposed project with completion of a clear Zone acquisition plan it again would follow a 95% State 5% local share and the estimated project cost for completing that plan is 10,000 with the local share being 500 are there any questions on the clear Zone acquisition plan that's just that area on the south end or the southeast end on right that's the extension of the runway correct so on this on the south end as you can see in the in the graphic Forest Lake already owns the land underneath the existing and the and the proposed clear Zone it's on the North End where you can see you know that outer portion where Fenway avenue runs through and that's that's the area that Forest Lake would be requesting an exemption to mot for their policy policy for stating there's a public road that cuts through there um and from the conversations we've had from menot they just need to see an exemption request come through and then that'll allow Forest Lake projects to score higher moving forward with the completion and approval of this plan I want to make sure I so I want to make sure I understand there's two components to this part the first part is building is establishing the clear Zone to the north because today there's nothing right so it already exists and mindat is already aware that it doesn't meet their policy of the city owning all the land under it all Forest Lake is doing is just requesting an exemption to their policy because let me switch the screen here to the next page little section right there exist right now the section to the north exists right now it it all exists except for they don't actually own this piece right here okay yeah it's the 2.3 Acres but why it matters is if you guys go to the last page of my packet there's the menot aeronautic State funding prioritization so what mot does is they score every project that's submitted on the CIP and if it achieves a certain score it receives funding and if it doesn't it doesn't get funding so what the Forest Lake right now is losing 15 points because you know they don't own all the clear Zone in fee and they don't have this clear Zone acquisition plan on file so by completing this project every Forest Lake Project moving forward is going to score 15 Point High 15 points higher and why that matters is projects the further you get out from the runway Center Line score less points on the prioritization model here but by gaining those 15 points it's going to better allow Forest Lake to compete for these other projects you know as you move forward with development at the airport so what mindat oh go ahead council member no go ahead oh I was just going to say so what mindat is looking for is just a response from the city by the end of the month that they're going to move forward with all three projects a combination of the three so that they know to secure the funding for Forest Lake and then the next steps say Bolton and M will'll bring back to council proposals for each project and we'll work with the city on getting Grant funds for each so you're looking for a motion for the for the design work is what you're looking for right silence a motion that the city is going to move forward and accept the grant offers from mindat so that they secure the funding for tonight's purposes but just for the the planning portion of it or planning and construction just for for the runway and taxway design only and then for the acquisition plan construction will be another discussion when State fiscal 26 starts okay uh just a question on that clear Zone if you can go back to that map real quickly on the other side of Fenway so I guess that would be the west side of Fenway that's that is private property is it not and does that uh limit anyone to build any structures on that piece of property correct and we've talked to that property owner they're okay they realize they are not able to even at this point to build anything on that land I'm not aware if the property owner has been informed of anything that they can't build on there it may be within the the zoning ordinance for for the city so I'd have to double check that council member Roberts to see so zoning is is a different animal than clear Zone where there's there's a Zone A and A Zone B if that if portion of that property is in zone a then they correct you are correct they would not be able to construct a facility if they're in zone B then they are able to construct that's no so it has say completely clear or is there just a high restriction there you know for for the zoning or for yeah for that for that little section that we don't own in that safety zone there yeah zoning is more restrictive than the clear zone so I would have to check what the zoning ordinance states are there any restrictions over that parcel so we I mean we kind of got ourselves in a jam 15 years ago and it cost us a million dollars because we did almost the same thing and then that property was not able to be built on and we were in a lawsuit if I remember correctly so I guess I would before approving this or signing off I want to make sure that we've had that conversation and they know they can't build and um all the whatever it's required years ago I know there was some conversation with the owner there because um they allowed us to cut some trees down in that area there that's all part of the Horseshoe Factory there I believe um so I know there's been way back when there has been some conversation with them about uh just knocking a couple trees down because they were up into that zone and it wasn't it wasn't an issue at that time so knocking a couple trees down and then saying you can't build on your land are two different things so I think some clarity on that would silus I believe there's two zones off the end of the runways that exist today right correct there's and those are called A and B correct so Zone a explain what a and b mean today so they understand that sure so off each ends of the of the runway there's a zoning ordinance that already exists for the city of forest lake and it's this the airport is zoned for a 3,300 ft runway length even though they're only 2700 ft to kind of allude to council member Roberts is so that the land around the airport is protected so that you know if the if the city did decide to extend the runway even further that there isn't any development in place that would restrict that so Zone a is 2/3 the length of the future Runway and and Zone a is the most restrictive where uh even if any anyone has property off airport property they they can't build any sort of Homestead structure building that's going to congregate people and then Zone B is oneir the length of the runway where those types of facilities are allowed so long as the density of people populating there is less than 15 times the partiel acreage so we'd have I would have to check where this current property falls under Zone a to determine if there are any current restrictions already in place based upon on zoning uh mayor Bay and members of the council if I might add there are already restrictions in place with the zoning code and the airport overlay District that have been in place for quite some time I think what's depicted in the blue box is um uh something that already exists that it's just the land isn't owned by the city and so the city's acquisition of that land just makes it more manageable for the airport in the long run but the acquisition doesn't create or place on it any additional restrictions than the zoning code already does today I um I misunderstood the nature of this project so um when I read so when I read through the packet and understood that Fenway bisects that clear Zone my assumption and I think now wrong but I want to confirm I'm wrong is that the property on the other side that we were applying for an exemption so that the property so not not just Fenway but the property on the other side of Fenway was going to be Exempted from that clear Zone but I it sounds like instead the project is to acquire that is that the case no the project is not to acquire any land it's just to request an exemption from the minda policy about owning all the land under the clear zone so the clear Zone and the zoning ordinance are two separate entities the zoning already exists that has restrictions on the parcel the clear zone is just an exemption from the city actually acquiring all that acreage so so prop property owner restrictions or impact of us making this decision on adjacent Property Owners is the same whether we do this or not they exist today is that am I hearing that right that is correct and so what we are I see I I read this more as this was an administrative us applying for an exemption with mind do that allowed our projects to score higher I saw this more as an administrative function than a zoning action yes I would characterize it the same okay without any um impact to adjoining property owners or current property owners is that also yes that's correct okay does that clarify or provide some so regardless of it's Zone A or B you were kind of wondering whether you should need to look into that was it clear is this we know what that is and how that impacts it because if it's if it's B that gives them a little bit more options to do things as as opposed to a I just I don't I don't want any surprises I don't want to all of a sudden they come to us and say that we want to put up a structure and we can't because because what we're doing here tonight but if that's already in place then and they're aware of that then then more comfortable with it mayor B if I might add I I apologize if I said the city's acquisition that was my I can show you the Zone a separate from what syus is showing you that does show over half of the subject property being located already in zone a so that wouldn't change with this at all those restrictions have been in place I'd have to look to see when we last adopted that or or when we adopted that ordinance but that's been um well in place wouldn't change this wouldn't change those Provisions at all I think the would you like to see the map no if that's the case I think a little of the slippery slope that's challenging in your question is you say you you made the statement you want to make sure that the property owner knows it's always challenging to know if Property Owners know what's enacted right so they may or may not but this isn't going to change anything to what they may or may not know is already in place so okay um thanks for walking us through that so so the request tonight is um you're looking for council's approval for the 2025 components of the projects correct um and then most of these if not all of them have a two-year provision Council can pivot should we want to on all of these if for some reason we weren't going to move ahead with the 2026 component is that right that's correct okay Council thoughts on thoughts on this just on the math and on the local share our share of that for for the design is $113,000 is that accurate the 87500 37 3750 and then 500 is that is that accurate okay and and that's budgeted Uh Kevin and for 2025 for the airport fund I'm uh was point that up as you were asking the question to make sure we have a project in um council member uh Roberts we do have an amount in the budget for 2025 I'm just making sure that it's the one that was submitted um so mayor and members of the council we do have in total project for 2025 currently of 555,000 in the budget which includes um different projects that are the 2025 Runway 300t extension taxiway Runway a a 300 foot extension to clear his own action plan and an apron extension as well are the projects that are in the 2025 CIP I think I heard all of these right so these were all anticipated as part of that budget um I don't have any concerns supporting this tonight I um I think there's a broader conversation you know we have to as we're making these airport projects we need to make sure that we're continuing to keep a eye on fund balance and there's a lot of moving pieces there but to me these are you know corar to Runway planning um type projects that give us better information on what that future project might look like I'm happy to support this tonight open to any other discussion others may have I I'm I'm fine with sponsoring it or supporting it I do think though especially on the actual construction part of it as we get more transparent on what that budget the airport fund really looks like and where those dollars are coming from and going um we'll have some hard decisions to make to actually do the project with the funds that are that may or may not be there agree anyone ready for a motion this evening I'll make a motion to approve the mot State FY 2025 airport Grant offers for the Run Way 300t Extension taxi Way Extension and the runway clear Zone acquisition plan I'll second it you have a motion and a second any further discussion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I I oppose motion carries thank you for being here tonight syus thank you Council next for your consideration is item 7B uh reconsideration of ordinance 740 the parks parks and Recreation Commission ordinance and this is um um an item that was tabled from a previous meeting um Abby if you want to maybe because this was tabled from the previous meeting we had a fair amount of discussion and um some topics if you just want to give an update maybe to start so would be good thank you um so just the quick background in January of last year the council approved ordinance number 721 which repealed the former parks Lakes Trails commission and enacted a new Parks and Recreation Commission and the ordinance outlined roles and responsibilities of the commission and also staff um we knew that there were some edits that needed to be made to that ordinance and in light of you approving um moving the parks division into holy into public works we brought forth an amended ordinance at your last regularly scheduled meeting you heard public testimony from flaws vice president Myan pulz um Mr P was concerned about the partnership that the city has with flaw and their lack of ability to vote as a a member of the commission um at the meeting you did hear us discuss just the concerns that we have in securing um a voting member from both flaw and the school district and how we really do appreciate these Partnerships we can't do it in our Park system without these partners and we believe them in an advisory role would actually um still continue to bring them to the table but wouldn't run a muck in the areas that they might not be able to vote on including agreements youth Athletics those sorts of things so since that time we have reached out to both agencies um both partner organizations who understand the role that they would place um if they were a voting member some of the restrictions and are supportive of that advisory capacity um they also recognize that they don't always have to have a representative at the meetings um but that they could appreciate the partnership and be able to be involved so tonight before you is consideration of ordinance number 740 um that would modify the Park and Recreation ordinance removing those staff duties changing a little bit of the duties of the commission um aside from some publishing costs there's no costs involved with this you can move to approve amend I do want to note there's two actions if you do move to approve which staff would recommend would be ordinance number 740 there would also be a subsequent motion to approve resolution 0824 26242 and that's the resolution authorizing the summary publication of ordinance 740 you have any questions for me no questions thank you for taking the um having the follow-up communication with both organizations just to make sure we're clear um Council any questions or followup items on this topic we had a fair amount of discussion in previous meetings as the weather hits outside are are you looking for a motion already or well I was I mean maybe before we jump into motion I I just you we've had a lot of conversation about this topic I think we just need to continue to reiterate um the goal of this is to streamline operations and Communications and to make that simpler um us previously having both a flaw advisor member a Fenway Advisory Board and a Parks lakes and trails commission meant that there were three different groups kind of all circling on the same topic and not always connecting um the goal of this is to bring those groups together as part of the um Park commission um and really streamline communication I appreciate also that a lot of time has passed since we've considered um this model and so us um you know actually implementing this seating that Park Board getting to work is important and so I'm happy to support this this evening um I think this is better a better model and I really appreciate the partnership of the school district and flaw um in willing to serve um in an advisory role I think it's um a nice move forward um with that I'm ready for a motion if anyone's ready okay I'd make a motion that for the the first motion uh they moveed to approve the ordinance number 740 and ordinance amending title 3 chapter 31 section 31.75 related to The Parks and Recreation Commission has presented and we'll well yeah we'll make a separate motion for the next part so okay I'll second that motion first motion and then second any discussion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I I oppose and motion carried and second motion move to approve resolution um [Music] 8-26-2019 five related to The Parks and Recreation Commission uh we have a motion is there a second a second motion and a second any discussion on this one mayor B if I might just said um it the resolution didn't make it into the packet there was a table setting it in there that I forgot to mention I didn't catch if the motion was for resolution 0826 2402 okay great sorry thank you try to be that's what I said great thank you thank you for confirming motion and second any discussion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I I oppose and motions approved okay moving to our third item 7 C and consideration of the Crockett land donation Abby sure Bart Palmer Crocket owns three Parcels of property in Forest Lake and wishes to donate them to the city without compensation um Mr Crockett approached the city earlier this year see if the city had interest in obtaining three Parcels of land um they largely encompassed by Wetland and were unable to be built upon by the land owner and of were of no value to him in discussions with the landowner the Watershed District and the city is determined that there is a public purpose for the prop for all three properties so that's Wetland preservation and future storm water management discussion with the Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District they are also interested in the parcels but the timeline just really didn't work out for their acquisition um it's determined that in addition to that Wetland preservation and storm water management these are public needs of the city in the future so there is no cost associated with this other than we have agreed to pay the second half of taxes for the parcels the total costs for this and the closing cost is 2500 bucks um it's a very small fee especially in comparison a a nominal amount especially in comparison to uh land acquisition costs if we need to do a project later for storm water purposes so um you have options tonight approve the resolution amended approve it uh don't accept the donations but it would be staff's recommendation that you move to approve resolution 0826 2401 a resolution authorizing the donation of real property from Bart Palmer Crockett with gratitude thank you Abby Council consideration any questions on the item this evening as I look at this because there is a identified public purpose this seems um generous and something that I'm not seeing any reasons why I not but open to any discussion or other perspectives I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 0826 2401 a resolution authorizing the donation of real property to the City by Bart Palmer Crockett pursu to Minnesota statutes section 4653 there's a motion is there a second I'll second with gratitude very good thank you motion and second with gratitude any further discussion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I I oppose and motion carries very good um last item on our um Regular agenda this evening is consideration of an airport commission um member and um I received positive word from um our current airport commission chair um of a interview that was held between our airport commission chair and our airport commission leison council member husnik um uh overwhelming um positive feedback and the recommendation is to approve um Joe G GM to the airport commission and with that I would um um move that Council appoint um Joe Galler to the airport Commission in our vacant seat is there a second I'll second motion second any discussion followup hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I oppose and motion carries thank you so much um Julene and um we can talk about onboarding onboarding process as we do a new member it's been a while since we've had a a new um a new member to an a commission but we can talk about what onboarding looks like very good all right that is the end of our planned agenda this evening we can move in to um staff updates and we'll start with Jolene no updates this evening let's just go around the table here Abby uh just a couple tomorrow night's last night of Arts in the park for the season uh Rock and Hollywoods will be there as well as our community corn feed we also will have the Veterans Memorial committee uh showcasing the Veterans Memorial and soliciting some public feedback about the memorial and a new center design sculpture they are uh going to come before the council with that design in o October but really wanted to kind of solicit some feedback based on this council's request uh the last time you were here so stop on down if you want to see that new design and get a bite of corn thank you Abby Dave no updates tonate right Chief Newman mayor and Council just uh be advised we just went into a severe weather warning uh 30 seconds ago I haven't read the whole warning to see what it is for winds but obviously it got windy there a little bit ago uh the only other update I have is the joint fireboard meeting for Thursday has been cancelled and the next joint fireboard meeting will be on 9:26 so we have not heard from the safer Grant yet is that correct uh they've they started releasing August 1st and as of uh today no Minnesota uh fire departments or any uh safer grants were awarded to Minnesota organization so we still have another month for release but um as of today nobody in Minnesota has received one yet okay that's all I have for that update very good uh Amanda uh yes your honor Council uh so at the last meeting I believe was when I gave the Cannabis um 101 and I have a couple changes since then so I want to check in with Council uh since then the office of cannabis management has issued new guidance um that changes some of what I had told you at the last meeting um two uh two specific items one is uh initially they had said that you were going to if you wanted to cap which I know that Council had not expressed a a desire to do so but if you wanted to cap the retail businesses um you had to sort of meet the next threshold of 25,000 that is no longer the case so if you have 12,51 uh residents in the city you would need to allow at least two rental licenses that doesn't really change a whole lot for what you have directed staff so far but wanted to let you know that that is a change uh secondarily um and I this may impact a decision for Council the um the inspections that they were requiring the city to do there was two different types of inspections so those were the sort of um underage person who goes in you know with the police and attempts to purchase uh but then they were also requiring an annual inspection that was going to include an assessing the product and confirming that it met all of the requirements related to that as well as following age require you know checking their age verification system um that has changed to only requiring us to check the age verification system so the annual second check that is required is dramatically easier frankly it just requires less education and and Le less things to do um and so that was something that Council had um that had been advised by staff to potentially kick the registration up to the county level because of that um because of of that inspection based on that right now at this point staff has changed their minds and we would recommend that we keep the registration at the city level um because that does allow us to receive 10% of 10% tax so all these products are going to be taxed to Flat 10% 10% of that 10% tax such 1% um is a local share and so that would come to the city instead of the county based on the intensity of these inspections we think that that's something that the the police department can manage unless Council wants to direct us differently if the um the product inspection prod quality component of that check has shifted off of the city where has that gone great question unknown uh so my understanding is that that's something that potentially the state May at some point pick up in a in a fashion how that looks and what that is going to be is it's not currently in my purview okay but I see a lot of head nodding so when we come back with the ordinance at this point the intention is we are not going to pursue a conversation with the county anymore about registration at the county level we will plan on keeping that and that will be incorporated into future ordinances that will come before you this fall I would say unless something else changes right should something else change that makes that far more complicated I will update you in two weeks with potentially yet another update and in fact probably here in the next couple weeks there will be some updates around what's happened with their pre- licenses and some like that so if there's something of Interest I will make sure to bring it to your attention thank you that's that's all Ryan staff updates mayor city council nothing spe specific to update tonight uh you know the public infrastructure projects are fine with this type of weather obviously private projects that are going on right now that still have exposed dirts and still in the process of Excavating or grading or struggling to meet schedules and we'll be lingering quite longer this year and so that's all I really have to update at this time Kevin no updates all right bring back for Council updates let's just go right down the line CC no update council member valento no updates for me council member Roberts nothing this evening um just quick just quick um reminder that Abby pass along hope to see everybody tomorrow evening at the final Arts of the park and um the community corn feed and thanks to all of our staff and volunteers that make that such a terrific event looks forward to seeing everyone tomorrow night on a weather night hopefully very different than this evening and um be safe driving home maybe it's a day to hang here for a little bit while this easy is up so um that is the end of our planned agenda this evening I will entertain a motion to adjourn so moved second motion and a second all those in favor signal by saying I I oppose and we're adjourned thank you everyone [Music]