All right. Good evening everyone. Being right at 6 o'clock. We'll call this meeting to order. And Julian, can you take roll call? Council >> member Ericson >> here. >> Larson here. >> Miller here. >> Mayor Roberts >> here. Please stand al to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, council. We have an agenda in front of us. Is anyone willing to make a motion to approve? >> Also move. I'll second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I >> opposed. We have agenda. We have no awards or presentations tonight. Uh item six is open forum. This is an opportunity for any citizen uh to talk, discuss any ma city matters. Please limit to a couple minutes and state your name and address as you come up. No one. No one in the crowd. All right. Okay. We've got a consent agenda in front of us and council. I would like to make a motion that uh we approve consent agenda item 7A through B and then 7 D. >> I'll second motion a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I >> opposed. We have our consent agenda. With that, we will then move uh proposed survey on public works facility site to our first agenda item this evening. And I think Mark would be able to best talk us walk us through this. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor and council. Um I know we had some public inquiry about the this particular item and uh certainly deserves some more conversation. Um so what this is is that we u have of course made the decision to move ahead with schematic design um in our process at exploring a new public works site. And as we began that process, it became apparent that a topographic survey would be um it would be incumbent upon us to do a topographic survey as a part of that process to make sure that our our work can be tred up against the existing uh contours and all the features out there. And so um Bolton put together a scope of services to complete that work. We brought that in front of you. This was not part of the consultant the architect's scope of services would not normally be and so um we again again just brought that scope of services forward to you at this point in time. So what topographic survey is is it's you know your surveyor out there um taking points on everything from the ground itself to trees and ponds and wetlands, um utilities that are out there, um anything else that might be important for us to know when we're designing that site. So, >> all right. Um council, I I pulled that just really I think anything around this new public works facility, I'd like to have more forward facing and and have some conversation about it. Uh so, uh I think if staff going forward, we have more of this on the regular agenda, that would be great. Um, is this something typically you would do an RFP for, especially on this dollar amount of of that 363? >> You certainly can. Um, and we could certainly ask for quotes uh from other consultants to do the work local surveyors or that kind of thing. Um, BM is doing the site work design. It's often nice to have the surveyor and the designer be the same firm. Uh, helps continuity of information. But yes, that's certainly something you can always ask for a quote son. >> Um, and so when uh going back when we did a a land swap with the county and they had that, you know, I don't know exactly how the pieces all fit together, but was there any work done towards any of this prior that could save us a little bit of dollars here that we could use instead of recreating a a whole new survey? >> Uh, the wetland delineation work was already completed. So that was obtained as part of the design that is being completed by the project. >> Yes, there is some left over but we did not have a topographic survey of our our portion of the properties >> and some title commitments were part of this proposal. I'm just reading through it too. >> Right. And so even um maybe Mandy you could help on title commitments on Sun Lakes when when we would have done a land swap. those commitments not been something in place. >> Uh yes, thank you honor council. I when we did the lance up with the county, I don't recall if we ordered title commitments. Abby, do you remember if we did that for those parcels? >> I can't recall right now um at the moment just what what was done in advance. I was still I think it wasn't done too long after I had gotten here and some staff had done some of the leg work before I had gotten here. >> We can check I if we have the title work it would just be a matter of update up updating it. Obviously not a lot has changed and we know that. So an updated title commitment is cheaper than getting a new one for sure. >> So So then with this this number is this and I should have was this not to exceed 36? All all of our proposals from are going to be hourly, not to exceed. So if the work isn't there to be done, we won't get charged for that. >> Any other question? Council, any questions on this? >> No, not at this time. >> All right. All right. With that, is anyone willing to make a motion on language? I'll make a motion to approve the proposal for topographic the survey on the future public works facility site has been as discussed this evening. >> Motion is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. Right. Our next agenda item 8A, Amberly Woods preliminary plat and PUB Abby. >> Uh, thank you, Mayor Roberts. Members of the council, tonight for your consideration is a preliminary plat and planned unit development preliminary plat and planned unit development request from Twin Cities Land Development for their uh property currently owned by the Serene family. The future development plan is to be kn or the future neighborhood is to be known as Amberly Woods. Turns out when you actually plug it in, it'll display a little bit better. [clears throat] Uh so a quick little overview. The property is accessed up a good view avenue kind of sandwiched in between uh existing developments to the north and to the south. Uh there's about 56 single family homes proposed on 38.96 acres with a proposed net density of 3.3 units per acre. The property is located in the low to medium density u guided area. So it's fitting it's meeting the comprehensive plan land density requirements. Here is a um street and lot layout. Granada Avenue would be extended from the north into the property into Street C. These names will be renamed by the time of final plat. Um that will extend to a dead end behind the Sterling Oaks uh kind I think those are townhouse uh units. Street B will connect to a street A to Good View and Granada would then be further extended down into the Hawthorne Heights neighborhood. I'm going to just go back really quick to that aerial to kind of show you again. We're going to connect up Granada. We're going to have one little um culde-sac, but then in kind of a a little bit of a I want to say looped fashion here. It's not a loop, but in a S-curve fashion, we're going to get back to that Good View Avenue. As I noted, um it is guided for low to medium density residential with a minimum of three toss per acre. The zoning is MXR1. Well, uh the acreage is 38.96 units per acre or total. There are wetlands and wetland buffers on the area um that do take out a considerable amount of area that cannot be developed from the total uh gross uh acreage. There is um the net developable acres there is about 17. That's how we're getting to that 3.3. But a big portion of the land is also being proposed to be dedicated to the city. That is a large almost half of the site both those wetlands those wetland buffers and upland about just under seven acres a little over between six and seven acres um being proposed to be dedicated on the east side for parkland dedication. Um I will note I can't remember if my PowerPoint addresses it. This has gone before the parks commission who's made recommendation to accept the land and the planning commission as well. So when we're looking at planned unit developments, we look to see how they conform to the existing standards and there is one way that the development is proposing to not meet city standards and it is to proposing they are proposing 25 55 foot wide lots. Those 55 foot wide lots are slightly smaller than the minimum lot area of 7500 square feet. When looking at PUDS, we look to see what is the public benefit in allowing for the um smaller or the the concessions and the development regulations. In this circumstance, u a big part of that kind of public benefit is the land acquisition on the east side of the property, but also just the ability to meet the minimum comp plan requirements of three units per acre. Street connections we already went through. Um there will be sidewalks along those streets. Additionally, throughout lot B, there is a trail proposed right now. it would end up dead end dead ending into the kind of woodland area, woodland wetland area with a view kind of over this pond. Um staff has asked that the development not extend the trailed further than where is that dedication line because the property to the south um will present some good opportunities for trail connectivity and we don't want to necessarily we don't know exactly where that trail's best to end up. Additionally, um with the dedication on the east side, there isn't um opportunity for development of this property. However, we do need to extend utilities through the future parkland area. So, we are requesting um an easement for future utilities. We're also asking for that to be a roadway easement in the event uh the developer to the south or the city someday wants to extend Greystone Avenue through, but as of right now that isn't a requirement of this development. [clears throat] Tree removal is going to be um nominal. Most of that woodland acreage is being proposed to be retained and not going to be affected in any way as part of the development. Again, we just show a little bit of um tree loss just on that north side of the property that does um uh look uh closer to those uh existing Sterling Heights neighborhood. However, as part of the landscaping plan, there is proposed to put some trees back in that area along uh the northern property lines to help buffer the new development from the existing single family residences. did mention that parkland um dedication already. So, PUB criteria, I'm not going to regurgitate all of this, but generally speaking to approve a planned unit development, you need to see you need to find that the development fits with the neighborhood, there's meeting some public purpose, that it's consistent with the zoning code, the subdivision ordinances, and substantially Amberly Woods is meeting that criteria. Tonight for your consideration is resolution 10272501 which does include five uh conditions of approval that um corrections to final plans need to occur with the engineering comments. The watershed district they need to pay any outstanding fees. Final plat has to include the easements as discussed. We will require a development agreement. They are going to be responsible for those public infrastructure improvements. and then future wetland buffers will need to be cleared to those future homeowners. Um, additionally, we talk about mass grading permitted on the site. At your next meeting, you will see a request for a masquerading permit early release from the developer. So, again, tonight for your consideration um is resolution 10272501. Staff does recommend you move to approve that resolution approving Amberly Wood's preliminary plant and planned unit development with the five stated conditions in the staffing part and the resolution. Any questions? >> Yeah, just a quick question. Can you go back to the slide with the easements that you were describing >> that one? >> Yeah. So, if I understood you correctly, you that's eventually going to be our land. >> Yep. >> Right. and we're just want to make sure that there's an easement as a part of the titling. Is that basically it? >> Yes. So, the land is being dedicated as parkland. And so, sometimes when land is dedicated for those specific purposes, it there can be challenges when future other types of uses happen. And so, we want to make sure that we have that utility and rightway corridor >> um in we we know the utilities. I'm going to just flip back really quick to this Ariel. Um, we know that the utilities need to extend from Greystone Avenue into uh the existing Hawthorne Heights neighborhood. There needs to be a connection to this Granada, but it has to come all the way kind of south through this property. >> We wanted to make sure that we had those underlying rights for future utilities, future roadway, when and if we'd want them, if and when we'd want them. And those easements will get recorded before the deed before we accept the deed for parkland. >> Okay. So with development, as I understand it, it's on the developer to cover the cost of that infrastructure is what's the plan here with this going to be our parkland that next development to the south and they're doing their thing. Who's going to be responsible for putting that in? >> That's still to be determined. um that current the land owner to the south is aware of what's going on as are every landowner and developer east of here between County Road 50 and Highway 97. This infrastructure connection is a pretty critical public infrastructure connection point. We're internally talking about those options of whether or not that would become a public project in the future. Um, but right now the biggest thing is retaining the right for whomever ends up pulling those lines. >> The roadway itself isn't as important as much as that utility connection. >> Right. >> Okay. Just curious. >> Other questions? >> No questions. Just comment. U this is something that when we were on planning came to us, you know, and we've been working on a long or was worked on for a long time. And this is one of those areas that we mentioned or I kind of brought up last time when we were discussing parks. This is a perfect area to develop and put in a real nice natural park in there. Wouldn't be a park park with swings and stuff like that, but because of the wetlands and all the resources there, it's a beautiful nature preserve park area. What have you uh the park commission do they have? I mean, other than that, some additional ideas and there's no funding currently for it. >> No. Um, there is not funding currently for it. They um they were they're in support also of kind of a woodland nature park. I'm going to I keep kind of bouncing around here, but I want to get back to that aerial. This is the area I think got brought up at when Chestnut Creek. So, Chestnut Creek is just to the northeast of here. Um staff brought up the fact that we've been looking for parkland the entire time that I've been here in discussions with the land owners and developers of these four properties and that we would hope to obtain land through these four properties to have really nice kind of more passive woodland natural resource recreation forest lake maybe have a forested park but then the opportunity on the properties just to the south that we might be able to have a little bit more active recreation. Essentially making a little quite a bit larger park than some of our other neighborhood parks to help service this neighborhood that is what we've all recently learned is under underserved in the park arena. >> Any other questions or comments or thoughts? Council >> with that. Is anyone make a motion? >> Abby, can you bring the slide back to the motion? I'll go ahead and make the motion unless you want. Um, so move to approve the resolution 10272501 approving the Amberly Woods preliminary plat and planned unit development with the five stated conditions and seven attachments. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? like to just make a a quick note that at the planning commission meeting uh commissioners were again very strongly uh opposed to the 55 foot lot limits. Uh there was a little bit of discussion amongst the commissioners and Abby about that. Um Abby more or less mentioned that the Met Council is very strong uh in that field and that if we try to do anything there's a possibility we could lose some uh functioning from the Met Council, but I don't know if there's anything in the down the road in the future that we could do to help prevent the 55 foot lot uh prescriptions. It'd be greatly appreciated. >> I just just a couple words on that. I know it's it's really is I go back and forth on it myself. Um, we we are guided by density there. Med Council is telling us we have to do it. Um, and and I think another thing that comes to mind is when you talk about affordable housing, it doesn't necessarily have to mean multif family. Affordable housing is letting someone come up here on a smaller lot and build a home they can afford to to to move into Forest Lake. So, um, there's good and bad on both. And, um, I think the it's great that the planning commission is mindful of that and kind of keeps bringing that to our attention, but We'll we'll continue to think that through as as time goes on, more developments come forward. So, all right. So, we have a motion a second. Again, no any further discussion. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Motion carries. Thank you. Right. Uh 8B proposal for engineering services on the 2026 local road projects. and Ryan >> mayor, city council, in front of you is a proposal for engineering services for the 2026 local road improvement project along with a secondary approval of authorizing plans and specs for the project. Uh within the engineering proposal, 11 tasks have been prepared for the scope of the work that would be completed over the next year. One or two of the tasks might go beyond that. Uh but tasks include uh existing infrastructure evaluation, preparation of plans, inspects and final design, watershed permitting, public outreach and project communication, meeting and contract administration, construction observation administration, uh record plans and project closeout, materials testing allowance and serve environmental services if needed permitting requirements. Uh secondary request in this agenda item is to authorize preparation of plans and specifications for the 2026 local street improvement project. Uh budgeted for this project is $1,845,000 including funds from 211 and then the other three funds 631, 632, and 205 in amounts of $25,000 each. Uh Hayward Avenue, if you recall, was change ordered out of the Northshore Cheryl project just because of the time of the year it got to that uh we could not get into that project considering the time of year. So those funds carry over to the 2026 budget and that Hayward portion of the project would be added into the streets that are identified on the figure. Uh so with that and then the anticipated schedule as outlined in that it memo authorizing plans tonight. Uh and then approving plans and specs would be shooting for February and then uh bid opening would be anticipated March 5th with possible award in city at a city council meeting March 23rd. With that I'll open up with any questions you might have. Council, any any questions? [clears throat] >> I had um I had reached out to both Ryan and Mark a couple weeks ago about maybe the ability to do a little bit more um around this area down, you know, south of the high school, south and east of the high school. Ryan, I think you did uh come up with some numbers. Uh and Mark, maybe you could explain that the budget really wouldn't change. we would just be using dollars that are already set set aside for fund roads. >> Uh as a reminder, all our road projects come out of a capital fund. So it's not something we um in in technical terms, we don't budget for this particular project in any particular year. We budget for an amount to be put into capital fund. So we have an annual amount that goes into the capital fund. What comes out of the capital fund varies from year to year. That's the whole point of a capital fund is to avoid the peaks and valleys in your budget and to keep it nice and level. And the idea is that you put as much in as would be about average, right? So that you over the course of years you cash flow that account. Um so if bids came in good again on on this project like they did on Northshore Trail and we had some additional room, we could certainly add some more in or you can simply decide to add more in because you feel like we're getting good prices and so Even if you get good prices, maybe you don't just add in enough to make it back up to the budget, but you keep going beyond that quote unquote budget for this year. And because you've got good pricing, and then that means probably the next year or the year after you're going to skip a year to kind of even that back out and make sure that fund cash flows. Um, so lots of options on the table in terms of adding or subtracting in any given year, um, depending on how bids come in in that country. So we want to remain remain flexible and advantage of a good bidding environment if it exists. >> I don't know, council, have any thought about that being a little more aggressive on roads? We've been talking about this for some time about wanting to move that forward. Um, >> just curious, how many miles of roads does this represent? [clears throat] >> I don't have that number with me. I would just caution you though when we have had our previous conversations about Eureka Avenue and the anticipation of having to put some local dollars towards that project, right? So with that being said, you know, if we bid this project out and whatever the bid comes in with what you see on the screen in that area, by state statute, we're allowed to change order in 25% more work at that time. Right? So between now and budget approval, do we want to be a little more flexible and you know stay at this scope of work, see where bids come in and or potentially then add a change order knowing then at that point in time in the future we'll know where exactly we're at with Eureka Avenue and where the bids are on this project and with some of the other things that we're working to finance. You know, if you look at the overall maintenance map, I think we make decent progress. Obviously, more will do a lot better. I mean, you can do a quick calculation. Dave and I did this at the workshop, just sitting there talking. If we touch the roads once every 20 years and just replace the pavement, did no seal coating, no crack filling. That's was over $4 million a year you should be spending in roads. Obviously, we're not there, but I I just there's a lot of other things going on just to approve right now because that other additional area that we talked about was 1.1 million. Easy to add road network even before we bid the project in uh February. If we want to come back after we approve the a budget, then we can certainly add some roads at that time too before we bid it. Right. >> Yeah. Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I just wanted to bring that to council's attention that there would be opportunity to do a little bit more if we if we wanted to, but based on some of those unknowns, I guess it would be best prudent just to hold off. >> And you know, Ryan will be refining his estimate too as we go through the scope board that you made tonight. That'll help kind of inform us as to whether or not Ryan has a feeling that there is going to be room here to add anything as well. andor it's pretty easy if the bids come in favorable. You can see right where we stop or where we want to go next. So without any additional cost just stretching the project out to the end of the culde-sac or something there he'll be able to easily add that in at the time of bid within that 25%. To stay within this budget amount um plus the 25% you could by see statue. So, I I think this is a good project where it's at, depending on all the other things that are going on, and once you get a little further down the road in time in the future, that you'll be able to make more accurate decisions. >> Make a motion. >> I'll make a motion that we approve the proposed engineering services for the 2026 local road projects as presented tonight. >> Motion is a second. I'll second it. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. Next item, adoption of classification comprehension implementation plan. And Mark, >> Mr. Mayor and Council, um as we were presented at the last workshop, uh the results of the classification compensation study from our consultants McGrath and Associates, um we have Uh tonight on your agenda, a an item to adopt um sort of the end product of that which is uh a wage scale and uh grading classification for all of our uh employee position descriptions. And so um the ask tonight is to adopt that that plan and then also to adopt the strategy um or direct staff as to the strategy for um implementation of that. In other words, u sort of the principles we've laid out in the memo in terms of how we would get to um actually having people's wages reflect what is in that study. And so um I wanted to a little bit of time here. I know that um we had discussed at a previous workshop so two two workshops ago if I will it's more than that but it's the first time we were presented this information from a graph um actually perhaps in a closed session we discussed um the various options for implementation and one of those options sort of um takes folks and u puts them at the next step that would be above their current pay grade in order to um place them in the next wage matrix. Um the other option, the options that we're the option that we're proposing keeps people at their same step. So again, grades are kind of up and down the chart. Steps are going across the chart. As you um as the complexity and responsibility level of the job goes up, you are moving down on that chart. And then as your years of service go, you're moving to the right on that chart. And so, um, what we're proposing is to, if you're at a step three, you're going to be at a step three in the next wage, the one we're implementing tonight. Um, if you're at a step five, you're a step five. Everyone will keep their same step. We'll then honor everyone's step increase at the beginning of the year. But, um, in terms of just apples to apples, we're moving keeping people at the same step level. Those steps are an indication of experience level at that particular job and we felt like it was um important to recognize that they wouldn't be no one would be moving backwards on that step scale uh or forward for that matter. Um so the alternative to that I want to make sure that the council understands is a large savings to the to the budget if you were to do that. However, it to use that phrase again kicks the can to the next year. Right? So, if you instead of keeping people at their step, you push them to a lower step that was just above their current pay rate um and them take two or three years to get to that market rate. Um that would be a significant savings this year. But what that means is there's that many more people that will need to take a step next year, right? So that savings would be in the neighborhood of $200 to $300,000 off of next year's budget, but it means $200 or $300,000 additional on the next year's budget. And I think what we've done is we've prepared a budget for 2026 that meets the needs of this study to get everybody to market. And um we're making sure that we get there um in as timely a f as possible and I think there's a number of reasons to do that. Um, one it seems to be what's most fair to employees would get them to the market acknowledging that we've done a study and we've spent time and effort on the study. This is the market we want to pay market rates. The second is that in a in some scenarios there could be people if you did it differently there could be people that move a step or two back and then someone could be hired right next to them at that same entry level step and you have been at the job for two two years, let's say, and now a new hireer comes in at the same step you are. That may not be particularly feel pretty good, right? Um, getting these things implemented right away allows us to attract those new employees. I think especially important is our police force. We're down a couple of people um and number of applications that we're getting just everyone, this is not unique to us as much. So, but um you know, we want to make sure that we can attract as many people to those jobs postings as we can, right? Um so, I think there's a number of reasons to make make this more what I would call an aggressive move um this year and uh because I I think this council has um set this budget up so that we don't have to have a big year in terms of increases next year. So, if again you think in the terms of two to $300,000 you're talking about um two and a half to three and a half% of an increase, right? And so [clears throat] next year's budget is projected at around 5%. Want to move that to seven, which mean, you know, could you move this one down and move that next one to seven? Does that feel different to you? Is that something you want to do? I think again staff's recommendation, strong recommendation is that we do it this year. We think that's going to help our negotiations in our union contracts which are all five of them have some form of negotiation this year and we think that will move those things along quickly and and result in in a good expectation for everybody. So I just wanted to go dive deep on that a little just again just to make sure we're doing that eyes wide open everyone understands that that have that choice that we could implement this on a slower pace. Um, but I want to just bring that to your attention before we move forward. >> So, question if I may. So, I'm looking at page 102 of the packet. It's the appendix A, the recommended 2026 salary schedule. So, what I hear is being recommended is that we move from five steps to six as was discussed in the last conversation on this. Correct. >> Y what you're describing is if just to pick something in the middle. So if you have somebody that's at a paygrade 105 step three and they're because of the study they should really be a paygrade 110. The idea one option could be to move them back to say a step two because that's closest without them actually going backwards in in real dollars. But you're saying no, let's keep them at step three on the 110 pay grade. Is that really what we're getting at? That that's one of the things. So you complicated the situation a little bit by moving someone up a grade. >> Well, so I'm just curious is are there people moving grades because of this? >> Yes, there are. >> Okay. >> Um and the that's exactly right what you laid out. But you could also have someone that stays at the same step but their home excuse me at the same grade. So pay grade 105. Let's take your example again. But let's say that if I looked at the matrix for 2025, the existing matrix, and a step three um person was only at $35 an hour, for instance, let's say this grade moved up a lot, right? >> Got it. Y >> would you put that person back at step one because that's the closest step to their current >> wage >> wage without going below it. Right. And if if we did that, would the expectation, am I hearing you correctly, the expectation would be then that in 2027's budget, we would move them back to step three? >> No, we would not necessarily. >> No, we would simply move them up a step. And so they would right now they're they're at step three. They're two steps away from hitting the max or three steps if you want to think of it in terms of a sixstep system. >> Yeah. >> If we bump them back to one now, they've got another six years to get to that top wage. >> Got it. I think that's what's going to be the conernation is but I've been here for three years. How come I'm losing those steps? Right. Yeah. I can especially see someone and this might be a little bit more of a rarity but you know some of these grades are moving up significantly >> um spin again especially I think of officers um if you've been here 20 years and you're at step five >> and because of how much that grade might be moving up you move back two steps gosh that's going to feel >> like a takeaway >> tough right to say I want to And what you're acknowledging then is too is that you're not paying them market rate anymore. >> Well, right. Not only are have we not been paying a market rate, but we're choosing to not to to continue that. >> Yeah. Again, and a lot of cities do that. I I don't want to I don't want to lose this point. A lot of cities do it that way because oftentimes these studies are major rearrangements of their pay scale like 10 20% sometimes. here. I think what we've one of the reasons we're recommending this is it's it's not as extreme of a move as as other cities might have found themselves in a bigger hole. >> Our pay rates today, I may generalize very much are not that bad. [cough] [clears throat] Pretty good news here that the market we weren't that far off the market >> in some places. Yes, absolutely. Other places not so much. Right. So, I think that's why a lot of is just too big a financial jump in one year to do it. And um why we're recommending doing it this year is because we have constructed a budget that we think is reasonable that can do it all at once as opposed to stretching it out. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any [clears throat] other questions? >> Just I guess a couple things on this. I know [clears throat] the workshop, you know, some some numbers were presented to what's what some some of staff are making. Um, you know, through this study, it was clear that we weren't quite at market on on most of our positions. Not too far off, but but not not there. U, we struggled to fill open positions. A lot of it had to do with pay and what other cities are doing. And so, this really does get us to be more competitive and be able to attract and retain good uh good professional employees. And so, um, this this calls it out. I It's a little bit of a jump for some people to to be able to, but I think to your point, long term, it it's going to level things out on the budget and, um, it's probably the right thing to do for staff. >> With that, anyone will make a motion? I'll make a motion to adopt the 2026 wage scale and position grading as presented in the final classification and compensation study along with the guiding principles for implementation as presented herein as the non-UN wage scale for 2026 and as the basis for union negotiations going forward. >> I'll second. >> All right, motion is second. Any further discussion? >> All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. Right. We are on 8 D and I am going to ask council member and acting mayor Valento to handle this next agenda item. >> I'll wait a few minutes >> as we're waiting. We'll just Mayor Roberts is leaving the room and has not left the room for the >> and getting started. Um item 8D, cannabis registration ordinance amendment. It looks like Jolene. >> Thank you, Council Member Valento. Um on October 13th, we discussed here at the last regular meeting of the council um some options for council to consider with uh relation in relation to our cannabis registration ordinance. that included um discussion of placing a cap on adult use cannabis retail and then also exploring whether registration could be delegated to Washington County in light of some changes that were made at the state level this last legislative session. Um, I did connect with staff at Washington County regarding delegation of registration and they have confirmed and this was what we discussed at the meeting last time that they are not able to enforce a cap should the city place a cap on registrations. So tonight for your consideration then um I have ordinance 759 uh drafted for you. This is a slight amendment to our existing cannabis registration ordinance. The modifications include addition of a cap on retail registrations that is placing the cap at the statutory minimum plus one. So that allows for some flexibility should the state change their minimum um requirements. Um that would cap the city's registrations at three. And this is only for adult use cannabis. This amendment also contemplates um addition of low pent sorry this one always gets me low potency hemp edibles. Our ordinance did not consider this uh when we drafted and approved that back in December of 2024 because at that time the state was not specifying that that would fall to the local level for that registration. It does now. So, here we are. So, um, this ordinance would require that retailers who wish to sell low potency hemp edibles, and this includes like the THC beverages that you see at liquor stores or gas stations or even Cub Foods. Now, um, they would be required to submit a registration here at the city before they're issued their final license by the state. This ordinance also includes um an amendment to the fee schedule to allow for a $125 annual registration fee for the low potency hemp edible registration. That is the maximum that's allowed by statute. Um in my staff report you might have noted I don't believe that this fee fully covers the city's obligations. um not only the administrative part but also the the ordinance or not the ordinance the um enforcement efforts that are required for a verification. However, the statute's very clear we cannot go above $125 for these registration requirements. So for your consideration is approval of ordinance 759 um amending chapter 117 related to registration of cannabis businesses. Um and I'm open for any questions. questions from the council. >> No, it sounds like what we discussed at our last meeting. >> Thanks for checking into that Washington County angle. >> Any other questions? If not, looking for a motion. I'll move to approve the ordinance 759 uh which is amending the uh the Forest Lake City Code title um 11 chapter 117 sections 117.01 and 117.02 registration of cannabis businesses to include lower potency hemp edible retailers in retail registrations. A >> second motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. We'll get Mayor Blake back and I'll hand it back to him. All right. Uh item 8E, letter of support, local road improvement program funding application, Otter Lake road extension in line of lakes. Looks like Ryan and Abby. >> Um I can take this. Um city of Forest Lakes been in discussions with the city of Hugo uh Columbus and Lo Lakes about the future development of the Elmrest Avenue Hornsby corridor that is all of our jurisdictions boundary. City of Lionol Lakes is moving forward with the Otter Lake road extension that will lead into that future um Elmrest Hornsby and they have um they are requesting funding from Mindot through the local road improvement program. They've asked for the city's support. There's no cost to the city. Um but we wanted to bring this before the council to see if you're in favor of writing a letter of support for the city of Lo Lakes for their um request for MDOT funding. If so, it would be a motion to authorize execution of the attached letter of support. >> All right, council. Any questions or comments? >> Seems pretty straightforward. Uh that's going to be hopefully that comes through a a great connector for our [clears throat] the southwest side of our city. Uh so with that, I willing to entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to authorize the execution of the attached letter of support. >> I'll second. >> Right. We have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Motion carries. And uh we're at a discussion portion of the meeting which we have no items there. So we'll start uh with staff updates. Um how do we want to do this? Let go ahead Ellie when she start. >> Uh no finance updates. >> Okay. Ryan, >> mayor, city council, I just got one update. Northshore Trail, uh all the traffic control should be off the job by Thursday or Friday of this week with all the final punch list items completed. Final striping and the uh dynamic speed signs have been installed, too. >> Great. >> Julie, >> no updates this evening. Abby, >> I just have a couple. I did want to I had planned to share Commissioner Larson or chair council member Larson, planning commission liaison Lararssson's comment too about the planning commission just the concern over smaller lot sizes aren't Forest Lake. That's really I think one of the general sentiments that our planning commission is struggling with. I do want to um share with you that I have had discussions throughout the entire time I've been here with the Met Council about how they allow us to calculate density and the exemptions from developable land area. So tonight you saw a project that was 36 acres, but it got down to 17. But things like storm ponds and roadways still can't be exempted from those developable acreage. And um my argument and many other cities are we really should be exempting some of those land those land uses or development ancillary development items um that really aren't allowing for our us to kind of show that we are actually building I think at a higher density than um than what their calculation is allowing. So, I'm continuing to have those conversations, especially as we gear up through this next comp plan cycle to really work with the Met Council to see how we can um put at the forefront some of the local concerns, the local um restrictions or the uh restrictions is maybe a good way that's really showing that maybe we are at a higher density than necessarily. Um that might allow us a little bit to to pull back on some of those really little lots. But as um Commissioner Young did state in a last planning commission meeting when somebody said, you know, we're not Hugo. I'm just reminded, no, but we have the same density requirements as Hugo and so and a lot of other communities. Um, just know I am continuing those conversations with the Met Council. I did also want to note we had a monthly code enforcement meeting. Um, now that we're kind of getting all of our staffing into place, um, Amanda came in, we met with our interim building official. Um, we have about a half a dozen um, nuisance properties that are on our radar and many of them have been on your radar and you've had some actions on them. I know that process has been slowgoing for some of those neighbors and a lot of neighbors are wondering what's going on, what's going on. This council said this house is going to come down. Um, we've had just a little bit hiccups and trying to find consultants that are willing to demolish private structures on the city's behalf. Um but we are lining up with um two different construction or demolition companies right now that we're hoping for the snowflies um the two largest of our problem properties will be the structures nuisance structures will be removed. So after the court allows us um to do so on the second one at the end of this week and but we will be having that meeting monthly to kind of help stay on top of things. And then lastly, I just want to um tomorrow we welcome our new planner, Michael Burchland. So, he's Ken's replacement. Madison um who's been our [clears throat] interimm planner will still stick around. She probably will will pull back on her office hours as the year continues, but definitely still going to be instrumental in helping onboard Michael and still that continuity in a lot of our zoning applications, some of our development review. So, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me or Madison. questions. >> Thanks, Dave. >> No updates. >> Chief [clears throat] Peterson. >> Yeah. Mayor and city council members, as you've probably seen uh from your email today and um from some local news out outlets, last night we had a pretty serious uh person in crisis call um just here across the highway, Highway 61 and um 11th Avenue Southeast. Um, we were assisted by Washington County Sheriff's Office, Chicago County Sheriff's Office, Minnesota State Patrol, uh, Wyoming Police Department, and that individual was, um, eventually taken into custody and was transported to get some help. Um it's just another example of um the collaboration we have with our surrounding law enforcement agencies and the the seriousness of some of these calls and how complex they can be. But I just want to thank all all those agencies that assisted us and definitely our own uh police officers who were there to get that individual help. That's all I have for you. >> Thank you, Amanda. >> No updates. >> Mark, mayor and council, just wanted to thank everyone for their participation at the retreat on Saturday. I think we had a great outcome, lots of good discussion and a lot of good building blocks for moving our strategic plan forward. That's all I have. >> Council member Miller, >> no updates. >> Um, attended the last week attended the cable commission meeting and it was a pretty standard meeting. We approved a budget. So that should be coming to council. Um I want obviously next month um since it's our last meeting of this month. Um and that's it for me. >> Council member Ericson. >> No updates tonight. >> Council member Larson. >> No other. Thank you. >> I don't have any either. So with that, I'd be willing to entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> Motion second. Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. We are adjourned. Thanks everyone. >> [music]