Right. Commissioner Gindall >> here. >> Commissioner Lurge >> here. >> Commissioner Roberts >> here. >> Commissioner Wright is absent. Commissioner Ho >> here. >> Vice Chair Lgnes >> present. and uh President Ericson >> here. If you will join me to say the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, we have an agenda before us. O look for a motion to approve or amend. >> I move we approve the agenda. >> A second. >> Motion a second. All those in favor? >> I. >> We have an agenda. Next we have open forum. Any opportunity an opportunity for any citizen who wishes to to speak to this body on any matter? Just ask you keep it to about three minutes. Seeing none, we'll close the open forum. And we have a consent agenda before us. Entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I post. All right. First regular agenda item. Abby, we've got the Minnesota Technology Corridor. >> Uh, thank you, President Ericson, members of the EDA. In 2018, the city of Forest Lake along with other I35 corridor communities, both in Noa County, uh, Washington counties community development agencies, Kexus Energy, formed an economic development initiative known as the Minnesota Technology Corridor. It the intent of the initiative was to regionally market the area for highquality development due to the access to the infrastructure that this corridor has. Um, included in the memo in a packet from Gregory from Gills from uh the Anoka County EDA. Long range planning documents between all these entities have kind of created some mismatch standards on what ultimately should be designed for Elmrest Avenue, a very prominent roadway, our western boundary in the city. And um as part of the significant economic development initiatives, the four cities and the two county EDA's staff have been meeting for a while to talk about that corridor's future design. As a reminder to some members of the EDA, our southwest corner, a lot of that land area is guided for non-residential development. And this Elmrest corridor really leads from the the Lo's Tra uh travel plaza all the way down to the otter lake road extension in Lino Lakes. And so this is a pretty significantly sized corridor between these four cities, two counties that we believe should have um a good regional design and plan. And so the four city staff in conjunction with the EDAS have drafted the enclosed cooperative agreement which indicates that the parties in the agreement will agree to a scope of services for for a request for proposals to solicit help to create a design that all of the agencies can agree to. um we would develop and agree to a funding formula and then execute a professional development agreement and then create a design for the Elmrest Avenue corridors. In essence, what we're looking to do is to figure out what's that roadway going to look like? Is it a two-lane road? Is it a four-lane road? Is it divided? How far are the roads, you know, access points separating? Are they going to be roundabouts? Maybe some of these things we don't won't be able to quite figure out. when I just saw that are they going to be roundabouts or stop lights? Um, but that's the whole intent is for the four cities and the two county EDAs to work together to try to figure out that design. We believe with that design, then we can take that to uh county regional policy makers in the state and start to look to see if if we can't get some development plans on long range planning documents for the future development of Elmrest Avenue. Um all staff in the county EDAS do believe that this is a significant economic development initiative that this this underlying planning needs to be done for the roadway to eventually be built and it's just the start of a pretty significant economic development project in the um in the region. So included in here tonight is uh your consideration of a motion for the city council and so staff would recommend the EDA motion to recommend the city council approve the corridor cooperative agreement at Elmrest Avenue. Any questions? >> I have two Abby. Um the first is regarding the cost sharing formula. Do we have any idea of or at least from the the staff side in conversations? Is that being led in the direction of it's going to be split basically in six or are the counties going to take on more or is it going to be a formula that will take into account that some of the cities may benefit greater than others? um that hasn't been determined yet and that was something that we actually initially in the cooperative agreement had drafted that it was kind of a blind cauture and um Forest Lake at least from the city's perspective said hey maybe we need to just kind of figure out this agre this this cost share funding before we end up soliciting or before we end up engaging with a consultant. I think the big thing first is we need to figure out how much it's going to cost. Um, I do believe, and Chris Egg might be able to confirm this, that the county does have pre-development um, dollars that would go to help this. The county's pre-development funding system is a um, it's a different, it's 8020 or 5050 depending on the scope of the project. Um, it's obviously the city's hopes that the counties will take more of the share, but I think it's the how much is that going to cost and where can we tap into existing funding sources to see what that gap is then I would say it is at least my hope that it would be at least an equal share amongst the cities because if you do look at who has more developable area versus non-developable area there are cities that have very limited development area along that corridor um but will also greatly benefit because it's leading right into their community and connecting through these on this um kind of in this region Does that answer your question? >> It it does. I just wanted to see if I could understand. Um, and I I I would normally be quite hesitant on entering into or suggesting that the council enter into an agreement where we don't know what the cost share is, but I have great trust in our neighboring communities and and think that we have good partnership. So, it it doesn't cause me hesitation. My other question that I have is on it's on page 15 of our packet. the last one where the signitories are. Um, so for an NOA County in each of the cities, it names the signatory as the county of Anoka, the city of Columbus, but for Washington County, it says Washington County Community Development Authority. And I was just curious on why that differentiation exists only for the one of the six. >> President Eric, Ericson, a member of can address that one. So in Washington County, the community development agency is the economic development authority for the county. And in noa county, it's it's actually in noa county. They don't have an EDA or a CDA. So it's actually county staff. And and as I'd be mentioned in the past, we would hope to be a funding partner with the cities to partner with you to bring grant funds to the to the project to do the studies. And so from an economic development perspective, not necessarily from a transportation planning perspective, but just economic development overall, we would we would welcome the opportunity to partner with the cities. Hope that helps. It does. Thank you. >> Any other questions for Abby or Chris? I was just going to say in the steps identified here, it looks like step number three is to scope out as part of a committee that's formed the funding formula recommendations. I mean, so so it looks like, you know, a lot of the next steps are sort of what does this look like? How would we work with these other is it I think it's six total entities, correct? Um >> what would look like? So I think a lot of it would be fleshed out there and then you know if we don't like the looks or the sounds of that we aren't beholden to anything. Correct. That is correct. I mean this is the first step in each of these um agencies uh kind of signing on to work together to formally yes we're going to work in partnership with one another. There are opportunities I think in the future when we talk about uh when we enter into agreements and those sorts of things are going to have to come back for discussion. Make sure all parties are on board and moving forward. >> Great. Great questions. Anybody else? Chris, is there anything that you want to add beyond what the conversation has been thus far as far as being one of the six partners? >> Yeah. Is there anything else you want to add to to the discussion? just as a one of the six partners. >> Just to make sure I understand the question, could you repeat it one more time? >> I was just curious if you wanted to add anything to Aby's comments as far as being one of the six partners. >> Yeah, just just real briefly, we did um talk with the Hugo EDA um two weeks ago and they um approved the recommendation to the city council and the city council I think will be taking this forward in January for consideration likely approval. Um and it's just um pretty high level at this point in time. I don't think we're at the point we're going to dive down and do specs and plans and stuff like that, but it's just How do we work together to look at this area from an economic development perspective again to make sure that it makes sense for everybody? And I think the coordination and the collaboration will be a will be a good effort in conjunction with the Minnesota technology quarter. Our intent all along has been to to add tax base commercial and industrial market values and good paying jobs to this corridor. And I think that's kind of still our intent moving forward and that's kind of where we'll move our focuses going forward. >> Excellent. Thank you. Uh Ryan, just a question or and maybe really more just point for public. Can you just explain where conversations have been uh between an interchange out 180th versus one at 170th and what you see the the likelihood and I know we're getting ahead of ourselves, but this is all part of that and just that'd be good for public knowledge to hear. >> Yep. So the city of Forest Lake was involved with Columbus in the past working on discussions of planning for a future interchange at 180th wasn't likely supported by the city of Hugo and Lo to the degree Forest Lake and Columbus were in support of it. Uh in the transportation county plans of Anoka and Washington County, it does show a future interchange at 170th already some infrastructure there at 35E. Um so with all that being said and now the group working closer and closer together that uh the desire is to look at a future interchange at 170th but this Elmrest is a key component to that region and as identified in our comprehensive plans. This is a uh planned turnback road to the county someday as a frontage road to I35 which will then feed into all that land that was reszoned part of the last comprehensive plan of the city of Forest Lake. That would be that commercial. What's the actual zoning that southwest? >> Yeah. >> Uh so this is that key component to that area. Uh obviously it's going to have a positive effect on our own infrastructure as you get into Fenway, right? Because now Fenway wouldn't have to be as robust because think of all the traffic that comes up I35 and then they exit at 90 97 just to go back south down Everton or Fenway to get to their homes. So, if you have that other roadway network that's coming uh at 170th and then Elmrest is a fully developed county road someday, how it can just feed in all these other properties. And that's that's really the main component that the city uh should focus on that how do we get that developed, you know, and then this study, if you look at the boundaries of it, you see those 290s that are in the Forest Lake Columbus area. part of that study is going to most likely recommend either a roundabout at probably one of those intersections or you're going to realign the road to meet a certain mile per hour curve and this is the property we're going to have to reserve and how you going to then develop and all that around that to account for that future need right there. So I think it's good being this early so properties aren't already developed and then now you're buying existing tax base practicing. Right. So >> thank you. >> I read the through the agreement. I thought it made a lot of sense. So I appreciate you guys's um going over it for us. Is anybody want to make a a motion to app send this to the council for recommendation? Um I second it. >> All right, we have first and second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> Motion carries. All right. Next on the agenda is our 2026 meeting dates and time. >> Yeah. Thank you, President Ericson, members of the EDA. In 2026, the city of Forest Lake with input from this body changed the EDA's meeting date to the first Monday of the month was giving the EDA sufficient time or at least more time than the one hour before council another meeting was coming in here. Um, and but keeping that time at at 5:30. Uh, at a last meeting the city council discussed adjusting some of the U meeting board and commission meeting start times. Uh right now the council's meeting start time is six o'clock as is the planning commission. Um there's just been some confusion I think from either members of bodies or the general public of what time that public meeting starts. There's some that start at 5:30 and some that start at 6:30. So the council is wondering about the EDA's favorability to keeping your meeting time the first Monday of the month but potentially changing it to 6 pm in 2026 just for organizational consistency. So tonight, just for your discussion is whether or not you're favorable to that from staff's perspective. I know uh the start times being consistent would be helpful because um it's even confusing sometimes of what what time what time we got to get meeting rooms ready and all the doors unlocked and that sort of thing. So, um, staff's recommendation is for you to discuss this and if you're favorable, motion to adjust the 2026 meeting start times, uh, for inclusion on the city meeting calendar to, um, the first Monday of the month at 6 p.m. >> Anybody opposed to the idea of starting at 6 PM and half hour later than what we're currently doing? Well, hearing no opposition to the idea, anybody want to make a motion to adjust our meeting start time for the city council. >> I'll move to adjust them standard meeting start time to 6:00 p.m. >> Continuing on the first Monday of the month, >> correct? >> All right, we have a motion. Is there a second? >> Any further discussion? All those in favor sign by saying I. >> I opposed. We've got a meeting time for 2026. All right, that ends our regular agenda action items and we're going to move into discussion. We got a couple of topics on the agenda. Looks like uh Ryan's going to start with the Southwest Forest Lake infrastructure phasing study. President Ericson, uh, other members of the EDA. Tonight we prepared a PowerPoint, uh, kind of go over this the scope of the project and then give you some background and then kind of go into some of the findings that are preliminary have been identified. Uh, obviously if you get any questions, feel free to ask. But I just want to bring this forth to you guys u prior to moving forward with anything else. So the study location is just the extension of Headarters Parkway southwest portion of the city of Forest Lake um west of Fenway Avenue north of 190th on how the potentially Headwaters Parkway would connect to Elmrest Avenue in the future. Uh the scope of the project was uh preparation of two conceptional layouts for discussion that will lead to one final two-dimensional layout of the preferred headwaters parkway alignments extension to Elmrest. Uh once the roadway network's completed and finalized, then we'll u work in including sanitary sewer and water main how to serve this area for future development. And um the final layouts, it'll meet state aid requirements for design speed of 40 miles per hour. It's consistent with the existing portion of Headwaters Parkway. Uh reason why we want it to be a state aid road. So obviously this will be a road that'll take a lot of traffic in the future and we're allowed to designate so many miles of roadway in the city as a state aid routes. And if you do so, then you can use your state a construction dollars to help fund that improvement in the future uh for reconstruction. But if I don't have the footprint that would allow me to meet a state aid roadway right off the bats and then we can't make a meet a state aid design in the future anyway wouldn't be eligible to that pot of money. So that's what the state aid reference is. It's it's a knowing it's going to be a major road. It's going to carry a lot of traffic. it's going to have uh show a lot of needs and u meets a lot of warrants in the state aid system. So that's why I just kind of brought that up too. But uh we are going to engage with property owners along the proposed concept alignments to discuss potential impacts to their properties and outline the property acquisition that needs to be identified. We did meet with the property owners two weeks ago upstairs. Kind of went through the same presentation uh on information that you guys are seeing tonight too. uh with the property owners there. There was the the developer of Hidden Creek that was in the room as well. Uh identify easements and rightaway needed for the Headwaters Parkway extension to Elm Crest Avenue. I did a wetland investigation delineation to understand the developable area and use this information to coordinate with the techn technical evaluation panel on potential alignment that would be supported and uh for the future to allow for the extension of the parkway. And then once we get all that dialed in and then we'll be start preparing preliminary storm water design to determine feasible treatment alternatives for the proposed final headers parkway extension. And then ultimately we finish with completing preliminary cost estimates for the layout of the parkway. That would also include utilities to serve that area too just for future planning. Little history in the area from the 2006 master PUD uh operation that was done back in the day. You can see what's um the whole headarters development was going to look like. The extension of the parkway had a separated parkway at that time. Um but as uh permitting restrictions had become stricter, you know, back when this first came, we didn't have wetland buffers, we didn't, you know, stuff like that. So storm water ponding was much smaller just to meet the rules and requirements today. It just doesn't make sense to have a separated parkway and take up that much uh develop a land. And that's why after Fenway you see it's come together and just the concrete meeting down the middle. Uh still creating a safe uh and efficient traffic routes but uh and controlling access to the corridor so it's safe to maneuver through but uh not having a separated dual roadways that were between Fenway and Highway 61 that you see. Uh, conceptual layout option one pretty much mimics what was outlined in the original PUD that it would come and tie in through 195th and out to Elmrest just off to that circle on the left. Uh, we just assumed there would be a proposed roundabout. That was one of the areas that I talked about at 90 in the Elmrest Hornsby area and that Columbus border city of Forest Lake border that's that potentially could be realigned and you'd have a smooth transition curve. Uh but that would have to be something that would be planned for with that study that you guys talked about earlier. So with this you can see that uh the roadway were to be extended in this proximity where it was planned uh when wetland wetlands would be impacting the area highlighted in blue would be the impact of the roadway and the areas that are identified um in the circle or outline of the purple line that's the wetland boundaries that have been delineated. So that was option one that we've looked at. Option two looked at a farther and more robust uh collector through this area. How it could serve more footprint of developments. Uh also coming down property parcel boundaries. You'll have dual uh ownership on each side. Now you're not just impacting one property to bring it right through the middle. You got, you know, your shared land on both sides. And then as we turn south where we do then head straight west that really is now separating different uh zoning uses of properties on the north side and the south side there too. So a nice transition in that area. Uh looked at wetland impacts in that area too and I'll have a summary on some of the next pages. So here's the wetland delineations that we were completed in the area and out of this area to the north. The developers already completed some that we utilize those. Uh mostly the stuff that's is being impacted with option two is a type one. There was a lot of type two impacts with the option one. Now, obviously, if we're impacting type ones, uh sometimes you don't have as a strict mitigation requirements, but you should anticipate like a two to one. So, we're trying to uh minimize the amount of wetland impacts as we could, but uh conversation I had with Abby just earlier tonight. That's one thing to also look at is if you're building a road for regional purposes and you're going to serve a big area, it's a little easier to get permitted and allowed to impact a wetland, you're still going to have to mitigate it. That means you can either go build the same wetland at a 2 to1 ratio, usually a minimum in the area and then after so many years and they get approve it as a new wetland rights or you can go buy wetland credits. But if you just go build this road and I say I don't want to impact or disturb any wetlands, I could certainly go do that, right? But in the future, if a developer then want is left with wetland area, he's not going to get the approval from the T panel to go, I want to take all these wetlands out of here and I'll mitigate that. No, no, no. We're going to have to go through a sequencing process and he's going to most likely not have have as much develop land as he thought he was going to be able to because he's not going to get approval to impact wetlands like you would with a regional project serving regional um providing regional service. So the difference between uh the two conceptual options, option one does disturb 1.13 acres. Uh it's less expensive than option two, but it serves a much smaller developable area. And you start laying out what developments could look like. And if your major collector is farther away and you got all this housing in the middle, they're going to have to travel pretty far to get to a collector, which is going to be either Headarters Parkway or the next one probably is going to be 190th, right? So now if we bend that down and bring that forward, now you're kind of picking up all the neighborhoods to come to that major collector, not having a lot of cut through traffic of neighborhoods. So with the option two um alignments, it provides a a lot easier connectivity for that neighborhood to get to that collector easier. Option two, disturbed a little less uh options. Um you know, obviously both options are going to have different impacts with the Hornsby Elmrest future intersection interchanges when that's ultimately designed, but that'll come with a future more robust road project. That's we kind of outlined in the study tonight that was approved. Uh option two, one of the differences is we start crossing the JD4 branch three, but we know about that. We also this city also has another study going on with that uh where they've received money from the legislation on doing some storm water in that area. It's the same process we already had to do where the headwater uh headarters parkway was built going all the way up starting at the airports. Drain tile came all the way down through there. the original portion of headarters crosses Fenway and then crosses back up through into what is known as Hidden Creek right now. The active development in that area where they're building all the houses where we had to go through that um transfer of that uh tiled in some areas then the tile gets removed and replaced with either storm sewer pipe or open channel flow. So not a uncommon um procedure but it is something that you would have to deal with option two that you don't in option one because we We've already crossed it. It's now starting to head south. Uh like I already just mentioned quickly too, there will be uh future wetland impacts to with Elm Crest improvements. Other design considerations uh this is a map preliminary wetland management corridor WMCA on the properties. Basically, that means just the white line impedex will trigger storm water permitting where just like every other development that has in that area and uh we'd have to work through those approvals um with the waterershed and the T panel and have a design that's meets that stuff accordingly. Obviously down in this area too uh the 100redyear flood elevations are going to be reviewed closely by Rice Creek wershed district and city permitting. Um, this also is going to be identified and reviewed within the JD4 study that's is looking at the current future flood elevation. So, a lot of that information is already being developed. It's something that we have to look at every development anyways. So, it's not again not something new. Just pointing out some things that are also kept in mind when you're looking at these layouts. Next step of this uh study really is to determine a preferred alignments. and you can dial in a lot of those other scopes tasks that I talked about earlier and then prepare that preliminary storm water design, do the proposed final headers parkway extension and prepare uh preliminary cost estimates for a final layout of headarters Parkway and then including all the utility layouts as well then finalize the study. So just kind of a quick PowerPoint to give you guys some background on the scope, the history, and the two alignments that's uh have been generated from the work that's been done to date. >> All right. Thank you, Ryan. Any questions? Yeah, go ahead. Um, Ryan, what was the feedback that you received from the land owners and developer that you met with last week or was it two weeks ago? >> You want to recap that email? >> Sure. Um, so we have heard from so there are six affected land owners um or families we should say. One of the families um that are on kind of the eastern side are favorable to the option to approach. Um, we have heard from the developer of Hidden Creek who has also had a concept plan for Hidden Creek South, Hidden Creek South, moving to the south of the existing Hidden Creek and across the other side of the Parkway. That concept plan, um, they've submitted a preliminary plat which does show it following the option one alignment. So, kind of that moving kind of more straight down. >> Option two, >> excuse me, option two. Thank you. Um, we did hear from some people in the meeting um that thought that headarters should um connect straight down to 190th, but from a regional transportation system and kind of that skeleton or that network, you really want to get your smaller roads to your bigger roads to your bigger roads. And so leading two collectors together to then end up at Elmrest isn't as desirable. Um, just today I did speak with uh one property owner that would probably be I can't say most affected, but would be affected by either option um either on their northern property line or their southern property line. Um offering a third proposal for the city to consider which really did kind of bisect their property almost kind of a third and twothirds. Um, I said that I would share that at least um thought with the EDA, the planning commission council, see if we want to study a third alignment. Staff um can see the perspective that there could potentially be less roadway like just foot for foot in a third option. However, we are concerned um as Ryan had mentioned that this third alternative though it minimizes wetland impacts to nearly zero, it pushes those impacts onto then those future developers where the city in its infrastructure planning um does I can't say has a little more leeway. a wetland impact, a wetland impact, but um wetland impacts for regional infrastructure purposes are viewed a little bit more favorably than a wetland impact for more houses. Um and so I can't say that it was overwhelmingly one way or another. Um but I think the neighborhood is really looking for having this direction so at least this development community can move forward. Um, that's one thing I hear pretty consistently. >> What What was the or can you describe the route for this potential third option? I'm not visualizing it from your words. >> Uh, Ryan, could you just bring up the option one really quick? You take um that kind of the new proposal and instead uh I don't know if that's actually working um where it's touching the existing parkway. If you went from that northeast corner to about the middle of the western property boundary of that first 40 acres, um it kind of split that property in thirds. Can I >> Was this even further north than where it's showing here? >> Yeah. >> North of the of the wetlands. >> Uh correct. Excuse me. I go to the next option I was the >> north of option two but south of option one. >> So if it can you see my >> that's if you get out of the >> Oh yeah. >> Can you see the cursor? >> Option one. actually from this point. So, still coming down in that option two, but then kind of snaking that around and cutting this piece here in like a third and a two/3. I think it really was trying to preserve the this properties development and isolate it a little bit. Um, but also the concern of having infrastructure costs, future development infrastructure costs on an east property line, a west property line, and how that might make the property a little less desirable from a development perspective. From staff's perspective, um can understand that um that you know it it puts uh those that infrastructure there's more infrastructure on this property in uh the option to route. But we do also believe that that connection, the roadway connects to more significant amount of properties, thereby making kind of all of the land area a little bit more desirable. Um whereas some of those properties further east not having connection to the parkway extension has been greater infrastructure costs to try to get the their roadway rates through the parkway. that help address at least the inquiries that were and give you a better visual frame for that. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> Is this all uh paid by development or is this will this parkway will be paid by >> so historically development has paid it way rights? >> As you said, option two is more expensive than option one. >> Well, it's it's longer. It's gonna have more development or long it's u >> if the cost is being covered by the developer >> am I concerned >> that's that's a challenge right I mean in the past everything that's been developed in the city through a a plat has been paid by a developer uh does policy change in the future that's a higher conversation two people here could certainly have, but uh do you want it to happen now? That's another conversation, right? Uh you know, headarters 123 in the in the roundabout at Fenway. Nothing was really happening there for a long time, right? Or we went and got a grant for the city for $750,000 and that's how that was all built. Uh so there's those opportunities out there, too. If you have a document that's you know we approve and this is the plan moving forward that then sets you up for opportunity to chase some of this with funding. If we're just extending it by plats by plat and going where we're going okay this plat fits here. So now we're making sure that we got that 40 mph curve. So here we go. Right? But now if you have something like this, you could start chasing some uh grant funding and apply to this or and so it gives you more opportunities, right? It's going to be better for permitting in the future having a final approved alignment because this is the regional plan. How to serve this regional area. We need this alignment, right? Having this plan also sets up stuff for uh grant opportunities. also sets up now that somebody sees you have a plan, it might develop even faster. So, >> I was just in relation to kind of as as um Mayor Roberts was bringing up before in relation to the technology corridor, you know, and working with the other, you know, neighboring communities and things like what is how does the timing work with that? like is there something that if we were to do this before that committee work is done is there anything that would jeopardize um what we might want to do or what's decided from that committee in terms of development that they would say well shoot now we can't do that because this was already put in place does it make sense to or we can't wait on this until those decisions are made I'm just wondering the timing on both of those projects because they do kind of intertwine Right. >> I think coming in to Elmrest Avenue as shown in option two makes Elmrest more flexible in the future. If I come in right here at a 90 degree angle, you're pretty it's either going to be a roundabouts or there's going to be a significant change on what's already there today with the existing roadway to make that intersection safe and efficient in the future. So, if they they know where we're coming in, that's what all they're going to need to know and then how to plan on intersection spacing and stuff like that and how to other other parcels. As you can see, we kind of thought about that on our own at this level of a study right here. Future intersection here, future intersection, intersection, intersection to allow how, you know, this one could certainly slide over this way, too. So, it's not stuck there. But basically, we're looking at probably having three more intersections on this major collector. So that way we have nice spacing on intersection control access to this roadway and then now that you know we're showing our connection out to Elmrest. So when they go through the study they're going to take this stuff and then they'll utilize that and implement it into their own project and and use that. So Elmrest is just a probably a 30 foot wide gravel road out there I took today. Right. And that's what all it is. That's going to be significantly changed and it'll be easy to connect into right where you're coming at Elmrest on option two. >> If I might just pop in and just say I think also to kind of help address because it's a great question I think you bring up Jill is this is it are we in a chicken and egg situation? if you've kind of got this traffic study going on or you know economic development study going on the focusing on the the infrastructure networks and another one coming along could our decision negatively impact um the thing I think that we've all identified in the kind of regional cooperative group is the further north you go on Elmrest we have these two 90 degrees that I want to say they're both in Columbus, right? Neither of them are necessarily ours. Something's going to have to happen there. Um, and there's some very limited the land development is limiting in that there's quite a bit of wetland and it's most like, it's not most likely those 90s are going to have to go away for that future design. If we've got a road coming right in there, right where that road, that 90 already has to change, is that going to negatively impact that in some way? I think I would at least to what Ryan's saying is moving this wherever the parkway comes further from that 90 can help create better options for that western boundary in the future. >> And option two is plenty far north is what you're saying. >> Plenty far south. >> South of those 90s. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And I can I can pull up another um so you can kind of see if you're not as familiar. Ryan and I are always working in maps all the time and can kind of see this in our head where >> as she does that can I ask a question? Um, so the whole idea to go down to go straight down to 190th, is that just a hard no from staff? And because it seems as though if you already have a road in place, you're only talking five blocks difference. That's that I don't know, maybe you'd have to tear the whole road up and start from scratch anyway. But then not only that is you have another out to 61 if you run to 190th because you have a lot of people that could be living in that area. that are going to want to take 61 to go south to White Bear to Hugo and maybe even north to Forest Lake. That just seems costwise and maybe just giving us more options for traffic that you have two ways to go once you hit 190 as opposed to only being able to go west. >> Well, that's okay. So when we're laying this out and you're looking specifically south of Highway 97 and west of 61, your only collectors you're going to have are Headwaters Parkway, 190th and 180th. There's a lot of constraints already along 190th that are going to probably prohibit what kind of width you can get. you got some developments, you know, just south of here when we show up the map of those uh the neighbors and then you got a lot of wetlands to the east there and then you also got, you know, a historic house on the corner at Fenway and 190th, right? So having another collector in the location that's being proposed with option one or two, it's going to separate segregate that traffic and not push it all to 190th, right? In that particular area, you got residential housing right there. That's not the intent you want to build a collector to, right? Take traffic to an area that's really not set up for it. uh with the construction of the parkway already completed, a lot of studies have gone into that um and how this has been reflected in and comprehensive plans and county traffic plans and stuff like that that we're trying to get traffic in between 61 and future Elmrest. I mean, you got to really think about what is the future Elmrest going to be and all the development that could happen along that that now if I just have a major collector as we do with Headwaters Parkway where that's constructed today and take that down to 190th and then now all the traffic's got to go west or east out of there. I think we're going to create a lot more issues and impacts to that particular area 190th than if we can get you to those county roads in the future more efficiently and safely. But with all the land that's still going to be left on both sides of this parkway, you're going to have a lot of development. You're going to have a lot of traffic that's going to be coming into that neighborhood to use this particular parkway. So, it's definitely supported that you're going to want another roadway. But if you bring it all the way straight south to one 190th now you're creating a big impact that's not the intent of what Headwaters Parkway was being built and extended to serve. >> If I might also just pop in. We have heard from the owner of the property that was right on the corner of 190th and if the parkway went straight to the south and is very much in opposition of a collector road that close to their historic farm site. So though in the meeting I think they expressed favorability and question whether or not that could happen after taking really a look at what that would do to their property realized that's not something they'd want to see in the future. So, for reference, when we talk about the 290s, um this is Elmrest Avenue. It's labeled as Lions. There's about 15 different names for this road. We continue to call it Elmrest because that's what we call it at least. But we've got a pretty significant 90 where it turns from North South Gravel. I think this is the location where we start to get maybe into a a more improved I don't think it's a truly asphalted road. But then another um pretty significant 90 now leading up on the back side. This is where you're on the back side of Bear I think is down there. Truck Align is down there. Um all of this is kind of leading to that same kind of development that's going to be happening along this corridor. Look at how big. They'll keeping your eyes on that roadway all the way down to County Road is 14 in Lino Lakes. This is Otter Lake Road right where that Dairy Queen is going to extend up and going to keep extending through Lino Lakes into Hugo all the way all the way all the way up. Um that kind of gives you that area that that corridor study would be looking at. And then in our one little piece of trying to get well in this neighborhood either you know east to Elmrest to 61. So the um on the study itself kind of the really the question tonight is this are we limited just those two the scope of that study would just be those two alternatives >> that has been that was the scope of the study and that is what we've looked at was these two alternatives. We did share at least the one landowner's um you know concern and whether or not there'd be the desire to study another um uh alternative kind of cutting through the third twothirds of this property. But since our meeting we have received uh that preliminary plat which does kind of show the roadway extending on in that option too. This is sometimes what happens when development drives the the the infrastructure planning, right? Is now we're in a situation where we're going to have to act on a plat within 120 days in the middle of a planning study that was trying to identify that alignment where clearly this developer is letting us know where we like they prefer that alignment. Now, that being said, I think Ryan and I could um has has shared with the land owners and will continue to kind of share with the community and you um the option to alignment, though the blue line here might not be the exact alignment, really is that separating between the areas that the city is guiding now for highway business and the areas that the city is guiding for residential uses. And so there is um I think an opportunity for that roadway to really help with those transitional land uses, the transition between those two land uses in a different way than a collector going right through residential on both sides. Um isn't just doesn't always have that same neighborhood. feel if um if the seems like 170th is probably the more realistic interchange there and now we're 20 blocks well 20s 10 to 20 blocks is Hugo are they what do they zone on their north end are they zoned highway commercial >> on their north end they've got um some residential but and Chris might be able to confirm I believe they're doing a planning study right now to look at some land uses in that northwest corner and reguiding them differently. Included in your packet was a part of the corridor study. This really big map and it takes a kind of second if we move it around some that looks at those future land uses on doesn't like to move quickly or um it's just really locked up on me. Um that mostly the corridor the Elmrest corridor is um non-residential uses. Hugo has those some outlying areas through there but they're they're looking at a study right now to see about changing those from residential to the non-residential land uses. All four cities in the two counties recognize that um if we're going to have an in another interchange someday, be that at 170th or 180th, that corridor has to develop out and that infrastructure really has to be in place before um the highway system, the jurisdictions overseeing it are going to see a need for an interchange in those locations. and developing those out with for um greater intensity uses and those non-residential uses are going to help be more supportive for an interchange in the future. So it sounds with this plat that's coming forward and we have 120 days that really is almost guiding us which option we almost have to take on this, right? >> Um it definitely I mean it just came in on Wednesday Ryan's like what plat are you talking about? >> I open that up before I left tonight. We knew we knew it was coming. Um, which is part of what was our catalyst for, hey, we need to study this to see if we can get out in front of it. I think that there's still the potential to look at, you know, the option, you know, of maybe curving that somewhat, coming down and curving it. But I do think what we're just doing is we're and I I wish I could show and maybe Ryan could pull the podium screen back up. If we're going to cut that roadway closer to the what I would call northwest from the option one, it's really not serving developable land area to the north of the roadway. The further north and west we go, the closer we are to Elmrest, those 90s wetlands, there's just not a lot of developable land area on those sides. The intent of collect roads is to kind of build them in areas where we're bringing the development to them and feeding that to the larger transportation network. >> And just think of the the developments that are over here off of Good View. If you take 210th and you live fairly close to 210th, you have that nice access to that collector and you can get out back to Goodbye pretty easily. If you're way back in a corner and how the how it was developed, I mean, how many times are you turning to get out of your own neighborhood? So, a lot of thought behind that efficiency to get to a collector slows traffic in neighborhoods, you know, less aggressiveness, less people running signs people, you know, abide by some of that. But now having an easy access from both sides and you can see how some of the ghost plotting is laid out here in option two, you can see how very little simple it is to get to a collector to get where they want to get out of there. And as they leave their plan neighborhood, then they're out to a road that's built for higher speeds. And then then from here, they go to another roadway that's built for higher speeds. And you said the developer their preference is option two. Is that what you said? >> Based on what they submitted, >> based on what they've submitted, they've shown that option two is is what they would prefer. It is also what um the Taylor family has gone on record andly shared with us of what they would prefer and the Briant property um that does not want to see that 90 come down one or the parkway come down right to 190th. We spoke with um the walls land owner um who kind of said we don't really care too much. I mean we haven't you know they they weren't in attendance at the meeting but said we we really more than anything just want you to um expand your Musa and let us sell this for development. Um so uh and and rightfully so. um Miss Cerny that reached out with the kind of potential of a third option is one of you know is impacted differently than some of the others in that there's right at that development's right there and this is the time for us to kind of decide where it's going. >> But personally I really like the idea of it dividing the the zonings. I think option two makes a lot of sense from that perspective as well as the conversation that's been had about having all that development to the north of it that you don't necessarily get with option one. >> I agree. I'm in favor of uh option two as well, dividing residential and business. >> Well, I see that option two will take much longer to build if it's developer driven. Um I favor it. I think that uh option one is showing effectively two access points to neighborhoods and then leaves us this huge gap of how do we funnel this traffic in 10 years when those houses are built. And I can remember when everything north of here wasn't built. Um and I think at that time had we done more long-term planning it might have been less expensive for us even then. Um, option two leaves us a much longer term perspective even though it might cost more to build. I think it will be far less in the long run and more functional. Another piece I think that hasn't been brought up is option one leaves a very or relatively straight east west corridor which makes for a shortcut between what will be a county road and 61 likely a county road at some point as well. Um, and I think that that would cause significant traffic to go on it when things like 97 are under construction or have an accident and cause additional issues. Whereas when you have that leg shoot down, it actually would reduce that as a a Google Maps or Apple Maps feature to say here, take this route. It's faster. >> This is great. I, you know, this is one of the things that we wanted to come and say, "Hey, we've been working on this. We've met with land owners. Um, this helps us kind of keep moving forward. We'll at some point meet with our planning commissioner, council, just gauge their feedback as well. That'll help bring us get Ryan's team moving forward and trying to get some concept designs. Another part of this study is to look at some ordinance language that kind of talks about the development of the roadways now versus the development of the roadway we need in 30 years and how we kind of phase those development standards. So you'll be seeing some more things coming forward in the coming months. It's our hope that in, you know, by no later than the spring, we've got a kind of a 75% 50 90% baked cake to bring forward and um hopefully get some some buy in and adoption by the city that then we can take back to the development community. I do agree with you, Commissioner Langness. This is not long range planning isn't a this is for a tomorrow thing, but the development is right on this doorstep. We're going to be doing some comprehensive planning update. I think within the next five years, we're going to see that area really boom. Um, this kind of stuff really helps drive that. And I'm with the hope, as Ryan had mentioned, that with these wrong long range plans that then we are better equipped to kind of go to some state federal funding sources and say, "Look, we've got a plan. We need some assistance." And hopefully it doesn't cost the development community or the city as much. So, Well, thank you Abby. Thank you Ryan. Appreciate your work on this. Next up, wetland delineations. >> Abby. >> Um, so stats recently learned that the wetland delineations for all city-owned parcels that we have for sale are expired. Uh, wetland delineations expire after 5 years. And so the one for the airport business park and headwaters 123 are no longer valid. Um, wetland delineations unfortunately cannot occur in wintertime months. So, our wetland delineation season is closed right now, but I wanted to bring this to the EDA to start to talk about spring opportunities of whether or not you'd like to update wetland delineations for city-owned vacant lands. Um, obviously, if we engaged with the consultant, I'd be bringing back to you any proposals for cost estimates, but I wanted to see about getting this on um at least in our work plan discussions for this year. I see some nodding heads. We can always come back and talk about this, but from an EDA perspective, the marketability of our parcels in knowing exactly where the wetlands are is kind of necessary for future development. So then the next one that I have a question for you is, would the EDA be willing to pay for costs associated with wetland delineations on publicly owned sites? We do have the opportunity to utilize or or make application to utilize CDA pre-development dollars and I would imagine the EDA would like us to try to utilize those funding sources where possible. Um so I can um as we're looking at developing out some work plan we do the southwest area infrastructure study is being partially funded by that. there is a cap. So, we need to kind of stagger out our asks so we don't hit our limit with the county. And the hope is maybe we can get both those delineations done in the spring if our southwest infrastructure phasing study is done by then. Um and then the next question that I would have is um in some cases EDA will assist land owners with conducting wetland assessments on their properties um when the EDA finds that there's some sort of um e future economic development. So a really good example might be properties along the highway 97 corridor. We know right now that development eventually is going to occur on these properties. Is the EDA interested if a land owner says, "Hey, can you guys help with some of this?" Hearing proposals of that nature? >> Three questions or just the last one? >> I got a lot of head nods on would you like me to update wetland delineations and let's tap into other public funding sources. So, I think I got the answers on those first two ones, but I think you should discuss it. Just a quick point of clarification. Those wetland delineations on the publicly own land. Is it just the headarters 123 in the airport park that we're talking about? >> At least at least right now, those are our two primary sites that we have act, you know, that we've got out on investment forestlake.com. So, there are other parcels uh that we would be looking at potentially um starting to market. I think that that then we'd start to talk about what kind of pre-development investment we want to make in those parcels before we start marketing them. >> Okay. Thanks. >> How does that affect the potential sale of those properties have offers coming in based on the wetland? >> Well, I think all anybody in the development community would know um that the wetland uh delineations that are on file are expired. you know, and that's just an open disclosure item that I would also share, but their offers would be with knowing that that exists, but a new one would need to be updated. The airport business park parcels do have an option right now and a first right of refusal. Those were accepted with um expired delineations. The future potential purchaser is aware that the delineations are not updated. Does know that we were going to have this conversation about updating them in the spring. It does make that offer a little tricky. That offer will expire in June. Spring could come. We might have that delineation done by then, but it does make that um parcel harder to plan now until that delineation is done. So, I would say that for offers that we currently have out there, we may see a request for an extension at some point until after the delineation is done and design could occur on the property with respect to where those wetland boundaries are. >> Brian, question for you. How typically how much of a change do you see in a wetlandation if it expires and if it was done? I don't know when this one was done, but is there a significant change there? I would hope that we could still use what we have on file to try to master plan this site and then tweak it when these the updated one comes forward. >> Yeah, in in five years there probably not going to be a lot of change. Depends on the seasons you have. If it's been wet, really wet, then there could be some expansion. If there's a drain tile or a pipe that's been plugged, yes, you're going to have some expansion, right? Uh, so it's just it's going to always be related to what weather patterns we've had and did anything happen on site. It could be even just a small pipe that's an outlet to an area if somebody threw in a driveway, you know, fill it in with some gravel to have a driveway access point to this property now and blocks and blocks water. That's when things change. I don't think anything like that's occurred, but it kind of had a couple wet summers, but then really wet or dry. I mean, winters. Last two winters were really dry. So, we didn't have a lot of I mean, I don't wouldn't imagine much change, but it's not an accepted document for permitting, you know. So, a developer were to come forward right now, this is what I want to do. Well, we can't define where your wetland buffers are um or what's if you are proposing wetland impacts what your mitigation area will be. So then they're never going to finalize the permit until they have approved delineation watershed tech panel. Further discussion >> we talk about is the EDA interested in >> delineations for people interested in developing properties. >> They're size dependent. Um, Ryan, do you have a cost estimate of what it took for at least the acreage that we did associated with the Southwest infrastructure phasing project? >> Uh, it was under 10,000 for that whole area. >> Yeah. So, those were 100 acres that we maybe done. >> It was more than that. >> Probably 40s. I mean, right there >> 60 acres. So, >> pretty modest costs. Sounds like >> they are. I mean, we, you know, I think with when it comes to the airport business park parcels and the headarters 123 as we start to look at costs associated with those we're going to start to get a kind of a scope for those. Um I think more than anything the question that I had was just the kind of potential for future incentive program and whether or not that's something that this EDA would be favorable to. just kind of helps me too with land owners that are like, "Oh, I'm having trouble, you know, oh, do you do you have a wetland delineation? Is that something that we could help with across the board? Um, something that we do or can be it an ad hoc decision that we make based on the opportunity." >> Um, it could be based on the opportunity. I think the challenge uh just would be it needs to be a you know it needs to be a function of kind of pre-development before you know we've starting to get into site planning and design >> and so sometimes we just need to be able to catch them early >> certainly along that those corridors that are being developed right now I think that's a great opportunity to explore those um I know we're most concerned you know my primary concern today was talking about our parcels and getting those updated. But since we're here, I thought, well, why not talk about private lands as well, >> but in your example, like you were talking about Highway 97 or something in the future, like it might be an opportunity if it is if someone comes to us and they're saying, "Hey, will you help out with this?" And I've got this premier spot on Highway 97. You bring it to us. We might say, "Yeah, I think it's in our best interest to help out with this." But it might be property that we really don't have a lot of interest in and that for that one we say no. Is that okay to have an ad hoc or as a city would that be viewed as unfair and we should we shouldn't have that? >> It's good to at least to help establish some policy related to how we um provide public subsidies and that is part of just work plan development through this first part of 2020. I had to look down to see what next year is going to be. Um, and I think, you know, having some parameters of, you know, it has to be of a certain acreage or access into a certain thing I think could be helpful for me. >> Um, because the last thing I kind of want to do is say, "Yeah, I think our EDA might be interested in them bringing it." And the ED is like, "No, >> I think it would be great to have some guidelines and parameters of, you know, criteria or something." I think that's just my opinion. >> Like in this case, you could just say it's publicly land owned by the city right now >> that we're talking about. >> Sure. Leg question. >> I did. Um Abby, the costs of this is that built into the 2026 budget or would it cause any other in the the the presumed budget that council will be looking at passing in a couple weeks? I think um will it fall into that? going to be accommodated in that or will it cause some other shift? >> Um, so it would be your EDA budget that you made a recommendation on. You do have professional service dollars that we didn't necessarily specifically say it's for, you know, this exact thing. And so we'd have to look to see how that works in the budget. The other thing is the EDA always has the um kind of fund reserve that you do have the ability you are your fund is a little bit different than the city's general fund in that you have a little bit of a a cushion to be able to say if there's truly an economic development purpose, you could with a modified budget dip into that. >> So, this might affect some of the fund reserve, but that's probably it. >> It could, but we would take a look at that as we get closer to deciding if you want to use your monies to move forward with this. >> Now, we talked about earlier just development pay its own way and it's it's expensive to develop to develop and u I I like the idea of that it saves the city obviously a lot of money the taxpayers a lot of money putting these roads infrastructure in these new neighborhoods so any way we can help on the other side and do things like this where it's not as expensive as participating in infrastructure I think is a is a plus and it shows a positive like we're we're willing to work with you whether it's regardless if it's city-owned or privately owned And if we can parlay that and partnering with the county, I think it just makes sense to at least have that in our toolbox to offer to developers. >> Chris, could I just um maybe have you pipe in um the opportunities with the pre-development fund in terms of private land if there is the opportunity that the city could potentially tap into those funds? President um Ericson and members, the CDA's pre-development finance fund is actually a grant to this city and it does require a match, but we can use private funding for the match. So, it doesn't have to be public money coming from the match. So, for example, if you had a land owner that said, I'm interested in exploring if this 40 acres could be turned into a business park, we would certainly allow that match to come forward and use private match to the public funds that we bring to the table. The one thing that we cannot do is because it is pre-development funding is we can't once a developer has been identified, we can't help that developer because that would be that would be too far down the road. And this is really to get those sites that are just a little bit a little bit harder to get into to get into action to to get them to start rolling a little bit faster. But if a developer is on the site already and has been identified as the developer, then we can't use our funds for that development purpose. We can certainly use private funding from somebody who's exploring the possibility of doing something in that area. >> Just to clarify, so there's a current land owner, not a developer, but just a land owner that wants to better understand what the potential is on their property, they could tap into CDA funding. >> So the grant has to go to the city. the city would hire the planner, the consultant that does the planning work, but the funding can come from the private land owner. Until the point in time where a developer has been identified, then we cannot use our public funding for that property. >> I think so. But um just to take it a step further, so are we looking maybe for a recommendation from this body to Abby about developing a policy as it relates to our willingness to put forward funds to help with like say wetland delineations? I think um part of that yes part of this tonight was that exploration of should we devel develop some policy not only for our properties but private properties and what I'm hearing at least is when there are properties yes we should be getting those as close to shovel ready as possible. Um, I think that I'm also hearing that you're favorable to the assisting uh private developer or private property owners in future development opportunities. Um, and that we should probably have some policy just to help keep it fair and equitable. And right now, I think that's all I might need at the moment to then bring something back for you as we talk policy discussion as we're moving forward in the spring. Um, I don't want to get too far right now in if this then that, but I think that this really helps us better under helps me better understand when I've got a land owner that might need some help or guidance. I can at least say, "Yeah, our EDA funds this or that. Here's some parameters for it." Um, but I've got at least enough to start drafting something for you to react to. >> Follow just some clarification then. So, uh, on the airport business park or Fenway properties, let's call it. Um, because there is there's an option out there in a first right refusal by a developer that then would not be able to be covered with county funds. >> President Ericson, um, um, members, the the development agreement, as I understand it, has not been signed yet. So the city owns that land and whether this developer or another developer moves forward with it, you still have to do a wetland delineation on the site. So because you don't have somebody who signed a development agreement yet, I think it's okay to use a pre-development finance fund at this point. But once a development agreement has been signed, then the developer is in the deal, then we cannot use our grant dollars. And just to clarify one more point, it can only be used for land that's guided for economic development, not for housing. and that be we merely have an option right now, right? Um, gun companies signed an option. They could exercise their right to a purchase agreement with a development agreement in the future, but right now they're just doing exploration like any other uh developer could or future purchaser could. So, Chris and I did talk about how that would be eligible for those pre-development finance dollars. >> Excellent. Anything else? All right. Thanks for your work on that. Headarters 123 development planning. >> Yeah. So recently the EDA discussed the future development of Headarters 123 and the idea to explore expanded uses. This the EDA said, "Yeah, we'd be favorable. Go talk with the planning commission. Let's see what you think they think first and then um let's maybe start to see about soliciting proposals." Um, but this EDA also said, "Hey staff, why don't you also see if we can find somebody that can help us through this process?" So, I did reach out to both CBRE and Ellers to um different firms that we've worked with for different economic development reasons. CBRE listed properties for us. Ellers has been our kind of go-to with some of the financial policy development planning, that sort of thing. Um, in talking with both Ellers and CBRE, they both said, "Hey, I wouldn't do an RFP." You've had been sitting with Headarters 123 out on the market as long as you have RFPs really take a lot of time and money for developers. And they both thought maybe you need to take a different approach. And um, one of them had suggested that the city update its concept plan to something a little bit higher level than concept. Where could roads go? Where could utilities exactly go? Hire an engineer and almost get closer to a platting. Um, and the other one said maybe you want to just take what you have. So, kind of everything you've seen in the last couple months and send that out to the development community with a questionnaire. Would you be interested in this property? What do you like about this property? What makes this desirable? Um, to kind of just see what exactly the development community thinks about 123. And so in coming to you tonight, I wanted to share with you at least just this idea that two professionals have kind of said maybe not the right approach, but here's a different alternative. And so what staff has kind of suggested is that potentially what we should do is update our concept plan, not to a full plat, but at least kind of high level. Here's where we've kind of identified some alternative uses. just really concept sketch plan and first off, more than anything, get this out on our Invest in Forest Lake website. Get these documents up on our website to at least just continue to show the public we've got some things out there. And then with that, I think the idea of going to the development community in a different way and kind of saying, "Here's what we have. What do you think?" And just seeing what they if there's responses very similar to an RFP, but I would say it's more of an RFP light. We're not necessarily looking for a specific partner. We're just looking to hear what they have to say. Once we get that feedback, then we have that opportunity to invite them to Forest Lake and see if they want to sit down and talk about what they see for the parcel. And so tonight, just this is just bringing this to you to kind of see if you're favorable to this approach. And if so, then I'll start kind of preparing some more materials for you to kind of take a look at to kind of get the ball rolling on um keeping something moving forward, but maybe not as intensive as a full RFP. >> Yes. >> Um Abby, so in your um memo that you shared with us in the uh agenda, option two, you had noted that the estimated cost was 10 to 15,000. >> Yes. >> What is that paying for? I'm >> that paying for it, >> right? Like I I see an option one that the the cost is a little higher and I understand that it takes an engineer time, but I'm not seeing where those costs are for a round table. I mean, that's a lot of >> donuts and coffee or >> well, one it is to hire the consultant to manage it for us, right? So, what the consultant would do is they're pulling together all of our information. They're sitting down with staff. They're putting together essentially a a brochure, right? some marketing kind of package to say here is the site and a lot of it is pulling what we already have. I fully acknowledge that but it's them taking this material and then putting together that questionnaire, developing that questionnaire. What is what do we want to see in this? What do we want to engage from them? Um sending it out to the development community their points of contact and feel fe addressing it any of the inquiries that come in. Um Then taking that information coming back to the EDA sitting down saying this is what we heard from who consolidated this is what we heard this is what we heard from these exact people do we want to move forward with bringing in a few of them and then helping facilitate those kind of um in-house and community sitdown interviews. So it would be specifically to hire consultant to kind of help just manage that interaction process with the development community. That help address the question? >> That answers my question. Thank you. >> And it would be um that 15 to 20,000 was a broad scope. It would be an at an hourly rate. We'd look at getting a scope of services that kind of break out how much for each of the services for an estimated not to exceed cost. Um that could go up or down depending on kind of how much we'd really want to do. We could get 10 to 12 responses back and we could say, "Wow, we're hearing every single one of them would submit an RFP today, but only if it's residential." You know, who knows? And then we could decide that we might not want to take another step forward. >> You do you not in essence putting an RFP out to find this consultant >> or not? >> Um, I mean, I certainly what I can do is I can ask if there's other consultants to help us Do you have someone in mind, one of the two you're already speaking with? >> I would I would probably move I would recommend we probably move forward with Ellers assisting us with us. They have experience doing it. They've done it for other cities and so I think that they've got a model that could really just be replicated here. Um I certainly at that cost though can reach out to I'm sure CBRE would do it. Um, I'm sure there might be another firm or two that might do it and see if those costs would come down. I don't, you know, how much time we want to spend trying to find. >> If I if um I missed the recommendation to hire >> I didn't apologize. >> Nope, that's okay. I did put um once a concept design is enga updated, engage with Ellers to assist with that developer round table. I may not have essentially said Ellers said this or CBRE said this. Ellers was the one that proposed the the developer round table. >> And did we not at one point have this listed with C CBR? Right. We did. So I I don't know. I I think we've given an opportunity. They really didn't. They weren't very motivated to to help us on that or market that property other than throwing it on a website and put it out on some different uh industry type sites. So, I'd be more leaning towards sellers, but open to potentially another option, but I know I don't want you to have to be on the phone shopping this thing out either. So, I don't know. >> Yeah, >> I I like the idea of engaging and and if if you recommend Ellers, I'll I'll trust your judgment on that. um having Ellers engage with the community, do a survey, get those results back and then come back to us to see if a roundt is worth it and and spending the additional component on that. But perhaps having that as part of that initial conversation with them that unless it's very clear from the survey and and a round table would be beneficial um that we have that option to to go that direction or not. >> Yeah. and the um Ellers fully admits that the term roundt isn't the best because I think we all think of a round table like hey come in let's sit down. Um it was more like a a targeted a targeted interaction approach that first step let's send out some surveys let's see who might have some interest and then kind of bringing them in on a one-on-one. Oh, >> so this idea that, okay, you're developer A and Jill's developer B and Le's developer C, then later bringing you in for this. Okay, here's a community tour, here's an interview. What do you kind of think to see if there's you flush out is there a development partnership and opportunity potential if that makes sense? >> It does. >> Yeah. and and it just um tends to it just sounds like it just tends to be yes it might be a little bit more one-on-one time but you're not spending as much time developing a full proposal that is just a thank you no thank you >> so so those one sorry Mr. Sure. So those one-on-one meetings um is one-on- two meaning that staff is involved in it as well or is it only Ellers in there? >> No, it would not be only Ellers. It would probably be Ellers, myself, it might be Chris there, it might be uh you know, President Ericson, you know, Mary Roberts could be a committee of people that are engaged with them through that process. I would, you know, want to explore that scope a little bit more with Ellers to kind of see what their recommendations would be. I don't imagine we're going to, you know, take a whole contingency. Um, but yes, I would envision us having more than just myself or more than just Ellers involved in those one-on- ones. >> I would suggest that maybe they just be recorded. I mean, if they're if we're narrowing it down to like between one and three candidates, unless it's forbidden or whatever, but that's typically >> Yeah. I mean, and that might work if there is that true interview, but I do think that it's going to be a lot more casual of a, >> you know, coffee meet and greet. Let's go see the site. Here's some of the things that are around. way even with the AI note picker now it's like you get you know everyone gets a summary of what >> what they pitched what their ideas are and then it's a great summary for us without having yeah so great conversation I think Aby's looking for some direction or we favorable to what she's I I like the idea of of updating getting on our website as well as engaging whether it be Ellers or another organization. I think Ellers might be a great choice um to to guide this uh to move forward with that roundt quote unquote. Um >> I had a quick question that um on the it says staff is proposing the EDA to consider and then you have the one and two. It said, "Updating the the 2023 job center concept to show the previously discussed future land uses. Is it necessary to show the the past if we're not really going there or we're just but or is that really meant to say up our updated plan?" >> Yeah. So, I'm gonna plug in really quick here. >> And my second part to that question is because that was 20 Well, that's 2023. I was just wondering like we don't need we're not opening it up to any um like listening sessions or whatever with the community to make sure that we're still like no I think at least in kind of previous discussions in 2023 the EDA updated this kind of technology park design and in recent conversations with both the ED and the council we've looked through these kind of different design concepts and it seemed like most um people were kind of favorable to this idea of larger lot design more in the middle. Um both the planning commission and EDA said, "Yeah, you know, maybe a little service along the Parkway might not be bad and maybe a little residential along Fenway might not be bad, but generally speaking, we want to kind of see those larger lots in the middle." When I talk about an update, it would be taking this plan and maybe just carving off something more adjacent to the Parkway, um, adjacent to Fenway or even down closer to the, um, golf course, and maybe just, um, kind of color coding it that says >> future business, park, you know, future neighborhood service, future residential, or, you know, as a highlevel concept. Um, not binding us in any way to anything, but I think showing that we're not so completely stuck on it's this exact lot configuration with this exact land uses. >> I'm I'm quite favorable to the second approach, especially how you described it differently than what I visualized a routing table as. Um, so, so I I I like that approach. Uh, for clarity, you would put this on discussion items, so you're not looking for a motion from us. >> I'm not looking for a motion. I'm just looking for direction because I'll need to bring back some consultant proposals for you to um formally approve and us start getting work on. I think the thing that I would like to know is whether or not the EDA sees favorability in updating this um based on land use or just even putting these out on invest and forestlake.com at this time. the EDA when these were p uh completed in 2023 did not want to use these publicly and so while I've shared them if there had been someone who had come in um these aren't sitting out on your website right now do we want to be putting these out there or do we want to and then if we go throw them on invest in forest lake and I think that that's not a bad idea right the more people get to thinking what could this be then the other thing is do we want to update the sketch just slightly to say it's not just entirely a job center. We'd be looking at some mixture of uses along those roadways. >> I'm favorable to having it on the website, but I would make like any graphic explicitly clear that it is >> a citydrawn concept, not a proposal. Yes. >> Have a nice little red watermark right over the middle of it so someone doesn't like screenshot that thing and put it on social media and say, "Here's what this." >> Okay. >> I Yeah. I >> I think it's great to have it out on the website because, you know, people do ask or you talk about something about, you know, that that land, what's happening down there. And so, the more transparent, more information that we can give people, the better. Great. I have enough direction to bring something back. >> All right. Thank you. Well, that brings us to the end of our discussion portion of the agenda. We'll move on to updates. Abby, >> um just wanted to let you know um the council at their last meeting, recent meeting, um did authorize the descertification of two tax increment financing districts. One is the Cherrywood Point TIFF district. Um that will add an estimated just over $200,000 to the city's tax capacity. And the other one is the Centennial District which will add about just under $15,000 to the city's tax capacity. And so um that will be effective capacity will be effective for the pay year 2026. So that's just kind of going to show um that tiff districts can can work over time when they're paid back and then you start to put that money back into the to tax revenue. So, that was just providing to you as an FYI. Um, I have a couple that I didn't put on here. The city or the county CDA has approved the local affordable housing agreement with the city. They will be administering the city's funds on our behalf. And so, we're working right now on transferring those funds to them. And then we're going to start working on marketing um their programs for use within the city for local housing rehabilitation. So there will be single family and multif family options available, low interest, no interest loans. Um also next Monday, the council has their hearing on the 2026 budget. Um potential adoption of the 2026 budget. And um so just keeping you all informed of that. And then lastly uh providing an update. We haven't brought back I haven't brought back your work plan discussion as this body really wanted to kind of see what came out of the council's strategic planning session. As of right now the council doesn't have an adopted strategic plan. There were two directives kind of developed. And so from that, I think I can pull some of the information that was discussed at least in the council strategic planning session to bring back of how we tailor the work plan to kind of help support that. Um, I don't want to I'm going to put that on in January because I really don't want us to kind of be operating too long without a work plan because I really think that it helps keep us kind of on track of actually achie achieving things. And so just know that uh I heard what you said. Let's not talk about that until there's a strategic plan, but I think the council needs some time in their strategic plan development before we've got better direction from that. So, >> any questions? >> Questions for >> Chris. Thank you, President Ericson and members. I don't have any formal updates, but I'd be happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. >> Thank you for being here. >> Thank you, Annette. Thank you, President Ericson, and greetings, council, uh, EDA. Uh, the Forest Lake Area Chamber did hire recently, so we've been onboarding our new employee, which has been going fantastic. I do want to, uh, let this group know that the City of Forest Lake Arts in the Park program was also an annual awards winner this year. So, we just presented our annual awards in at the beginning of November. So, congratulations on that. Um, currently we're uh kneedeep hometown holiday for Forest Lake is on Friday. So, we are working on that and excited to celebrate the holiday season with our community and we have wrapped up all of our volunteers and we're we're ready to go. And I do want to remind you and let you know that next Tuesday we'll be meeting here at 7:30 a.m. for our local leaders uh Forest Lake area local leaders collaboration where we uh hear updates from our schools, our local government and business and you're all welcome to attend. Uh several of you will be on panels uh during that presentation. So that is next Tuesday at 7:30. And then lastly, we're just uh really looking ahead and setting all our dates and making our plans for 20 26. Any questions? Thanks for being here this evening, Ryan. Anything you want to add? >> No additional comments. >> Thank you. Any updates from this body? Seeing none, I'm going entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. All right. All in favor? >> I