[Music] good evening we are right at 7 o'cl and so I'll call tonight city council meeting to order and Christina could we have a roll call please uh council member Ericson here council member Roberts here council member valento here council member husnik here mayor Bane here I'd like to invite everyone to rise and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for it stands one nation God indivisible with Liber and justice for all members of council we have an agenda before you I'll entertain a motion to approve or any changes also move I'll second we have a motion and a second all those in favor signal by saying I I I I oppose and motion is approved our first item this evening is open Forum open forum is any interested party opportunity to address Council on any topic of your choosing I will note that um on tonight's agenda we do have one public hearing scheduled um related to our M consideration of the municipal consent for reconstruction of Highway 97 and so if you are here to speak on that topic you are welcome to speak in open Forum or you're welcome to speak at that agenda item if you want to speak to Council on any other topic this evening um open forum is your opportunity to do so so once we've gotten through tonight's names I'm happy to open it up if there's anyone else who would like to add anything um and also just noting for the record we did have an interested party Who provided some materials to council this evening um at the council Das which're just kind of entering them into the record for open Forum it's related to the potential realignment of um Forest Road in consideration of County Road 32 um let's move in to open forum and our first um gentleman this evening is Bob musky welcome good evening thank you um my name is Bob musky I reside at 7535 Northshore trail and I am here I was asked by one of my neighbors uh to speak on his behalf he cannot attend tonight uh so he drafted a letter for and I told him I would for him so this is from Mr Tom and Pam cha uh to the fory city council my name is Tom cha and I live at 7480 Northshore Trail I want to thank the council members for listening to the homeowners concerns and re-evaluating the water quality project along Northshore Trail I also want to thank Tim Olson for his sincere listening to our concerns and trying to adjust for them I want to express to you our complete displeasure with the hole that we have in front of our lawn we have received many comments from people walking by and visitors that are not positive that I can't see in this public forum as I've said before this was completed this would fill with leaves from the northwest wind and has become a good place for people to throw trash liquor bottles beer cans from cars driving by it is way too deep and way too steep for me to mow to pick up the leaves and I have have to go down there to pick up the trash I've also lost all options for parking in front of my house which I had before when it was flat it was very safe to park way off the road I have looked at the three options that will be presented to you and I would encourage you to choose to restore the area back to its preconstruction condition there could be a slight drop of one foot to collect the water in that area with the drain tile put under it in closing I thank you for listening to the homeowner's concerns and I wish this would have been done before the project was started I again ask you to choose the option to restore the area back to its preconstruction condition thank you Tom and Pam cha thank you and I as well uh live across the street from this project and I just would like to voice my opinion to have it restored as well um I have little kids and it is quite dangerous it's very steep right now they're full of of water um I understand the need for them I just think uh restoring it back to his original Condition it's it's so unsightly right now um would be the benefit for everyone in our area so thank you for hearing us tonight thank you so much um next open Forum Greg bruss hello good evening I'm Greg bruss uh res at 20 or 23030 hward Avenue and I just here to voice my opinion for option three to restore it back to its conditions thanks for your time thank you for being here uh next we have Blake Blake dobeck Blake dobeck 23020 Hayward Avenue North um I would also like to to see it restored to where it was before um couple different options for problems how much of this water will go into the lake right now if it's sitting in the ditch so our major concern right now is how shallow all the lakes are so now that we reconstruct over by Tim's Marina all that water I don't think is going to make it into the lake and I don't think the water that's going to flow in the ditch is going to make it in the lake as well um our kids were out there sledding down in the the hill today that they made so um major eyesore for sure uh not to mention the all the tree roots that I had to hire somebody in the landscaper to come in fill in all the holes and resod and losing major trees in the yard um so I'd as well like to get it restored thank you next of Aaron is it m I'm mof apologies for the last name okay know I'll take any variation Aaron mof 7490 Northshore Trail my husband's with me tonight um I agree with these good gentlemen I think it would be um best to have it restored to its you know previous um standing I really don't know what was gained from this big um project I think previously was adequate for drainage many years ago 20 years ago um the big Culvert at the end of our um driveway used to drain directly into the lake my husband and I put in about $20,000 of our own money to to plant a rain Garden down there so that's already existing I don't know if anyone took any consideration of that I mean um prayer restoration put that together um also uh what was pulled up from our yard was a bunch of trees that were doing natural um you know cleaning of the water so I'm not sure what was gained there was really no communication prior to this project I found out about it because I had happened to be home that day and saw some surveyors measuring my land and nothing before that that's what started this whole thing you know um so I think the communication has been um really lack all throughout the project to it took way too long three seasons practically and what frustrates me and this is just opinion is that um now all that money was spent all that time was spent and now we have to spend more money on this project I think it's really frustrating and um I don't even know who was running it to be quite honest was it the city was it the Watershed was it this these companies I don't know who is running it so if you guys can answer some of those questions I think there we just need more transparency on this understood we do have this on the agenda this evening and some of the opportunity for all those questions to get answered great all right that's it all right thank you thank you for being here and Aaron Meyer hello Aon Meer uh 7363 233rd Street North neighbors with everyone here I spoken a lot of this stuff I think A lot's already been said at the previous meetings um just reiterating what they all said I mean a lot of them are just kind of summing it up because we've all spoken this um feel like a lot more could be said but just a quick couple quick notes and thoughts to add which has been said I think it was poorly planned it was poorly communicated and is poorly executed there's hundreds of thousands that were spent on this as well as hundreds of thousands of damage to the property and the property values which again selfishly it affects my house that was not touched but uh more so for our neighbors there's a couple of neighbors that couldn't make it I don't know if they even knew about this or what um I'm not sure with the people's name on the corner that has a 40 foot Culvert now in there um just a giant ditch I mean you I don't know if any of you guys have seen it too I know you guys in the ends have did you ever take a look by there drive by there it's atrocious it's crazy um and then the safety concerns are obvious I've only gotten out for two walks uh since it's been allegedly spring there now it's back to Winter and we'll see spring again soon but it's crazy I mean you got this tiny little area to walk on down by them um not to mention like they said tons of kids playing there and they want to play in those ditches of course but it's not safe it's full of water I took some pictures I thought I could share them but I mean you can drive by there and see them they're literally full of water so they're not draining either they're not doing their alleged job so can't say it enough return it back to normal whatever that takes um figure out another way to filter water in the lake or whatever you know whatever you got to do I just think it was a I can't say enough just terrible poorly planned in every which way so it's about it thank you for being here that's the end of those that are signed up is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak in open forum and then is there anybody online Abby this gentleman here oh I'm to answer your question Mary bin there is not okay thank you hi I'm uh Joe mff I'm Aon mf's husband 7490 Northshore Trail just want to say you guys spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this what we really need there is a bike path we have a gigantic park there that we've been there 20 years it's walking on that road I mean I think there's even been articles about it biking is out of the question walking is taking your life in your hands so instead of dinging a a trench where you know has all the beauty of a sewage pit I mean maybe we should build a bike path you guys are going to build a bike path from the neighborhood behind us that goes a cool Camp Park you could easily build one that goes around that connects that and would connect all those houses on there it would be a much better use of the money than this all right thanks thank you is there anybody else that would like to speak on this topic or any other topic this evening for open forum all right with that we will close open forum and bring conversation back to council Council for your consideration tonight is the consent agenda um I would move that I would move for approval of consent agenda items a um and then C through F and move Item B to our regular agenda is there a second or any other changes oh second we have a motion and a second all those in FA favor signal by saying I I I oppose motion carries and then consideration of consent agenda item 6B is there a motion or any discussion I just need to abstain mam mayor I make a motion that we approve uh item 6 B the approval of the minutes of the March 11th regular meeting second we have a motion in a second any discussion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I I said I I meant to abstain apologies I was on autopilot all right we have one approval one absten or um four approvals and one exstension let's move on to our regular agenda um for first consideration tonight is um item 7A which is the municipal consent for reconstruction of Highway 97 Council will consider resolution number 3252 242 um there will be a public hearing for this item this evening um we'll hear first from Ryan take an initial first round of questions or comments from Council and then we'll open up the um public hearing Ryan floor is yours uh mayor City Council uh tonight we have a resolution to approve the final layout for the state project 8201 D21 on trunk Highway 97 we also have mot here uh Dimitri Adam and Victor to present the project and go through a presentation for you tonight's uh prior to approving the resolution so could we proceed into that and perfect that way if there's any questions you'll have a comprehensive stuff in front of you so let's move with that so Demetri will come up and uh do a present do you should be coming on just give it a second thir good evening I'll just give it a second to the monitor so anyone in the public that's interested can be to meet you did you use your computer or the city computer uh this is the city's computer anyone test it before the mic works I don't know um this is the city's computer the little one plugged in the really itty bitty little oh they're all plugged in it's one of these can I sneak under we have the ability to actually connect should just be I don't I don't the other option we could try to just put it into a staff computer at the click's podium do we want to try that do you have a USB if you want to bring the USB over we can try it from my computer you have a password on it you said [Music] middle yep yep did you open which one of is can your slides presentation in a video have to switch oh just the video you'll switch to the video you'll let me know when to switch to the video there we go all right all right I think technical technical diffic difficulties are complete so if we'll get started if that's okay with everyone perfect thank you my name is Dimitri tomasovich I'm the mot East area engineer for uh Mot I work with communities in Chisago and Washington County today I'm here to present the municipal consent request for the Highway 97 project with me is Victor vases who's the project manager and Adam Josephson the area manager for mindat um as part of today's Municipal consent agenda uh minda submitting uh the final geometric layout for approval by the city also known as Municipal consent information will include the submitted packet of uh maintenance cost participation considerations also talk about the existing condition and what the proposed project is U proposing next slide so existing condition uh we have 1.8 miles of roadway uh from Hornsby to Forest Road uh the road connects the community to Highway 61 and Highway 35 uh today's condition in ex is an existing two-lane rural roadway meaning it has um two lanes in each direction there's left turn Lanes at three existing signalized intersections um it has a sloped shoulders and ditch sections as it as it is today next slide uh project needs the primary need was payment so poor payment condition initiated the project um there's been 51 crashes uh in the 2013 2015 time frame um still using the data from we originally sculpt the project but we'll be updating that for future your presentations um there's a need for storm order and drainage in the area uh there's no existing bike facilities and no connection to the hardwood Creek Regional Trail so project goals are just to address all the needs that identified within this project Corridor next slide please so summary of work uh as I mentioned it start out just a pavement preservation which means just a Mill and overlay of the pavement but all those needs identified a larger need for a project which is a full reconstruct um there will be some signal upgrades and Lighting in the in the project area the project will construct Center medians curb and gutter uh there'll be some access management control it'll be a brand new single Lane roundabout constructed with the project um upgraded drainage uh construction of that multi-use trail and a connection to hardwood Creek Regional Trail Uh current estimate uh is about $17 million so the typical section in front of you will identify some of the changes the project will take on um the current speed limit is 55 miles hour we're using a design speed of 45 miles hour um I should point out that once the project construct is constructed by State statue we will conduct a speed study to understand what the drivers will actually travel along this Corridor and that will set the ultimate speed limit for the project um the how the crosssection changes it'll have six to 10 foot shoulders so primary six foot shoulders um 10 where wherever there's residential driveways to allow for garbage and uh mail delivery services to occur um so the driving lane will be 13 foot which includes the gutter the twoot of gutter um the boulevard is 6 to 10 ft uh it'll be a 10-ft trail constructed uh typical crosssection as I mentioned is that 6ft shoulder plus 13t Lane it's a total width of 19 ft there have been questions about uh the ability for emergency services to pass so that 19 ft will account for stalled V vcle and the ability for emergency services to pass the the uh curbs will be designed so they're mountable meaning if if there is an emergency someone could Mount the curbs uh both from an emergency standpoint and if a car is uh disabled um the length is 1.8 miles and the change in median is about 1.4 miles I have a 3 minute uh visualization video that will identify how the project is changing so anyone in the public can see and the staff and Council and I'll also describe some of the improvements as the video flies through the project begins at Highway 61 roundabout it'll turn you into a split screen of how the road is changing so just past the hardwood Creek Trail Forest Road you'll see a median between the access point here and a brand new connection to the hardwood Creek Regional Trail you'll see the center median continue along with a trail that's on the south side of Highway 97 paralleling the the the highway there's a connection to the Future development that we've been coordinating with City staff at fondon through public comment period we've provided a full access point at this location which means left and left turn Lanes at floral Bay there will be a median in this location which will allow drivers to go to the roundabout or make a u-turn at the previous opening I just mentioned again you can see the urbanized section with that curban gutter the median there'll be a brand new roundabout constructed at Fenway as the corridor continues towards Highway 35 the median will uh go towards the next intersection and again you can see the trail continuing paralleling the entire Highway 97 uh falcon will have access closed from 997 and Falcon Avenue will account for that future connection um that we've been coordinating with City staff access to Falcon will still be maintained at the signalized intersection which is currently a signal and will remain a signal at Everton Avenue uh We've also coordinated with City staff the North Leg of Everton Avenue the Reconstruction of a portion of that um uh city city leg and full access will be maintained at room for growing daycare center as the median continues throughs 35 it'll essentially tie into existing condition at the signalized intersection and right as we end the project it's essentially the same condition as it is today with a painted median um with full left and right turn lanes that the signalize intersection this should do a this video does a really nice job of painting the change that will occur in this Corridor again we've gotten positive feedback through open house coordination from our last open house and good coordination with City staff emergency services and the local Forest Lake School District back to the presentation please next slide perfect so first item is schedule uh we've been we typically scope project about 5 years out um in 2022 we had a conceptual layout uh where we held a public open open house uh for comment getting really positive feedback uh from the neighborhood and and general change for the project um we're continuing to work on the environmental and preliminary design in 2023 right now we're in the environmental phase and final design uh where we're looking for municipal consent of the final layout uh we anticipate a pre-construction meeting uh to be held at a time to be determined so so prior to construction and construction will take place in 2025 and 2026 next slide please um so in terms of how we're going to build it uh We've evaluated and included um well evaluating how we're going to build it last time we saw you and the public we were still in the evaluation phase we weren't quite sure how to construct the project uh the need to maintain local access was an important consideration uh the need to maintain business access was also an important consideration during construction um you utility impacts and when those utility would need to be reconstruction was a key timing so we've actually had two meetings with utility companies to understand where their utilities are and how long it will take for them to relocate um we we presented in the past there's some bad soils in the area and those have their own time frame for excavation and replacement um we've been closely working with City staff Emergency Services the forest State School District um and evaluate really uh three options we looked at temporary widening can we just build this with just some temporary widening um could we do a directional closure will we only build one half at a time we evaluated a full closure can this project be constructed in one year and we evaluated a stage construction meaning we would have to do half at a time and the selected alternative is the stage construction which is a two-year construction next slide please so when I say A two-year construction uh that would be in year one in 2025 closure and construction of the West End um this particular end has quite a bit of Monk excavation and then we meeting with those utility companies they're going to need the very first part of the spring and the early part of that construction season to do utility relocations before the project can actually start next slide please in year two we would close and construct the East End um now while the West End is open and in both slides I should note that access to uh residential streets and businesses will be maintained at all times will need to be maintained um as part of mici conet uh there's an understanding of cost particip so as I mentioned it's approximately a $7 million project um we estimated on the conservative side $1 million in City cost participation and that breaks down just in general categories that's some cost participation for the signal reconstruction at Everton um the roadway at Everton to the north the Fenway roundabout there would be a city leg for that roundabout um the ponds themselves so as we are required to do water treatment before it lets out into the system there water draining from both the mot roadway and the city roadway and so there's a cost participation to construct those ponds and maintain those um and then there's some construction engineering and as I noted on here City utility relocation cost is to be determined and we haven't quite got into lighting design if there will be any additional Lighting on the local system so those are to be determined but on the safe side we round it up to approximately that 1 million uh cost City cost participation and as a note says we're right at that 60% we'll do another engineering estimate and then 100% we'll do another engineered estimate and there will be a Cooperative agreement that gets developed in coordination with the city and ultimately the city will approve that we'll know that final number next slide please um in terms of City Maintenance uh minda will have major Trail maintenance and City would have minor Trail maintenance um again for that pond we would have a a participation of Maintenance just based on the contributing flows um there's some signal M uh maintenance where mot would be the major maintenance and City would be minor and some lighting maintenance to be determined so right now I don't have those listed but as we design lighting we'll have a better understanding if there's any maintenance associated with lighting next slide please so with that that covers the project what's out there today what's being proposed City cost participation City Maintenance responsibility and project schedule and how we would construct it so with that I'd open up to any questions in order to proceed with the agenda very good thank you Council let's open up for our first round of questions any questions you may have before before we open up a public hearing just real quick one question that came to mind um you mentioned major and minor Trail maintenance what's what's the help me with the difference sure um so with a recent communication minda would be the owner of the trail system so that major one day when it has to be fully reconstructed that falls under the the major major maintenance and the minor maintenance would be like snow maintenance or um Adam he crack ceiling and mowing things like that so kind of that just the the dayto day Ryan go ahead mayor city council I just want to expand on that because this agreement on the trail is completely different than all our other trails that are within mots right away this is a new agreement mot's moving forward with where all your other trails that are in there right away are there by a limited use permits where the city is 100% responsible for everything this case the the trails that are parallel to Highway 97 will uh foll into that new agreement menots is executing with this agree project therefore the major reconstruction cost would be 100% mot because it'll default back to the cooperate agreement that we're going to execute with this project so when we look back 20 years and need to replace them mindat will see that that's their responsibility so that's a little different than if you guys have been around with some of the other trails that have fallen within mindat right away so that's a good question Council any other questions we might have no I didn't I just I'm just good to hear that the the new situation there so that's good just expand a little further too the trails that jet Down Forest Road or Fenway those will still be 100% city which they're along in our right away our road so right right okay that that intersection right where Forest Boulevard comes out to the height 97 that's just going to be right turn out right turn in is that correct correct yep so that median will go I it was kind of going there but so that median will be right in front of that road right okay that's correct that was my understanding from before to so any other questions before we open up go Ryan what kind of as far as lighting what would you expect or what do you think the city would ask for on on that that part that's not determined we haven't had lighting as a request at this point so mot's just doing the required intersection lighting at the new roundabout and at the signal intersection you're not doing anything at Forest Road right because there's already some lights there part of the first project and then some as far as the signals and those would be another decision about a color similar what we just did on 61 soon they blue that's what I'm I'm going to send the color to the guy so but the to expand on that just a little bit further um there will be a a design element right that that question will come back before council is that not specifically probably okay UHC this project has ongoing project management team meetings all that stuff's discuss I mean they're they're not to that point yet but they're going to need to package this here this year to get it out for bid so if there's something other than blue then we should have additional conversations at our level would you say blue is it the um is it I'm just reflecting back on the conversation we recently had with the county um is that similar to the questions that we have or is it just is it kind of built in that it would be those upgraded it would be speced that's okay yep so it would be the same color number blue it's a bunch of numbers and letters so it's yes I just can't rattle it off fair fair but it's the it's I think the point is that it's the upgraded they are the upgraded lights that have the higher design features this we'd be talking about the signal Pole at the intersection of Everton and 97 well I guess I'm thinking more about lighting along the cordor not like County State at Highway 33 where we elected to incorporate that into the project that I think that's the that's the do we do we want to consider that or or not is that I mean at this point we're comfortable with that or is that something we talk about as things go you can always talk about it but knowing that it was almost $500,000 in just County stated Highway 32 and then skinnier Footprints the cost here would be probably triple that just in lights right and the lights that we have at this intersection down here so was another thing that was a favorable negotiation with the city and mindat that the menot has 100% responsibility of the lights and the lights com in all the way out the forest Road including even electricity right so Ryan would I don't want to I don't want to under I don't want to put words in your mouth I'm just trying to understand your thought the kind of the project team's thought process so as the thought process that this is a more of a major thoroughfare and because it's a major thoroughfare it wouldn't have the same design elements that we might have on some more like the county road Highway that we just had for everen Avenue for example or downtown is that is that kind of the thought process because of scale it's a a trunk Highway yeah it hasn't been discussed to dat right okay we kind of talked about the trunk Highway 61 and Aesthetics that has been clearly defined that Aesthetics and lighting is supported through that Corridor and then the area that with County St Highway 33 that was kind of an addition to the bigger picture area you wanted to focus really a lot on Broadway and Bleed it into the downtown and can 61 would connect to that we haven't had that conversation on 32 if that's something that needs to be incorporated in that conversation that needs to probably be talked about early because that's you know more local dollars going into that it's a funding issue you bet yeah shortterm and longterm you right there's been conversations about Gateway signs but that's about it along this Corridor and that goes back pretty long time and so just trying to understand where we are with costing so far so a monument sign Gateway sign or any sort of lighting upgrades are not included in what's in the current estimate for local participation there's no additional street lights in the project and there's no okay Monument sign being built as part of mot's project okay I feel like this it just seems like this question should I feel like we should vet this through we have a lot of um significant large projects coming up um and we've I think it'd be helpful to kind of realign on what our policy is and just make sure we understand cost impact of all of that do we need if we wanted to do that for this project do we do we need to do that what's the right timing for that and does that need to be done before we do anything with Municipal consent or can we proceed tonight knowing that we want to have an additional conversation about lighting if you want to have an additional conversation I think you have time for that but that'll you know probably 100% fall on the local level and to deliver that to M to incorporate in their plans fa right now you're really approving the layout of the project and that's what's been publicly addressed and communicated and uh the cier that's been created to date is the million dollars Falls within line of what we budgeted with our construction state aid funds right that project needs to get done you know lighting or no lighting and uh I didn't see any kind of a glitch in it because of you know an additional like we still got to do the water and sewer sanitary sewer and water but we can't really start that or efficiently can't work through that process until the storm water piping and all that stuff's done so everything at above two everything you saw tonight you know that's all laid out done all the underground stuff you know elevations and stuff is getting finalized before we want to start watering sewers so we kind of know where we got to hits and not do it twice another question uh regarding the trail the trails on the South Side it it the future commercial growth is going to be on that South Side specifically between Fenway and Everton thoughts on that long term with all that commercial coming and going with that trail was there a reason why it's on that side is versus the north side because then we could Connect into our local system at Fenway Everton and in the hard Creek Trail if we go on the North side we lose our connection without having to cross the road there's several connections allowed through the the roadway uh to get to the South side but knowing what might come in east of Quick Trip it might be actually a really good fit for that commercial use in property it's going to be nice access than in the neighborhoods uh connectivity out to Columbus uh but the project can't expand anything anything to the north we looked at doing some stuff to the north but because of the the Bluffs that occur in the majority of that area or the wetlands that occur there everything is basically the footprints all going expanding to the South and if you remember we did look at a rural section but the count project was more or else forced to go to with curbing gutter because environmental issues and concerns especially in the DNR property and the Wetland impacts that were being initially proposed so that's how the project got to the footprint that it did get to thanks um back to this question of design um I feel like it'd be helpful at a future Workshop if we could just walk through um kind of what are the just make sure Council and staff are on the same page of what are the design assumptions based on different project types again we've got a a number of different project types coming up whether they're City fully City sponsored State partnership County partnership different um segments within the community residential retail more um of a highway type scenario like we have here tonight with 97 so if we could just I think it'd be helpful to just align on kind of what is the what has traditionally been the Forest Lake standard for those design different Design Elements and then again it gives us an opportunity just understand kind of what's baked in and maybe gives us some understanding of what the Imp impact might be if we wanted to change that um um I think we could all probably benefit of just making sure we're on the same page of what the initial going in Assumption is council did I capture that okay is that fair okay back to project specifics to 97 any other questions before we open up to public hearing all right let's open up public hearing um we will have another opportunity for Council questions and conversations after public hearing is there anybody that wanted to speak tonight on this topic if so please come to the podium and we'll open the public hearing now and is there anybody online for the public hearing no all right anybody in the room wanting to speak on the public hearing seeing nobody come forward we'll close public hearing bring conversation back to councel council any follow-up questions or um comments before we consider a resolution tonight all right go ahead this has been you know we've this has been talked about for quite some time and there's been open houses and all kinds of things on it so I'm certainly comfortable with it and so I'd make a motion that we adopt uh resolution 0325 d24 d02 there's a motion is there a second I'll second we have a motion in a second any further discussion on this item just a quick note to thank our mindat representatives for being here tonight for continued partnership on this project I know you've had lots of public engagement and engagement with business owners and residents and um impacted parties so appreciate all of the good work so happy to support this tonight all of those in favor signal by saying I I oppose and motion carries you thank you so much next on our agenda um consider awarding a bid for our 2024 Street Maintenance um projects resolution 325 2424 and Ryan you are also taking this one all right mayor city council tonight we have the for the bid results and award recommendation for the 2024 Street pavement maintenance project on March 8 2024 we publicly open bids for the project six bids were received uh staff is recommending that the city council award the base bid plus alternate one alternate one is 140 184th Street and Alternate three is the old Public Works um men Health Fairview parking lots total contract award would be 1,476 74379 thank you Ryan Council any questions related to 2024 Street project project award and then Ryan there the uh menal is going to pay 50% of the alternate three is that is it 50% of that 87,000 yeah it's part of their part of their agreement or their lease agreement there they will pay 50% it's not 50% right off the bat it's a payment plan that they'll right but I mean it's 50% of that 87,000 is that what it is correct all right and uh chief spoke with with M health and they were all on board for it but it's it's part of the agreement that it's a a payment plan back so but yes that they would be paying half of that other questions or comments related to the projects Dave I know as consideration of this we had um there were some staff comments and I'm trying to pull them up in my packet and I'm failing to find my my bookmark um but there were some staff comments related to consideration of um the bridal press Trail um can you just clarify where that stands related to the resolution we're considering tonight yep so uh there's some talk about that that trail uh over the winter last fall about uh getting that um updated or fixed and through research it was you know it's it's a private trail or it's a privately owned Trail by the Home Owners Association so we had an Engineers estimate done and the thought process was to put this as an alternate for a bid just to get an actual dollars cost versus an estimate um we did talk with the school district and and the homeowners association after these bids came in um L of uh some budgetary concerns with the school district uh they don't really have the bandwidth to to contribute to this their portion of of it and the the homeowners association they felt comfortable for uh contributing $5,000 um to that total project which may cover the survey work and the you know to turn that into a trail easement or a public Trail e so the end of the day really the city would be pretty much on the hook for that whole entire thing I you know I would I would recommend that City put this chunk of Trail into the next safe Els of School uh process that you know that get that whole Trail done um that would be staff's recommendation you know the next time we we apply for that Grant this would be a good one that would that would cover that thank you I um appreciate the work on looking into it I I have a concern about heading down the path of us um maintaining those um Homeowner Association Trails um um I so if if we're going to consider and I appreciate it staff's recommendation to not include that I think if we wanted to include that in the future um we really need to step back and look at what is the slippery slope that we're creating by doing heading down that path and just what is our total mileage of homeowner maintain Trails I would suspect that that would become a frequent ask if that starts to become our policy when we're doing adjacent streets we could look at it but we're at such a deficit already right now with funding that um I think we've really got to make sure we're not expanding scope unless there's just a slam dunk reason to do so um so I just wanted to kind of clarify my own position on that um again we can always look at it but I think it's got to be prioritized in the concept of or with the thought of what is the total exposure if we were to change a policy on that any I don't know if anyone else has any thoughts on that topic or the overall um proposal tonight anything else all right there is a motion um available or happy to entertain any further questions Council has actually be approving the resolution of the war oh I'm sorry yes a resolution available I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 3252 2404 the 2024 Ste Street pavement maintenance project I'll second you have a motion and a second any further discussion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I oppose and motion carries all right our next item this evening consideration of resolution 3252 2401 which is the 2025 2026 airport airport lease rate adjustments and Christina I believe you're walking us through this yep uh mayor and Council we're here um as it's been customary since 2016 every other year the city looks at raising the lease rates out at the airport on the ground leases for the last couple of years the city has used the last 12 12 months of the CPI for Minneapolis St Paul um prior to that there had been some discussions about going back to um 2001 we did have some conversation and public comment about this at the airport commission and folks had thought that the way we or a person at that at that meeting thought that the way the city had been doing it for the last two years was not consistent with their lease language I did pull that lease language and as you'll see in your packet it basically just says that it needs to be tied to the um CPI for Minneapolis St Paul and be reasonable when you decide to adjust those rates and so what I had presented to the airport commission was consistent with what the city had done in 2020 and 2022 which was to look at the CPI as of January for the previous 12 months and increased the rates that way um that would lead to an increase of 2.6% and the airport commission did um is recommending that you follow that same procedure and increase the rates 2.6% since there was some conversation I and after I done dug into the history there are some options in your packet um the resolution is drafted to be consistent with a recommendation from the airport commission for the 2.6% increase um that's option one the another option would be to amend the rates um to adjust for the CPI for the last 24 months since it had actually been two years since we had increased it that was a a conversation some of us had that perhaps that would be um more accurate rather than skipping that year in the middle and then the um third option would would be to go back to 2008 um because that was the last time there was a gap between 2008 and 2016 when the rates were not increased at all so um that's what I have before you again the um recommendation from staff and the airport commission um is to increase the rates by 2.6% for the next two years I'll take any questions thank you Christina Council what questions may we have no I was there any question any questions comments yeah I guess I just find it really confusing that we would have a 24-month window but only look back 12 months um it just seems absurd I guess I just be curious this these lease agreement revenue does that go into the airport commission fund though then to help pay for improvements that are happening out there it does y it does what what is that I I haven't done the math on this I mean we've gone through this but what is that so if you went the last 24 months instead of the last 12 months it's a 7.79% increase versus the 2.6 back in 2022 I think it was a 7.2 or 7 point something increase I don't you know I wasn't here some of you might have known you know but but in 2020 and in 2022 they only look back the last 12 months yeah it just it doesn't make sense in my mind um I mean I wish that was the case for me and my my landlord but um I just you know just because it's been precedent for the last couple times I don't know that we need to keep doing bad math just because we've done it the last two rounds but it's just one person's opinion I guess so so the adjustment requires every two years we do an so the so so what's clear in the language is every two years we do an adjustment and to be clear the adjustment gets made every single year so it's not like we're only adjusting so there is a nope it only gets adjusted every two years sorry every other year so it's every other year getting adjusted every other year and the question is whether or not we should be using a 12-month window or a 24mon window and the is the the lease language is unclear as to what that timeline is right the lease language just says that you have to set reasonable rates and so you get to decide what's reasonable and the difference of 2% or 7% just happens to be the nature of what the CPI did and conceivably so then you did do the math of what the what it would be for in totality right that's once they our packet those are the options in your packet this the um two a is that if you were to look back 24 months you know I mean having done some guesstimation in terms of you know the size of these buildings I mean that the impact isn't an absolute dollars isn't that significant I just think that it's not great policy what we've been operating under but part of it's been based on the fact that uh the airport doesn't offer all the amenities out of the airport often MH uh like weather reporting station um instrument approach procedures um that kind of thing maintenance that that sort of thing so there's some reasonable ways of looking at what what's offered and how we can stay competitive with other airports you know so um I'm not opposed either one of them to be honest with you but I I just wanted so we keep it in that realm where where it needs to be you know well I know that I mean we' we've done a lot of improvements out there with the runway and expanding it and so forth I mean are those some things you just mentioned are those things that would be on the short list if they I don't see the instrument appro approach procedure ever coming to our airport because we're not federally funded there and so that that was explained by uh mot where they you'd have to have actually have a private company set up and there's an annual maintenance fee that goes with that and in the proximity of two airports where you already have those procedures it really doesn't pay here it really doesn't and uh the other issue you know we've we've been asking for money for U an aw automated weather observation and uh that's in the CIP but it's years down the road right now so um what we looked at earlier when this all was getting going was uh you know what the rates were say anoa or aola or um Rush City and that kind of thing and try to find something that was in amongst those numbers you know even though we don't have the amenities that they do so so how do these square or price per square foot compare with those airports you just mentioned I don't have that comparison right in front of me you know so but we're um we're right up there with them so isn't the um isn't the point though that it just so happens to be that at this point in time the difference is one is lower than the other at any other point in time depending on what's happening with the CPI it might be the 2-year look back might be larger or might be smaller than the the one-year period and so I guess I guess I'm more concerned about having a consistent number that we're consistently using and that it is an in a number independent of something that we are um even though council's asked to approve it that it's it's something that is different than what we're using it's tied to something external to the city and so I don't really have a preference on whether we're using a three-year look back or a two-year look back or a one-year look back it's more of that it's a consistent number that's independent of the city I would agree that and again the nature of what number is bigger is going to be a fluctuation over time that's it's going to just change as the CPI does change um have we ever used a a 24mon period we've never used the 24mth I think back in 2018 you went back to 201 maybe to 2018 like there was a long was there like a catchup there was like a onetime adjustment that was like for many years there was no adjustment right yeah I think there was a longer adjustment cuz like I said there was a number of years where there were no rate increases from from I think it was 2008 to 2016 there were no rate increases so then shortly thereafter they did a bigger one and then since for the last two times it's just been the 12 months look back right I I appreciate Council the logic of council member Ericson's question and I it's it's logical I I just don't know if I what I want us to use is something that is consistent and in this topic of airport leases that we have spent a lot of time on and has been an area of concern I am concerned with us just having a different interpretation um also in a year where the other number is substantially higher so I I would default this year to the lower number that is our consistent number um if there is if there is consensus down the road between airport you know leaseholders and the airport commission that we should change and move to a 24mth I'm okay with that I just I'm hesitant to do that this year in a year when the other number is substantially higher um I think that's I think it's challenging when what we've been looking for is something that's independent of the city and consistent yeah I would agree I mean there has to be some some set rules so everybody's on the same page with it you know what I mean so we've you know we've struggled and we've tried to you know there's we've you know try to keep it something that is outside of what's happening with budget what's happening with Levy um so so being being new to this first first year on this um I've not been prev to any of these conversations so it's interesting that the commission didn't come forward to us with some comps as to what other airports are are getting per square foot I mean this is this is a a hell of a deal at whatever the rate is and so it'd be nice to know going forward where we compare with other airports U it's it's seems like it's pretty uh pretty cheap land what I mean so can to the to that question can you give us um just can you just walk us through the the provisions of um what we are what we're allowed to so council member Robert's point do we have an option to make a substantially different adjustment um than what is other than what's in the CPI or is our lease language so tied to that CPI the the lease language is tied to CPI but the flexibility that I see is how you use CPI like over the time frame right so you have to use CPI you can't just say this is what other other um airports have right it has to be somehow linked to CPI it says that some reasonable rate linked to CPI um we we also think longterm these leases need to get Rewritten so you don't have this problem and the there's an automatic escalator in there right so this is kind of an interesting challenge I think that you have have before you and something that we've recognized as as it gets presented to us we would like to change and make it um better the lease rates that I was referring to was but back in 2008 when we're looking at what the lease rates were going to be when we started opening up to build hangers there and and then the part of that issue is that the state of Minnesota has pretty much paid for that piece of land and they paid for the infrastructure they paid for the you know 80% of the sewer and water water and all all the amenities that went in there each hanger owner then put in uh extra money when they bought a permit so there was really zero cost to the city of for there's 20% there's actually 20% cost yeah except it all got paid for by the owners it and on top of the the uh building permits that we paid there was a $5,000 fee that went with it so we're using this index based on a on a price that was established back in 2008 and that's what is triggering it well that seems not not necessarily it's it's so again this the CPI as is one of the is the variable that you have to use and how you use it to come to a reasonable rate is up to you but it's an inre in in the in most of those older contracts from from um long ago I can't remember there might have been a more recent one that just said that you get to adjust it every two years but yes the the CPI but not necessarily CPU from 2008 either it just says you use the CPI and come up with a reasonable rate so one of the things one of the topics that makes this question challenging is that we're talking about long-term leases so these leases have a period of is it 20 to 30 years 25 years and they're all they're all 25 years and so for us to so there's an opportunity for us potentially to tie ourselves to a different structure but as I understand it we need to be at like all of those existing are tied to that current rate that it would have to be new leases only is that Amanda's going to correct something that I said jump in please just a quick point of order so my understanding is that the leases are not all identical language so we have a variation in the lease language the one of the leases that I looked at it it said you're allowed to do a reasonable rate and then it uses the CPI as an example of what it would consider to be a reasonable rate so in for example in that particular lease we could make an argument that we don't have to follow the CPI I'm not saying that because frankly as Christina alluded to it's just really bad lease language we need a a set escalator 4% 5% whatever the number is I mean that's what you do and all other land leases that we would have um the tricky part is these are super long they are and so to try to fix them is just a really long game in absent absence of the ability to fix them um you know holistically on a lease platform I think the alternative would be as a council to sort to pass some sort of a a resolution or a policy that we can document that says this is what we're going to do moving forward we have deemed this to be the reasonable rate the end and and then use that you know temporarily until we're able to correct the leases so that's probably your best fix is to do that correcting those leases actually means renegotiating and getting agreement from all of those current lease holders is that that that is not something that we're just admin there's no vehicle in the lease language that's allows us to make those changes because again we're locked into very longterm leases right except for the the Clause that says you get to pick a reasonable rate okay so as long as we pick a reasonable rate they don't have the abil I mean they don't really have the ability to to dispute that and um the CPI has the way that that that it's written it's not clear if the CPI is taking it from one year taking it from 24 months taking it all the way back to 2008 if you look at the percentages that the CPI would generate it's anywhere from 2% to 41% depending upon how you read the the CPI so it goes back to pick a reasonable rate and even if we just say from now on we're raising it 4% a year the end it's still going to fall in line with the CPI because the leases don't give us a uh guideline for how to actually apply the CPI does that does that make sense MH so from a legal perspective my advice is just pick a number and let's just make a policy that says moving forward this is the number we're done and then that sort of solves this every by biannual issue well I guess I think it' be good to have that on a workshop here sometime in the near future you know relatively near future whatever when you say that though workshop for future leases new leases coming in right so future conversation well if I understood I maned correctly I mean certainly new leases but even with the existing leases if we as a body said okay our reasonable rate is 4% or whatever the number is and here's the policy that proclaims that am I understand you correctly yeah yes the honor council member Ericson yes it would be that we've set the policy you know I would definitely do the sort of the explaining and the where as is and all of that around how we got to this number and why we believe it's reasonable and how it ties to the CPI or averages a CPI or whatever um and then that's yeah that would be how we paper that to follow that for the action tonight do you feel that there is a number I mean so are you suggesting we table and and do that work before we arrive at a number or are are I could go either way um for you know for this year um I just when I read through that I just had a lot of question marks going off like you know so we're and whether it's a 2% number or 5% number it's fascinating that we we only look at it every two years and we use that last 12 months is the next two years um R you know or or release agreement so I was just yeah Fair bringing conversation yeah I think it does pose issues with consistency and I like the idea of a resolutionary policy because I think regardless of what we pick here tonight if we don't do a resolution or a policy this question is just bound to come up it will four years from now 10 years from now yeah it'll come up again so I think if we can uh have that conversation and try to solve that issue um and then with that with consistency I'd be more inclined to do the 2.6% even though a similar um to you council member Ericson seeing all these options I'm like realistic basically the best option would be the most expensive for everyone but that's harsh that's intense that's let's just let's find a better option to make it consistent so I do like the 2.6% for this year and then moving forward looking at a policy or a resolution whichever is best I'm I'm fine either way I think last fall I talked about maybe we need some kind of a this air Port situation not just this hanger 97 potentially people living out there we need to Workshop it and and and get things straightened out out there this is just one of another issue that the airport is is has and it just need to have a resolution to this some of those things are being addressed and taken care of so uh the other thing you want to keep in mind when you talked about um your landlord whatever rate they use for figuring your your uh lease uh that includes the building taxes whatever we're talking about a piece of land that a building is sitting on that pays separately on taxes so it's we're talking about a piece of land that that's been basically um accounted for um through men. Aeronautics so uh we need to have that discussion I'll be happy to do that so so I appreciate the the questions that were brought up tonight and then from set of eyes on gosh why are we using this math and does this math make sense um I think it's a great I think we should Support also us workshopping that tonight though for consistency purposes and this has been a really challenging topic for Council over the years I am going to rely on consistency of what we've done and it happens to be that that is also the lower number so I think for lease holders that is a fair number for this year and so I would move that Council approve resolution 3252 2401 is there a second I'll second you have a motion in a second any further discussion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I I oppose motion carries okay moving on to item 7D which is the fire um Staffing with the safer Grant and chief Newman mayor members of the council up for consideration is the creation of two new full-time firefighting position s uh to give you a better understanding of our ask I'd like to give you a little bit of history on the fire department uh Staffing model so when I joined the fire department in 1991 uh we're made up of 32 paid on call Firefighters and a pay down call fire chief um we were governed by The Joint fireboard which was made up uh by force Lake Township Wyoming Township the city of Columbus and force at that time we responded to about 250 calls a year in uh 2002 Force like hired it or created the first full-time Chief's position in 2010 they created a full-time fire inspection position in 2024 uh the city kind of changed its um organization and the building department was moved under the fire department at that time we created two new positions uh that were referred to as dual um role uh employees where their main job was building department and their priority was fire department response uh that provided uh response Monday through Friday from 8:00 a to 4:30 p.m. and they would uh typically do their job in building and when the pager went off if they could leave then they responded to fire calls uh in 2015 we ended the fire inspection program and over the last uh decade from 2014 to uh last year our fire uh response has increased 56% from 310 calls to 508 calls and our highest in 2020 was 550 calls so last Thursday we brought uh up in front of the joint fireboard for discussion these two new oppositions after a lengthly discussion uh The Joint fire board uh made a motion to or a recommendation to bring forth to the council one of those two positions so the staff report that you have in front of you is for two position positions that's been revised down to one uh full-time firefighting captain that person would uh work Monday through Friday 8 to 4:30 um and they would be under uh the fire department some of the uh reasons that we're looking at adding this position uh would be to improve training consistency currently our uh training program is run between myself and uh one of the other paid on call fire firefighters it would also enhance leadership in the firr because we have paid on call staff uh at any time we do not know who's showing up the pager goes up if you're available you show up uh improve response time by having somebody that's here at the station that does not have to drive from either their job um or their home and then assist in administrative task uh public Outreach fire prevention issuing burn permits uh repair and maintenance and code enforcement issues all things that currently fall underneath the fire chief um current other uh Staffing I have the building department that reports to the fire chief which is four employees Building Maintenance which is two employees 31 paid on call Firefighters and as the first of the year I'm now the city's emergency manager so this position is being brought up as administrative support uh for the fire department as well with that the revision uh the ask here is for uh $145,200 city of Forest Lake Forest Lake's portion of that would be 11 16,190 and Columbus's portion would be $ 29,44 so um we plan on writing a grant for a portion of this funding it's called the safer Grant the safer Grant which uh helps fire department fund the creation of new positions uh it's a three-year Grant this grant if were successfully awarded would cover the expense for fiscal year 25 26 and 27 and pay all wage and benefits for that uh position so what the ask for tonight is the creation of one full-time position within the fire department starting in 2025 commit to funding these firefighter positions beginning in 2028 uh and additionally authorizing the submission of the safer Grant to fund those positions for the first three years I'm Avail available for questions if you have any thank you Chief Council um if if I may just add in a little bit of additional context that came up during um The Joint fire board um um council member Ericson join in as well if you if I if I miss anything you know I think there was a recog that this dual position is probably not something that any one of us would design from scratch or that it's a very unique situation that you would have building staff in the building that are also firefighters and so um as Chief says their primary role within the city day today is building but when there is a fire that is their top priority and they are providing that response and the impact of that is substantial of prior to us having the and the reason we went to that model was were having challenge with um having enough daytime response for our paidon call department and again while nobody would maybe start with that model today we have it in place and we have two people that are actively serving in that role and we are getting the benefit of that first responder response um for a building for building department and um and so again while you may not start from a blank sheet of paper with that in mind but since it's there and working um there was a lot of hesitancy to move away from that model because of the potential impact to the overall pay on call model that we have with our fire department and chief has done an excellent job over the years of helping to preserve that model um and I think there's a lot of motivation for us for many reasons Financial being top to hang on to that model as long as we can and um Chief has a strategy that keeps us able to keep that model for the foreseeable future this isn't a one or two years from now we may have to change models which is a multi-million dollar decision for the city there is a long-term commitment to that model and this is a critical piece right now that for us to step away from that and to make those full-time positions was just started this cascading effect that personally I felt really moved us away from the payon call model and kind of accelerated us having some sort of full-time Staffing and so again it's Unique I appreciate that from a staffing position of those who have to kind of pick things up once you know beepers go off and staff start disappearing from the window there is an impact to that but um if we are able to keep that in place at least through attrition we should I think there was a lot of motivation on the joint fireboard to um try to preserve that as long as possible which then kind of brought us back to this conversation of if we're bringing on full-time staff yes there's a safer grant that covers that for a number of years but then we're on the then we are on the hook for that staff and there was some concern that having three full-time fire chief plus two additional staff was just too much too soon um and there was a a broader preference and recognition that yes Chief has too much on his plate yes there is a need for some additional Staffing but let's bring on just one position instead of two and really recommit to this dual role as long as it's working and again all indications seem to be that it's working and so let's not step away from that so I just wanted to kind of give that context of um really good conversation we had at the Joint fireboard I don't know um yeah M great summary and and you know just some of the numbers we're we think about this payon call model that we have and Al's done a great job of leading that side of the door as he calls it um the responders I mean it's over a 10year period That's a $30 million savings for the city I mean that's real money and so to be able to you know maintain that for as long as possible I think we also need to recognize that we need to have more support and a plan so that if Al you know doesn't make it back from a fishing trip um you know there's not the wheels aren't going to fall off um and so that's where we started looking at this you know you know asking how would you come to a budget meeting and say hey I need out two new full-time firefighters it's like well no so that's kind of part of what brought us down to this one um with the recognition that you know we don't want to handcuff future councils to a quarter million dollar decision um and uh and so that's where I have every confidence that you're going to get the safer Grant if assuming this body wants to support it um which would you know really enable us to get started kick started on that um on that plan that you've laid out without really having having any impact to the budget um in the you know next handful of years but it is making a commitment to the Future for sure questions from Council feedback I think it's a great idea um I think it's uh positive it's exciting to see the growth and where there are difficulties being able to voice those difficulties and the concerns and then coming to a consensus that um is beneficial for the future so I'm supportive of this I think it's an inevitable situation that we're going to be going more and more that direction yeah and this at least will tell us how it's going to work with the safer Grant and give us an opportunity to get our feet wet on it and see if it's a fit and it's going to end up being a fit no matter what we do here so I would agree so if if we don't receive this grant then I would assume staff would come back for one of these positions regardless at some point yes and how does that play into if if more of a longer term where we try to I think I think staff has talked about trying to pull the building away from fire and a better model because we're we're anomaly here that just doesn't happen very often how would that play into it still need that additional person if that were the case well I think that you know the Dual response uh firefighters or dual rooll firefighters um currently we have a firefighter engineer in one of those positions so that um with if that goes away eventually that will be something to be addressed because the the firefighter engineer he's basically the one that's in charge of operating the fire apparatus and so um not knowing if you're going to have an engineer show up or not um it'd be nice to have that guarantee uh that that's going to happen um but beyond that um we're g to stick with the pay on call paid on call model um that's worked really well for us when it hasn't worked in communities all around us uh up until just a few months ago we were fully staffed and and we're down one a firefighter that retired after 23 years uh but since 2014 we've hired 23 firefighters and we still have 19 of them on board after 10 years so our retention in recruitment has been very good um with the fire department and that model has suited our city well uh and I just I don't see that that's going to end anytime soon so um this ask for one full-time firefighter is not only for response but a big part of that is for the administration help and succession planning which at this point we just don't have in place I one of the considerations for me um in moving from two to one was just recognizing that if we do not get that safer grant that this position does become part of that budget conversation recognition that sometimes we've seen positions take a couple of years to get funded um and we may need that on this position to be frank um if that safer Grant isn't received um and so having that commitment loom out there to have two positions I just felt like was too aggressive considering just where we've been with staff funding and some again we've needed multiple Cycles sometimes and so to get two through and to have that committed I felt like was just a little too topheavy it's lovely to have the safer gr and have it be funded for a couple of years it's just what that commitment is afterwards I was concerned with and I appreciate the fireboard look you know as much as I'm sure two are needed to to back that down a little bit I appreciate the time on that and the thought any other questions or points of conversation and again just clarify for process um Chief if we do not receive that safe for Grant then Council will have an opportunity to decide what's next with that position I would assume as part of the budget process or once that safer Grant becomes known is that plan yes it'll be added to the the Staffing plan uh for 2025 and then notification of successful Awards start in August and end on the last day of September so we do know before the budget cycle ends very good perfect any other questions happy to entertain a motion if anyone's ready I'll make a motion to approve the submitt of the safer grant for one new firefighter position with City budget impact starting in 2028 second we have a motion and a second any further discussion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I I oppose and motion carries our next item um consideration of the city administrator profile and I believe we have Bart joining us yes we to I see May rain uh we also need a motion for sub submitt to the safer Grant did we just I thought that was part of our motion that was part of I I missed that then was that part of your read the motion from the packet with the just changing it from two to one right yep okay thank you all right I think we next we have Bart participating remotely for the city administrator profile yep Bart if you can just go ahead and speak sounds good the uh ultimate question in a virtual setting can everyone hear me we can hear you you here you sound great fantastic y well thank you very much mayor council members uh thank you for the opportunity to join you remotely tonight uh virtually um and being able to stay close to home to take care of a few things as well so thank you for that I really do appreciate that um before you tonight is the uh profile uh for the city administrator position um what we really um ultimately try to do with this document is um listen to you uh get in and put together a document that really encapsulates um quite frankly uh the community uh kind of going from like bigger picture down to the smaller picture right the community um the uh organization itself U and then ultimately down to what you all want to see uh in the next city administrator and um we hope that we were able to do that um thank you very much for the opportunity to come up there and talk to many of you many of the staff um to gather uh a lot of that uh background information to put the profile together so ultimately tonight I'm here to um just gather your feedback uh answer any questions you might have on that and um hopefully um have you approve the profile and approve the posting and uh we can even get that posted um likely as soon as tomorrow um if um if there aren't uh you know significant changes and things like that to the profile so uh with that Mr mayor council member I'm sorry madam mayor council members I apologize um I I will stand for any questions thank you Bart Council the um profile is in our packets any questions that you may have for Bart or staff tonight Bart I so had an opportunity to review the profile um I see the recommended um salary range that is listed on the profile and understand how that links back to our pay grade um you know with the profile and with this salary um Range are you is it your recommendation that this is our best um best proposal to C attract the um you know the greatest number of qualified candidates I think that's my goal as I look at what we're looking to get out of this document sure mayor that's a great question I is this the best you know as a consultant um we'll always probably say as a general rule uh the higher the posted salary range the higher number of applicants that you will receive um that being said there has a balance there right um and we try to strike that balance um Pro um I know we provided some information on some comparisons things like that um and I know um Attorney Johnson has also uh provided some information to you in regards to some comparison uh on salaries and things like that so to ultimately answer your question I guess um I don't think you're out of line um and um would would actually yes um receive some uh quality candidates uh with this salary range thank you Council I'm had an opportunity to review I'm comfortable with the profile as as listed I think Bart's captured our needs um this is you know the beginning stage of the recruitment process um certainly you know everything becomes negotiable as we think about actually extending offers and what salaries May land but I think this is a good place to start um I think so too I'm happy to support it unless anyone has any thoughts I don't I don't have anything to compare it against um having not never seen these before but I just wonder if um it would make sense to highlight our business Community a little bit I we have some major Employers in the area as well as you know obviously very several um smaller midsize businesses um you know we call out strong future growth on the first page but I don't know if it really addresses what some of that anticipated growth might look like so that those applicants might be you kind of really get a sense of what that opportunity really is um to be a part of and you know it's called out here you know 40% growth in the next next number of years I mean that's a pretty awesome opportunity to be a part of and to guide um because one of you know one of the things I want to see the city continue to grow in is being a great partner um in the community to the school district with athletic facilities but also our business community and developers so that would be the one thing I feel like might be missing a little bit I wonder if a place to add that would be um um and maybe it's in here I don't we you know we highlight Regional activities we we highlight Health Care well it it's it's somewhat here but maybe to your point Council we' call it out further um we do highlight that we are on and I'm on page I'm on page two which is the first page of text we do highlight that we're a strong retail Center um maybe that could you know welcoming downtown maybe that could be expanded of um I've we've seen this be described in other in other um documents maybe I'm thinking of the downtown plan where we talk about um a regional Hub and it's that Regional nature that maybe we are missing that makes us different than um Hugo Columbus I mean there's a sized element but there's also a there is a a regional Hub that happens and because of that we are a center of many activities um maybe adding that would is is that yeah again have nothing to compare it so maybe this is kind of the general highlight you know highlighted topics in most of these that the applicants are to be looking for but it just you know felt like it wasn't really highlighted like some of these other Healthcare Recreation education Fair yeah I don't think any of us had anything to compare really is because been five years since we did this before so it a lot of things change along the way and um but I think he's spelled it up pretty well I one thing I want to point out is underneath where it says the organization and it lists the different boards it says Parks trails and lakes commission if we could get that changed to Parks and Recreation Commission and then besides that I think it's I think it's comprehensive there's a lot to that goes into it um but I think I think it does a good job I I would agree with um councilman Ericson I think calling that out that's important you know to have that partnership and it's I think it needs to be at least mentioned somewhere in there to a little bit more agree are you um I'm hesitant on delaying getting this posted um because this getting this approved um I'm going to stop because Amanda's signaling at me go ahead yeah uh sorry your honor Council um could we um just a thought to be able to continue to move this ahead it would you be okay approving with minor modification as approved by the City attorney and then I hear what you're saying about adding a section for businesses or the all regional Hub and then obviously the modification to the Parks and Recreation Commission so if we were able to make that modification and then submit it out would you need to see it again or would you be okay knowing that could incorporate what you're asking for and move forward I'd be fine with that okay Bart are you good with that yes yes that uh makes a lot of sense uh if you're comfortable with that we can definitely work on adding again um more robust language around the business Community um and that uh partnership with them and then um thank you council member Valenta for pointing out that uh the change on the Mission as well we can make that change just one minor little one minor little nitpick I nitpick I did notice that the charter school is referenced as being a private Charter School happens to be a public charter school so we're making some changes there's just a minor minor adjustment there um but I I um would Advocate that we approve this this evening to if you see the timeline um um I think the plan would be for this to be published at that our posting would become live within the next couple of days because this does start the planned I believe it's about four weeks of application time frame and I just want us to get this out on the street and start getting those applica applicants in um and so I appreciate Amanda's suggestion that we give her authority to make that make those final approvals I'm seeing some heads nod any other points of feedback all right I would move that Council approve the city administrator profile um with edits to be approved by our City attorney as um discussed this evening is there a second second there's a motion and a second any further discussion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I I oppose and motion carries thank you for being here tonight thank you very much mayor council members I really appreciate it we'll move forward with this very good all right we are going that ends our planned um action agenda for this evening and we are going to move into a discussion topic um and that is intended to be a more informal working session of topic working session of council anything that we talk about in that Workshop session um that requires official action will come back before Council um and so let's move into that Ryan I believe you have a memo prepared for the downtown storm water BMP changes and we have Tim here as well from Bolton and mink cler fer mayor City Council in your packet for discussion there is a memo prepared uh staff reports I don't know if you guys have seen that previously but then also a presentation by Tim Olson we'll go through first thank you is it the same I should be able to get it on here just sure can that it yes yes okay mayor and Council thank you uh for the opportunity to present tonight Tim Olson with Bolton M I'm a water resources engineer uh tonight we'll be talking about um some options we've prepared for modifications to the downtown BM m p project go to the next slide um we'll discuss some Basin reconfigure uh reconfiguration options tonight mostly related to slope um and depth I'll prepare or I'll uh explain some options for revation to towards the end um as we go through each Basin uh we can certainly stop and talk about each one of those or uh if you'd like to save questions to the end we can also do that um I'll also summarize the the treatment volumes and the the cost comparisons with these different options and then talk about some next steps next slide please um I met with with most of the residents unfortunately there were a few that uh weren't able to make it out I talked to Mr dobeck tonight too hopefully and um in uh an attempt to meet with him this week yet uh I know that there's a lot of snow out there right now so maybe even after that the snow has melted but uh between March 13th and March 22nd we met with most of the residents um through the sites and discussed the options um explained a little bit further on some of the issues that we saw with construction uh and then the the modifications that are being proposed this evening um also heard a lot of their feedback on um issues with Mowing and and so on next slide please U I know there's been a lot of conversation uh uh over slopes and really what those mean um and so we have examples of of steep slopes at 2: one which is a two two foot horizontal to 1ot vertical drop um all the way to 4 to one and flatter so that's a 4T horizontal distance with a 1ot vertical drop so I wanted to at least show what some of those slopes look like so we can go out and see those directly in the field um Basin 7 is on the far north end uh north of 233rd those are some of the steeper slopes on the site as constructed um at 2: one Basin three more towards the south end of the project um we have 4 to1 slopes on the roadway side and 3 to1 slopes on the resident side um and then some examples of 4 to one slopes here with Basin 2 uh we'll go through each one of these locations again but just as a reminder to you know as to what those slopes look like uh two: one obviously very challenging to moow um 3:1 4:1 getting progressively easier Tim was that two: one was was that ever as designed no okay so in in exploring these reconfiguration options through lots of conversation um over the past few months um we know that there there are Basin bottom elevation issues as constructed um numerous Basin many of the basins were constructed too low uh we also have um some contamination issues with Upstream sediment from rainfall that happened during construction um and unprotected discharge like can cause clay material to move over the tops of those filters and restrict drainage so we know we have a few basins that are that are experiencing um that uh as we go through these options then you know option one would be to correct to the original design um those included 3:1 slopes uh in most cases the the pros here would be that you know this provides the most offset treatment volume for uh downtown Economic Development um however there you know those those resident concerns for mowing would remain option two would be to cor to correct those basins for some easier maintenance um and in in this particular case we'd be adjusting all basins to a 4 to one slope and then of course fixing those bottom elevation issues um this would accommodate you know easier maintenance for the residents most certainly but it there's some reduction in that offset treatment volume for downtown Redevelopment um and then finally option three would be to store to the pre-construction condition which you know um is is the original ditch configuration for the residents but would essentially eliminate uh all of that offset treatment volume for economic development downtown okay so I'm going to go through each Basin now and we'll talk a little bit about some of our um initial design assumptions sort of what happened in the field and then some corrective actions these are going to focus on option two um because that is that would be the most you know impact from a construction perspective uh and option three to restore basins to the original would just you know be essentially to to restore those ditches um so Basin one uh it does have the largest contributing drainage area it's about 28% of the total treatment volume on the project um the depth of that Basin really is connected to the existing storm sewer that comes off of Hayward that storm sewer is what provides the storm water into the treatment feature um and the reason that that Basin is as deep as it is is to Daylight that existing storm sewer pipe um the side slopes were constructed too steep um we know that during construction there was lots of rain at the time that that Basin was wide open um so we'd want to check for potential tile clogging uh through some exploration during construction um and as that bottom elevation comes up to what was originally designed uh or or potentially higher if need be um we could add a second tile a second drain tile in there to help with more effective drainage um these drawings I I admittedly are are a bit technical um but what we'd be looking at here for for one option uh for Basin one would be to extend the exist the storm sewer pipe further to reduce the size of that feature um we'd shallow up the slopes and raise the elevation to what was originally designed um and then add that second tile and you can see here that to correct it to the original design um versus option two we'd lose a little over 50% of the total volume in that Basin um I another option here uh for for for this Basin um would be to replace the tile completely uh that would mean that we'd fill in the entire Basin um and that could apply to the speecher and others and we can talk about that a little more here too as we go um but you can see that with the correction in slope and the correction in elevation as constructed um we'd lose about 58% of that uh of that volume just a a bit of a different view here um you can see the difference between what was constructed and the the brown dash line versus what would be proposed in the green um I tried to show these CR sections in some of the more extreme conditions um so you can see that on the number two side there's a shelf that was constructed that really wasn't there as designed um we we see water standing in the bottom of the feature here too which may be indicative of uh some soil contamination or or clog drain tile um so raising that bottom elevation up as high as we can and still daylight the the storm sewer pipe off of Hayward um and then perform those those slope corrective actions okay uh so Basin 2 um was originally intended to be a water quality Basin uh however given its depth and grade we just really couldn't quite fit a tile in there um and still maintain enough sand cover over the top of the pipe so this was essentially converted to more of a ditch section we did widen that ditch uh the slopes were adjusted in the field to be 4 to1 slopes um and really provides some additional rate control or or flood storage if you will in the ditch uh some additional surface filtration and so on U we're not really proposing any change here to this Basin um it it does mimic the existing ditch pretty closely and it doesn't have any additional uh drain tile that's all SED or or seated currently Basin three as we continue to move north around the corner here on uh North short Trail um at the north end of that feature uh near the outlet um or the Overflow point we're at about a 1ot depth and then towards the South End more like 2 and 1/2 ft um you know these slopes were constructed very close to 3:1 we know we've got a pretty um a steeper slope on the North End so either correcting those back to a 3:1 or a 4:1 uh certainly an option um we do believe this Basin was contaminated it does draw down much slower than the remaining uh basins the the feature on uh Basin number one you know we had a lot of rain during that time so we do believe that clay was moved down stream during construction and contaminated the surface so we'd be looking at you know pulling back the blanket that's there um removing the clay and then restoring that Basin with new uh new seed moving on to Basin 4 um at the outlet this is uh this Basin slightly less than half a foot deep at the Basin um on average we're at a 1 and 1/2 to 2T depth uh relative to the um the resident slope and the roadway slope um this Basin is slow to drain as well in this image you can barely see it but in the foreground there's some standing water uh so it's a it would be a matter of pulling that blanket back again um restoring the surface correcting any any elevation issues here um but we do as you see get about 1,000 cubic feet of volume here um basins 2 three and four were largely constructed per plan um I know that on the North edge of basin 4 uh there's some additional slope issue there too that can be corrected uh it's likely challenging to mow in that corner um so just some general fill and reshaping in there um Basin five was uh was a challenge most certainly uh there was a gas service that had to be rerouted during construction there was also a sanitary sewer service that was discovered that we couldn't move um and so that the grading was adjusted in the field and and it was also insulated at the time um this is a one of the larger features it's really now three cells instead of the original two uh because of that sanitary sewer service um and we know we have significant especially elevation issues here which are really con you know contributing to the slope issues um so here's that three basin configuration um the South Basin would be on the right hand side and just remember that for the next slide here um as we move north or from right to left the basins actually get deeper and they shouldn't they should all be the same elevation um the north Basin has the most extreme this is at Tom and uh the the Charles uh property um we know that that that North basin's like 2 and 1 half ft deeper than what was designed um so simply correcting that will certainly help with the slope issue that's there too um I know that Tom has expressed some concerns with mowing there um the the two South basins also have some depth issues um as as well as slope uh but you can see here too from origin from design to the the corrected for easier maintenance we're again losing about 50% of that volume can I just clarify is this the slide you intended to have up I didn't have this slide I was still on B there's two more oh I'm sorry okay I should pay attention up there too um yep so now go to the next one please okay so here this is yeah okay so the the South Basin again was on the right hand side do you maybe want to go back one slide just so we can get our get a frame of reference here again the the right hand side of the screen is the South Basin so we'll start there and then move move to the North or to the left thank you you go to the next slide okay um the South Basin especially in the south end it was constructed slightly low uh it's not overwhelmingly low as compared to the north side of the feature which we'll talk here in just a second um we do have some slope issues that are greater than 3:1 um largely on the resident side and on the roadway side they were constructed to a 3 to1 or closer to a 4:1 slope um so not many corrective issues there from a slope perspective um the middle Basin again gets slightly deeper on the roadway side we are steeper than a$ one slope so adjusting that and filling the bottom um and then finally on the North side we're nowhere about 2 and 1/2 ft low there um so adjusting those slopes reshaping um and and bringing those to a four to one so for easier maintenance again here a different view this is the north Basin um near the Charles property you can see that the depth uh issues that we encountered after construction um and what those adjustments would look like so there again itd be pulling back some Top Soil refilling with sand um potentially even adding a a second tile if we want to at this point uh this these these particular features are draining uh as intended um but making sure that we're we're scraping that back and and fixing any contamination all right U moving on to Basin six um this has the most extreme elevation we're just south at 233rd now um there the most extreme difference in elevation between the South and the North after talking with the searings we understand that um that crossing the road to get to their Lake access has become an issue um and so the the option to reconfiguration would restore that I'll show you that in just a second here um but we're only about 085 ft or so just under a foot at the outlet structure but closer to six feet of cut uh towards the the south end of that that feature um there was a phone line that was indicated uh before construction that we thought was not in Conflict but ended up being in conflict that has been recently relocated um so that extreme is slope that you see out there by the phone pedestal will be corrected um now that the phone line has been moved uh and we know we have again here slopes that are steeper than 3: one which is making it challenging to Mo so here you can see from the kind of the red on two lines we would shift that slope to the north create a flatter space um to for more visibility for the crossing um the the bottom elevation is in pretty good shape here so we'd lose about 20% of the volume with an option two correction so here's a a cross-section view I I tried to show at the most extreme point that little shelfing that you see uh near number two is related to the phone line again that'll be corrected um but you can see that the the base and bottom got pretty close here but we know we have uh some side slope issues um similarly now we're looking at it more longitudinally across the the feature here and what that adjustment would look like on the south end uh to create an easier access to get across the lake okay uh last but not least Basin number seven um this at the North End of the feature is three was designed at 3 ft deep it's closer to four uh because of some construction issues here um you know of course that always creates a steeper slope to get down to a deeper elevation um this does take some Dage off of 233rd it's about 25% of the total treatment volume so its depth really contributes to the volume um and we we believe we've got some draw down issues here too so one of the corrective actions would be to fill that Basin up uh to its either its design elevation or higher uh and replace that sand and add another tile to help with uh with draw down uh similar view we know that the the slopes leading up to the Basin so from the Culver end I don't know if you can see that on the on the uh graphic but from the the Culver end that comes off of 233rd all the way to the Basin there pretty slow uh pretty flat slopes in there um and so the being we would do some minor grading to restore that and make sure that we have positive drainage uh talk to the resident and there's some concerns with some standing water and wet soil in there um the correction here we'd see a reduction in about 22% of the volume um to to bring that bottom elevation up again similar to Bas and five we see those extreme differences in what was designed versus what was actually constructed um and so restoring that base and bottom adding sand and tile will help with drainage okay that gets us through the proposed corrective actions um the vegetation that was chosen out there um you know was was sod on the residential side um and then Turf seed on the roadway side and then we we chose a native seed in the bottom um of the Basin those really help promote water quality and effective drainage with deep roots um and so it's a seed mix that we use quite frequently uh it it is a challenging um environment for the seed to really germinate and and to maintain um we've learned a lot even over the past 6 months uh and some additional studies about what the seed means in this environment and so one alternative that we have been exploring is to use a Fescue instead of a um a native seed so here it's still a native plant um it has a lower lower M requirements they grow a little slower but they also have Deep Roots too so we can have them function similar to the flowering plants so the flowering seed that was chosen um however easier to maintain um we know that these ditches are going to be these these features excuse me are going to be mowed um and so putting in something that's closer to a turf grass uh is is um is is certainly an option we can also put in Turf seed I would not sod the bottoms of the feature those those S The Sod tends to have more clay in it um than the top soil mix that we want to use here so to avoid the clogging um with excess clay we'd avoid sod but could seed with a with the turf grass too okay so in summary um if we were to correct to the original design the total volume would be about 15,000 cubic feet um when you do the math and you work through the Watershed District standards that equates to about 2 and A2 Acres of of equivalent treated area um for option two if we were to look at a corrective uh maintenance um correct correct the the what's out there now for easier maintenance um we'd have an equivalent of about 1.8 Acres of treatment and then you know of course if it we brought back to the original preconstruction condition um we would lose that treatment volume however I want to point out that you know some of these features could remain uh to provide at least some offset treatment volume um but as you can see with option number two we'd get to about 1.8 Acres of equivalent treatment um the costs that you see there are currently our Engineers estimated costs uh we would want to you know solicit quotes for contractors and work with them um through the details on on what would actually be constructed here so that's just a a high level Engineers estimate at the at this time okay so if we talk about maintenance or about the maintenance and the treatment credits you know ultimately that's the the result of this project if we use the original City the the original budget as defined by the city of $35,000 um back in March of 2023 about a year ago we discussed um an option for maintenance under a 10-year life cycle and approximately $125 per cubic foot volume per year uh and that's that's there's some math in there um but the overall the the total credit then for option one because the there's more volume for the same price would be 235 um option two would be closer to 300 so that would be the the credit cost um sold back to the developer uh keep in mind that this does include the three additional water quality structures that would be built in the downtown area per uh the Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District standards um we're estimating those at around $75,000 for all three so that cost is also factored into here too okay so um the the recommendation here to best balance um the resident maintenance uh the city's maintenance and providing some offset treatment volume for economic development would be option two um we can treat about 1.8 Acres as mentioned before with that anticipated cost per credit of $300,000 uh if we look at a potential Redevelopment scenario we're calling this the the gone property um in red it's a total of about 3 acres um the area that's been identified as as potential phase one um is 1.1 Acres this does contain some public RightWay um but that option to available credit of 1.8 Acres would at least cover that phase one portion and then some of phase two um and again that cost per credit is there that this property would drain to at least two of the water quality structures that third one could be constructed at a at a later time but um at least those two are there uh and and could be drained to all right so next steps um we can talk about some direction tonight on on which way we'd like to go that would be great um you know then if we could set this up on on kind of an every council meeting for the next few Council meetings um to approve plans and specs authorize and ad for Quotes come back two weeks later for um a possible Award of a contract uh and then start construction soon thereafter um we've talked to some con contractors we're hoping that a month timeline will work here um but then we'd uh we'd begin construction immediately so that would be the the probably probably the best case scenario um in terms of construction um but at least one one option here to present uh with that I'd like to open it up for any discussion or questions thank you Tim Council lots to digest what's what's on your mind let start the numbers um so that credit cost of Just sh 300,000 that's paid by the developer is that intended to offset future costs of Maintenance or does that actually offset cost to I mean kind of thinking it through what who's getting that money and is that basically offsetting in our cost of construction correct okay it's it's meant to incentivize development in some ways um that 10year cost cycle does pay then for at least 10 years of Maintenance um these become part of the city's Municipal separate storm sewer system um and require maintenance uh similar to other ponds that have been constructed around town you keept talking about drainage and I sounds like if you go from Basin one to Basin 7 is the intent that it's draining south to North is that that idea there are three outlets in total um so basins 1 two three and four all drained to the same Outlet Basin five drains to an outlet and then six and seven drain to an outlet and what are those Outlets drain to Forest into Forest Lake into Forest Lake yes so the intent is to still get that water into the lake that's correct with the clay nature of the soil nothing infiltrates so all of the volume that goes into these features will go through the tile through the storm sewer and then into into the lake so there's really no reduction in volume here um all of that water still does make it to the lake so the idea is stuff settles out before it gets to the L is that correct pretty much filtration um the plants absorb other pollutants um it's nutrient capture is the biggest issue in Forest Lake um so reducing phosphorus and nitrogen ideally uh will help control um alal blooms and other other harmful uh nutrient issues and Forest Lake the the the 1.8 Acres that includes the three water or this whatever is going happen downtown so that's that's not in addition so the 18 isn't just out there you need to incomp those Pond not ponds I guess water features or whatever you're calling them to get that 1.8 Acres yeah that's correct the um through conversations with the Watershed District you you have to go through this process of of proving that it's you know that it's challenging to meet the all of the requirements on site so we look to Regional options to meet those standards um and then if there are any ways we can still provide some sedimentation removal then the Watershed District district expects excuse me expects those structures to be constructed so yes it's all part of the same permit so what's giving me a stomach ache tonight is um we're talking about um making things easier for future development but the Imp but we're in doing so we're causing a significant impact to current property owners and residents um I noticed we did not hear any public support tonight for option two um do you have a sense on the gap on what it would take to get some more um is there a Gap that can be spanned that would get that you would feel would get to consensus that we can proceed with option to with some property owner support I just I wrote down on my I wrote two things down as I was just hearing your presentation as I was reflecting on open Forum comments and all the comments we've heard is we've got an existing project that is for the benefit of future developers but again we're we're impacting current property owners very negatively and so that just weighs very heavily on me and so we and so I'm I'm wondering what that Gap is to get you know some um support for the project for those by those residents because then also I just feel like we just have an obligation to do no harm and I feel like we haven't hit we haven't hit that threshold that we still you know we still have you know residents that are very unhappy with their current property condition and we've impacted safety and enjoyment of those properties and so I just I sit here weighing heavily on options three and I don't like not having a project I don't like having you know I was supportive of the project but as we've seen how it has manifested and the lack of trust um I'm really concerned and so I will leave room if there's a an option for us to have some consensus great I'd like us to continue that but if if that Gap is too big I I appreciate all of the work in bringing forward some options and I hate turning you know on a on a project that has a lot of positive aspects to it but I just I'm I'm really troubled by the impact of property owners and for what for a future developer on a potential you know 1 Point some acre component like we're doing math but at and it's aspirational and again with all good intention and due respect but we're we've created a ditch in somebody's yard that you know the kids can't cross a street safely and so I just that's what's Weighing on me so I guess in that my question would be do you feel like there is with some time some option to bridge that Gap or are we just at a spot where we're not going to get there I I'm certainly willing to invest the time to help bridge that Gap um I'm I'm not sure I can answer the the question um but my commitment to um to meeting the needs of the project from from where we started through years ago to now having you know heard from the residents and and spoken to them and you know Tred trying to be out there um W with positivity I I I'm willing to invest the time that it that it takes to help bridge that Gap um should the council and and you mayor Bane choose to go that direction um I understand I understand where you're coming from mean what part of what weighs on me too is the difference in cost between two and three is not much and so if there is a way for and we're going to have to spend some additional money to make this right so if there is a way for us to spend some additional money and yet still have some project benefits that's great but also I don't want to continue chasing something that just isn't going to happen and so it's what makes this particular question challenging to make tonight is I just don't have a strong sense on what that Gap is Council I don't know if you've had some other feedback have some thoughts as well um Tim the the and the name fails me Jason I think on the corner 233rd uming searing any has he I mean obviously talked about flattening that space but in all the conversations I've had with just about everyone other than maybe his Basin and the the dock Basin if you will seems like there's maybe some appetite to to be able to make it so it's not so intrusive so we get some benefit um did did he have any comments or any thoughts you were able to connect with him yeah um we spent some time in the field last week or the week that was uh week before um you know I think that in general I've heard some feedback from residents that you know we support water quality we we support the lake we want to do better for the lake um you know I understand the Harper and the disconnect between impacting property there for something in another spot um but you know if there is a better balance on some of these more impactful features they're they're all impactful don't get me wrong I'm not I'm not saying that anyone's more or less impactful than the next but um that that if there is a solution there to to do some filling and create recreate that safe space to cross um you know make it make these slopes at least mowable um you know that that even with a loss of volume you know we could maybe get to a point where it's acceptable um that may not be in all cases I I think about Basin one at the the dobeck Basin um and and just how impactful that looks uh you know it again as I mentioned before it's it has a lot to do with how the storm sewer connects into that into that Basin that's why the depth is there um but you know if that were to be filled in but maybe basins two three and four could remain um at the at the much shallow excuse me much shallower depths that there would still be some treatment volume there those scenarios are pretty easy to figure out um you know and i' I've got even some examples here but if we if there was a one acre of treatment you know again to your point mayor Bane is that is that enough you know is that enough to really be impactful the more investment of course the less treatment volume the more expensive that credit becomes um this is going to be a very challenging area for developers to meet the storm water standards anyway so I think anything would help even at higher cost um um but that is certainly a factor yeah it almost seems like we're got a choke hold on the whole thing just would a design workshop with council members and Property Owners yourself be helpful would it would it would that be helpful or do you feel that you've got enough feedback and that isn't kind of going to result in moving moving the conversation forward I I would entertain that I would of course attend that um you know I we've we've heard from the residents I appreciate them all still being here um late into the night and so if you know if if that is a desire from the resident's perspective uh and we want to sit down and talk through it again even if ultimately you get to option three you know it that I'm like I said before I'm willing to invest that time um you know to to help make it right I um whatever we do next is going to have some impact right like there is going to be another construction project I just want it to be the next best move I have also heard some support and property owners have expressed support of some level of project and you know some support certainly of water quality um I and I guess I Look to those in the room would be open would that be a helpful session that you would entertain um in some do you want to come to the podium impromptu impromptu open Forum sure I mean you guys have just heard um they planned this project out it was supposed to take a month it took three they ran into a ton of problems with it obviously I don't know if it was a lack of planning or just the site you our house dates from 1930 they found an old sewer they found gas lines that weren't supposed to be there it's to me this sounds like a I mean cut your losses the thing is not going to work it's going to they're running to more problems it's going to look like a big ditch it's going to have problems year after year after year if you think this is the end of it you know stick around for five years see what the maintenance bill is going to be I mean it's if you haven't seen enough of this you know I invite you to come this summer and see the big tractor that they're going to plant right in front of my house they've already assured us that they can assure us that that's not going to happen and what about the next year when it has problems you know and I don't think it's worth it like I said you know if you want to make use of it put a bike path we have a huge park there no one uses it anymore you know and we could get there we could tie in with the other things and it would work this just is not a good plan you know maybe the intention was good to start with but you know contamination lines that weren't supposed to be there maintenance cost put in another drive it just doesn't sound like it's going to work appreciate that Mr Mayor I guess I would be willing to meet as well as I'm sure everyone would be again just to make sure that option three is a valid option it's not just push pushed aside partly because I mean just quick notes through all this um you know there's is there any accountability for the discrepancies in the size and the mistakes that were made during this whole project because I don't think it should have been happening at all but there's vast discrepancies in the sizes and the measurements and now we're all talking about how do we fix it shouldn't happen in the first place so who's accountable for that I don't know the answer to that but the other notes I had for option two is there a credit for the homeowners tax-wise or monetary or whatever it may be because why does a developer get a tax advantage or whatever it may be an incentive it comes out of their pockets in my mind not really though but it does affect the property values why is that fair to destroy their properties to help somebody else out to get some kind of free money or whatever and I don't even understand that but I'd love to hear more about that at the said discussion and why is that okay uh what's the ongoing maintenance cost for option three I think think we know the answer right none there's zero ongoing maintenance cost okay option three the water will still reach the lake but allegedly be less filtered just like 900 plus other residences around the lake in vast open land um I believe the Watershed who is to my knowledge pushing this bought a huge parcel down the corner of Lake 3 how about turn that into a giant filtration if it's not already because they spent I believe $600,000 on the land could be wrong in the number um there's my quick thoughts so appreciate that could we just for clarification purposes just talk through questions come up about um kind of the impact of this decision so could just get some staff comments on what's happened since one thing that comes to mind is we have parted ways with the contractor um Amanda you're nodding Amanda Ryan can we just kind of talk through kind of financial impact of the project it's an awkward situation right it is right so we've had a lot of projects together and a lot of successful projects together we've done a lot of cutting edge projects been the innovators in storm water and then we've done some conservative stuff this is one of those Innovative ones new agreement executed with water District to offset storm water requirements to allow us to continue to allow the de downtown to Redevelopment into the zero setback that's is in our comp plan and City's Vision without finding alternative ways to address storm water they're going to be required to do stuff that's going to take building Footprints away in the downtown area uh it just look at a list of projects that we've been successful on storm water you know the for High School water reuse the city hall retrofits got grant money won Project Awards uh storm water qualy Vault structure on Forest Road second one in the states uh the bathro metrics where we surveyed all the ponds and developed the maintenance uh schedule for public works and they can identify funding appropriately and then the animal that's always been sitting in the room is how can we continue to allow Downtown Development to occur so we go through a large down downtown stormwater study basically three areas you're identified and then in those areas other areas you know around the community are identified where storm water Improvement projects can happen very excited process is going very fast right maybe hindsight too fast we're trying to beat some development that was potentially going to happen the gwn property there's some others that were you know being talked about but wanted to have this ready so when we got into it you know we thought it had a great plan worked very closely with City staff uh project was entirely in public right away you think kind of had a a lot of stuff crossed probably missed the boat on the coordination that we typically do with our street projects where we have enough time and have planned you know far enough ahead ahead to be able to reach out and when you look at it all you know to keep things moving uh we have offered to cover our time so when Tim keeps saying our time that's literally coming out of our pockets our time none of that's been charged to the city since the city's decided to separate ways with the contractor and moving forward to whatever our Finish Line is with this project we're covering our own time we also offered whatever decision the city Cho choses for correction to cover 50% of that too so just to keep things moving I don't know exactly what to tell you um but you know if we get too less of a volume it's kind of worth it hard situation right I mean you get you're going to get some credits I mean you know you saw the what the credit per acre is even if it's a half acre you're going to get some payback in the future when that develops without these types of projects our downtown is going to have to explore for another way to address storm water rules and requirements of the wed District and that's something that we have fought number of times and we've gotten a few things changed in some of the rules uh more or else Rice Creek we've been more successful in getting some they have a better track record of projects from here to the Mississippi and the bigger communities so they have some of those uh exam project examples case studies they can use and you know see really yeah we made it do this but really our benefit was so small but here we're dealing with some very strict rules and trying to follow the Visionary of the downtown stuff this is one of the areas that was readily available in public RightWay and could provide some of the volume to off Street offset a actual project so if we're not if we're going to go differently you know maybe maybe there's a option whatever that we haven't discussed tonight but I G tells me just the vibe that I feel I'm 5050 that probably half of them don't even don't want to go down that path maybe some do but then at the end I don't know what that volume is going to be but I'm going to guess it's probably going to be less than an acre so that's how what I would paint for the picture is that worth it dollarwise it it would PID back your costs probably I mean if what we're in for for right now but it's not going to offset a project in the downtown area so they're going to have to explore alternative ways to address that and with the new rules and requirements of doly that we're having to deal with on top of this on development and sight improvements that even makes storm water more difficult on a site like this because hindsight if you probably even look back at Lighthouse Lofts those would probably not exactly fulfill all the doly requirements of day standards right and that was just a project six years ago so it's changed that fast Council what are your thoughts well it's difficult work around the Watershed District that's for sure it caused a lot of expense remember even if we tear down a building and replace it exactly in the same footprint just because it's over 5,000 square F feet we trigger all the rules and requirements 5,000 square feet yeah the same can be said for for public Street projects too right in full reconstruction of impervious requires treatment yeah it just weighs on me is this is a you know this is a Citywide challenge that we have so we have as Council it's a it's a challenge that developers have anybody that's going to do something downtown is going to have this but I just I'm I I'm having a hard time weighing that against the like today impact on property owners and so it just feels like we've asked you know six or seven half a dozen or more Property Owners to really carry that weight and it's a lot and if we haven't gotten to a spot where it's acceptable um I'm challenged to continue but I'm in but I also I again what so so timeline so I always like okay so what are our variables here we have a number of different options we also have a variable of time um we are late March nobody wants us to get deep into summer and to not have a resolution to this um I appreciate the aggressive timeline that you put together Tim of just kind of every council meeting we're doing something to keep this moving um if if there is and maybe it's an offline conversation between yourself and Property Owners if there is some opportunity to have a sit down with Council and some sort of a working session with Council I think I'm I'm in kind of a moment of let's consider all options um I don't want us to get baked you know baked into a plan that is premature if we haven't had all of the conversations that need to be had but just curious you mentioned there was a couple of locations identified did I understand that correctly and we chose this one because it was all public right away and the volume that this would generate okay the other sites were lower volume primarily or yeah the the alternative um another alternative considered was uh a neighborhood on the south side of the lake um that would have been closer to 20 to 30 of these similar shallow you know features on a much smaller scale but but more widespread throughout the neighborhood so um there's there would have been more residential impact there uh there's some projects identified by the Comfort L Forest like Watershed District um in their diagnostic study um but nothing to provide a sub stantial volume um even that south side of the lake project would have would have been very impactful so even if this project was restored and we get how much two and a half acres yeah as as designed it would be two and a half acres offset treatment yes what's the plan I mean that's going to just cover one quadrant basically of downtown so really what are we talking about doing for you know the old theater building where and that's where we've been able to maybe bite off a small piece but certainly I don't think anyone's feeling like we've solved the challenge and that's part of us you know as a city trying to contribute some something to that and to make some Headway but um certainly there is a larger unanswered component these locations that have been identified in and around the lake is there a proximity to the lake that they need to fall within or I mean is there any possibility of the work that they're doing up by Tims Marina that they're do that create credit I mean I don't I don't understand the Watershed District's rules as well as I trust you do but the Watershed District does a lot with Wetland yeah restoration um and you can't use a a wetland for storm water treatment um that it would be considered an impact so the then those impacts often are not not permitted um for for use for storm water management and storm water treatment so finding finding land that's high enough above the lake that isn't a wet land um for any location that into Forest Lake is is difficult Des agreement in what area covers authorized by the watered to do this you mean agreement with wed yes the area that you know this would go to yeah so the right now the the agreement that's in place the Watershed is is I'll maybe take even one step back is new The Watershed district has not ever done one of these credit agreements before um so they understand the need to to bank some credit if you will uh to help with offset treatment in the future um the the agreement as it sits right now covers some high priority Redevelopment areas in the downtown Corridor um there we also explored options for Broadway Avenue that drains to a different location and then also up the 61 Corridor which also drains to a different location that bypasses the lake so it's really just this this space right now that's that's earmarked for redevelopment or high priority Redevelopment that drains directly into to Forest Lake so it's all within the same drainage boundary um you know of course which gets larger if you go east of the lake that drainage get that drainage boundary gets larger um but the center line of 61 is basically the Watershed divide and the area that's identified in that agreement is what would be first come first serve so if it wasn't gone that came or the theater building came first they would get first right at their credits and one other thing that we put in that agreement was because we have Watershed is constantly making their rules so much stricter um and harder to follow we um included I think it's the 25 years that whatever would come in would be able to come in under today's rule so we wouldn't have to worry about if we have two acres worth of of water retention that actually it's really only worth one because they've changed the rules to make it even you know more strict than it is today um so we we try to be as a really aggressive with a watershed we probably spent six months um aggressively negotiating the agreement to try to maximize the what we were getting but it's really hard when you have rules that make it almost impossible to develop I me that's the and that's the challenge is in absence of something like this those sites just it's just Cost prohibitive to redevelop them and so you know people ask what's happening in downtown Forest like and this came up as part of the downtown study and part of us wanting to be more proactive in our Redevelopment of downtown and one of the barriers has been um you know barriers to Redevelopment has been the The Watershed District rules and the requirements that each of those in absence of another solution like this or a regional solution that each one of those properties need to manage on their own and you know again to highlight one of the comments that Ryan just said is you know even those rules are constantly changing and even the lighthouse lofs project what they did for site management would not be acceptable today and so that's just the environment that we're in and trying to react to that and that was a lot of the why to this project now again that doesn't forgive the immediate impact of property owners and the lack of performance from the contractor and all of the things that have gone wrong just trying to provide some basis of what what's the motive why are we trying so hard to make this work and that's why and also I appreciate somebody wants to access the lake and have a place that they can mow and that is safe for their children and all of those things like those are also very real but when you're looking at this project I'm like why are you trying so hard that's why because it's it's impactful to Future Downtown Development just to clar maybe clarification um there was a comment that you know it's some kind of subsidy or something these developers are paying for these credits upwards about $300,000 right right so this isn't like this isn't the developer getting a $300,000 credit obviously so just I know that there was a comment or some question about that so there's no subsidy in this this whole thing this is hard cost that a developer would incur by developing downtown correct um the subsidy would maybe be that the city has provided we have fronted this like we have in you know we have provided the vehicle and there's you know staff time in into that but the thought is yes that it does cash flow in the future so instead of a developer in that downtown area having to provide storm water treatment which would be a pond or infiltration base in themselves in the downtown footprint they would buy that volume credits from this project and pay back the city for whatever that dollar amount is decided on okay so the city would get credit so the credit so the city would get credited back then well you'll get the money back whatever say easy numbers what if it's they get their developments one acre let's just say your your uh your credit was $300,000 per acre they would pay the city with through the development agreement $300,000 to offset their storm water requirements of the Watershed District so they could then build at zero setback so if the theater building was say an acre otherwise they would have to build to a footprint they could fit plus then fit storm water treatment on site Council thoughts on I know there's a question out there and I'll we'll get back I just want to get do we proceed I how do we want to proceed who the hope work go ahead I just think it would it would be a shame to just scrap this thing and go back to the original if there's some if there's some appetite to work with the neighbors to to at least get something out of this thing we spent lot of time there's energy angst on this thing it just be nice and if it doesn't work at the end of the day then then maybe but I'd like to give it see give us one more shot at that especially if Bolton and M is willing to do that and it is on their dime it's not costing the taxpayers any more money um I I just we've gone a long ways here and just to start over there's other you know the Basin 7 uh in front of mccormix um my understanding was he had no problem with that at all and so is there op opt opportunities to maybe get some more flow or from areas that aren't impactful like that where people aren't walking across and accessing the lake I I don't know I mean maybe that's a place to to to at least have start the conversation Ryan mayor say Council may I suggest that Tim and myself are our staff meet with the property owners individually to get that Hey What Can we agree on and be able to bring that back to you maybe by April 8th or at the workshop on the 15th I just fear that if we waited sell the workshop on April 15th to have a working Workshop we're going to get past the construction time period we'd want contractors are going to already be bidding pretty heavily on some stuff and if construction doesn't start right away if it's raining or something then we get stuck in the middle of summertime it's a little harder to get restoration when it's a little dryer too but so if that would be a better approach and maybe we even have the resident sign off Yep this is I'm I'm good with this if this is what's going to happen on my property that way when we do come back they could be here too but we can expediate that process and try to stay in line with an early construction schedule so they don't have to deal with this all summer I agree with your expediency um I think also Council would be open to a special meeting so if it's helpful to have us there include us by all means if it's easier to do individual conversation certainly I'm happy to support that Council will come to council will come to meet whenever we need for on this topic I know we've got a couple of questions from the audience I also know we're late so respectful for everyone's time I'm happy to take a couple of more questions or comments if you want to come to the podium though so that we can hear you on mic and I believe Aaron may have had another comment as well so just to clarify to make this really simple you guys said it was okay for a portion of a neighborhood to sacrifice their front lawn to subsidize the downtown possible future development that was what this project was approved for yes and would you guys be okay with that doing that in your Lawns I mean you seem to think it's okay so I'm just wondering if you guys would be willing to give up some of your y your lawns I don't think anyone's saying it's okay we we've had a number of conversations well you voted on it sir well but we but we realized the issue we're trying to make a fix here so the fact that we're saying we're okay with it we're not okay it's clear we're not okay with it we're not okay with it with the outcome sure but how did it get passed I mean how did this get passed you sir were talking about all these you know um projects that you've done but to to public land to city land not to homeowner owners nobody nobody reached out to homeowners that were going to be affected you know what had what happened I walked out and saw the surveyors from I don't know Bolton whatever and they told me what was going on that is so disrespectful I have been in this town for 20 years paying taxes taking care of my lawn admittedly my lawn does not look as good as these guys lawn that's just the way it goes but we have been taken care of that the storm drain again I have put in lots of money of my own money to put on the lakefront a rainu guard nobody talked about that not even the Watershed you know um so I just want to make it clear that this is done on the backs uh of the the taxpayers and not all the taxpayers a small neighborhood and everybody thought that was okay until we said no yeah so so I want to put an exclamation mark by that will it ever sit okay with us probably never because this was done so disrespectfully so in the future everybody talk to the people that you're going to be affecting and those taxpayers that's all I have to say Thank you Mr Mayer more or less along the lines of what she said you were taking money from future money from developers to pay off the destruction of the properties is essentially what's happened and I didn't understand that in the last meeting at all not even remotely it's paing to hear that it sucks for everybody I don't want to see you guys go to the south side of the lake to destroy 20 properties over there either um whether it be shallow or not again there should be huge accountability for the mismanagement of this project um just the way everything was handled the delivery everything everything sucks it all sucks about it I apologize everybody that's had to sit here this long and hear it I mean especially Chiefs just sitting here listening to all this because if it was my property and if in the future this expands more um mismanagement of this type of action if it was my property I'd be sitting on there and he'd have to send somebody to come get me out of the ditch because I'd be sitting in there launcher every day protesting this I swear to God I would have it's ridiculous I mean I appreciate the fact that you don't want to spend more money on money that was already spent to cover it all up but I think that should really be an option that's expressed and uh figure out something else for development I want to see the downtown develop quite frankly it's mismatched it's we'd love to see it developed I'd love to more than anybody it's a business owner here as well um but there's got to be another way so there thank you one one more yes and then we do have to move on to another sounds like we will have another meeting on this topic so you my wife mentioned that we've been here for 20 years and we've seen the downtown we like the downtown we always kind of thought maybe we could do something more with the downtown but I mean to be quite honest with you it's like it's not just the downtown it's the entire aake and it just seems to me that we've seen how this place has changed over 20 years years one of our neighbors one time said he's gone now but he used to say this is going to be the Adina of you know St Paul and we kind of laughed at him but it's like it's really growing and it's growing in ways that I we didn't expect and it's like I think to say that oh well you know we they're not going to come up with anything else no other Solutions nothing we've got to dig holes in front of these people's Lawns otherwise we'll never be able to develop downtown I think it's ludicrous give it 10 years I mean I just I I think it's like it seems to me about the most unimaginative way you can manage this you know I think there's got to be a better way and if there's not one now wait 10 years and you'll have it the other thing is that you know I don't know I've been I've lived in 20 in Minnesota most of my life I've been to several different lakes I've been it's like all right as much as you want to say it this is Prime Property downtown you know and anybody who gets in they should feel damn lucky that they can develop it and if if they're not willing to go there yeah let them go we're close to the Twin Cities we're 30 miles from the Twin Cities we've got a beautiful Lake we've got a downtown that could be developed that look really good you know that really would be a huge opportunity for anybody why sell yourself short I think we can afford to wait thank you Ryan Tim have Direction on next steps on having some additional conversation bringing back to council what might what may be options anything further from Council as far as Guidance just just one more comment if there's if there's absolutely no appetite for this I I I understand we but I think it's least worth exploring one more time and see if there's something that can't be done here yeah I I would agree let's not delay this too much into April but another round of conversation I think is warranted all right I appre it's late I appreciate everyone being here tonight and um sticking through our agenda to um get to this point of the conversation so really appreciate it um let's move into staff updates and Abby no special your report Christina um just to let everybody know with the snow today Republic Service did have to pull their truck and so services will be delayed a day all week long so all week long yep okay Amanda nothing tonight R Dave no updates back to the Republic can we do some social media notifications and just reminders um yeah perfect thank you Ryan May City Council uh a lot of things going on here in the next few weeks tomorrow is the preconstruction meeting for County State 8 Highway 33 uh so upon on that meeting will do a definite uh schedule for the contractor and then the county set up a pre-construction open house here at City Hall April 4th 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. the water efficiency grants M the current grants ends 2 quarter June 30th but we did submit a a Grant application for 20124 through 2026 don't know uh we'll have to wait and see for successful on that but that would still run the same program that we've been doing with the toilets washing machines washers and irrigation components uh Eureka Avenue April 15th public open house 4:30 to 6:30 uh with that we'll kind of have meet and greet starts but we do plan on doing a presentation PowerPoint presentation at 5:15 uh to the residents who attain that attend that and then we'll be at the April 22nd city council meeting to discuss that as well plan on presenting the same PowerPoint there for Eureka Avenue um the 12th street closure we obviously delayed that because of the weather uh for Mr car wash tie in for the water and sewer utilities so we're tentatively looking around April 8th but we'll re-engage that uh by social media and the variable message sign uh once that that gets narrow nailed down so there might be some work starting on site so there will be some activity but it was just there's too much risk to so kind of told them they're going to have to change that so and we've already started working with like Arby's and whoever else is on that line because they're going to have to you know coordinate with some staff so we're probably going to delay the water main work until like 10 o'clock at night and then the sewer stuff could go first and stuff like that I do just want to quickly point out though you know if we are going to be taking a different direction on aesthetic lighting along corridors that is a significant budget discussion that needs to happen as soon as possible because I just you know think of a list of roadways that is that are here in the next five years of projects just on paper I'm looking at five million so if that's something that we're going to push you know I Eureka Avenue that's a whole another conversation because we got transmission lines above us that cross over the road two times and we're going to have to go through a bunch of special sighting the pole and arcing distance and stuff like that and what the uniformal light if there was a light through there uh you know the trail that we're proposing is on the east side then basically the lights might be pushed out into the lake I mean that's how tight that Corridor is to fit a trail and that wasn't in our scoping of the project when the city staff submitted the bonding bill you know stuff like that so that you know that's that's a change if that's the route that we're going you 97's never been talked about having the decorative lighting long it so we just need to have those conversations pretty early if we're going to want to start budgeting and planning for that Pro we did get the blue lighting poles approved by state aid uh a few years ago so it is a state aid eligible item but it's just not something that we have funds for that are in these cooperate agreement projects and then if you throw finway in there Eureka herrow County County State at Highway 32 we don't have that in there right now with the cost estimates so that's stuff that we just need to tackle sooner than later so we can account for that or choose to not tackle it if that's where we go busy busy busy thank you Ryan yeah Chief Peterson yeah mayor and city council members uh as you know from last week's weekly report Sergeant Bruce Peterson is retiring this week uh this Friday is last day of excuse me of employment with the Forest Lake Police Department in city of Forest Lake I just want to publicly thank Sergeant Bruce Peterson for his 23 years of service with us the Forest Lake Police Department and 34 years of service uh in law enforcement that's all they have for you Newman mayor and Council I have one update it's probably not a surprise but burning restrictions were list lifted today until further notice be great Uh Kevin no no updates all right let's move to council updates council member Roberts I attended the uh Vietnam vetrans Day event at the legion which is done really nicely and our own Diane finnman from Forest Lake did a lot in legislation back 17 years ago to get that a recognized for the state so nice job to her it's her last year of of overseeing that so thank you to her for that okay council member valento just congrat congratulations to Bruce Peterson on his retirement and his service is much appreciated that's it okay council member husnik okay I attended the school board meeting that happened uh last week and um uh not nothing real Earth sing but they go through the reports uh same as we do the workshops in the building and ground city of Forest Lake Communications committee all these faest uh meetings and uh um the the thing that's notable about they meeting that particular night is uh the amount of donations that they received that night and they range anywhere from $25 up to $8,000 so it add added up to about just about $21,000 in donations for various things in the school so uh lot of lot of uh support there and they have um seven retirements coming up so lots happening there so um and that's about it for now I also also attended the uh Vietnam uh program at the legion which um was pretty darn well attended for the weather that was they were competing going with so um they had a couple of people had to council out but it was a really good U really good meeting and and kudos to Diane for all of her hard work for all those years so um luckily she's not going to do it anymore but one of her sisters is going to take it over now so it's good thing also um congratulations to uh Bruce Peterson for his retirement and all the years that he spent uh helping us out as a police officer I know him well good guy and we want to wish him well so thank you council member Ericson yeah those thoughts and really appreciate his service um as I mentioned earlier attended the joint fireboard meeting so we had a really great discussion and and that was um useful time I just did a quick followup um on our conversation from last week about some excuse me some um land use um I understand there's a conversation happening this week um with with Spike and hols and I just I just wondered if there was a consensus ever made on what direction we want to go with that um so it's just kind of a kind of curiosity of we're what that looks like and just let them know that we're looking to have a conversation or well that was closed session so I I guess I'm going to say I without too many details that I thought the consensus was to have a conversation yeah um quick couple quick updates congratulations to Sergeant Peterson thank you for your time in Forest Lake and your service to our community and just gosh all the best on retirement much deserved um also attended the joint fireboard meeting which was kind of well covered on our topics this evening um two legislative topics um of consideration one just a heads up that um and appreciation to um um commissioner Miran for kind of leading the charge for us last Monday we were all in workshops and he um had attended the representative stabber event and had an opportunity to have a conversation about some potential Federal funding that is attached to a request from kind of a joint request from Washington County and the city um on the for the realignment of Forest Road um so he was able to have that have that initial conversation with Congressman stabber um and that precipitated a follow-up conversation that commissioner Miran myself and Christine are going to have with representative stabber when he's here on on Thursday so just heads up that that is happening and um we have his attention on that topic and really appreciate commissioner miran's leadership and helping us make those connections um on a similar on a different topic but also related to legislative action um I've had a a number of phone calls from different elected officials um text messages from elected officials and also a couple of Resident phone calls about some concerns on um uh there's a a pair of bills there's a house bill and there's a corresponding Senate bill that relates to what's happening in the legislature on multif family housing um there are a number of cities that have taken on um resolutions on um to oppose aspects of that fund of those bills um resolutions in Pro press of sessions like this are always challenging because the resolutions are changing and or that the bills themselves are changing and so we're kind of throwing a dart at a moving Target but I just wanted to get council's appetite on considering a resolution um I would work with Christina to um work with some of what's been done a by the league of Minnesota cities but then also some of our neighboring communities that have considered that resolution I also had an opportunity to talk to commissioner Miran um just right before this meeting they are also Washington county is also considering a resolution um that could take any number of approaches and I would actually wait till we had some time to actually dive in a little bit more deep deeper into um what does that bill entail and what might be the position that the city would want to take but I at least wanted to get some appetite first before we do any work um as you look at what is included in those bills there's a lot of impact to local control and a lot of impact to local zoning that are concerning to me um and so I I feel that there's a way for us to have some consensus language and it's probably appropriate for us to weigh in And Timely for us to weigh in but again I don't want to start that process with Christina without some thoughts from Council first so I'd be I'd be favorable yeah because from what I've heard about that bill we need to have a consensus on it there's you know some kind of a proclamation or whatever on this thing because yeah we lose control on a lot things it's impactful you know we did not I there's times where I'm I'm supportive of us taking a position and there's times where the legislative process I feel like just needs to move up move forward um we did not take a lot of positions especially related to the cannabis bill and there just was a lot of local impact to that um that I just I don't want to give lose an opportunity for us to weigh in on a topic and it certainly is more far more impactful to us and the cannabis bill was um I just feel like this is probably a time for us to consider taking some action so um Christina and I can work on some language and also kind of look at some um guidance from the league and um float some language pass Council to see if there's an area of consensus I do feel strongly if we're going to do a resolution it should be a 5 um and if we're not at a spotif it would probably not worth us raising our hand um but I think it again there might be some language that we would all agree on so y okay thank you for that that is um the end of our planned agenda this this evening I will entertain a motion to adjourn so moveed we have a motion is there a second second motion and a second all those in favor signal by saying I I oppose and we're adjourned thank you [Music] everyone