[Music] All right. Well, we're right at 5:30, so want to get the meeting started on this beautiful summer evening. And Abby, you want to do roll call? Commissioner Roberts here. Commissioner Langnes, present. Commissioner Lorge here. Commissioner Wright here. Commissioner Hoy here. I just note for the record, Commissioners Grindall and is absent. Uh, chair, President Ericson here. Thank you. If you would, let's rise and say the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the for it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, we have a an agenda before us. Can anybody want to make any changes or I'll seek a motion to approve the agenda? I move we approve the agenda. Second. A motion to second. Any further discussion? All those in favor sign by saying I. I. Opposed. And we have an agenda. We have open forum on our agenda this evening. is an opportunity for any citizen to speak for three minutes on any topic. Just ask you to state your name and address for the record. And seeing no one interested in open form, we'll close that and bring the agenda back. We've got a consent agenda. Looks like we don't have any items on said consent agenda. So, we'll move right into our regular agenda, including some forgivable loans and the incentive program. Abby, do you want to walk us through what's on the I sure do. So, at your last regularly scheduled meeting, you approved the updated CIP program, the commercial improvement incentive program, which provides forgivable loans for commercial and industrial property improvements throughout the city. Um, as a reminder, this expanded in a few different ways. One, it was expanding to any property within the city, not just in limited zoning districts, but then also a few different funding tiers. Um, since that meeting, we've had overwhelming interest in the program. Goes go figure. Which is great because we went so many years without having interest in it. So, I did uh note in here five different applications that have been accepted from Miller and Stevens Pizza Pub, Forest Lake Family Dental, Real Seth Drug, and OSI in various different funding levels. Um the projects at 92 Lake Street South, just going to reference that. Miller and Stevens, 8241 Northshore Trail North, Pizza Pub, and 69 Lake Street North, Force Lake Family Dental, all conform to the requirements of the CIA. Therefore, staff has prepared EDA resolutions for approval. The projects at 107 Lake Street North and 146 Lake Street North. So that is ROS Seth and OSI. And it's probably not fair to put OSI because I think it is a multi-tenant building, but that is their maybe flagship largest tenant um in the building. Um they both started the projects before submitting their applications. Neither of the projects have been completed though. Um the projects conformed to the intent of the program and should be considered by the EDA. If the EDA did want to fund them, staff would bring back formal resolutions and agreements for consideration. So tonight, I'd recommend you discuss the projects, those that have been started and/or completed. And then once you've determined how to proceed with the applications, I would recommend you move to direct staff to prepare forgivable loan agreements if if appropriate for those two that have already started. And then move to approve resolutions 07072501 through 07072503 approving forgivable loan agreements as presented. And I know um Jim Garrison, one of the land owners, uh Rol Seth Drug at 107 Lake Street North is here if you have questions for him. Um several of the other applicants had uh just advised that they had had um family predetermined family commitments. Uh if we would have pushed it out a month, they could have been here, but they all thank you for the consideration um of this. Do you have any questions for me? Any questions for Abby on these projects? I I I do. Um member chair, do you intend to take these maybe one by one for discussion and then I could ask my question I have questions on a couple of the items. Yeah, let's let's do that. Do it that way. Yeah. Um on the Miller and Stevens one, I don't have any questions. Okay. Does anybody have any questions about Miller and Stevens project? I'll motion to approve the resolution on Miller and Stevens as recommended by staff. It's resolution 07072501. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. We have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signal by saying I opposed. All right. That project is approved. How about on the pizza pub? Anybody have any questions on pub? That one I do. So when I looked at our last meeting agenda and the policy that we approved under ineligible properties, it specifically says taxexempt properties and um properties where a city or EDA official has financial interest. Um, I think that the second of those two could be debated whether the city officials have a city interest or something, but certainly that property is on taxexempt city property within the rightway for the construction of the parking lot as I understand it. Is that correct, Abby? Um that is and I can show the EDA what exactly um Commissioner Langness is asking about. Can give me a second. I'll pull up the property. The Pizza Pub has their own parking lot and um has recently asked the city council and the city council has agreed to install at their expense public parking adjacent to their property at 8241 Northshore Trail. It should just take a quick second to come up on the screen for you folks. We have it. You have it. Great. So, this is Northshore through here. We have a landscaped boulevard that the public has been parking in an angled fashion in. Um there wasn't uh there's been little there's no zoning ordinances that were in violation when the angled parking went into place. Um there were challenges recently in the spring when there was some right-of-way changes that the adjacent land owner had done to improve the parking but under improve it just with some aggregate base some gravel. In discussions with the city about trying to rectify that the owner has agreed to install pull off parallel parking adjacent to Northshore Trail adjacent to their property. It would be public parking um but it would be installed and maintained by the land owner adjacent to the public parking. So the pizza pub that would be deed um to the property recorded against the property an incumbrance for future land owners as well. So um in sta staff I I will fully admit I didn't necessarily think about the fact that the parking is going to be placed in the public rightway publicly owned land. it was more about the improvement that the land owner would be making. Um, and so it that one definitely is up for EDA, I think, discussion of whether or not it really fits with the e the intent of the EDA program. All right. Thank you. Other thoughts or comments? You bring up a very good point, Sure. I guess. I mean, I I can expand on on my concern when I look at that and and and for the record, um, Pizza Pub is one of my most favorite restaurants to go to, so it has nothing against the business or anything that I'm suggesting this. I I think as we establish this policy a month ago, we should be very consistent in how we apply it. And um, if at some point, and I I may add a couple of these other ones later, um, suggest that we should have exception at time Um, I think it's really our job to look at two things when we're approving these. The first being, does it fit the narrative of what we authored in the policy? And staff has done a very good job of establishing that. Although I think on this one detail, um, I don't think it's really clear here that this would be an improvement to that property um, fitting of this plan. doesn't mean that I don't want the the parking to get fixed or anything of that nature, but I think I think we really need to look at denying it on that basis alone. Um the second component is um do I think this is good use of funds for the purposes of the policy and and and in all honesty, I'm I'm not sure on that one. Um and I'd like other people's thoughts on it, but for me, I'm leaning towards a denial on this particular one. Well, I know when I in the past have brought up parking to Abby, in my own mind, it was looking at parking lots that are broken around town that need fix and maybe need some encouragement, too. It wasn't necessarily, in my own opinion, designed to create new parking, at least in, you know, the essence or the heart of of that part of the program. So, I can appreciate what you're saying there, Commissioner. On the other hand, we're about the success and supporting the success of businesses and Pizza Club has had a parking problem. They've had a parking problem for the last 20 years. And like I like you just said, I was thinking the exact same thing. Our job is to try and help keep somebody there longer than four or five years. And then the answer always is after the four or five years, we didn't have enough parking. They're willing to maintain it and pay for it public. What are we going to do with it? Just sit there. I I personally would say okay, but that's just and president can ask a question of staff. Remind me and and maybe some of the members recall this. What was the idea of of the non if it's tax exempt that piece of why we made the decision? I don't all that conversation and I I may have missed it. I think one of the intents of the program and although it wasn't maybe written in black and white was to generally increase tax base and so on tax tax-free parcels you're not necessarily increasing tax base. Um, I'd have to just take off my screen here to bring up the intents of that CIP program again, but I think that we wrote out several of them, including supporting local business, increasing tax base, increasing aesthetics. I think on this one, um, even though that is city right away, that it definitely is going to add taxable value to that property as being more user friendly, more parking, therefore going to add value to that property. Um, so I get what uh Commissioner Langus is saying and maybe there's got it has to be a caveat or some kind of a change in that how that's worded, but it, you know, if if you're talking off streetet parking downtown and you add more off- streetet parking, it's going to help those property values of those downtown businesses. This is kind of almost the same things in my eyes is you're adding value to that that facility that property with off street parking. Abby, can you speak to the policy with specifically as it relates to disallowing tax exempt properties? Is that by default then disallow maybe some nonprofit owned parcels? Yes, it it would. Um, and again, I think that was just kind of trying to tie it back to the intent of the program. Yes, we want to incentivize investment in properties, but we wanted to have more than just an intrinsic or aesthetic benefit. We wanted to and you know the benefit of the business. We wanted it to also have then that potential taxable increase. Sure. We've heard some different opinions on this which is fair and should be the case in any good committee. Is there any other issues particular or related to this property that want we want to call out? Anybody who needs to call out member chair. Mhm. So I can I I think the strongest argument against it is is the one that I've established that it it doesn't fit the policy. Um I would go back to when this particular business which is is unique because it is in a residential zoning district. This is this is a legal non-conforming use on that property effectively. And I think it's very different when we have a a downtown district where we have um a municipal parking lot and we we have on street parking that we might establish through various um funding mechanisms or plans that we put together u or we contribute to and we have done that with our downtown plan um and other means. But the the mechanism that this business exists is through a a very different um piece of code in our city. Um they're operating under a a conditional use permit effectively. And part of that when when that went through for this property gave them and I understand it wasn't Pizza Pub, it was multiple businesses ago. Um, but the the building alone was allowed to be much larger than a building ever would be allowed on that property. Um, because they combined old cabins and and this kind of rundown bikerish bar type place that was on the on the site. Um, they had been given the parking that is there. Um, and it was specifically to not exceed that because there was concerns of neighbors having too many people at a facility and having um outdoor noise and um the the sort of ruckus that can commonly happen at a bar um is what it boiled down to. And so I think when we look back at the history of how that property formed, one of the intents was to not have parking beyond this. Um if the intent had been to have more parking and maybe it wasn't needed at that time, the the planning commission likely would have put through um a proof of concept for parking on site or elsewhere that they would have had to build. Um, and so I think that while there's there's merits in having the council, and I will completely respect if the council decides to allow parking on Northshore Trail there and make those adjustments, I don't know that that is necessarily something we should really do via this specific program that's really targeted at improving the the face and and the look of businesses in our town. And I don't know that adding parking adjacent to Northshore Trail does that. I don't know that it it actually improves the value of the business either for future tax base like many of the other proposals that are coming forward to us today. Other thoughts? What um what happens if they least Can you speak Can you speak into your mic though? Is it possible they could lease that from us? Lease the space. Yeah, lease the parking is 1,500 bucks a year. Maintain it. We don't have to deal with it. Didn't Didn't we already kind of clash with the wershed or somebody on it? Well, this is a a independent project, so it wouldn't be a city project. The land owner will be installing the parking under their own contracted agreement. So, um, the council when we briefly discussed this in the past hadn't talked about leasing space in the rightway. Um, it was more about trying to solve the underlying kind of need through there and the owner's um, willingness to pay for this as well as maintain it, I think, was an asset to the council. I think President Ericson, uh, Commissioner Roberts might be able to speak to that better, but the contemplation of leasing the space wasn't brought up at all. No, it was never discussed. This was just an idea that was I mean conceived and brought forward to council as I recall. And there was a couple of different options. One was the parallel parking that was approved by council. Also, there was um angle parking like has been done on the grass and and that was widely kind of um rejected just from safety concern standpoint. And so the council's decision was to approve because there, you know, according to engineering, there was plenty of space the way it was being designed. Um and so council's decision was to approve those six spots um with you know with the caveat that Pizza Pub was covering the cost of that and maintaining it which was the biggest issue from a public works standpoint. Um, now you could argue, I mean, we see what the cost of those six spots are, and now they've asked the city to cover half of that, um, through this program, which may or may not qualify for depending on what this body decides. Um, but is that is that a pretty good summary as you recall it? Anything you'd add? Yep. Uh, we didn't talk about Yeah. a leasing cost and I have talked about it with a land owner at Pizza Pub and I think they're fully prepared to pay for the entire parking. I think they're ask does this work with this program and would you be willing to cover half? Anybody remembers this spring what it looked like? We're looking for aesthetics. Yeah, it look horrible. President, can I ask staff Gabby a question? Um, did you say at the beginning that as is as it was prior to putting the trap rock down that that was totally legal and where became illegal, it violated some of the different zones or um ordinances or zoning was when he did do that. Yeah. I can't say it was completely illegal. it was in violation potentially of parking laws, but our parking laws aren't a function of your zoning and your development regulations. So, it'd be just like if anybody from the general public just wanted to, you know, a Dollar Tree patron just decided to park on 61. That's just where they're going to park, right? It's going to be parking enforcement matter, not a necessarily a zoning land use matter. oftentimes I think the complaints come to the zoning land use offices because it's like well that's their business that's but at the same time it's a general member of the public parking there. So it was when they physically came in and deposited material in the rightway that then we started to have a violation. argument could have made the parking destroyed the boulevard and they have to maintain the boulevard, but that just gets a little started to get very nuanced in the code. So, just to clarify, are they approved to do this yet? This would go um the agreement, the formal agreement between the land owner and the council will go on Monday. Uh, so the land owner is just asking the EDA if you'd be willing to contribute and then we'd bring bring all of that to the council on Monday. So they would be doing it either way if we contributed or not. Yes. um they have not signed the agreement, but they have gone out and obtained the quotes and have the agreement in hand and have indicated that they would put this in as soon as the city is ready, but wanted to know if the EDA would be willing to pay for half. If I can add a little bit to that. Um I think, you know, much as they said they would be agreeable to that, uh to President Ericson's point, you know, you're talking about six additional spots for $20,000. Um I think there might be some hesitancy. I think there was maybe an assumption that staff was supportive of this and that there will be some help. Um and then if they don't do it, we end up with the same mess that we had this spring. we've had the last two years. So although I I guess I'm more if I have any agreement with Commissioner Langness, it would be on the non you know the non tax exempt piece of it as to deny it. It wouldn't be on the other merits my personal opinion. So if there's a comfort level to make a change somehow on that or we just approve it doesn't m I mean I'm willing to app uh support either way but if that is there's some angst about that um there's a change in the we wouldn't change the tax exempt part of that that they're going to taxable attach it to the taxes on the building um I don't know that that because we are not actually giving them the land. Um, we're not leasing them the land because they have a maintenance. The county could agreement. The county could be picking that up and saying, "Ah, this this could be kind of considered yours." It's probably unlikely that it'll change to taxable. um to just comment on Commissioner Roberts and Commissioner Lingness's concern. If there was the desire to change the policy, we'd have to change the policy before approving the resolution or reconsidering the agreement. Um but I would also just kind of piggyback on Commissioner Langness's point that this is a legal nonconforming use and as Commissioner Hoy pointed out, that has been a problem since it opened. And um I'm not saying that it's up to this body necessarily to be a um fixer of those problems, but there are mechanisms in which we can help support a business try to do better. Um try to meet the demand that they have. you know, it's really hard because right now what's going to end up happening if the parking doesn't go in. Um, patrons will end up getting ticketed. Now, that's not to say that that's a a bad thing. It's just now we're going to be penalizing the public andor um patrons of the business for the business being so successful in yes a legal non-conforming use. Well, I mean that's but that does not necessarily before you even get to eat they're going to just turn around and leave. That place will be closed in six months. But that doesn't necessarily mean the EDA has to be responsible for that. I can see how this doesn't with the conversation that's gone on. I can see how um you would not want to set a precedence necessarily for the creation of using EDA dollars for the creation of public parking adjacent to a property. But I could see it the other day and that's why I brought it to you. Member Chair, if I could make one more point. So, I I'm not sure where where votes are standing here or or all members opinions on where this might go, but I would suggest my vote if it had to happen today is going to be a no um on this for established reasons. And I I don't know that that's going to change. Um if you're inclined to say yes, I would suggest tableabling this to the next meeting so that the council discussion and approval that is happening next week. You said on Monday. Yep. On Monday. Um happens before you push this money forward. Um and then we're potentially in another headache um of well, we applied this money and it's locked up in that and council hasn't made a decision and so I'm not really sure that we should be applying funds towards something that hasn't been approved either. Um, didn't you say that part of the consideration when they meet next week is that part of the funding would come from here to help them out or not? No, I think I said the whole thing would go to the council on Monday, but your decision is independent of the council's decision. I do like Commissioner Lingness's approach in that the landowner is willing to do this and the city and approves it. having an executed agreement that the landowner indicates their willingness to pay for the whole thing. Then maybe coming back and asking for some contribution may be more appropriate than whether or not you want to tie up funds before they have final approval from the council. Just for point of clarification, if we did approve this tonight, are the funds encumbered if the council doesn't approve or is it No, they have to complete the project before we will reimburse. Um, so the way the system is set up is tonight is the only time the this comes before you. The agreements essentially say go do your work, submit to staff your proof that it's done, and then staff will issue a reimbursement. So the money kind of sits locked up until the work is done. But if the council says no on Monday for some reason, then that just frees that money up. Well, I'm I'm willing to entertain a motion unless there's any further discussion and either Well, whoever wants to make a motion to table or we table it until after the council meets. Have a motion to table this resolution relative to Pizza Pub 07072502. Thank you. I'll second the motion. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of tableabling signal by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Posted. Opposed. And the motion carries. All right. Forest Lake Family Dental. Who has questions about the third resolution brought forward for approval tonight? So then it just seems like someone would need to make a motion to approve 07072503. I'll make the motion to approve resolution 07072503. Approving Forest Lake Family Dental. We have a motion. Is there a second? There's a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor saying I. I. I. I. Opposed. And it's approved. All right. We have two more projects brought before us. We don't have resolutions for tonight. No. Maybe I'll just give you a quick um heads up on uh both of these. I knew that both of these projects were kind of coming through the pipeline. did not get in ahead of the projects in the same timing as your amendments were being made. Um, roll setth drug I know on the staff report it includes sighting, roofing, etc. But there was a lot more done on this project. Jim Garrison is here. He can tell you that and I can walk through the breakout of costs. But this is a quarter million dollar project and as a reminder $10,000 is the cap. So, um, it definitely the $10,000 definitely covers one quarter of just the siding work. The siding alone would be eligible for this project. Um, that project started, the building permit was issued on uh May 20th of 2025. Just a reminder, your program was adopted the first week in June or second week in June. So, it was just within a matter of weeks that that permit went out before this program was updated. And then with the building that OSI is in, 147 Lake Street North, you've probably also seen siding that project. Um, the permit was issued in, it's hard for me to tell if it was November or December of 24, but they did not actually start work until this spring, fairly close again to that same time period. Both of these are after the fact variant, not variances, um, applications. the your policy is specific that they need to ask for permission first. But because they were such high-profile projects in the downtown area, they were encouraged to apply come before you have the conversation of whether or not you'd like to make an exception for these two projects. So, these are up for discussion and then based on this discussion um whether or not direction for staff to bring back new resolutions and agreements for your consideration. All right. Thank you, Abby. Couple questions. Abby, you I think in an email um you'd mentioned maybe that we the funds might be close to being extinguished for this year. Would that include those two projects? Yeah. So, if you fund all of the projects tonight, we'd be sitting at what is it? Just under just just under 45,000. So, um we're getting close. Um, but that being said, I think that there was a fairly large rush because it had some energy. Um, I think that it won't be hard to use the funds this year. Then I think we have to just kind of think about strategy in coming years. Maybe it's a after the fact or something. I'm not sure, but how we kind of spread that out a little bit. I I think on both of these um this might be the case. I'm not 100% sure, but Commissioner Hoy reached out to Ral South to let them know about the project. I reached out to the property manager of the OSI building to let them know about it. So they had already started and I wasn't aware just driving by I could say that something is being done and I think that was probably the same thing with commissioner Hoy and reached out and so um it's it just goes back to just the people not being aware of of this program and so um and I know that staff is going to work at when these things come through letting them know aware be aware of that. So, with that being said, I I think um to your point, two really great projects downtown and um I would be supportive of including those in a future resolution approved. Thank you. Any others? Yeah. Um yeah, similar to Pizza Pub, the um the policy we approved in ineligible projects specifically states improvements started prior to EDA loan agreement approval. And um I I will say that this is one that if the resolution is very clear in establishing that this project happened at the point of transition of our policy. This is this is something that I can see as as a reasonable exception to allow that um for for both this one and the next one. Um, I'll just save the same statement on that one, but it makes sense here on on why we would allow that particular exception because when they started this policy didn't exist and they couldn't have applied as it's written. Um, I'm glad that staff pointed out the roofing piece as well. that that did raise my concern um in in my notes um because our policy also states that it has to be improvements that are visible from the street or lakeside park and um R Seth Drug has a flat roof that's I mean you'd have to be really tall to see it from street level so well I know that siding stand standing there next to the building ready to go so looking forward to it for sure any other comments Okay. You're not looking for a resolution. You're just looking for direction. Just looking for direction. It seems like most of you are in favor of including these in the program this year. So direction I get is just to bring back resolutions and agreements for your consideration at your next meeting. Maybe to Commissioner Langnus' point if there's a way to word it so that it's noted that you know what he had said about the time for that kind of exception. Yep. All right. Well, that is the end of our regular agenda. No. Or no. Oh, it's not on there, though. Oh, the budget. There it is. I'm sorry. 7B. Just hidden. All those all those numbers roll together. Um, so 2026 budget. Sure. So, at your last meeting, you um the EDA requested staff to provide additional materials regarding the 2026 proposed budget included finalization of salary information as well as understanding how the EDA's salary savings this year could be applied to the 2026 budget, showing no increase in potentially no increase in the EDA's budget for 2026. Um, I'm really glad that you guys did that because it gave me an opportunity to dig a little deeper into the 2025 salary and 2026 salary to understand that there was some misconceptions um in terms of our salary usage salary contributions in 25. So when my position was created a number of years ago, the intent would always be that the general fund would pay 50% of my salary and the EDA would pay 50% of my salary. But last year that number changed where the EDA's contribution was only 40%. So in taking a look at the numbers here um we have quite a bit of a jump I would say in salary um because that's trying to accommodate for that shift from 25 to 26. Regardless of that, um, with all considerations and reviewing this year's, um, expenditures, it does look like we'll have about $20,000 of unspent funds. So, I am going to pull up these different budget scenarios for you because um, there was a there's, you know, a few different ways that I think the EDA kind of thought about how we could approve our budget this year. Give me a second. So, included in um these budget scenarios was budget scenario one that underneath this one, the EDA boards to the city council a proposed budget with no increase. So what that would essentially do is there would be 20 $32,580 that the EDA would use fund balance to fund. This will drop the EDA's fund balance by about 10%. Did you have a question? Yeah, just can you remind us what our fund balance is? Um it's just I think I included it in here. Maybe I pulled it out. um after the sale of the uh 280 Broadway property, it's just right around 300,000. So then you add in the 20 in spent funds, that's where it's about 10% of your fund balance the rest of the year. Um so that is budget scenario one. Any additional questions at the moment? Budget scenario two. Um, underneath this scenario, the EDA affords the council a proposed budget of a 5.9% increase. Under this scenario, the 2025 budget savings of that approximately $20,000 would be applied to the EDA's 2026 budget and the remainder of the 26 increase of 12,580 would be levied. Post budget number three. Under this scenario, the EDA affords to the council proposed budget with a 13.09% increase to account for increases in staffing salary adjustments. The EDA would then accommodate other increases that $4,000 for operating and contracting needs through the fund balance. And then scenario four, the EDA fords to the city council a proposed budget with the total 14.79% increase. Um though it's undesirable to forward on a budget increase of 14.79%. The reminder your budget is fairly nominal. It's less than a quarter of a million dollars. Um but that being said, staff would recommend the EDA consider proposed budget scenario three. That would be the 13.909% increase to accommodate for those wage adjustments because we the EDA's wages in 26 are I would say over and above kind of customary inflation increases to change from that 40% 60% this year to the 5050 that was the intention. So, um, tonight I'm discussing I'm asking you to discuss the proposed bud budget scenarios and then take some action, move to approve a budget scenario and then direct staff to bring back the resolution. The reason I don't have a resolution in front of you tonight is with four different scenarios, I didn't want us to necessarily be editing a resolution live stream. So, as long as you move to approve a proposed budget scenario, that's enough to me then kind of keep moving that forward with the council and get them the formal resolution in the proc budget process. All right. Thanks, Abby. Questions? Questions for Abby? One question. The um the staff wages that was less than appropriated correctly um on on this year's budget that's being adjusted. Is that being proposed from staff negatively offset from the other budget that it was coming from? Are you following me? So, so it was scheduled as as 4060 currently. I assume 60 somewhere else from the general fund. So, then it would be 50% general fund, 50% EDA. And so, the the general fund is being proposed to be 10% less on that line item I believe. So I will double check with our finance but yes it should end up being that that shift essentially from the 10% less to go then yes I believe so I I'll have to look back forgive me there are different different budgets and I just don't have all of those numbers slew through yet. Okay but that is a great question I just don't have that answer tonight for you. Thank you. Other questions? Can I follow up on that one? Is that a is that a policy change the council has to make or they've already made to to the council hasn't really discussed that? I don't you know this is just one of those things that when I was hired or in the in 22 when the position was reinstated it was it'll be 5050 right we had a number of staffing changeovers you know from the budget that was the 23 budget that was drafted in 22 to finance staffing changes from the 24 budget 25 budget preparations in 24. I don't just don't know that it was conveyed necessarily to finance staff at that time that it was supposed to be 5050. And I think staff that was here at that time was trying to crunch the numbers in ways that were favorable to the council and to not necessarily to keep the tax rate um and that the levy increases as low as possible. So, I'm not exactly sure how that affected the 2025 budget, but it is something that we will can bring up to the council as the council um kind of has their budget discussions this year. I I would think though at the end of the day, it's not it won't affect the tax levy one way or the other because salaries roll up to the tax levy either way, whether it's line item into the EDA or over to administration. So it's it's I think it's kind of a mute point but the member chair the reason I had asked was the the last meeting I had expressed that we should um m or I had urged that we maintain a um a flat budget and and not have a a huge increase. Although if it's a shift just merely from one line item to another um I'm amicable to that um that positive adjustment on our budget being proposed knowing that it is being negatively offset somewhere else. So that's why I'd asked the question. No, fair enough. And by maintaining a flat budget, you're am I correct in understanding that do you not want to increase some of these things that are being called out for increase like planning and contract services or just absorb those uh additional increases through our fund balance i.e. scenario one. Yeah. my my advocacy at the last meeting and and I would say it's the same today is that um we find ways to absorb that within um our fund balance. Um and I know that at the the last meeting we had some discussion that potentially there's um money from land sales that will land in the EDA's pockets and those types of things that I think will offset that for us and be able to use that um type of funding. But if the if the the submission is merely a percentage increase that is reflective of the staff portion, I'm supportive of that percentage increase. Um I'm not sure that that exactly landed in one of those four scenarios. Yeah, I think that's scenario three. That was my intent with scenario three is to show that the increase is exclusively due to the salary adjustments. And that doesn't isn't well shown here. really you would just have a $4,000 of the 30 to580 that would be absorbed by the fund balance. The rest would be requested as part of a tax levy increase to just keep our wages where they were supposed to be in that 5050 realm. So 13.9% the 13.9%. As much as I'd like to keep it flat, um I I would be agreeable to that as well. So, you're scenario three and you're three or one? I I'm I'm three knowing that there's a negative offset elsewhere in the finance and and I'm going to trust staff is going to to look at that and if if they learn that that is not the case um they would bring that back to us knowing that that is um potentially one of the reasons why we supported this. Any other thoughts or questions from the side of the table? Do do we need um I don't know do we need council to actually decide make that deci decision as to where the the percentages be you'll make uh so that this body makes recommendation to the council through the resolution ultimately the council has the authority to approve the tax levy increases or changes or not. So it's you're essentially saying, "Hey council, this is what we think we should do. We should re rebalance our wages, please to that 5050 or not, you know, but that's what you're the EDA is asking and then ultimately it would be back into the council's hands to determine that." And so this probably isn't well it might be it's it's recommending, but do you think with when we get staffed up and that in your department that you will be spending 50% of your time on EDA type? I do. Okay. And and so even right now, I mean, even though I'm not necessarily out at trade shows and whatnot, I do look at a lot of the work that I'm doing in just trying to build better business practices and clean up code and, you know, shaking hands and smiling a face because I don't know that has always been around here helps over the overall economic climate of the community. Um but yes, I do believe that once we have both the um assistant director and the planner back in in in place that you're going to see a lot more of us having more than two agenda item meetings. So any other discussion otherwise I'd entertain a motion for a recommendation to the council. I move we approve scenario number three. We have a motion. Is there a second? A second. Motion to second. Any further discussion? All those in favor signal by saying I. I. I. Opposed. The motion carries. Scenario three. All right. Good conversation. Next item. Number eight, discussion. Is there anything discussion related items to come up? Uh the only just verbal update I would provide is that we have um continued on our assistant director uh hiring process. Um that was going to be the EDA planning manager. You would probably see this person some and really helping and just some of those development regulations, creating better businessfriendly climate. Um I'm hoping that by the end of this month we'll have a candidate on the council's agenda and then early fall we'll have somebody here be another face that you'll see pop in and out every now and then but mostly they're going to be helping really manage that current planning environment that kind of frontline business interactions right now that um I just we just don't have the staffing capacity for. Um, and then also just as really fun fact, gotten two inquiries this month for indoor playgrounds. So, just a different type of business in uh, Forest Lake that I think um, would be is going to be a really good uh, attribute to the community. I know I have a young child and those winters can get pretty stir crazy. Um, any time of the year can get stir crazy with a little one, but just thought I'd kind of give you guys at least something new that I've been hearing about. Awesome. Thank you, Abby. We'll move to updates. Oh, that's what that was. There you go. Perfect. Did you hear anything from Washington County? Any updates from Chris? Uh, no. Chris, since his regards, we did. We um he and Mark and I recently met to talk about Headwaters 123. Um, our data center folks have uh elected to not continue our negotiations. So, it's my hope that at your meeting in August, right? Yeah, you're meeting in August. Um, we'd come back with kind of a potentially some direction on Headarters 123 in terms of how we want to kind of go about engaging in the development with the development community about master planning and potential buildout of that site. We do have one user that may be interested in locating on the site and is willing to kind of go through a 12 18month process if needed. um that is a kind of a um manufacturing type of business. Um it's an existing business that would expand into a new product line. So we have some opportunities for different types of funding sources to potentially bring them to Forest Lake. So um that's exciting. But Chris does send us regards and he's helping us kind of work through some plans for Headwaters 123. So excellent. You do that. Uh okay. Thank you uh councel and president. A couple things that I wanted to share with you tonight. First uh we have we have welcomed six new members to the chamber in the month of June which is a nice number. Uh and that includes a new nonprofit that just uh is just opening across from the high school and they're not actually opened yet but uh they've joined the chamber and so we'll be helping them uh get ac get exposure. I did want to mention too because I don't know if all of you have heard uh we were invited to the Ford grand opening and again it's just nice to hear from the president and CEO over there just how how well the project worked with the city gave huge accolades to the staff and to uh to to really everybody involved and he announced that to everyone that was there through their VIP uh reception. So um makes one very proud to be among a group full of people and and hear them singing the praises and it was a difficult project in general u but not from this standpoint. So um really really happy to hear that. Uh a couple other things we did have our first Forest Lake area local leaders which was a collaboration between the schools, our government entities and the businesses and I felt that it went really really well. most of you were there and uh Mayor Blake uh presented as well and um I I the we've done some surveying and it just seems that that's really been a touch point that uh businesses have wanted uh and I feel like it really highlighted the uh the impression of community, right? Because we all work kind of in our little silos, but when you bring them all together, it was very very powerful. So, um we're planning to do that again in six months. So, we have a date set for that in December. Then on top of that, of course, our lakes Lakefest street dance is just a couple of weeks away. So wrapping up all the things for that, so our our community event and then on the heels of that is our uh chamber golf event which is our biggest fundraiser of the year. So those are the key things happening at the Forest Lake Chamber. Excellent. Thank you, Nette. Anything else? Otherwise, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion to agend. Is there a second? I'll second it. Nobody wants to leave tonight. I thought my motion was going to fail. I really appreciate you guys switching to Monday night so that we have the opportunity to have more robust discussions um even if tonight's agenda was a little bit lighter. So um all those in favor of journey signify by saying I. I opposed. We're out. [Music]