[Music] we are right at 7 o'clock so I'll call tonight's city council meeting to order and Jolene can we have a roll call please council member husnik here council member valento here council member Roberts here council member Ericson is abson and mayor Bane here I'd like to invite everyone to rise and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance uned States andice Council oh my goodness was that me poize everybody C try that again Council we have an agenda before you I will entertain a motion to approve appr or any changes I'll make a motion to approve the agenda motion is there a second second we have a motion we'll take a second from council member Roberts all of those in favor sign by saying I I oppose and our agenda is approved our next item this evening is open Forum open forum is any interested parties opportunity to address Council on any topic of your choosing uh we do not have a um um a public hearing this evening so if you wish to adjust Council this is your opportunity to do so if you've signed up great we'll call your name and if you'd like to speak um and haven't signed up there'll be a time out to do that as well signed up this evening uh Gary Lee mayor and Council thank you for uhu allowing me to do this I'm with the Forest Lake lions and we want to to say a special thank you for the city and the parks department for allowing us to be part of the Arts in the park this year um it was very successful for us and it'll that together with our Cham uh chable gambling allows us to do a lot of different activities and just highlighting a few of the activities that the Lions do is is H first off we have a a $225,000 fund that the teachers can turn receipts in for up to $100 for things that they buy for their classroom which has been a very popular deal and this Thursday we have a free senior dinner so if you have a Medicare card you uh you can come and have a free dinner at the American Legion uh compliments of the Lions uh last year we had about 400 people that came we do uh scholarships for graduating seniors um we are sponsoring a room at the invisible wounds and have been a big supporter of the invisible wounds which is now has a a Forest Lake location and uh together with Rick and and Al we do a safety Camp um with them and feed the kids and have some fun and also a part of the Citywide cleanup and lately we have been the winning team for the the Lions have collected the most garbage and we get accused of going to dumpsters and getting it but we really don't uh in in the brochure that I left for you there's there's quite a list of things that in the Lions have become a really active uh part of this community and U very happy to to be there and I was a president last year so I'ma has been but um one of the things that that we have been doing this year in particular is working with mental health and we've done a number of things with the middle school and the high school with posters and encouragement and we're trying to promote so that everyone knows that that the uh mental health hotline is now 988 it's no longer a 1 1800 number it's like a 911 except it's a 988 and it can be used not just for those that are threatening to commit suicide but but um for anyone that has need the need for talking to somebody so we'd like to have the the city and the individuals uh promote that 988 number uh one of the things that we have found um I guess let me back up just a second that the one thing that we are doing and started last year was we've gone to different organizations within the city and I think I was here last year um in the same uh deal and looking for kind of A needs assessment for Forest Lake and we're going to to organizations that are active in the community to see what are the what are the needs that the Lions could help with that aren't being met and uh Dave Adams asked for a couple of streets being paved but that's probably a little extreme there's a few more as well so so anyway uh the one thing and and we started this conversation last uh last year and have had some follow-up meeting and that's transportation for people who can't drive within the city of forest lake and uh and we we've gotten sort of the attention of the Met Council and unfortunately we we begged for a pilot program to see if it would work here and unfortunately they chose Woodbury and Roseville for their two pilots so it'll be a year or two before we'll have that second opportunity but but I think that's something that we I would encourage the city to to look at because there's 's a lot of of people that don't drive and they need to get the medical appointments and stuff and volunteers and neighbors and kids just don't F fit the bill so we need that that commercial uh on demand rides so I would ask you uh if you think of some needs that forest lake has that the Lions could be involved in um that you would would submit them either to me or aby's kind of our conduit for a lot of things around here so uh you could you could let her know and and uh and she could forward U forward them to me if there's anything that um that the city needs that we could help with thank you thank you SC uh next Eugene hsto Eugene hell 10234 204 Street North and I just want to talk a little bit about the budget and I know you're going to be going over that and then set setting the preliminary tax levy um just a couple different things uh I would I guess one of the questions I have is that I know the state of Minnesota was able to give to um Public Safety I think approximately $900,000 here at to Forest Lake um and would consider that is does that go into the general budget or how how we can help Public Safety and uh the fire department uh you know with that and but then that would help maybe keep some of the stuff down or are part of the budget if that's that's workable i' like you to look at that the other one too is uh the $250,000 um that I know some people are saying oh well that'll help our our rating but I also know that there's other things that help our rating and um that it has been in in the past we've had some pretty good ratings and um and uh I think it was about eight years ago we had one of the top um and there's different things that do set that whether or not we're getting enough renov renov re renov excuse me uh and to make sure that we are being able to pay our bills and that we're bringing in also um commercial and people paying the taxes and I hope that soon some of the uh different um uh like malards I think that will be coming up uh pretty close uh I'm not sure how many years of the tax increment financing but that that would help too th those are good things that help you know provide uh for the budget so I would appreciate uh that you could even lower it more I know you've done a little bit I think it started out at 13.9 whatever went to 13.2 uh maybe it's even lower now which you've maybe decided or what but if you could lower keep it lowered I know there's a lot of people that need help right now or have trying to stay in their homes trying to budget for themselves and I'd appreciate that thank thank you bye thank you is there anyone else that would like to speak in open Forum this evening all right not seeing anyone come forward uh Jolene anyone online for open forum tonight no one indicating they wish to speak okay we'll close open forum and bring agenda back to council Council for your consideration tonight is a consent agenda that consists of item 6A through 6n and just a quick note that you do have a revised um materials um for the development agreement that is on our consent agenda for 6m if you want to make sure we've had an opportunity to take a peek peek at that and ready for a motion on the consent agenda if anyone's ready can I just ask a question is was there a major change in this revised the change um was the Parkland dedication fees the developer and the city went back and forth on the calculation for the Parkland dedication the original agreement in your pack your original packet was $115,000 um now it is $70,000 but it also acknowledges the developers willingness to construct a trail across the property that connects to South View Park we recognize the comp contribution that plays into the park system and so that was the difference in the the dollar value there that's the only um substantial change in the packet and staff's comfortable with the with the changes and kind of that value for cost that's been given that is correct it's was no longer the per unit cost but the fair market value assessment and then also that connector Trail cost there thank you well with with learning that then I would uh make a motion that we uh accept the consent agenda 68 a through 6n motion is there a second I'll second motion and a second all those in favor signal by saying I I I oppose and our consent agenda is approved going to move on to our regular agenda as we move on to our regular agenda as we just approved the agenda I'm going to ask this question anyway and amenda if I'm out of bounds um let me know I noticed as I was reviewing the packet the Highway 8 discussion t about um City approving um the preliminary concept just wanted to make sure that we weren't expecting any action this evening on that and that it was a discussion only item and that action would be at a future agenda or a future meeting it did not plan come to a future agenda item this is a preliminary design so it's not the final design okay so opportunity for input but you don't need official action they'll still even have more public meetings with the project very good very good thank thank you okay with that let's move to our regular agenda item 7A which is the 2025 preliminary tax levy and the setting our date for the public hearing um Kevin uh mayor and city council uh thank you for this evening uh just a recap a little bit where we started and where we're at tonight uh we started with our budget workshop on August 19th and then from there we also discuss the budget as recently as September 9th as well at that meeting was given direction to take $250,000 out of the park dedication fund tax levy so what we're looking for tonight is the final preliminary tax levy approval as that is required to be submitted to the county by September 30th as a reminder the levy approved tonight can be decreased it just cannot be increased from the amount that it is set tonight so I just have a brief pre presentation tonight to go over this the highlights of the changes of from the 2024 Levy to the preliminary 2025 Levy as it stands right now so up on your screens right now um one minute seems like the computer is froze up right now so I'm going to refer to your packets and uh um in your packets There's a summary from where the 2024 Levy is compared to the 2025 Levy and right now we're sitting at about $16.6 million in total tax levy across all funds of the city that is about an 11 a half% increase from the 2024 tax levy sure so from there we have some changes if we go from there we're starting with the general fund the general fund has an increase a lot of things playing into that increase there are new positions included in that fund one position for a planning and Eda supervisor two part-time CSO officers and one fire training Captain are included in that uh tax levy funding right now and then also there is a $250,000 conting gency line item fund LM as they call it to um maintain the city's fund balance policy of 50% uh thank you Jolene so now you can follow along um from up on your screens as well so this this slide I was just summarizing here these are main changes for the increases that you see in that general fund Levy the city also has a number of other levies um as well um the first one is a capital Improvement fund I increase about $45,000 this is for funding the median and roundabout landscape improvements this has spread over 5 years as it currently stands to fund the improvements that are um that were requested by Council for the improvements regarding uh the roundabouts Capital Equipment fund is increasing 85,000 from 2024 this is based on the city equipment needs Vehicles Machinery things of that nature and it's also planning for the future where the city did Issue equipment certificates year this year to help with some purchases some larger purchases of fire trucks and snow PS trucks our plan currently uh includes if we keep going at the plan funding rate that we would have pay as you go meaning that the city is not planning on issuing any more debt related to equipment at this time uh the equit The Economic deel Development Fund is increasing about 46,500 this is due to funding to partially funding that planning Ed supervisor a time that would be spent on economic development and then the building maintenance fund was a new Levy in 2024 we are increasing that 50,000 to 100,000 this year this is to have funds put away for those future maintenance projects that are on the horizon uh for city-owned buildings the service funds are increasing about 193,000 this is a regular scheduled payments that the city for uh that has been issued the main reason for this increase is that the 20124 um equipment certificates that are issued this year and the levy that is needed to repay that debt Park dedication fund uh it's right now proposed to increase a total of 250,000 from 2024 um 150,000 of that is related to scheduled Park improvements and 100,000 of that is was dedicated previously by Council For assistance with the Veterans Memorial project one of the last slides one of the last things I wanted to bring to council's attention was uh at the September 9th meeting we originally had six a $600,000 levy in the park dedication fund that has been taken down to 350,000 so you can see adjusting what those levies look like by taking out the two 250,000 in 2025 um projections right now in 2026 and 2027 is that there are not uh sufficient funds there to do all the scheduled uh Park Improvement projects that this staff has identified um so that's just to bring the council's attention um an option would be that we would plug that $250,000 back into the levy and as a one-time Levy increase in 2026 to help fund those projects or the council had to make decisions on maybe what projects get pushed back or not done um based on the funding that um is dedicated to this fund so this kind of wrapped this up in the perspective for Council right now um if everything stands as put and based on where our projections are with new positions and and everything uh the 2026 Levy based on our financial management plan uh would increase it would be at a 13.8% increase if we add this $250,000 into 2026 and to get those Park improvements done that Levy percentage increase of 15.4% so we're not looking for an answer for city council right now on what happens in 2026 as far as those projects is more or less is to make aware of what that decision taking at 250,000 off for Parks what that looks like concerning the 10year capital plan and how that plays in the financial management plan as well so what we're what staff is looking for tonight is direction from um city council to approve the resolution in the packet as presented to submit that preliminary tax levy and then also um approve the truth and tax taxation meeting date which is also included in that resolution also note at the September 9th meeting uh there was a request made for based on the streets what that what street projects were done and what what that funding is is providing um our city engineer Ryan Goodman provided that information and it is included in your packet and if you have any questions on that we'd be happy to answer those Kevin um for context so tonight the um of course I just lost it the levy so the levy increase for this evening is the 114 11.54% 11.54% thank you and that's for taking out the 250,000 the park dedication fund that was at 600,000 and then we took $250,000 and before we yes thank you and before we did that when we had our last discussion we were were we is it exactly 13.9% is that where we were we were at 13.2% 13.2% one if I remember correctly okay thank you Council open up open it up for discussion questions maybe while we're thinking about it here a couple of additional points um just to kind of reiterate what Kevin mentioned tonight um we set the preliminary Levy this is the amount that we'll show on tax notices that will go out in the fourth quarter um so this is a not a final number this is a preliminary number we cannot go higher than a number that we would select tonight but we can certainly go lower um also um if you are interested and just getting plugged into the budget conversation and interested in learning more about what is included in these numbers um I would reference a couple of things there's a lot of information online um that has been kind of walking through our budget discussions to date and we also will be hosting a budget um open house in November which will be an opportunity to come in and learn more specifically um what is planned for projects and to provide some opportunity for feedback that will be both in person and there will also be an online format to that meeting so um just some additional opportunities for input between now and December when we finalize our budget any questions that Council may have or follow-ups related to the preliminary Levy I um I just a a couple of thoughts as I was thinking about our number tonight and thinking about the you know the the future impact on specifically on the park plan um in 2026 of us making this reduction um first we have to acknowledge that we have had a number of years of where we are definitely playing catchup right we had a couple of years where we are making additional annual ads into our street fund uh we have made some additional ads to parks and the original plan was to make some substantial additional increases to Parks this year and in our last meeting we came back from that a little bit just recognizing that maybe 133% was higher than what we what we had an appetite for um when I think about where we were this time last year we were looking at a 10-year plan and adopted a preliminary Levy and then ultimately a final Levy that had a pretty substantial increase in both 2024 and 2025 that would then allow for some you know some ease to happen in 2026 and I couple things here one we might just be at a moment where we need we need that relief this year and I can appreciate that and I could support that but that does mean that some things come off the table in 2026 and so again this is all about time and pace and what are we doing when and this Council has been um had a lot of I think gumption to take on head on and cover a lot of those deficits and a lot of that backlogged maintenance that hasn't been done we have funded a lot of that over you know several years now and so to come off of that is certainly an option but it also means that we're not playing that catchup and so um you know I I I would encourage us to consider going back to 13.2 and get those Park projects done in 2026 as we want and and Build That Base into um funding um but I can also appreciate if we need to again come back a little bit this year it means next year is not as much relief as what we had planned and it also means that some of those projects in 2026 don't get done um so there's my there's my pitch I've been hearing plenty about not being 13.2% and uh there are there are folks that are hurting certainly there's no question about that um one of the things that we I want to remind everybody too is that that there is some relief through the state of Minnesota if you know depending on your income and uh your taxes and that kind of thing you can file for a refund through the state of Minnesota if it if you know if there's a financial issue um even at 11.54% so I just want to make sure that people are aware of that that usually occurs in August or so so anyways um I was hoping we could even trim it a little bit more myself but so just a couple thoughts I I think that um I can understand and appreciate the the thought of bringing that 250 back in but we've really I mean even at 350 we're funding that the parks much higher than we ever have and so um that is true I think we need to be proud of that and acknowledge that and realize that's why we're at where we're at um and so I I am comfortable with taking that that 250 out um on top of that just a couple just general questions either it could be either for Dave or or for Kevin um on that new uh line item that we did last year $50,000 for building maintenance what was used this year of that or is it not or is that just an idea to continue to kind of build a balance for something big to happen right now that does need to get looked at closer for how we're going to use those funds we had a plan put together last year for all the maintenance items that are coming for the city owned buildings and there's some quite large ones on there repaving parking lots the roof HVAC cooling where these things are three three digits cost figures attached to these things and if you're not planning and fund having fund set aside for a new roof or things that happen where's that funding coming from so the saves mentality with with that fund was so let's get some fund Bal let's get some funds set aside let's get those funds built up so when these things come due many of them are past to we have funds available to do those City staff plans to um look at that a lot closer at the end of this year and into the beginning of next year to where those funds need to use to be used also looking at some of those are just normal maintenance items and how that gets played into this building maintenance fund or this needs to get absorbed into our general operating Levy so then none of that 50 that was Levy last year has been used today today to date okay that I can appreciate also plan to to put money away for that but maybe that could be some conversation here as we as we go forward um and maybe more of a plan before putting a number to it or revisit that like we did last year uh the other question I have is on the roundabout and median uh improvements it mentioned in your slide 145,000 initially we were told 750,000 over a 2-year period we had uh uh the consultant come in I think we agreed to kind of tone that down like an in between so any idea of where that might be is and and hopefully there's some since we agreed as a council I don't think you were here uh to to do a modified and not so much of a robust uh rehab any thoughts on some dollars there that could be shaved off or saved and maybe if I can pay you back a clarifying question what's in today is the original number is that right it hasn't been modified for what council member Roberts is speaking of correct there 145,000 spread over 5 years and if we look go back to a financial management plan that Levy then stays at uh 1.1 million because as looking five years down the road if we want to keep doing the same miles of streets costs are going to be going up related to streets as they always do so then that Levy just stays flat so right now that's where that's what it's in at unless we get direction from Council or some solid dollar amounts for where we want to end at uh that number can change as well where if it's gets trim down from 700,000 to 300,000 while are we doing 150,000 over two years so then that number doesn't change you you know we need we would need that direction of how much how much dollars are we contributing to these to these median landscape projects and roundabouts and then how we either just put one Levy in to cover the whole cost at once or try to um smooth this out over a few years so I guess that's a follow-up question and I I recall it being a two-year thing with 300 something th000 so when was the decision made to go five years was that what the consultant had had maybe recommended I don't recall that conversation that was to get um budget priorities in line from city council and State under the general direction of that 14% needing to get um as we were giving with the financial management plan as this was a priority identified by city council back in I believe that meeting was in April or May uh for what you would like to see in your budget we worked with our our um Financial Consultant how to put this into the plan to kind of smooth this out so we don't have a big significant increase or decrease and also knowing that we are going to have conversation around the scope of this project that this 700,000 was a worst case scenario in this regards so so it's a fiveyear plan now instead of have a two-year plan is it fiveyear funding two years project or two-ear project five years funding where we can fund we can fund the project but we are going to have to replace those dollars as as we get those Levy dollars then another last question I have right now would be uh gentleman the public talked about those Public Safety dollars and where maybe those could be used to offset some of this Levy I don't know any feedback from either chief on that or what what the plan long-term plan is there um so we did so we did receive about 98,000 Public Safety Aid uh city council did approve earlier this year to spend um about 460,000 of that 450,000 that or so so that leaves roughly about $450,000 left that can be used for Public Safety a purchases equipment um Personnel costs operating costs things of that nature we did put together uh um a needs list and a want list that extends Beyond this year where it was just a focus of what can we you know let's start using these funds what are some things that the department needs we did use some of those uh funds to offset some camera purchases for the police department that were originally in uh the Capital Equipment fund and things of that nature um it is important to note though for example if we would use these funds per say to fund uh the fire training Captain for one year that funding will eventually go away and there's going to have to be a tax levy there to support that so it would cause a larger jump in future years to offset that uh so that would be direction from Council to that you would want to use some of those funds to help ease into that but it's really just pushing that impact out further and further down the road because these funds uh would run out uh the plan would be to with those public safety dollars is to come back after we get the final CS in from this year how much we have left uh the Chiefs revisit what was in the original plan for what were purchases were for 2025 and bring that back to council unless we get a Pacific Direction um from Council that you would like to use those funds for a different purpose we still have not heard from the safer I'm I'm assuming if we had heard the safer Grant we all would have gotten notification so that is still outstanding is that the case Chief mayor and Council we're down to the last week and at this point uh no Minnesota fire department has been awarded the safer Grant and it sounds like uh we are probably not going to get it there's one last round that will come out on Friday and I think we would have heard if we would have received it I you know if if we do not get that Grant and I will continue to keep all fingers and toes crossed that we do if we do not get that Grant I am open to a conversation here in the fourth quarter about using some of those Public Safety dollars for either partial funding of that position or par partial funding of the CSO position um I I'm open to that I I would prefer that we reserve that to be a fourth quarter conversation once we know for sure if we have those Grant dollars um but I just I'm I'm open to that conversation I also think when we make that decision we need to also look at what was on it's been a while since has seen that equipment list of where those dollars were designated to go um and you know it's kind of a good priority assess priority exercise of Council of deciding would we prefer to have Staffing um use use of those dollars rather than equipment and um I'm I I think that's wise and I'm open to that in preparation for that I think maybe um Chiefs it would be helpful to um just have your updated assessments of which which equipment could be considered you know not on that list or funded under different means um if we were to want to do that so yep and we've actually met on a couple occasions the last uh month or two um looking at those needs uh are original ask what was approved and then uh going forward the other then the other part of that is understanding what the spike looks like in future years and so I think also because every push that we make this year has ripple effect on future years so to have when we make that decision to know what year is going to then Spike and just do a gut check on is you know are we are we comfortable with that um because it's not it's not not an option to fund if we want that position and to continue so so with with all that said my questions I I think you know I'm comfortable tonight with where we're at I think we need to do a lot more work we've all we've done so far has dropped 250,000 from one Department I think Department wide uh organization wide all departments need to look at a little bit to see where we can shave so that we can drop it down closer to 10% you hear things on the news and different counties and cities are having a a there news stories about a 5% increase a 6% increase a 7% increase and here we're up at 11 I think we can we can shave some things off and still move the city forward and get some of these projects that we want to get done including spending way more in Parks than we ever have I will counter that with the reminder that we there were many communities that were high double digit or mid double digits a year before we took a jump so we are a year behind where many communities were in those increases but I still appreciate your point and and not having a full Council to have a robust conversation about maybe where we do there another reason why I'm comfortable with leaving the number to give us a little bit bit of time and some just Runway to really dive a little deeper on some of these numbers I'll jump in yeah My Philosophy for preliminary budget and passing it is usually to go higher knowing that we can always go lower and I'm comfortable with the 11.54% that we're at tonight I wasn't here for the prior meeting where we dropped the 250,000 from the park dedication fund and I kind of I figured that was going to happen so I was mentally prepared because um I feel like on Council I've been one to always push for parks and ideally that 600,000 would be okay to keep going with and cuz we need it I think the community wants it um but knowing where we are uh and knowing from all the feedback that we've gotten from the community and knowing that last year we went up high and as to Blake's Point as well the parks dedication fund has never seen a jump like this ever before and same with last year as well so I think we're moving in the right direction and we'll get there eventually just as long as we keep our eye on the prize of doing like what we did with the um streets last year that we'll get there eventually and as long I'm comfortable with as long as there is an increase for Parks um I think we'll get there and so the 11.54% that we're seeing tonight I think is a good number and and I'm sure with from now until our next uh from now until when we have to pass the budget in December I I'm sure there will be some wiggle room so there tons to be to come down any other questions or points of discussion all right anyone ready for a resolution or a motion with the resolution I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 0 9 232403 a resolution approving the 2025 preliminary property tax levy and setting the public hearing date for the 2025 budget and property tax levy I'll second it there is a motion and a second any further discussion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I oppose and motion carries our next item this evening is item 7B res um consideration of resolution 9232 2402 accepting donation and let me just get there real quick I would move that Council approve resolution 9232 2401 resolution of gratitude for the forest like beautification group group for volunteering at the 2024 Community corn feed is there a second I'll second we have a motion and a second any discussion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I oppose and motion carries did I skip a resolution maybe yeah could you um go back to 7B which would be resolution 0923 2402 accepting a donation from fla thank you I would move that Council accept I would move that Council pass with gratitude resolution 9232 2402 accepting resolution of from flaw for the Forest Lake Fire Department in the amount of $1,000 is there a second second we have a motion and we'll take a second from council member husn on this one uh all those in favor by saying I I oppose and motion carries all right thank you Jolene next item item 7D consideration of the Met Council imagine 2025 draft policy plan and comment letter mayor Bay members of the council um including in your packet tonight is a draft comment letter to the Metropolitan Council as noted in my staff report every 10 years the Metropolitan Council starts their planning process for the regional um plan for the area for the next 10 years they've released their draft plan and have requested for comments which is in included in um there was a hyperlink in my staff report if you really wanted to go out and have some light reading um just as a reminder this is a kickoff to the regional planning process so once they go through their planning process in a couple years it'll kick off our planning process so the framework that they outline in their draft plan really sets the foundation for things that need to be in our comp plan in the next um update process so um to summarize I did include in the staff report the areas that were expressing support microtransit opportunities that's the idea of having a smaller Transportation Network in re in more sub Regional areas um some flexibility for gaining density compliance so as a reminder that all of the cities in the metropolitan region have a Community classification and in that Community classification have a certain minimum density that they have to meet the Met councils willing to be more flexible with cities in how they meet those density requirements they haven't quite identified how specifically but it sounds like they're willing to work on a one-on-one basis with communities especially with communities that might have areas where Redevelopment could occur really they're looking at densities on new land developed not necessarily those Redevelopment areas which could be a benefit to Forest Lake and then in general their integrative water water policy the idea being they as a region we should be looking at water a little bit more holistically so not just the waste water that they have regulation over that we're most familiar with but also surface water and drinking water now that said um I can't say that this letter gave glowing reviews of the plan there were areas that I'm expressing that we um should note for the record we don't support the Met council is proposing to change Forest Lakes Community classification um that would increase our minimum density requirement of from three units per acre to a minimum of four units per acre It's a Small Change we kind of knew it was coming I thought that it would might be coming in the next go round maybe not this one um but right now it's really hard for the city to meet its three units per acre as it is leading right into that we do challenge the me counselor my letter does challenge the council's uh way that they exempt certain land areas so right now if there is a um a wetland those areas can be Exempted Exempted but buffers for Wetlands may not be able to be Forest Lake is really interesting in that we have some pretty dense clay soils and our storm water ponds aren't allowed to be Exempted nor are our regional roads those are um local roads so those are two areas where I've said maybe we need to S um look at those exemptions and expand them maybe sub regionally based on environmental factors um the me council is also going to considering putting in a requirement that cities must assess the feas feasible practicality of development so they identified in the current comp plan processes that cities would utilize land use designations such as a mixed use use land use designation um as counting towards some of that residential density the Met council is asking cities to really look into that practical feasibility analysis essentially they're asking us to maybe forecast commercial um markets not an area that uh local governments should be involved in they also are asking cities to conduct greenhouse gas inventory um emission inventories and then also look how to reduce those in their communities again these are areas that local governments don't have the skills the resources the technical expertise both of those last to with the requirements um we are noting in here if those are things the me council is going to um regulate amongst cities that they provide the resources to cities to conduct those analyses and then lastly um surface water and water supply requirements so again we we're in support overall of this integrated water policy but we already have robust complex systems for regulating water in the state and so adding another Regional water system to potentially add more regulations um staff notes and I would encourage the council to uh make comment on that that might not be in the best interest at this time so you have a few different options you can approve them um you can direct staff to alter them or you can determine that the city doesn't want to provide comment at this time but staff has drafted these on the basis that we do believe we should be submitting comment to the Met Council specifically our sector representative our District representative um and so I've prepared these for your consideration my recommendation is that you would move to authorize the mayor to sign them and then direct staff to submit them on your behalf any questions Council what questions comments what might we have I have um um I have a little bit of heartburn over the our split decision on I am the um scroll bar is not my friend tonight I apologize I just lost it um we are split on integrated water policy we say we are supportive of a regional approach but then we are there are some components where we are opposed yes that is correct um we do I will just note is is it is it something we're able to split where we can so each of the um policies so there's transportation land use parks and wreck each of those has numerous um policies integrated in them and then objectives and actions in them so for the integrated water policy approach there is probably 15 to 20 different ways the Met Council aims to achieve these things in the future so what I've said is um and noted in here is and we certainly can remove it but the idea that there would be Partnerships and that the um met Council would advocate for legislature initiatives that would Advance integrated water policy these are really good things we probably should be looking at the Region's water system as a whole however when we're taking then the possibility of adding another level of regulation in there that is concerning I guess I'm I get concerned that one one means the other that if we are up you know we are a small small drop in this water pool and so if we are supportive of the integrated approach I get concerned that that also means we do it their way or we have less a little bit less control in the execution of that um but I the words on the page I I'm I'm in supportive of the words of on the page and maybe that is just where we should land is that is okay to provide that feedback as always the devil's in the details and so I worry that the execution of if we are supportive of that that also means that potentially there are areas where we have less control and some areas where I I just um I feel that maybe our water concerns are different than other communities and um Ryan maybe if that if if you would disagree with that maybe i' this would be a great time to hear that um but I I just feel like it is not yes it's a concern that should be managed at the regional level it's I worry about how that gets executed at the Met Council mayor Cate Council during the White Bear Lake lawsuit a lot of the communities in the northern Washington County and Anoka County were very against getting involved and having that shared cooperation with the met counil that we are have currently with the DNR because the DNR is the ones that's uh uh approving your water usage where your wells go and all the other requirements with that and then bring in a separate agency that's might have a different uh objective in mind and not aligned with the Municipality Water Supply systems and how they're owned and operated and in compliance with the DNR and all the requirements that come along with that the water supply plans you know and all the other plants and and Etc so it is probably just more red tape we would have to deal with and uh I don't see a benefits in it you know as long as we're working collaboratively with adjacent communities on emergency plans and we do have that set up in our comp plans as development extends we will have some interconnections here and there and stuff like that and we we do have different water sources than the community south of us so would it be inappropriate for us to REM just stay silent on that point point of where we are in support and don't necessarily refute it but then the more specific details where you I I think you've done a nice job articulating some concerns on the portions that we are against um might be closer to where I would land but um count I'm wide open to feedback on this I think so Ryan is what I just said in in line with what what are we are are you and I aligned with that perhaps a support at the regional level would maybe overstate a position I think you're in line with them on a regional level on transportation and some of those other shared services like that but not local water system specific to water yeah that's that's my concern and then even with the local storm water requirements and rules that we're already having to fulfill through Bowser and the Watershed districts now you want to put another layer on on top of that Abby when is when is feedback due um not until October 7th I think the water policy plan section of the letter can easily be modified by removing the section where we are in support of regional Partnerships um and collaboration so part of the um comments there are are working together I think that we could take those out and have that stronger approach that the idea of additional regulation is not not supportive not supported I think the within the water policy plan which is Page 261 of our packet the I think the first sentence is fine where it just says the city is strongly in support in support of the goal that water planning management operations are collaborative and maybe just like leave it at that because I think broadly speaking I think I would assume that the city would be in support of that but then when it comes to the actual policy we could say something along the lines of um like deleting that the rest of that paragraph and then the in support of bullet points for partner one and provide [Music] three that's certainly fine I mean it is um the council's letter I I um you know I defer to the council's POS position on this matter I didn't want to necessarily imply that we weren't in support of collaborative efforts you know of helping identify roles and responsibilities in this region I think what Hannah said makes a lot of sense and uh also Ryan too that makes sense to not add another layer of bureaucracy it just also think that's um like second to last paragraph there kind of captures it all yeah too I would agree so what I'm hearing from the council is that there's favorability at least in the water policy plan to keep the first sentence of that section remove everything down to the um what would be the third section of underlined and just say the city is not in you know that said the city is not in support of the integrative policy actions is that what I'm hearing I'm seeing I'm ahead it's s yes did that capture it Han what you intended okay any other points of discussion or questions related to the letter I I um appreciate your comments and I think you did a nice job on um the areas of unsupportive so yeah I just add I appreciate staff taking the time to to get this put together and sent out uh this is another layer of government by appointed officials that we have to deal with and it makes it more and more difficult for development and everything else and so this is I appreciate this uh with that I would move that Council approve the policy plan um comment letter as amended in our meeting um this evening I'll second we have a motion and second any further discussion hearing none all those in favor signal by saying I I I oppose motion carries okay that ends um the action portion of our agenda um we are going to move into a couple of discussion topics um anything that we discussed tonight that requires official action will come back before Council in a future meeting um and so this will be naturally be a little bit more of an informal session um first item this evening is consideration um and discussion related to the Highway 8 um preliminary concept plan and Ryan all right May city council tonight uh basically we want to provide an update on where the Highway 8 project is uh and then uh right now the it's currently in preliminary design stage and we'll go through schedule kind of scope of work what's included and then uh some things for us to consider as a city too as the project moves forward so in your I know in your packets online if you have that also open too you can see the big prints of these I I tried clipping it out so we can see just as a PowerPoint as as we go through basically the project is going to start at Highway 60 or I35 and it'll continue on Highway 8 Eastward all the way up to Carmel Avenue up in shago city tonight and your packet I only show you guys what's in the forest lake area if you do have a desire to see other areas of the extents of the project I can certainly share those PDFs too so as we start from I35 and go eastbound we're not changing any the footprint of the roadway um they still spent a lot of this summer doing field uh Gathering soil boring surveying and stuff like that uh once we get to the intersection of Highway 61 and Highway 8 that's where you'll start seeing some changes in the project and the change I'm talking about there is the construction of the trail that'll be along the north side of does a cursor show up when I do that or not no it's probably too hard but on the North side right where the harder Trail is existing you can see there's a little gray area that would mimic where the trail is going to be extended and constructed to connect at the hardw cree Trail on the north side of highway eights and it's going to continue all the way up to shago City so that would be the extension uh and this portion of the Immigrant swed Swedish immigrant Trail that's going to be constructed so when this Project's all said and done you could basically go up to the hard Trail jump on the Swedish immigrant Trail and head east all the way up to Sago City when this Project's going to be done so that'll definitely be a nice uh amenity to the area and certainly for a regional aspect there's no accesses access changes for Forest Lake on Highway 8 portion even though I'll talk about that later in the the presentation there are going to be a lot of access changes through Wyoming and shago um but not in the forest lake area so everything stays the same there is going to be a lot of reconfiguration on the local roadway system at the intersection of um Greenway and Highway 8s but majority of that will be in Wyoming but you can see what they're proposing at the intersection right here we're looking at the Holiday gas station area then just East there will be a constructed round about on the Southeast side of Highway 8 there which is definitely help traffic flows in queing and uh with the project the county is looking to take it all the way down to Northshore Trail but I want to definitely point out what you you can see the the reddish tan areas those are pedestrian walkways along the roundabouts and through the roundout and up to Highway and through Highway eight there but they don't extend down to Northshore trails so that'll be something I'll talk about later in the presentation that that's something that the city wants to Incorporated in the project as it moves along and final design uh quick answer I got from shago county is there's nowhere for it to connect to at this point in time but we still haven't had that full conversation of what Northshore Trail could is going to potentially look like and is being planned for in uh stage timing of that construction too so that'll be more information we bring forward to so this area circled in red is the area that's specifically in Forest Lake Road uh the local roadway system of the project that's they currently propos to reconstruct it down to that portion of Northshore Trail the blue on both sides of the yellow just mimics shoulders so kind of replacing kind what's there today uh just some project background on the project uh shago county is leading this project uh mot's starting to remove themsel as the project lead on a lot of their roadways just other agencies have more resources and can uh move a project a little faster mot still is engaged in some like our Highway 97 project obviously they're leading that uh but in this case shago County will be leading the project and like I talked about earlier go from I35 up through carmell Avenue and shago City and then it'll have a roundabout constructed at that intersection schedule for the construction is planned from 2025 to 2028 25 what might be occurring is some private utility relocation uh I think they are going to do an early contract for Clear clearing and grubbing and getting some trees removed just to avoid some of the bat rules and timing of when that happens they get certain Windows nowadays that's with Federal money they can come in and do that clearing and grubbing so that would be some of that work that would happen in 25 26 they're looking to focus on the local roadway systems through the project and then 27 and 28 is when they're looking to focus on Highway eights now they haven't developed a full staging plan for the project so a lot of that could still potentially change as if you look in my next bullet point paragraph It's that's right there has changed the project probably a two-year time period already and as they're working through that as they discovered Northern longear bats in the project area and and because it's a federally listed threatened and endangered species or having to work through a mitigation plan on that other project Partners in this uh M out obviously in Washington County and then local agencies communities and uh T panel groups as well so project scope will reconstruct the roadway realignments and intersection control changes reduction and access points uh Trail construction along the north side of highway 8s and the connection to the hardwood Creek Trail and the city is looking to extend sanitary sewer and water main Crossing extensions which I'll get into a little further here in the project so this would be the particular area we're looking at the project to get existing Water and Sewer across the roadway this is a map showing our existing sanitary sewer and waterm in that location already uh so we have waterm that already runs on the south side of Highway 8 then it circles back and Loops back down 236 sanitary sewer is a dead end manhole on 236 just north of here and across the highway is the good View Circle Industrial Park area does everyone know where kind of ATS or good so this is what's been discussed with public works and uh potentially we would be proposed with the project so we would extend a you know when they're in their full reconstruction of the roadway we at this time we would extend the 12-in waterm across the road that Industrial Park area would be served by a future lift station the scope of this project we would not plan on uh installing a lift station unless there was a project that was ready to go and there was probably some Financial contribution at that time from that project to install a list station but everything would be set up that's it could just take off any time uh if there was something big that were to happen but we would get water M across the road and definitely end it with a hydrant so now we would have some fire coverage on that side of highway 8s um but then also we just have a stub right there that can just continue down that roadway that roadway is gravel maybe we put some double uh millings on it so it might seem more durable than a gravel road but we haven't done any pavement Improvement to good View Circle so looking back in our what what's done our comp plan so when uh we did our comp plan stuff this stuff was already done and completed with the water study prior to the highway a project moving along so you'll see a lot of it I'll see in the next one but this is how we show that this area would have been sewered with a sanary sewer and so that's in our comp plan water main talks about this being post 20 2040 just because the highway project wasn't known at the time of this water supply plan was completed um but obviously when we took a 12-in water man all the way up there and looped it around you know you had future plans with it so project costs uh shago County mot do not expect any cost participation from the city of Forest Lake for the planned Highway work or the street improvements to Greenway as I have shown you tonight on the the figures if the city does request pedestrian facilities along Greenway from the roundabout to Northshore I'm I would anticipate local participation uh should be anticipated with that and then the city sanitary sewer and water main extensions those would be 100% City costs uh mindat does not cover any of those costs uh SE and water anytime we get into any of their uh Road rways and their projects we are there by permits and even if uh like the highway a project you know they're widening the road so we need to relocate our watermain that's a City cost and city responsibility uh so you know that's something that we'll cover here in the next slide so that estimated cost to get sanitary sewer and water across in today's dollar with a 25 25% contingency on that is just under $540,000 uh you could get some of that in payback over connection fees and area charges but uh it probably would not pay back that whole amount other than just to have those services on that other side of the road which could attract different businesses and different uses over time and provide better fire coverage so this is our best guess estimates with the information available sometimes once you go through a final agreements uh mind Sago County might add some other costs into this one such as a certain percent of traffic control a certain percent of mobilization and some bid items like that but this should be a very accurate budgeting number with the figure that we showed where we would want to take stuff and what those costs would be so tonight we're just kind of looking for the city to give the nod on the preliminary design just so the project can proceed uh like I said there will be future public meetings and then obviously next steps in regards to final design approvals and stuff as they work through their environmental stuff too as well uh looks like I started the PowerPoint and didn't finish it so or I didn't save it and sent it so it was a long couple weeks a lot of stuff in the queue so uh next steps on myself obviously I want to provide a written document to sh sasago County mind dos kind of saying if we're supporting the direction of the design if there's things that we want explored further and stuff like that that's what we're looking for on feedback tonight so with that I'll open up any questions you might have about the highway a project that's being led by sasago County I know you mentioned no changes to intersections um how about changes to lighting or other um kind of safety elements for those intersections especially at so that would so much further down in the design that I haven't seen anything on that but that's something that we can certainly outline in the letter to get uh stuff so information that we could share or what is the plan for that I doubt they've even started any preliminary uh design on lighting at this point in time that would be at our cost I would assume if we did right I would not go decorative Lighting on this Corridor no so no if you if they stay with the mot Lighting on it this would be a Mot cost okay uh as it's all it's depends it it's how it's fed right in this area you got some of that lighting up at this the 3561 and there's been a lot of lighting projects in that area over time too that that's all men dos nothing you're involved in right Dave yeah if they came back with if they came back proposed lighting same as today are we are we okay with that I know there's areas where we would say definitely no and I'm just not familiar with enough with this intersection to know if that is why is there not well they're definitely going to have all new lights at the intersection of Greenway and Highway 8 because they'll be bringing in new signals and then the new luminares on top of that you're still going to have your traditional Minot pole along the corridor which is that uh gray looking pole probably a higher than normal just to get that better coverage in that area with less lights and then I I assume as you Meander out of the greenway intersection of Highways and start going Northeast you're going to have less lights and it'll be as dark as it is today yeah I could be wrong too they could have a full lighting plan and I just haven't been seen anything on it so Ryan a couple questions that two different um subjects one on the on the pedestrian facilities from where that roundabout is proposed down to Northshore um obviously that'd be our cost is our plan to we are going to redo Northshore from Greenway back to 61 are we proposing sidewalk or Trail or pedestrian right up to that intersection we would have Trail coming up to that intersection seems to kind of make sense or a wider sidewalk CU then it does hook you up with that Swedish Trail or whatever you I think we should consider pedestrian to for the connectivity to the to the trail or else it's just going to be the segment on I would expect with these improve I mean Greenway already is pretty heavily traveled but with these improvements it'll be even more heavily traveled and so to me it's just this is that connecting piece that we should fund so then the other question related to the Sewer cross uh 8 do we have or have we received a lot of requests from those commercial property owners there about connecting to City Water and Sewer would they then get a be assume they be assessed a sack and whack fee and all these connection fees you're talking and would they be forced to do that or is it their decision well the that would be a city initiative if we want to continue to bring it to that particular area my understanding is there's been several requests for water I don't know exactly about sewer maybe Community Development or fire has more information on that uh it's in the city's comprehensive plans I know some businesses that are past applications we've had come through here have gone down the process and then when they were required to have a sprinkled building and on going to be on well and what type of use they were going to have they just they aren't going to have that capacity so then they looked elsewhere so potentially it does bring new business but uh how it would work you could assess it if you extend it it's you know line you know front linear foot uh but when they do connect to it they would be required by City Cod and orance to pay that sack and whack and then they'd also have to pay a sack charge to the met counsil too so I think having conversations with those Property Owners at some point sooner than later to gauge that interest uh I think it'd be great makes sense if we're doing this now to do it and that land I would assume long term would be more value based on especially on the just fire suppression itself being able to do that in a building and as they they can't now I suppose with just a well right can you flip back to the developed undeveloped um how many Parcels are we talking about that's undeveloped I know there's a separate Redevelopment opportunity potentially but how many are there a lot of purely undeveloped Parcels in that section right now no there's only a couple or so up there but um to answer at least to provide some more context we routinely get inquiries for expansion yeah um and add-ons or even a tear down one of the challenges is um the land area associated with those septic systems and just that other infrastructure that's needed they really can't there's not a lot of area to expand because of setbacks to Wells and train fields and all that kind of stuff um but I do think that this would would be an area we would see quite a bit of uh Redevelopment or expansion occur if there were those Urban Services there and it is so making that extension is also consistent with the comp plan correct correct yeah I I think it's one of those that if we don't take this opportunity to do it we will kick ourselves in the future that we hadn't and even if we just get the utilities across the road just having not hydrant on the other side it's going to improve probably people's Insurance ratings and it's going to obviously provide a lot more efficiencies for the fire department and the sewer line that we're bringing across is just a 6inch force man right so it's not a big pipe if it doesn't get used for 30 years it's still going to be fine uh but you know then you would have your gravity in your lift station that you could do part of road or whatever or you got some flexibility we saw pricing on the on the um sewer line what is the pricing for the trail if we were to do that connec I guesstimated that would be a local participation about $75,000 I had that in the slot I thought and the timing for that again probably 2026 2027 I think that would be part of 26 cuz that's when they want to focus on the local roadway should go back to 13.9 sorry bad joke and Ryan how much did you say again 75 75 okay and and it's not currently in the 10-year plan so if we were to add that component we would either have to raise future Levy or identify an additional 75,000 a project to come out somewhere else right correct okay so it's in the staff reports under FIS fiscal impacts thank you I I do think though with the planned connectivity I mean that means essentially somebody's able to go from hardwood Creek Trail downtown through our downtown up Northshore Trail on trail to get onto this new new trail that on all those roadways are down you could actually even have a loop you could go south on the hardw creek trail turn up Northshore trail go up Greenway and then come back down the Swedish immigrant Trail and then you can even go north on the hard Creek Trail till I don't remember the name north of that trail is but yeah this provides a lot more opportunities and if people are claiming to be that bike rider that travels to these businesses now that opportunity is definitely going to be there with this highway a project being completed you got a coffee shop that's right in that vicinity that's probably going to benefit from it like you see up by nisah you know right on those main Trails uh so you know there's some exciting things that you can imagine coming forward you just gota say yes or no sometimes yeah I and when we talk about Community feedback in connectivity and trails this is exactly the type of project that the community's been wanting so and I'd like to think I'm playing Devil's afet on the cost of The Pedestrian improvements that maybe the project itself would cover some of that and not 100% City cost too so since they're already paying for the road right right yeah you certainly want that as a component of that job that trails are the biggest issue right now especially with stuff that's already built so it's great great idea Council any other points of feedback related to the plan um if we if Council were to approve this ex water extension that comes out of the sewer and water funds correct what is that due to fund budget and we know we just we just did a workshop to to talk about both of those funds what does that what does that look like mayor city council I would need to plug those numbers into the plan but um looking at it um just if we kind of to split that cost 50/50 I don't know what it is between the funds part of the Pro Plan is with those funds and the 10-year projections is to have fund balance available to be able to do things that come up that maybe weren't planned for so I would Envision that there would be um some funds there available to do this but how that affects future years and utility rates and all things like that with this need to be uh reconsidered is that something um you could bring back at some point during here it' be it'd be nice to know as we are considering budget this year I know it's not a this year budget but be good to know just as we're considering budget this year what that impact would look like yeah part of the plan if you remember last year when we approved the final tax suby and budget we also approved that 10-year plan so all the changes and updates that we have all those documents will be updated um and put in front of council so I'll add that make sure that gets in there thank you any other points of feedback on this item all right Ryan anything else you need from us mayor city council just to recap my understanding is when I write my response letter to the county you want me to request more information what's being planned for the project lighting along the corridor and uh for the project to explore pedestrian improvements along Greenway Avenue and overall we support where the Highway 8 project fo Footprints is currently adds with the extension of the Regional Trail the immigration Regional Trail and that's kind of really what I'll include at this point that summed it up I think Fair water and SE and then yeah water and Waters perfect thank you ran uh next item for consideration local afford affordable housing funds and Abby mayor Bay and members of the council I think brought to you the local affordable housing aid um discussion in the past again that this is a new state tax to fund local affordable housing um efforts in the community we've had a few different conversations with both our Planning Commission and our Eda in terms of the different types of uses we can use for our laa funds so again we can use them for emergency rental assistance new construction or Redevelopment and then we can use them for rehabilitation either rental or owner occupied in discussions um with the Planning Commission and Eda they both expressed a favorability towards Rehabilitation recognizing that some of our owner occupied housing in the older parts of Forest Lake might be in need of some of that assistance especially when you can uh have a greater area meeting income than a lot of the other programs that are not being served right now um they also Express favorability to partnering with other organizations so we've talked with Community uh Washington County Community Development agency who can help provide services to um provide for the affordable or for new construction Redevelopment as well as Rehabilitation so I've included in your packet specific programs that could help the city meet some of its comprehensive plan goals to improve and maintain existing housing units specifically I am suggesting that the city consider a program with the CDA that would um help with the rehabilitation of homes for people that may 115% of the area median income that's a qualifying item and that we would put most of our dollars in that bucket that we would also utilize the County's NOA grow program which helps uh with preservation and Rehabilitation of of rental units those are a lot lower area median income but this this is um also an area of the community in that kind of older part of Forest Lake many of our units if they're already uh deed restricted affordable are aging and they're going to need some investment um at some point and then also the cda's growth fund which could help with the creation of new single family housing so the Planning Commission was concerned that if we took all of our big pot of money and put it into new new housing construction that one project could just eat it all up but they were maybe a little bit more um favorable to partnering with an agency or organization be that the CDA or someone else if there was like a habitat house or there was some other maybe a single family construction that we could help with um I'm recommending that we would put 10% of our annual funds be about $30,000 each year to help contribute to a single family house or to three single family houses um tonight your uh for you consideration is discussion of the recommendations that are before you essentially splitting up the funds into three different now housing pots and then um essentially directing staff to continue to work with the CDA on developing an agreement for their administration of our laa funds which would be brought back before you at a different time do you have any questions any Council any questions we might have or feedback it's not a whole lot of money when you boil it all down so I think the biggest issue we're going to have there is try to figure out who exactly it would go to and seems like it it would take a lot of work to try to get that figured out thankfully the county already has programs established um we definitely can beef up our um information our technical assistance on our website pointing to those County programs um Forest Lake is well served by the CDA so I don't think that their programs are so unknown um I think more than anything there's there's going to be more people that need the assistance and less money not less money but than we would have available so I don't know that um the does that account for staff time uh the program can't be utilized for Staffing okay so of our money no no dollars are able to be used for Staffing that's my um so that's my that's my sticking point um so do we have a sense and maybe maybe this is cart before horse but do we have a sense on what the charges would the Washington County would charge us for administration of those funds or is this part of is this feedback part of what goes into them determining their rates um so the county my understanding is the county does have support for new Staffing to help administer the programs and the and the use of laa funds with staff to date and I know that Christina had had some conversations with uh their uh executive director as well to date I have not heard that the county would be charging us but those would be things that we'd have to discuss in our agreement in the future I would not anticipate paid any charges from the county okay excellent um an answer we not that not that the county is reluctant to give that answer but it's not often we hear those types of answers so that's wonderful news um it's because they want our money right so like we're giving it's a bigger pool it's a bigger pool yeah um I guess in in deference to in deference to that if we are able to be allart and you know have designed the Forest Lake program the way we want that's that's great um I would also be interested in feedback from them on um what other communities are doing um and if there's another community that has found a great a great plan um I I really like the um planning commission's feedback on spreading it out and helping more homeowners with more a larger number of smaller dollar projects that than doing a couple of small large projects um I think I I really like to that feedback and I think I think we're you know heading in the right direction with kind of the allocation as it's been set out um as I read through I didn't have concerns on that my concern was on on paying for the management but if that is covered that's great any other points of feedback so the direction for you is to go work with the county and bring something back I great thank you it looks great thank you okay that is the end of our plan discussion items this evening let's move into staff updates and uh start with Jalene Updates this evening Abby I do have two I did meet with the Veterans Memorial committee last week I think if you hadn't already seen they are um enhancing a little bit of their promotional materials because they are really trying to put some greater emphasis on their Capital campaign they are looking at raising $275,000 by the springtime in order to stay on track for a fall 2025 groundbreaking 6 uh 26 construction that's already been accounted for in all of the plans and this would be a project that they're funding themselves but they really need the community support in that um so you might see some things coming forward including them meeting with you next month to talk about the project then also we are just about to release our um volunteer and sponsorship drive for HomeTown holiday so we'll send that out to all of the council but we do hope to um continue to rely as we have in the past on the chamber who's really helped secure some of those sponsors and volunteers um that we've done but mark your calendar if you hadn't already for Friday December 6th um event at the park 4:30 to you know 6:30 6:45 we'll have that tree lighting as we've done in the past very good thank you Abby Dave just an update on uh belts courts uh rehab they they put the new posts and today they'll continue doing that through the rest of the week um get a tolerance for uh curb next week black top the following week and finishing off the week after that so the Hope should be mid mid October to have that that finalized depending on on temperature they may get the coding on yet this year if we have a year like last year but if not it would be put on in the spring fabulous thanks Dave Chief Peterson no updates all right Chief Newman mayor and Council the only update I have is just a reminder that it's joint fireboard meeting on this Thursday at 5 o'clock at the fire hall very good thank you Amanda no updates Christina no updates and Ryan mayor city council just a couple updates on development Hidden Creek Phase 2 they have started utility work with that and will'll be progressing in the streets in a few weeks with tonight's approval in Shadow Creek Estates that'll obviously they I believe they started a lot of their grading but we anticipate having a pre-construction meeting this week and they'll probably start utility work as early as next week so that down by good view and County Road 50 there you know there'll be a lot of construction activity going on that area so that's what that'll be about for that 46 lot town home subdivision very good Kevin no updates all right let's go on line with Council council member hust uh no updates tonight council member valento just that we had a cable commission meeting last week and we looked at policies um the budget and then Paul always at the end gives his great updates for the project that he works on and I love how he always shares videos and it's great so that's it very good council member Roberts nothing tonight very good uh no updates from um myself either um that is the end of our well we are going to that is the end of our um open meeting of our agenda we are going to move into a Clos session um and I would move that Council move into a Clos session persu to Minnesota statute 13 d05 subdivision 3B for a confidential attorney client discussion regarding threaten litigation by Northern Plains Aviation Incorporated uh after the Clos session that will be um the that will be the end of our agenda we will come into open meeting just to adjourn uh is there a um second for the motion to go into close session I'll second we have a motion and a second all those in favor signal by saying I I oppose and we in close session [Music]