I'll call tonight's meeting to order. And uh Abby, you want to take uh role? >> Yes. Uh Commissioner Grindall, >> present. Commissioner Lorge >> here. >> Uh Commissioner Roberts >> here. >> Commissioner Wright >> here. Treasurer Hoy here. >> Uh, Vice Chair Legus >> present. >> And President Ericson, >> present. If you would join me for the pledge of allegiance. I >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. First thing to take action on is the election of officers in the new year. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, current president Ericson, your governing resolution, which was in your packet. I just had a horrible nightmare over the weekend. I didn't include it. So, you got it doubled this today with a little extra email. Um, the EDA is made up of president, vice president, secretary, treasure, and assistant treasur. Each year we elect um officers. Nobody has to change, but um it's been practiced to at least reelect all the positions annually. A few things to note in the code um or in your bylaws. The president and the vice president cannot be the same people. The secretary, treasurer, and assistant treasurer can be held by the same person and secretary and assistant treasurer need not be held by a commissioner. Currently, I just went through all of the roles. Um, we do have the treasurer Chris Hoy, vice chair, Eric Langnes, and President Leif Ericson. Um, I know that I am at least the secretary, and just looking at our record, I at the moment, I don't know who our assistant uh, treasurer is, but that doesn't surprise me if that's also maybe not designated last year as staff. So, the requested action is the EDA move to elect all five positions with at least the secretary being held by city staff. >> All right. Thank you, Abby. Anyone want to make a motion for president? >> I move we reelect Leif Ericson for president. >> Motion. >> I second. >> Motion to second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I >> I >> abstain. And how about vice president? >> Well, I move that we reelect Eric Legnus as vice president of the EDA. >> I'll second. >> All right. We have a first and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? >> I. >> And we have a vice president. I move that uh we keep the secretary being held by city staff. >> Go ahead, Mr. Lus. >> I believe the secretary is one of Oh, I'm sorry. The secretary is Abby. It's the assistant treasurer. That could be staff. >> Yeah, >> I stand corrected. Sorry. >> Yeah. No, certainly. Um, so I'd like to see Abby remain on secretary staff. >> That's a motion. >> I've made a motion. >> Okay. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I >> opposed. All right. And then we need to look uh reelect a treasurer. Anybody care to make a motion? >> Make a motion that we reelect Chris Hoy as treasurer. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? All those in favor? I >> I >> I >> opposed. Congratulations, Mr. White. >> When the meeting's over, where do I pick up the checkbook? >> Exactly. Do we need a elected assistant treasur? I mean, have we had that in the past? >> Um, it is the positions that you have. And I apologize. I don't have who that assistant treasurer currently is. There is part of me that's thinking that you didn't nominate staff. If you want to wait on that, I can bring it up at your next meeting. Or if you give me a minute, I'd have to just look back through a minutes from last year. This time, >> I don't think we need to wait. Is anybody >> If it if it was staff, would would that be you or is it someone else on staff that would be preferred? >> Um, that's a really great question. I do believe um your bylaws indicate the city will give you staff to use. So, I don't necessarily think you necessarily have to designate it as city staff. I do think it's probably relevant to have city staff. Maybe most appropriate to include Ellie Larkin, our uh finance director, as the assistant treasurer given the fact that she is um you know, helping manage those finances for the city. >> Member Roberts, you've been on the EDA for years. Do you recall historically what's been done? don't really know, but I would um it makes sense to have finance director as assistant. >> So, I guess I'll make that motion that we have Ellie Lark and the city finance director be assistant treasurer. >> All right, we have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor? >> I I >> opposed. And we have an assistant treasurer. >> All right. With the election of officers behind us, I would look for a motion to approve or amend the agenda that we have before us. >> Motion to approve. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. And any further discussion? All in favor? >> I I >> And we have an agenda. First on the docket is open forum. We don't have anybody online, do we, Abby? >> No, we do not. >> All right. Seeing nobody in the audience tonight, we'll move right along to our consent agenda, which looks like we don't have one. So, moving straight on to the regular agenda, including the Southwest Area Study. Abby, >> thank you. President Ericson, as the EDA may remember, you authorized the study of the Headwaters Parkway Extension as well as development of policies related to infrastructure phasing. The study kind of contained two components. One, us figure out where Headwaters Parkway was going to align with Elmrest Avenue and then kind of the infrastructure phasing policies. So, regarding the parkway extension, you may remember late last year we brought forward uh two preliminary concepts or preferred alternative designs. You made recommendation to the city council who agreed with you and had determined that the extension alternative number two was the preferred alternative. included in this packet was is a is a summary of that study which includes that preferred second or alternative the preferred alternative alignment. Then in regards to so tonight you'd be asked to accept the headarters parkway extension report regarding the infrastructure phasing policies. Both the EDA and council ident indicated you wanted to see policies relating to appropriate infrastructure phasing. So, as a reminder, staff had um g brought you this issue that we're having in that many of the newer developing areas, the roadway network is designed of major collector roads. We're looking at big four-lane divided roadways in the future, but the right now design doesn't require that big wide road. And so we don't really have anything in our subdivision regulations or any other standards in the city that really give us the ability to rightsize the road, reduce it now, but retain the ability to replace it with a bigger road later. The EDA included as part of this study um that we would uh look at that appropriate infrastructure phasing that was all wrapped up in the same project. So two recommendations are being made as part of the study. the city adopt pre- mature development language and then the city adopt right sizing right sizing approach language which would allow for roadways less than needed at full buildout. Included in the packet was some analysis of that rightsize approach and premature subdivision language. Premature subdivision language is simply the ability for the city to deny a subdivision ba any subdivision residential or commercial on the basis that the land that's being proposed to be developed is not ready. The utilities aren't there, the road network's not there for whatever reason and there's a number of things. Um it's already in our code. It's not really well spelled out and what we're just proposing to do is move it to a separate section. So, it's not really a big change in the code. The right sizing approach, however, is a little bit more um is a pretty big change for the city. The strategy would allow for roadways that are less than needed at full buildout. So, example would be a two-lane road now, but that we would reserve land for uh reserve land for rightway, for storm water purposes, for trails, so that when the city was ready or when buildout was at its peak, that the road could be replaced in its full fullest design possible. Um, some of the things that the city put or some of the ordinance considerations is that land would be adjacent to land that's already being developed. Right? So, we're not going to use this tool for leapfrog development. We're going to lo do it for the stuff that's right next door to where we're already developing. It must be segment of the roadway that's not currently designed or planned for built full buildout. In other words, we're not going to if somebody's already going to be full build out this road, the city or a developer, we're not going to reduce that down now. The city would have to have an approved roadway design, which essentially means we want to see what this full roadway will look like later and then we want to see what the smaller roadway design would look like. Now, one of the kickers for this and one of the big things is it's only for specific roadways with classifications of collector roads are higher. We are really looking at Fenway, 180th, 190th, and we've also thrown Harrow Avenue on the east side of the city. The ED southeast side of the city. The EDA might not be as concerned um with Harrow. Harrow is going to be exclusively feeding residential development, but it does go right along the Forest Hills golf course. It's a Forest Hills golf course. Those and everything starts with forest. It gets hard to remember which one exactly. Um and then the big thing would be that if there's future development that we're not creating too much greater of a demand. We still want to keep that demand of the cars on there less than half. So if we allow for this for the first development, second development, third development, but if that fourth development comes in and we look to see that that roadway pressure is getting too large, we might need to widen that section later on down the road. The design would allow for us to do that. The code would allow for us to do that in the future. Some of the um pros to this approach is the developer would only pay for the road that's needed at this time. So, it's really helping reduce development costs and we only pay for the maintenance that's needed at this time. Bigger roads, every road costs us money in the long run and then there's less impact on the environment right now. Some of the cons would be there's going to eventually be a tipping point for roadway capacity. Now, I don't know if that roadway capacity tipping point is at full buildout. Let's take Fenway Avenue as a really good example. We're at the Headarters Parkway Fenway right now and we're going to start moving south with development. If we hit 190th, is that going to be a tipping point? Don't know. Hit 180th, is that going to be a tipping point? Don't know. Is it going to be another 25 years before we hit that tipping point? We don't know. And that is one of the risks in what we want to in what we're considering. There is also the uncertainty of when to build out the roadway. So, you know, is the next developer in line going to have to pay for it or is it going to end up being a future city cost? That's just something we'll end up having to figure out later down the road. So, the assessment does show though there's opportunities and there's constraints with this type of policy, but staff does believe that with a specific policy in place, we have a tool to consider. Right now, we don't have that consideration and our standards do require for very large construction of very large roads along these major corridors. And so, we're really hopeful that we can find a way to embed some new language in our city in our subdivision regulations that give developers options to propose smaller roads and we can take a look to see if that works for us at the time. So, tonight you're being asked for two things. Um, one is to recommend the I recommend you review the southwest area study materials and if favorable for sure move to accept the southwest area study and then the other is to make recommendation to the city council regarding the premature subdivision or premature development and interimm design regulations. Staff recommends you do recommend the council approve this, but I'm here to bring this to you to see what your thoughts are before we bring this on to the council. >> All right. Thank you, Abby. Lot there people. >> What questions do we have? Why don't we focus on the southwest area study first? Uh what questions, if any, do we have about that uh item? >> The um are you talking the headarters Parkway Extension report? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um just a a question. So there was a we were told I think when we were discussing this earlier there was a plat coming forward >> uh that around this >> um did that plat contemplate >> what the study told us we should do on the on the road. >> Yeah. the plaque that came forward and that plaque came forward before the city council had determined the preferred alignment as it was, but it was following that second alternative of the preferred alignment or the preferred alignment number two, the one that was preferred by the council. >> That's what the plat That's what the plat >> shows. I mean, we're in line. We're in line there. >> We're in line with the development >> developers in line. Yeah, aligned, I should say. >> Well, that developer is um not 100% aligned. That developer would really like the Headwaters Parkway roadway to extend straight south from their development plat all the way to 190th. 190th is an east west roadway that is also deline designed as a major collector road. What you want to do with your roadway systems is you want to have your little streets lead to your bigger streets, lead to your bigger streets, lead to your bigger streets. And um having Headarters Parkway go straight south from where it's being proposed would just lead to another collector road, which then we'd now just be spilling our problem onto 180th, excuse me, 190th Street. Um, additionally, Headarters Parkway has always design been designed to be a east west connector between Highway 61 and Elmrest Avenue. If we're going to go straight south to 190th, putting that jog in there, it still does that, but it really does kind of defeat the purpose of that more direct route. Does that help address the question? >> I have a followup to that. Do you have a sense of why that developer would prefer a straight south development? I mean, he's got to be developing on the north end of what I'm looking at on page 13. um not 100% other than um if we went straight south, you're straddling the section lines and so you're, you know, shifting those costs equally across each of those development land areas. >> Wherever the roadway starts to head to the west or circles from the south to the west is where we would end up. um you know, you have a kind of a greater impact. You're taking some developable land area there. >> Um but we're going to end up having that I don't want to say taking, but you're that design is going to be built over a developable land area. You're going to have that either way. It's just it ends up being on one section of property more than spreading that out. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions about this Southwest study? Does um it's related to this next thing, the next item. Does this developer realize that we're contemplating doing this roadway change where it wouldn't be as costly out of the gate for them in this particular situation? >> Um they are the Headwaters Parkway design was already reduced from a four-lane split to a two-lane split. And so I don't know that this would be of a benefit to them because that design way that design of that roadway has already been designed in a reduced fashion. >> Okay. Um because in the past with this same developer we did do just one we agreed to do one port like one side of the parkway right? um if I did >> and that >> didn't turn out to be the best situation. There was some just some effort to get him to finish it. So um Okay. So would this this next item does not factor into headarters at at all? >> No. >> These other road the other roads. >> It' be the other roads. Yep. >> Any other questions specific to that area study? >> All right. Seeing none, let's talk more about this premature development and interim design regulation. What questions do we have? >> Go ahead. This is when I So, if I understand this right, this is a tool the city would have, but this wouldn't be an entitlement the developer would have. Is that correct? >> Uh, the only way the developer would have the entitlement is if the city chose to use the tool. Essentially, it allows the developer to propose a reduced roadway design when they can show we'd be able to build out the full roadway in the future. Um, one example, if you look at Elmrest Avenue right now, um, the west side of Elmrest Avenue is a parcel of land, the Taylor Farm, the Chris Taylor Farm property that has been up for potential sale for a number of years. We've been talking with prospective purchasers. Um, on the east side of that is the Headwaters 123 property, a property that we own. So, it could be that a developer could potentially come in and ask the city if they would be willing to allow for half the construction of the of Fenway on the west half, knowing that at the time a headarters 123, the east half would be developed. That's just a thought. I don't know how that could, you know, if that would work. I don't have a design for it. It would be up to them to propose something and for us to consider using it. >> So, so just Fenway though, not Elmrest, right? >> Thank you. Elmrest is not included in this at all. Yes. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> I'll just say that that's my primary concern is that we don't have this as necessarily a developer thinks that they have a right to it. Um, I think there's many instances where this might make sense >> and I can think of others where I would say this is disastrous long term for the city to effectively get stuck with the bill or um have a road that is put in half done effectively and then you have to go back and redo all the landscaping and tear down trees. And sometimes it just makes more sense to build the road full out, have all the trees grow up at the same time, have the whole road designed in its full capacity versus in part, but I'm okay with the city having it as a tool. Um, I would add on the cons list though, um, that one of the cons is potential landscaping, redevelopment, and all of those components that take time to grow. Um the other the other piece on here um that I had a question on this is only for the road and trail improvements. This does not include underground utilities like water, sewer. >> We would still need to have all water and sewer installed and extended >> at full capacity. at full capacity. We also have written it that we would obtain easement for land for any full capacity storm water. So let's just say let's use um Fenway, not Elmrest as that example. If the west side was built um we'd want to make sure that the land area was sufficient so that when the east side is built that there is adequate storm water area for the entire roadway as well. >> Okay, that makes sense. Then one one more comment if I might. >> Um or it might be more of a question, Abby. >> So on the the long-term cost of this, and this might be a question we have to ask legal because I I I don't know if you know it, but can you can you take different options? So can you tell the developer currently if they're not going to build it that they have to put a portion of funding for its future build? And then can you say that if another developer causes that road when they build theirs to need it that they pay it so that it goes into a fund that eventually the city would not have to basically tax all of its residents for the purposes of what effectively are these developments which is the standard practice we have taken as long as I've followed the city. Um, so let me I think I what I hear you saying is if they only build half the road but full road is their requirement that they put the other half in like an escrow or something >> for the future. >> Um, I don't know about that. Um there was a pretty significant court case um in Minnesota about paying for future transportation improvements and I do think that we it's the Hearthstead rule and I do think that we would start to run up against the Hearthstead rule or could end up running against the Hearthstead rule of asking them to pay for future infrastructure. Now that being said, we're working right now on um Forest Road. It might be north, but it feels weird because it' be south. But um in front of Interstate Companies between the airport and interstate companies, um two different developments, both Interstate Company's expansion and then also Forest Lake Garage Condos that uh is potentially approved by the council next Monday. In both of those, we're considering deferred assessment agreements that essentially says, "Hey developer, hey property owner, these are your responsibilities. You need to put in these roads. you don't want to put in these roads. Okay, this is how much the road's going to cost. We're going to defer the improvement, but we're going to assess you at the time that we're going to put that in. So, we already have commitment for the funding. Um, and it's essentially um I don't remember the statute for assessments, but it's essentially an assessment project, but they're waving any sort of appeal later down the road. We know the money that we're going to get. And so then with that project, what what city staff will be doing, we'll be bringing that to the council as part of our capital improvement planning and our 2026 or 10-year planning, 2026 budgeting. We're in 2026 2728 budgeting to see if we can't get that project slated and then be using those fundings from those assessments. So, I think that there's potentially ways that we can do it for the infrastructure we're agreeing to now, but not necessarily that infrastructure of the future. Now, that being said, I do believe um I staff questions whether or not we will need to replace any of these roads or that the roads would hit their tipping point and capacity within the useful lifespan of that road within that first 25 to 30 years. Fenway Avenue, north of the roundabout, south of Highway 61, is a fairly good example. We all can see that that's getting close to the end of its useful life. Um that roadway was we acquired all of the rightway we would need for that roadway but only built it to a you know designed it to a smaller design. Now when we go to upgrade that road we're able to expand it as we need because we acquired the rightway at least. So yes, we will end up incurring the taxpayers will end up incurring some of those costs, but some of those costs are just basic reconstruction costs as well. >> And and then the second part of my question was um and we'll use I fully know that headarters is not the the good example here, but just from a mapping standpoint. So if headwaters, we could effectively force a developer to pay for the portions of the development that are adjacent to that road or that the road goes through. But when the next property to the south develops and it has a road that feeds into it and it causes that tipping point, can we charge that developer for anything that we're going to have to do on headarters as a result of the increased capacity needed? >> Headarters is not proposed to be expanded, >> right? I'm using that as an example like just to lay it out because we're all familiar with that particular one. But if it was another road, can you go in to the next property deep that's not adjacent to it? >> Not if they're not developing. We cannot seek and maybe not understanding the question >> when when they choose to develop >> when the next developer chooses to develop >> the question of hitting that tipping point. And that is I think one of the kind of cons that was laid out in the staff report is that pressure to want to have that next developer build the bigger if it's required or not. What I'm hearing you say is >> well I think I think what I'm asking if it's even possible can you when it's not adjacent property >> you you can only on what is on their property. Okay, we can force them to backill. >> And so the the the caution, so I'm okay with the tool, but I would say the caution for the decision makers at the time that those approvals or that request for approval comes through from a developer is to really consider that there's potentially long-term costs, especially if any property that could cause that tipping point is potentially within the life cycle of that road. Well, yeah, I guess and and someone like yourself, um, member lang, I I guess I'm in favor of the idea of the tool, but I do have some strong reservations. Um, not the least of which is, you know, when that point comes, whether it's 20, 30 years down the road, we all know that the watershed districts change their requirements. And so while we may have planned for enough catch basins to accommodate today's necessity, we don't know 30 years down the road. And that's troublesome to me just knowing um when we get other governmental bodies that can make decisions on our behalf whether we like it or not. Um, I think we I think I heard you say is if we have two or three sections that are built smaller because it was appropriate at the time and then section four comes in, probably the presumed path forward is that that next fourth section could be a smaller as well. But we're saying, hey, we may need to require them to build it out fully. And at some point in the time we the city are going to be responsible for expanding sections one, two, and three. Is that am I following correctly? >> You are. Um we would not necessarily be compelled to build uh compel the developer to build the standard to four unless there were the developer of four to build to the biggest standard unless there was the proportional impact that they are creating. Mhm. >> So >> is is there any way to any tools we're going to have in our toolbox to take this out of the subjective and into the clear delineation of this one clearly can be smaller. Section two clearly can be smaller but now three or four need to be bigger or is it going to be just totally subjective at the time? >> It's not necessarily subjective at the time. It does come down to the amount of traffic that is generated from the development at the time. I think what is really hard right now is that the areas that were um development is moving into are predominantly residential areas but that are going to be leading to commercial areas. And so, um, the question of whether or not there's a matrix we could use to say, okay, this parcel, not this parcel, this parcel, not this parcel, is a little tricky right now because I do believe that there might be some contemplated land use changes that are going to happen with the future comprehensive plan um, update that has to be done by the end of 2028. And with that then your your traffic modeling would be vastly different if your land use changes. >> Okay. >> Other questions or comments? Yeah, Jenny, >> I need some education here. >> Sir, >> uh that's a huge number on this engineers estimate. I just I have no idea. I've never listened to this before or dealt with it. What percentage of that is going to be paid for by the city and what percentage by the developer >> for Headwaters Parkway? It'll be, you know, the the city is not incurring the cost on Headarters Parkway at all. >> Okay. So, all the uh sewer and water everything will be paid for by the developers >> unless there is an upsizing requirement. So unless the pipes need to be bigger than the development is needing, which is a common thing, um we ask developers then to help us out by putting in the bigger pipe and we pay that difference. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So I I guess I'm open to this for the fact simple fact that you I understand developers should development should pay for development. That makes sense. But you do have these feeder roads that more of just that neighborhood's going to use that. The community is and it's going to keep traffic off of 61 and off of 97. And there's a general benefit to the whole community for these feeder roads that I'm more open to participating somehow even in that um than not just to allow to to get traffic flowing in other locations than 97 or or the major the major feeders. And so I'm open to this and even down the road participating in helping developers to get this because it it it benefits the just doesn't just benefit that area does benefit the full community that uses those those roads. So, this is a good start, I guess, is my thought. >> And still have the ability to say, "No, we're not interested in doing it." To your point, you know, we're not committing to anything that's going to happen each time, but it's kind of a one-on-one deal and just to see what the benefit is, how what the what the current, you know, council or planning commission feels the benefit is or not. >> All right. Great questions and comments. Any others? I agree with Mayor Robert's point of view on that. I think we've got to kind of test and move forward a little bit and allow that area to be developed and and like with option two as I'm going through the pros and the cons list that you've prepared. Um there are a lot of pros in there and I think you know if we do the more conservative approach where they build out what's needed now and we kind of just step into it and and just kind of take it from there if there's more development that's needed down the road. I mean, we don't want to set up the city to have to pay quite a bit for larger expansion necessarily, but we don't know what's going to happen with land use. There's so many whatifs, you know, and so I think we have to just leave that a little bit and wait to see what some of those those trends are, what happens with land use and how that changes traffic through the area and things like that. Um, that's just my two cents. I guess >> I I had I guess kind of a question of clarity. So, a developer comes in, does goes to do a development, puts a road in that's supposed to be a fourlaner, let's just say, but because it's not needed at the time, it's a two-laner. And we're going to take the extra money from the developer. And did I hear you say escrow? >> I think that was the question that Commissioner Leness had had of whether or not we could do that. And I don't believe I'd have to consult our legal counsel. I don't believe that we can do that. I do believe that we would be challenged in paying for fees for improvements that aren't needed now. >> Yeah. I'm just worried that if we we did something like that and five or 10 years went by and that builder went out of business, how would we get the money unless it was escrow and if we're going to have them escrow the money, we're not really giving them any advantage. They're still paying it. They're just putting it in a bank account for the city. >> That's all. I get it. Okay. >> Well, in spite of my reservations, I do think it's a nice tool to have in the toolbox. Um, so with that any if there's no further discussion or questions, I'll look for a motion. Looks like on page nine, Abby laid out a couple things for us if anybody wants to make a motion. >> We haven't moved the first one yet, right? >> No, >> we haven't taken action on either of them. >> They're so are they two separate? It >> can be one. I just broke I just broke them into two for conversation. >> I'll um I'll make a motion to move to accept the Southwest area steady first. >> All right, we have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> All right, any further discussion? All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> All right, that passes >> and I'll move to recommend to the city council approval of the premature development and interimm design regulations. A second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? >> I I >> opposed. Motion carries. Good job, guys. All right, discussion. So, this is in followup to I think our last meeting. Abby. >> Yeah. So, um despite what the agenda says, we're not in Bridgetton. It's not downtown. It's downtown. Sorry for that typo. Um, but included in your last meeting packet was reviewing the current work plan to determine if work plan updates were desired. At the time, you indicated you wanted to review the downtown plan that was adopted in 202 determine if there were items the EDA could assist the city with. So, I included in your packet a copy of the full downtown plan. There was um as you might be aware should be aware that the downtown plan has several different directives uh pertaining to the Lake Street corridor district parking a retail loop social sidewalk network wayfinding integrated recreational experience viewed to the lake Centennial Drive redevelopment opportunities and lakefront recreation. And included in each of those directives are several different action items. And I summarized most of them in there for you. Some of them were really not, you know, not EDA thing. So I just didn't really put them in there. Um, but I did it atalicize some of the things that the EDA has maybe talked about over the last couple years of things that you might want to be working on to kind of help spur development in downtown area. One of them was conduct a parking study. Another one was a district wayfinding sign plan. Um creating a midblock amenity rich pedestrian prominade. Um design solutions for art and lighting at the Broadway Avenue roundabout gateway landscaping in that area. And then the rest of those I would say are all tools or all um potential actions but maybe start to pull a little bit away from EDA. So um staff recommends the EDA review the enclosed downtown master plan and discuss if any of the projects identified in the plan should be added to the EDA's work plan. >> So we're can I just clarify? we're talking about within our documents from today. Um the list that you have on page 81 and 82. Correct. >> Correct. Okay. And those were pulled directly from the downtown plan >> um pages. Um, all right. Getting close 135. It's where the plan directives are, but that's why I tried to kind of summarize them for you in 81 and 82. I know it was the EDA's discussion at the last meeting just seeing what's in this plan, seeing if there were things that you wanted to work on. >> A lot here. >> What questions we have? >> I mean, I can start. >> Yes, please. I I think the easiest and perhaps if I were to guess the least expensive is the way find signage and I think it would have very good effect for dollars ultimately spent. And so if I were to prioritize any of those that would be the one I would choose. >> Thank you Abby. And I know I believe that there's been in our work plan um policy zoning I mean work on that space. Um can you speak a little bit to like consider zoning adjustments to compel retailing at street fund? Is is any of the work that's been done or being considered to be done in the current work plan being informed by this >> right now? No. a lot of the zoning code. So, right now we are undergoing uh what's called boost better organization optimization streamline something or other >> I hired somebody from the federal government. So, uh acronyms are something that are now a part of our division and we really are embracing Boost. The intention of Boost and the zoning code updates right now are really intended to make the code more clear, more transparent, and easier to understand. Um the navigability is just really difficult. So, when it comes to things like changing um uses, it isn't something that Boost intended to do other than maybe reducing the 280 different uses identified in our zoning code, condensing them down a little. Um, I didn't necessarily highlight the zoning or anywhere that it talked about zoning code changes in here because I kind of would really like for the city to stay focused on getting our code cleaned up before we make some policy changes in that code. >> Okay. Not holding you to anything, but like that that scope of work that Boost is, I mean, is that a one-year project? Is that a three-year project? No, I mean, so we're kind of it's a phased project and we're we're phasing this or we're working in these phases around development, right? And so a lot of this is we'll be working between now and April and then pausing probably until the fall. Um it's just the way the nature of our work right now is in doesn't really let us do a lot of things like code development and stuff through the summertime. It also gets really confusing when you're changing laws in the, you know, while you're trying to implement them. >> Um, our our code updates will be ongoing until the adoption of the comprehensive plan. I don't doubt that we will consistently be having code updates coming before planning commission and council because it is in need of that much work. >> Okay. Thank you. But please don't tell planning commission chair Gerard that. Um I I I keep telling him it'll just be one more year and so you keep staying on for one more year at a time. >> Other questions. So on some of these, you know, whether it's adding these to our work plan or recommending to recommend that staff and council move forward on on some of these what could be easier things that that Commissioner Langnes mentioned. Um, another one, you know, Lake Street corridor work with Mindot and County, narrow and widen streetscapes, implement ped oriented streetscape and trees, redesign um that that just this here um you know when you go to other cities, I was just in Savannah, Georgia, and um it's it's about trees and just that softening of that corridor >> I think is really important. Um, if any of you have ever go downtown and try attempt to even get out of your vehicle with that median turn, that turn lane down the center, it's you're in the you're in traffic when you're getting out of your car and then especially when there when we do have the snow bmss and what public works has done a nice job of being better, you know, getting those out of the way. It's it's a danger. Um, and I think it keeps especially potentially older uh demographic from wanting to even go downtown and park on the main street. That seems like starting that conversation with Mindot would be simple. Um, the other one here, redevelopment opportunities. We just saw a presentation earlier this month >> um about a really potentially exciting project downtown. Is that something as a as a commission here, we want to make a recommendation that we're in favor of this and we want this the this the council and staff to move forward with this developer to try to, you know, next steps and we and there are some things going on in the background that's happening. But I think this, you know, getting some feedback maybe on this develop redevelopment and others, but specifically the one we just learned about and having some conversation. and we've not had that conversation since the presentation that was given both to the council and the EDA. And so things like that that would be things that that because we are a recommending board in a lot of cases. You know, EDA has a little bit more power than other commissions or or boards. But um I think that's what I'd like to maybe see added to the work plan if we're going to add anything. That doesn't seem like it would be a whole lot of additional time, staff time, or or effort. And there might be more here on on this list. But >> in followup to that in that redevelopment opportunity on page 82 where it talks about ensuring a spectrum of financial participation tools are in place to level development. Again, does that align with the work that's been done or being done with our financial toolbox? >> Uh yes. So included in the 2026 work plan, we still have the business subsidy tax increment and tax abatement um policies to update which we have those in the kind of first half of the year. This isn't the current um the first half of the year. Additionally, currently in the plan, we would have um headarters 123 work and the finalizing the southwest area study. At your last meeting, staff did include uh trying to update the plan by including in there some site incentive work. So, significant private properties, a vacant land analysis, and then just other public properties and doing that just after that policy work is developed. So, we have our policy defined and then where does that where do those tools which properties would those tools be best fit for? So that is in something that staff would has been recommending already for 2026 and that is on I mean we're jumping ahead into the work plan discussion. I knew this would feed into that though is on page 200. It was a big packet. >> Yeah. >> Those studies really took a lot of >> I agree. You know you can tackle this in two different ways. I mean, the redevelopment opportunity, I think that's where we'll get the most bang for our buck, so to speak. Um, and there are some really meaningful things that we've done with the financial, you know, TIFF and other things to kind of, you know, get things moving there. I mean, we've seen some of the updates that, you know, Roll Seth did and some things are looking really nice there. and with what we saw last meeting from gun companies, you know, as potential for one of our blocks and then the other block, you know, some of the themes that we've heard have been we need more of a walkable downtown. So, some of the other things I keep that in mind how it's I I'm a dot connector. So, I connect those dots with the streetscape, making it walkable, having, you know, the sidewalk and doing events that get people coming in and out of shops, but currently we don't have shops that are in and out of walkable type retail. You know, we've talked about that before. Um, and so unless we kind of are seeking businesses in that next block that are, you know, ones that I don't like to, you know, like a still water, like a white bear where people are boopping in and out and shopping and they're doing the girls night events. they're doing like very active activities and the Halloween nights with the little kids and things like that that people do go doortodoor and um they they do sidewalk events, you know, and I know we do some things with the the chamber, but um unless we do something different in some of the areas in that block, I don't know that we would I mean, I'd love to see all of that happen, but we need the businesses there that people want to walk along the boulevard and pop in and out of. I think that goes hand in hand to me and like the places I've told you Mayor Roberts about. I'm like this this is what we need, you know, in Forest Lake. But it's that cute charm that you're talking about and that aesthetic. But part of that is that you want to walk along there and have the right vibe, the right entities, the right retail, whether it's a a a shop or a restaurant or a cafe or whatever. >> So, I mean, that's my thought on that. So to me, I'd put redevelopment first and then get the right entities in there that would see the vision and go, "Yes, we'd love to be part of this boulevard, the wayfinding, the all of this, and we've got event ideas and we've got this all for it." You know, that they see the vision and they want to be part of it. But that's that's where my mind goes. It's finding the right >> Well, I think part of that too to Mayor Roberts's point is >> that road is super fast right now. >> Yeah. >> You know, and so to make that make people feel safe going from shop to shop, it's like chicken and egg, right? What's going to go first? And >> I tend to agree having >> a greater sense of safety. >> Yeah. >> You know, just being a business on that very busy road and hearing it from a regular basis from my clients. >> They're very grateful that they can park behind my building. >> Yeah. I don't prefer the stairs all the time, but >> it's a it's a busy road. Um, >> for sure. >> So, you would put >> you would rank it >> Well, I I think all this goes to that end point of redevelopment, right? Um, so things like to uh Commissioner Langus' point of there's some lowhanging fruit like maybe some wayf finding some work in that space engaging MNDOT in the county and conversations to move that boulder down the road a little bit I think are important but at the same time where there are private developers actively bringing projects in front of us yeah we should I you know my opinion is we should definitely engage those and keep those conversations moving forward. um with that end goal of having that walkable loop. >> I think too, you know, like creating I think it was like the Yeah. the loop, the walkable loop. If it's if if with wayfinding it could be more of, you know, people finding a regular trail or whatever that they want to walk and discovering what actually is there. I I live near there and I do walk around there and it was a while before I discovered that there was a you know like a aesthetics you know studio there like a esthetician and I'm like I I had no idea that this place existed and I live a block away you know so you know if we created something like that maybe people would discover some shops they didn't know existed. >> Yeah. One thing we've got that's absolutely gorgeous and underutilized is Centennial Parkway with the those crab apple trees or whatever they are. They're absolutely gorgeous when they're in bloom. And very few there's people on the trail, but we're not advertising that. We thought we were going to look for some access there to park bikes and walk across into town and have bikes parked safely right there and a bathroom available. I really think that's important because we've already got the trees and the treecape and it's a start before we have can ever do something with 61. It's a gorgeous spot. Yeah, I remember >> the county has, you know, with with um >> with transit not going to be going through in the next in our lifetime, 50 some years or whatever, um the county has mentioned that they are willing to be more open to any ideas we have where we can leverage that trail for for downtown, not only just downtown, but it runs the whole length of the city. Mhm. >> And so they're they're more than open to having those conversations and seeing what we can do. You know, maybe that's where farmers market ends up is on that trail area and you can plant more trees on either side to to get that more shade feel or that more >> less urban but you know where you have that greenery though in the downtown area. >> Plug in your ebike, things like that. >> Did you have a followup? >> I did. Um, so when I was my initial comment was more focused on the um the the downtown district, which is what the plan is here. I think the the Lake Street corridor um that a few people have mentioned. Um I think it's absolutely critical. Uh I think the worst parts of Lake Street are actually outside of our downtown plan, though. they're mostly south of it or just north of it where it needs effectively an entire redo rethink of how that road works. How we have pedestrian access even implemented in it. I mean everything the the intersections are horrible from the roundabouts by the high school all the way to just south of downtown. So, the question I have for staff is Hugo recently did a study with I think in conjunction with the county. Um, and I think it was in part planning from Mindot to turn over the road because 61 will eventually get turned over to the county is my understanding. Are they looking at having something similar in Forest Lake for our corridor if not the entire corridor through our city? At least the portion where our businesses are. >> Yeah, that's a great question. So, we do have um EDA members might not be aware or maybe I did send it out. I know it came up a little within this last year. We do have a Highway 61 aesthetics and water quality study that was done in 2012, I believe, which does address some of the Highway 1 aesthetics. Um, leading up to downtown and on the other side of kind of downtown, those areas where Highway 61 is pretty wide. Um, when the county and Hugo were doing their visioning study last year, we this was not like an open invitation, but when I gave them a call, they're like, "Yeah, well, you could do it, too. You have $50,000." I'm like, "Oh my gosh, we're not quite prepared at the moment to just like start this process." I do think that it could I'm what I'm hearing from many of you is there are components of the 61 corridor particularly through the downtown that could use a lot more than probably just a facelift and the buildings that are there are what we have regardless if it's the buildings that we have there or new ones we want a different image for our downtown going right through it and so what I'm hearing ing what I'm I mean I'm kind of gathering all this together and it really does kind of feel like we need to maybe look to update that 2012 corridor assessment and really kind of extend. So again, it's those wide areas, but really extending that through that downtown of what is what are some of those visual graphics of what it would look like to widen our sidewalks, put in street trees, where would we want to see some of these improvements? And it seems like all of those improvements are probably largely on county and state land. So some sort of coordination of that planning effort with them, similar to what Hugo may have done last year. I know I see a lot of faces nodding, but I also see a lot of eyes looking at me going, "Are you suggesting another plan for the downtown plan?" Um, but what I'm talking about is more um getting visual ideas put together to get in front of Mandot and the county and say we want to do this. Will you agree to this? And trying to get some guidance, but >> I I would say for me it would be less focused on the downtown part. And I know that's the agenda item we're on, so I'm treading ground here. The agenda is an EDA work plan, >> but like um for me it's less than the downtown. I mean that's where we actually have sidewalks, we have street lights, like it it blends. Is it perfect? No. Is there tons of improvements? Yes. But the the more critical part of our business corridors, I look at like where Northshore Trail meets 61 that I drive through quite regularly. It is an absolutely incredibly dangerous intersection. um south of the downtown district where or maybe it's right on the south end of the downtown district. I'd have to look at the map. Um where Southshore meets >> in that I mean that's a horrible intersection. Yeah. >> Um but then pretty much every intersection where they have these goofy >> left turns that I mean it's just a dangerous corridor and forget a pedestrian trying to get anywhere across 61 at any of those locations remotely safely. And I think if we had a study that looked at how can we design this road so we still maintain good business access. How can we make it so that we have pedestrian streetscapes and we blend it into our our downtown? I mean, I wouldn't propose that we change all of our street lights downtown. That's an extremely expensive and it's been well thought out and it matches Broadway, but how can we carry that through the rest of the quarter so when the county eventually does take it over, they know what they're in for and what we have planned. And so I think going through that plan would actually be a good thing. But if it's focused on just the downtown part, I would be extremely hesitant to say spend a bunch of money in the just the downtown, at least the entire business corridor. >> I think that's a fantastic idea. I got a quick question for an update on the park. When we were planning on that, did we ever coordinate with the DNR and find out get an answer back on expanding the number of slips >> or location? >> Um, with regard to the relocation of the boat launch, >> right? >> Um, we identified a site that would have been a preferred site. It's largely within private ownership. We did reach out to the private owners. We have not heard back. I think the DNR is supportive of us um building a new launch or upgrading our existing one so long as a launch is maintained in the downtown area. >> Okay. And then along with that with the potential of this new hotel event center with additional parking, would their additional parking solve some of our parking questions that we had for Lakeside Park? Would that alleviate some of the parking needs? You know, we were talking about parking across the road or whatever. >> Would those additional parking spots in their ramp alleviate that? Would that be free parking for public in the ramp? >> I think I think it would help, but I don't think it would totally cover it. >> Yeah, I think you're going to abs parking in areas where there is parking already. Um, but then you're also going to introduce new uses that are going to create additional demand. And so we haven't done a full parking assessment of it whatsoever. Um, I would say that we could probably build a ramp on the left on the west side of Highway 61 and there's still going to be a perceived parking problem. That's just a kind of a fact for all cities and downtowns. Um there's always going to be a p a parking problem whether a reality or perceived. Not saying that we we don't have a problem right now. Um but it might be not as big of a problem as some people think. We definitely have problem on event nights, right? But kind of most of your days and nights you can probably park within a half block block and walk. So, for the downtown plan, when we're looking at um Lakeside Park specifically, where do we stand with adding slips and people that don't want any more slips added because the the lake is too busy as it is? >> Any input there? The downtown plan contemplated adding additional um transient boat docking, which the city did do fairly quick after the adoption of the downtown plan. There have been also other inquiries that have come into my office about trying to consolidate that transient docking with the other docking and expand it, but that would require an environmental assessment worksheet by the city um and potentially an EIS. So that it hasn't been something that we've been pursuing quite yet because expansion of the downtown boat parking um is somewhat contingent on the potential of moving that launch somewhere so that the addition the consolidated boat parking and the expanded boat parking doesn't necessarily take up all of the lakefront area. So, is this whole issue kind of on the back burner now or is anything being pursued or is it just going to sit back there? >> Well, I think um the next step is I mean some of is again chicken and an egg, right? Are we going to move the boat launcher, aren't we? If we move it and that's one pathway. If we don't, we just rehab it, then we could consider I think the conversation, correct me if I'm wrong, Abby, or anybody else here. The idea was to consolidate the public parking, boat parking with your boat club, kind of make a little bit bigger footprint. >> And with that consolidation, that would create space for kind of like that canoe or kayak docking, which would be nice. But to consolidate those two, we have to spend money on a fairly expensive study. And do we want to do that before we've settled the issue about moving the launch or not is I think kind of the issue at hand, right? >> Yeah, >> that is correct. >> What what's the timing on that? I mean to Jenny's point like to make a decision about anything rel relative to downtown. Is there any deadlines we're up against or they're out there? >> No, we have no deadlines. We um the this year marked the end of the 10 10 year 20 year agreement that we had with the DNR to maintain the existing launch. Um right now we own and maintain that launch. The DNR is supportive if we wanted to improve it in its current location and they are supportive if we want to relocate it elsewhere in the downtown. It's the fact that we do not have the land to move it to outside of where it is now. >> Are they um supportive financially to rehab it to your to your knowledge? >> Yes, we just will be um we will need to sign another long-term maintenance agreement with them. >> I know one of the reasons we've not charged anybody for parking is because of our agreement with them uh historically which is now sounds like has reached its fruition. So that'd be an option if we wanted to start charging launching you're saying. >> Yeah. So >> I can definitely uh ask the public works park staff to talk about that with parks commission. >> So but we do I mean there's so many studies here that starts getting confusing but but we do have was there not a kind of a secondary study to the downtown? Was this >> the boat launch relocation >> in Do you I guess >> the lake shore. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't I don't know if I recall that. What would the >> We looked at um three options keeping it where it was and two others if I remember right. This has been a number of years. Um the preferred alignment was on the give me just a second. I can tell you which right away it is. >> Not even in the right area. in the fourth street northeast. So north like kind of by the coffee smmith was the preferred alignment. However, the land area there is in private ownership and the city has attempted to engage with that land owner but has not been successful. in the for the potential acquisition of land in that area. >> So, no conversation at all. I mean, >> okay. >> Where exactly is is that behind Madson's? >> Yeah, just to the north of Matson. Yes. >> Not behind Matson's, not the lake shore kind of Matson's, but I can show folks if you want. everything around them. >> So, does that mean that things like the a spot to have canoes and kayaks is dead in the water until some action is taken here? >> So, if the homeowner isn't willing to sell, is it just going to die or are we going to do something to make a little spot on the beach for canoes and kayaks? And >> it's a great question. >> This is why >> this could drag on for decades. Well, and this is why this is good to have these conversations. I know that we're kind of going over stuff that we have in the past, but it's good just to bring it back up. Also, um that that study, this the 61 aesthetics to the south, uh Commissioner Langus makes a lot of great points. I mean, that the pedest there is no pedestrian opportunities there and it is a mess. And I was part of that going back to 2012, that study that the EDA did. And um you know if if that's I think Ryan Goodman, our current engineer was part of the engineering staff that did that and is very intimately you know knowledgeable about that. I think it'd be good for him to if invite him to present that to us as to what that looked like >> and what what was there and that might even be a even a joint EDA council meeting or something because it it had a lot of great ideas. >> Yeah, I think that there's merit in reviewing it. I know Commissioner Lnes I had sent it off to him. Doesn't look like I sent it to the full commission, but certainly can. The study looks at North Highway 61 and South Highway 61 almost specifically omitting the downtown because it is its own little island, right, of sorts. And um so look, this is the kind of areas that were highlighted in the plan, but the plan really did call for um just kind of give you, you know, a vision for Highway 61 that's marketkedly different than it exists today. And so I think, you know, we could always retake a look at this development plan. Um, but I think what it is is pulling this out and keeping it in the front of the >> the front of the planning books and every time a new development comes in or Mindot comes in, you know, here we go. Mindot is aware of this um plan. I think the hard part would be that gap between the North 61 and South 61 though and that designed to have an integrated Highway 61 corridor even though it changes and gets narrower through the downtown area. I do think that there is some merit in considering some design updates and renderings and guidelines for that area specifically because I do think that it's going to come sooner than we really imagine. The Highway 61 redevelopment potential and the jurisdictional transfer could end up happening sooner than we anticipate. And this plan from 2012 was very good in a lot of ways. Um, except I don't think it included much for intersection design if I recall correctly. Is that right, Abby? >> Um, I'd have to go back and take a look through >> that was before even well what roundabouts started becoming the the preferred use. >> That's where it was going. the preferred use. And so, as you saw in some of those pictures, there was no roundabouts, but I believe I guess I don't know, but you know, MDOT needs to address these specifically 11th and 8th Avenue. um and that that is in their long-term plan, >> but I I think it's it's about putting more pressure on them to to move these like and that's easier said than done, but just be in front of them all the time about this this specific corridor. >> Yeah, I do think that it was if there was it was more about streetscape design, not necessarily intersection design. I could go back and take a look through this, but what I'm hearing is the idea of some of this honing in a little bit better on Highway 61 problematic intersections. We all know them, right? Um I one of them we don't even necessarily think of, but today yesterday I was in the turn lane coming into city hall and there's a pedestrian right in that lefthand turn lane. You know, that's problematic. It's probably one of the lesser problematic ones, but >> still there's just there's no pedestrian amenities along there. >> Yeah, it's connecting where we're at right now, city hall with downtown because you know the all the pedest pedestrian bridge and the trails. It basically stops here and then there's really nothing until you get up towards Wells Fargo >> for sidewalks. And so it's connecting those two >> those two areas. Well, we've certainly been around the uh around the downtown and all points north and south um including to the east in the lake. So, Abby, have you garnered any helpful information from this body to inform the work plan that you're hoping to put before us? >> Or do you want more feedback? >> I um I think I'm good with feedback. I um I do think I'm going to pull up here. Um so we started to talk about the downtown plan, but then we shifted into the work plan review. And since we've kind of muddled these together a little bit, and I wasn't really asking for any motions tonight because I kind of anticipated it was going to happen like this. And what I would really love for you to be considering on voting on is actually the everybody looking at the exact same things. Right? So our current plan right now we have some business subsidy or some policy review and then some headwaters 123 stuff. Otherwise we've gotten done with everything on our work plan. At the last meeting, I said, "Hey, um, what about in addition to the EDA policy, we're knocking the Southwest area study off right now in Headwaters 123. What about if we think about some other things that the council had kind of wanted us to do, attract more business development, redevelopment?" Um, and that's where I'd really I'm going to scroll through here because you're should have seen all this. Um, but kind of getting into those site incentives on private properties, following up from that EDA policy review, staff would still recommend that we work on this and the vacant land analysis. Um, we have a lot of we have a lot of odd parcels in this city and we should really be taking a look at what they are, why we got them, are there any restrictions on them, and how could we potentially put those back onto the tax rules if we don't need them. >> Um, some of those even being very close to commercial areas. Uh, and then we did talk about a little bit of that community pling for the downtown or for the citywide comprehensive plan. It's something that I think this EDA is definitely going to have some skills and help us be able as a community touch our businesses and our residents. Um, I heard a little bit about that monument wayfinding planning, but I heard more about the uniformity of the Highway 61 corridor and how it could help spur redevelopment, not just in downtown, but elsewhere, also in anticipation of the potential for a uh potential jurisdictional transfer. So, I think what I'm hearing, and I'm seeing a lot of heads nodding, is probably putting together some scope middle to end of the year. It's going to be a not right now thing, but that really tries to kind of put some of that Highway 61 corridor planning together. Um, that does go handinhand with the support, letter of support that the council just provided to uh Washington County. Washington County has applied for a brownfield redevelopment grant. um their brownfield redevelopment grants would fund um EIS and not EIS phase one phase 2 environmental studies if they're awarded this new brownfield redevelopment grant they are looking at including planning studies and this might just be a really great segue into how could all of this work together so um I think I've got enough direction to bring you back something for formal adoption at your next meeting. Um >> um so I mentioned having engineer Goodman come. You know, he used to attend EDA meetings on a regular basis because it was convenient. It was right before city council, but maybe having him attend once a quarter would be helpful. >> Yeah, I had um last year asked him, I'm like, you know, can you do a even just um one of those transportation kind of infrastructure updates? Um, that's a great point, especially starting out. I was on South High Highway 61 today coming into town and the sign for Highway 97 closed to the west says spring, you know, but Oh gosh, we should probably get Ryan in to help us get everybody up to date. So, yes, I would love to do that. >> Good idea. Could to uh Commissioner Larger's point, could you bring back to public works um the whole idea of where we're going to go forward with the launch and ultimately get some canoes and kayaks downtown? >> Yep. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> All right. Well, good work everybody. It's a lot to go over. Um so with that we'll move on to updates. Any additional updates? >> Um the only one that I have and it was in I believe included in your packet. Um we have received notice that Met Transit is starting a pilot program in the city to offer doortodoor uh shared bus service from 10 to 2 on Tuesdays and Thursdays. So it's a very limited service program that they are offering in the city to just see what they can help with our transportation efforts. So on page 202 there is a um information on that in your packet. They've kind of been doing a soft launch. They've really been looking at their community partners to help spread the word. Um the best that we're doing at least at the moment is kind of doing this at our meetings, but we will be working on doing some more community um outreach and engagement. Additionally, we've been working through potential um updates with new tracks. You recommended that we did expand those services or continue those services. Council will be seeing their agreements soon. The county is looking to expand that offer funding support to help expand that program this spring. that that would run for a much longer period on Wednesdays for our seniors. So that would right now it's maybe running 9 to 10:30. It would be like more like 9 to 2:30, 9 to 3 and a variety more of um stops uh residential stops that they'd make. So those are the few transportation updates I thought I would share. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Got a question for you. Are we pursuing at least talking with Runnings about what it would cost to have Runnings come into the city? >> Uh, we have not because right now the city's contributions for transportation is pretty minimal. We're only spending about $15,000 out of our general fund for transportation efforts in the city. The other funding that gets paid in the community that is paid by the taxpayers into the transit taxing programs is a direct you as the land owner to the county and or the Met Council. Those are not city funds. And so those are not something that the city has been looking at trying to um at least since our meeting a week or two ago, we have not been looking at trying to um explore reshaping those uh taxing districts systems. >> I had a question on the the transportation thing. I I see this map on page 202 that it looks like Met Council Transit might have put together. >> Exactly. >> Can Can you help me understand is that the limited area like because it's effectively almost the exact same lines as the old city before the township city moved. >> That's not a thing. It's not that's not why it looks that way. Um >> but but is it is is this a service that anyone in the city can use >> citywide or is it only that area? >> So first off anyone citywide can use transit link. This is a dialer ride service. It usually will take 24 to 48 hours to see if you can get that ride. Transit link is going to be a shared bus service that when you call you're going to have 25 minute wait. It's kind of like a Uber bus. you have to call and have a pickup and a drop off in that white area. What is really nice is they will be using transit links um platforms. So, they will get a ping if somebody is outside of that white area. So, they're going to start collecting data in Forest Lake on the requests that they're getting even outside of the white area. But for now, they are starting this program in the white area. We have talked about their willingness to change the zone service boundary that you see there. And what they have asked is for them to start the system and start to see where their callers are call writers are coming from to see about making service changes. >> Didn't they say they would go to Fairview? >> This service will not go to Fairview. Transit Link does. So, if you call Transit Link a day or two in advance, Transit Link will bring you to >> Fairview in Wyoming. Additionally, if you are a senior, new tracks will bring you to Fair View in Wyoming. This program, this pilot service, 10 to 2 on Thursdays and Tuesdays, um is just to get around this white area. But so but the regular transit link >> we'll continue to operate >> anywhere in the city you if you call ahead >> anywhere in the city you can go with regular transit link they'll bring you anywhere in the met district boundary. So um we did get some data from them last year they had just over 600 requests to start from Forest Lake and it was I think there was something like 15 or 20 service requests that they weren't able to complete last year. So, Transit Link is a bus service that operates in the city. It's just uh it's not on demand. You have to call and reserve it. >> And what's impressive, I mean, you could be pick picked up in Forest Lake, east of the lake, and they take take it to Fair Southdale, correct? Yeah. For >> you can go to downtown Minneapolis anywhere in the $350 one way. So, it's a >> pretty And we And we're paying we're subsidizing that. That's that whole part of the transit thing. why we don't have service up here, but those dollars, the $400 and some thousand dollars. So, the the city residents should really be taking advantage of this as much as possible because they are paying for it. >> Yeah. So, to that point, how will this be communicated to community members? >> That was brought up, isn't >> that's really hard. Transit Link is relying on its community partners to do all marketing and communication. And at the moment, um, I think Jill and I have talked about the city has a fairly low communication marketing system. Um, one really nice thing is Washington County has some uh really active transportation staff and so their staff is putting together some media for us to be able to reshare on our social media platforms >> and we are working as well on a potential digital billboard ad um to ironically right you're going to be in your car and you're going to see it but to try to get some of that word out to the community about um options for transportation otherwise um there is a website Washingtonmn go washingtonmn.gov gov. I know it's a little long. That is all things transportation and they're going to have just a page on Forest Lakes. So, we'll continue to share that as well. >> I think it's co >> CO No, I think it's go Washington MN. >> Are you talking about the county website? >> No, the county's um transportation website. >> Oh, okay. I was going to say the county's website is co. >> Yeah. So, go Washington MN affordable transportation options for get where you need to go. And um here are all the different options for transportation. It is countywide, but they are planning to make a Forest Lake specific page because those two services are not the only services that are available to Forest Lake residents. >> Awesome. >> All right. >> Awesome. to >> to Jill's point, um, seniors and the elderly are not going to go on their the Washington County website to look for transportation. So, >> and there's also a phone number they can call. >> Okay. But to get it out, shouldn't it be going to the um the like Cherrywood? No, Cherrywoods, what is it? Amir now, and all the those places and to the Lions and to the Rotary and Chamber and get the word out that way. County staff is trying to do their best to do that. They really are. Um, at the moment we're having to rely on them because the program partnerships, a lot of them are are being partnered by the county. And so they are and do make regular routine presentations throughout the city to our more, you know, multifamily housing, our apartment buildings. Um, if there was a desire for an organization specific presentation, we can always make those connections and get them set up. Yep. >> Yep. >> All right. Thank you, Abby. Chris, anything you want to add tonight? >> Thank you, President Ericson and members. I don't have any formal updates uh tonight, but I would be happy to stand for any questions. got a question on that that program that the Washington County is handling um remodels for rentals or upgrading for rentals. Is there any action on that? >> No, Abby, that's outside my expertise. >> Yeah. No, for sure. So, the um the city and the county partnered to or the city partnered with Washington County for the county to distribute the city's local affordable housing funding within the city. So there are few different housing programs that the county administers on our behalf which includes upgrades or um repairs and renovations to both single family and multifamily housing. >> But is somebody using it? Are we getting requests for funds? Is it being used? >> Um at the moment it is not. Again it's coming down to a marketing factor. It's us getting this information out to the community that has been part of the challenge. That's disappointing, but our communication skills suck. Sorry. >> That's a really great program and and how do we get it out there? That's >> how do people want to receive it? >> I don't know. I even if it's just a flyer that goes into all the rental housing or the apartment buildings or I don't know but it's a shame that it's sitting there not being used. >> Send it out with the utility billing. >> H >> send it out with the utility bill. >> Yeah. >> Anyhow, just was curious to see if there was any usage of that fund. >> Any other updates? I I just want to mention, you know, like I I asked earlier if there's, you know, after that presentation on that development downtown, if there's any feedback that that we formally or informally want to provide to staff, um I think that would be helpful. We all I think we're pretty excited about there's there is some hesitancy. Uh Jenny, that uh part of the parking is municipal. That first level is municipal where you don't have to use that building. you can park there and go across the street to to Kodiak or wherever. So, um, but I I think I think this we're we're going to be an important piece of this thing and I think we I personally would like to make sure that if there any questions or concerns that that this board is able to share those and and let staff know and and counsel. So Abby, I don't know how a formal way we would do that or if it's just email you to share with >> Yeah, I mean any comments that you might have. I mean the we've shared with the developer the both the EDA and the council seemed favorable to it. Um there wasn't anything that we heard that was any sort of deal breaker from you and we've shared that with the developer. Um, we've been waiting on the developer for their submittal of some financial information for the project so that we could start doing some sort of a preliminary financial analysis on it. The ball's in their court some. I'm happy to put this on as an agenda item if you want formal comment, but at the same time at the now we don't have, you know, I don't have renderings. I don't have site plans. I don't know if they necessarily want what they're looking for in that. So, >> I think the offer was made to well, specifically to you. If anyone wants to meet with them individually, they're more than willing to go through that whole plan and ask specific one-on-one questions, too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I have not met with them yet. Um, at some point I will. Um, most of my concerns, so I'm broadly supportive of the project, but most of my concerns are are small things that I think they can easily work out during their design process. As an example, if we have um a a viewing area up on the I think it was like the sixth floor or something, >> are we going to look down on the other portion of their building to a bunch of air conditioners? um you know, can you put in your design to maybe block that or have it behind a an extra story in a certain spot? Um think small things like that. Um absolutely no deal breakers though. >> I have one more question from the city. Is there any update on any offers for the land over by the skating rink? >> No. >> Okay. Nothing going. Okay. I just have maybe one follow-up question. Um, can you work with sta other staff about the idea of putting some of these things in like a utility billing? >> I have a note. I can do my best >> to try to get it out. I mean >> I mean I know I get utility bills from other municipalities and it's not uncommon to get information about city events. So that's a a potentially great way especially with you know some of our population that aren't as techsavvy. >> Yeah. when we do something for the Lions, we get, you know, like posters made and plaster them all over town. Cub, Walmart, wherever, wherever people are. >> Yeah. I think what one of the hard parts, Jenny, is we don't even have anybody to make a poster, right? Like, so we don't have the design skills necessarily. I mean, we're working on it. We're working on it, but we're really hoping that um all of you and your community and civic groups can help get the word out. >> All right. to that point. Mr. Mayor, >> I I'm taking notes right now. J >> Rapid Press will design something for free and run them off. You know, you're talking a couple hundred dollars. >> I I agree. >> And you you got to get it out to the people where they where they are and the churches would post it. Senior center would post it. It's not being used because nobody knows about it. So, anyhow, sorry. >> I hear you. >> Okay. that interview. We'll make that a priority for sure. >> All right, sounds good. Well, if uh nothing else, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I journed.