All right, welcome everyone. With it being right at 6 o'clock, we'll get started this evening. And Joel, um, Amanda, can you do a roll call? >> Mayor Roberts >> here. >> Council member Valento >> here. >> Erikson. >> Larson >> here. >> Miller >> here. And if you're able, please join us in standing for the pledge of >> allegiance. I aliance 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, council. We have an agenda in front of us here. I am going to make a motion that we approve tonight's agenda with one slight change. Moving the discussion item 9A to a regular agenda item 8 C. >> Second. >> We have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I opposed. We have an agenda. >> All right. Tonight is a very special night here for Forest Lake. Um we are going to be um saying the oath of office to some new officers and uh Chief Peterson. >> Mr. Mayor, city council members, city staff, family, and friends. Good evening. We are here tonight to recognize three outstanding officers and their sergeant. The officers were hired last year, completed a rigorous field training program, and have been patrolling our streets and keeping our community safe ever since. Officer Tyler Carpenter, Officer Adam Senelli, and Officer Connor Delgrasco, if you can come up to the front here. And along with their sergeant, Sergeant Tom Cochburn, if you can come up. I had the distinct opportunity to supervisor supervise Sergeant uh Tom Cochburn when he was first um first met him back probably 20 years ago when he was a Force Lake police explorer and uh Tom has worked as a police officer, school resource officer. He is our uh use of force instructor, range instructor, and he's also a member of the uh Washington County mobile field force. Um, along with Tom, I have to um tell you that I also worked with his father, Bob Cochburn, for a few years before he retired, and he was a wonderful individual. Mayor Roberts, if you can come down here and uh do the honor of having them recite the oath of office. >> I would ask the council to join us as well. >> Perfect. Gentlemen, if you would please raise your right hand and repeat after me. >> I state your name. >> I doly swear >> swear I will support the Constitution of the United States. >> I will support the Constitution of the United States. >> The Constitution of the State of Minnesota. state of Minnesota and for the city of Lincoln State. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Congratulations. a quick family members. Can I say a few words? I just I think what again what a great day for Force Lake new officers. This council is committed to public safety. We have two new officers coming on later on in the year and so just shows the support that we have for community safety and public safety and we appreciate these officers and everything they do for us. family, friends, colleagues. If you want to go upstairs, we have some donuts. >> Yeah. >> Thank you for everyone for coming. We'll just take a couple minutes to let the room clear. >> Susan's got like she better go up there and be like jumped in the lake fist bump. That guy was awesome. >> Looks like a >> I think it looks like a joke. Looks like a >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. The next agenda item is open forum. This is an opportunity for anyone to come speak to the council on any city matter. Uh please limit your your comments to around three minutes. And I don't know if we have anyone signed up >> gentlemen from the >> Yes, we I can I don't know if there's Go ahead, Ken. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Good evening, Mayor Roberts, members of the city council, and members of the zoning department. My name is Kenneth Wood, and I'm the president of the Forest Lake Association, also known as FLLA. FLLA represents a broad cross-section of Lake Forest Lake shore residents, lake users, and community stakeholders. In 2025, we had over 450 paid members, including 36 lake sponsor businesses. Please allow me to start by saying that we at Forest Lake Association are very impressed by the quality and thoroughess of the city's review of the Tims Marina EAW. It's clear that considerable effort went into evaluating the information provided by the community. After the EAW was released, he LLA conducted a membership survey to better understand community sentiment regarding the proposed marina expansion. We distributed more than 600 surveys and community contacts and received 204 responses. The results showed a clear majority of respondents expressing concern or opposition to the expansion. The most common concern raised was increased boat traffic and growing lake congestion. As part of our report, we analyzed current boat density on Forest Lake. And based on observations from several high use summer weekends, we estimated 359 boats on the lake during peak periods. The city's report in today's agenda reached essentially the same estimate of about 359 boats. This alignment gives us confidence that both the city and FLLA are working for similar understanding of the lake conditions. Using that number, our analysis shows that Forest Lake currently has about 6.4 acres of lake surface per boat. The city's analysis very similar between 5.98 and 6.33 acres per boat. So, we are largely aligned on the current boat density. The city's report then assumes that roughly half of the proposed 72 Tims Marina additional slips would be active during peak weekends and that scenario would move to approximately 5.7 acres per boat. We agree that the math used in that analysis. However, the concern is not necessarily the size of the change. The concern is that Forest Lake is already experiencing a high level of congestion today. A commonly referenced Minnesota planning guide from the DNR suggests roughly 10 to 20 acres per boat of lake surface per recreational boat for lakes with mixed recreational use like ours. By comparison, Forest Lake today is nearly twice the DNR recommended density even before any additional boat slips are added. For that reason, regardless of the decision on Tim's Marina request, we respectfully ask the city to consider establishing a clear upper limit for boat density on Forest Lake. Doing so could help guide future decisions, particularly since additional marina or dock expansion requests are likely to arise over time. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else here to would like to speak this evening on any city matter? All right, seeing no one else come forward, we will go to the next agenda item, consent agenda. >> Anyone make a motion on this? >> I would make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I >> opposed. Motion carries. Consent agenda is approved. >> Brings us to our first regular agenda item, Forestlake North Garage Condo's final PUD plat. >> Stephen. >> Yeah. I'd like to uh apologize. Uh my my wonderful boss Abby Whitman fell ill this afternoon, so you're stuck with me reporting on uh the garage condos. Uh this project is scheduled for a public hearing this evening. Uh we need additional time to work through all the legal documents which the applicant would like to be considered as part of the overall development approval. Staff recommends that the city council motion to table forest road north garage preliminary pud and plat to March 23rd our next meeting. >> All right. And just clarify that uh the applicant that was their request. Yes. >> Yes, sir. >> Make a motion to >> I'll make a motion to table the meeting uh for the Forest Road North Garage final plan unit development and plant public hearing to March 23rd, 2026. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Motion second. A further discussion. All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. 8 B. uh Tim's Marina doc edition, Stephen. >> All right. So, uh appreciate the comments, especially all the all the work that we've we've had in working with the FLLA as well as Tim's Marina through this this entire process and a special special shout out to uh Joe of Tim's Marina for all the the gives and takes over really the last year we've been uh working through this. Uh good evening uh Mr. Mayor and Council, tonight's presentation is a little different than most community development uh items you see. Most of the work we bring forward involves zoning and subdivision approvals, but this decision follows a very structured process under Minnesota environmental law. The state has laid out a step-by-step framework for how cities evaluate projects through the environmental assessment worksheet process. One thing that's helpful to keep in mind at the start is that environmental review isn't a popularity contest. And after spending a few weeks reading Minnesota environmental review rules and writing the findings document, I can confirm the process itself probably wouldn't win one either. That said, the question tonight isn't whether people like or dislike the proposal. It's whether the environmental information reviewed indicates the need for a full environmental impact statement. Public comments are an important part of this process and we take them seriously. But the determination tonight must be based on whether environmental information reviewed indicates the potential for significant environmental effects requiring preparation of environmental impact statement. The state rules also define what significant environmental effects means and I'll walk through that standard briefly before getting into the project details. Da council is being asked to make one specific decision. The question is not whether the project should ultimately be approved or denied. The question is whether the environmental information reviewed through the EAW process indicates the potential for significant environmental effects requiring the preparation of an EIS. If the answer is yes, the process moves into a full EIS study. If the answer is no, the environmental review portion is complete and the project continues the normal land use review process. Earlier I mentioned that the state rules define what significant environmental effects means for purposes of this decision. Under Minnesota environmental review rules, significance doesn't mean any impact at all. Almost every project has some level of environmental impact. The question the council must answer is whether the impacts are large enough in type, magnitude, duration, or cumulative effect that a full environmental impact statement is necessary. The rules require the city to consider four main things. the type and extent of potential impacts, how long those impacts would last and whether they can be reversed, whether the impacts combined with other projects to create cumulative effects, and whether existing regulations can control or mitigate those impacts. One way I can explain the concept of significant environmental impacts is the difference between a thermostat change and a light switch. A light switch is a major change. It's either on or off. A thermostat change is incremental. You might turn it up one or two degrees, but the overall system is still operating the same way. Environmental review is designed to identify projects that act like a light switch. Projects that fundamentally change environmental conditions and require a full EIS. What the record shows here is more like a thermostat adjustment, a relatively small incremental change within an already active recreational lake system. The question before the council is whether the incremental change rises to the level the state considers significant. If the council determines an EIS is required, the process changes significantly. An EIS is a much more extensive environmental study. It typically typically takes 12 to 18 months and involves multiple technical analyses depending on the project. The process includes a preparation of a draft EIS, another public comment period, and then a final EIS responding to those comments. Importantly, the IIS does not approve or deny the project. It simply requires additional environmental study before decisions are made. Under Minnesota environmental review rules, one government agency is assigned assigned responsibility for managing the environmental review process. That agency is called the responsible government unit or RGU. Because the project is located within the city and approvals involved are primarily local land use approvals, the city of Forest Lake serves as the RGU. Lucky us. That means the city was responsible for making sure the prepared EAW was complete, collecting agency and public comments, requesting information from the applicant as a result of those comments received, responding to those comments, and assembling the administrative record that is before you tonight. The proposal before the city involves the addition of two seasonal floating docks at Tims Marina on Forest Lake. The dock configuration would provide 72 boat slips. The project does not involve dredging, shoreline grading, or structural changes to the shoreline, and the docks would be located within the existing marina basin. Separate from the environmental review process, the project must still go through the city's land use review process, including a conditional use permit amendment and a variance request, which are scheduled for a neighborhood meeting this Wednesday, March 11th, at 5:00 p. p.m. here at city hall in the community room upstairs, and then a public hearing at the planning commission meeting on March 25th in this room. This slide summarizes the timeline for the environmental review process. Now, this is not the complete process. They came forward uh Tim's Marina came forward early last year in the spring to propose this project. As discussions were happening with the city, we recommended the EAW. The EAW was published in the EQB monitor on January 6th, which started the required 30-day public comment period. Comments were received from several reviewing agencies and members of the public. After reviewing those comments, the city requested additional information from the applicant to address several issues raised during the comment period. That information was submitted on February 20th and incorporated into the record. During the 30-day comment period, the city received written comments from four receing agencies and 24 members of the public for a total of 28 individual comment submissions. Many of those letters contain multiple questions or concerns. To ensure each issue was evaluated clearly, staff broke the submissions down into their individual comment components, which resulted in 119 individual comment topics. Of those, 89 were determined to be substantive comments. In the environmental review process, a substantive comment is one that raises a specific environmental issue, requests clarification about environmental data, or questions whether potential impact has been adequately analyzed. By contrast, comments that simply express support or opposition to the project, are focused primarily on broader policy or procedural issues, are generally considered non-substantive for purposes of environmental review. For example, a statement such as, "I don't support this project," would not be considered a substantive environmental comment under the EA EAW rules. Looking at the substantive comments more closely, about 46% focused on boating density and carrying capacity, making it the most common issue raised. Water quality and runoff concerns accounted for about 20% of the comments. The remaining comments were distributed among shoreline impacts, aquatic ecology, and AIS. Those are uh the aquatic invasive species, noise and other comments which included parking and operational issues and questions about the environmental review itself. In many environmental review process, it is common to receive agency comments but relatively limited public participation. That was not the case here. We received written comments from 24 residents of Forest Lake. And I do want to acknowledge that the level of participation reflects how much people care about Forest Lake and protecting the lake as a community resource. Because residents took the time to submit detailed comments, staff made the decision to respond individually to each substantive comment so that the council would have a complete record of the issues raised and how they were addressed. Those responses are incorporated into the environmental record and helped inform staff's analysis and recommendation. You can find each of those comments along with the city's response included in the appendix of the findings document in your packet this evening. As part of the comment review process, staff evaluated the issues raised by both agencies and members of the public in several areas. Those comments raised questions that required additional information to better understand potential impacts. As the RGU, the city requested additional information from the applicant addressing several of those topics, including boating density, shoreline erosion, and wake impacts, noise, and aquatic invasive species. This step is fairly common in the EAW process when comments identify areas where additional clarification would be helpful. The applicant provided those additional operational details and commitments in response to those requests. Those included commitments related to pontoon style vessels rather than wake or jetboats. the use of four- stroke engines and a no- wake buffer near the marina docks. That additional information was incorporated into the environmental record and helped inform staff's analysis and recommendation presented tonight. With that overview of the comments received and our request for additional information from the applicant, I'll walk through the primary issues raised and how they were evaluated. Boat density was one of the the issues raised most frequently in the comments. Estimates contained in the record suggest that peak use of Forest Lake currently ranges between about 359 and 380 boats. Many of those estimates were referenced in public comments themselves and staff use those figures as reasonable high-end assumptions for evaluating potential impacts. The proposal results in a net increase of approximately 72 docking spaces. To ensure analysis did not underestimate potential impacts, staff evaluated a 50% occupancy scenario representing roughly 36 additional boats on the lake during a peak day. Under the assumption peak use would increase to roughly 395 to 416 boats. When evaluated relative to the lakes's 2,271 acres, that represents a change from about 6.0 to 6.3 acres per boat under existing peak conditions to about 5.5 to 5.8 8 acres per boat under the higher use scenario. A roughly half an acre per boat difference in density. The graphic in the middle of the slide illustrates that difference with blue representing existing peak conditions and orange representing the higher use scenario evaluated for this analysis. Some elements referenced Minnesota DNR planning guidance suggesting recreational densities of 9 to 20 acres which has been quoted at 10 to 20 acres per boat. Here I would say there's it the difference is negligible. It is it is important to note that that guidance is planning guidance rather than a regulatory standard. One way to think about peak lake conditions is similar to holiday traffic on a highway. A road may feel crowded during a holiday weekend, but that doesn't mean it operates at that level every day of the year. Similarly, boating activity on lakes tends to concentrate during a relatively small number of peak days each year, typically holiday weekends or ideal summer weather conditions. Based on the environmental information reviewed, staff did not identify evidence in their record indicating that this model change and boating density would result in significant environmental effects. Water quality concerns focus largely on parking areas and runoff. The marina property currently includes gravel and grass parking areas that may have historically been used during peak marina activity. Because the site has finite parking footprint that is already used on the busiest days, staff did not identify evidence suggesting the dock expansion would materially change runoff patterns. Parking configuration and paving standards will be addressed through the conditional use permit amendment and variance review scheduled for March 25th, which will include a public hearing. I want to also add that a requirement of the CUP amendment is to host a neighborhood meeting. That meeting will be this Wednesday, March 11th, at 5:00 PM in the community room here at city hall. on being redundant on purpose. Another issue raised in comments relates to shoreline erosion and wake impacts. The project itself does not involve dredging or shoreline modification. The proposal consists of floating seasonal docks within an existing marina basin. The applicant indicated that the slips would primarily accommodate pontoon style vessels rather than wake boats and boats leaving the marina would operate under noway conditions within approximately 150 ft of the docks. Based on the information reviewed, staff did not identify evidence in the record indicating that the incremental increase in marine activity would result in significant shoreline erosion impacts. Another issue raised in comments relates to aquatic invasive species or AIS. AIS prevention is managed primarily through inspection programs and state transport laws, both of which remain fully applicable regardless of marina slip capacity. Forest Lake already has an active AIS prevention program in place. The Comfort Lake Forest Lake wershed district conducts conducts inspection and education programs and Minnesota's AIS transport laws apply to all watercraft entering and leaving the lake. It is also important to note that the proposal does not include a new public boat launch. Boats stored in seasonal marina slips typically remain on the lake for the duration of the boating season rather than being repeatedly transported between lakes. Because of that, slip storage generally involves less inner lake movement than boats using public launches where vessels are frequently transported between water bodies. Based on the information reviewed, staff did not identify evidence in the record that would indicate that the project would create a new AIS transport pathway or have significant AIS related impacts. Noise concerns were also raised in several comments. The dock expansion itself does not introduce new mechanical equipment or continuous noise sources. The only potential change would be short duration engine noise when boats enter or leave the marina. The applicant has indicated that they would limit those engines to be modern four-stroke motors, which generally produce lower sustained noise levels than older two-stroke engines. Based on the information reviewed, staff did not identify evidence indicating the project would result in significant noise impacts. Minnesota's environmental rules ask the city to evaluate several factors when determining whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The first factor top left in blue is a type and extent of potential impacts. Based on the analysis we walked through earlier, the project would result in a relatively modest incremental increase in boating activity. Under the higher use scenario modeled by staff, that represents roughly 34 additional boats on the lake, resulting in a density change of about half an acre of boat. The second factor top right in green is duration and frequency. Boating activities on lakes is highly seasonal and the highest levels of use typically occur during a relatively small number of peak days each year, often tied to holiday weekends and favorable summer weather. The third factor bottom left in orange is cumulative effects. Forestlake already supports recreational boating activity and the environmental information reviewed does not indicate that this incremental increase would create measurable ecological threshold impacts when considered together with existing lake use. Finally, in the off-white, the rules consider mitigation regulatory oversight. Voting activity, AIS prevention, noise standards, and storm water management all remain subject to existing state and local regulatory programs that continue to apply regardless of marina slip capacity. Based on the environmental information reviewed through the EAW process, staff did not identify evidence in the record indicating that the project would result in significant environmental effects. We're requiring the preparation of an EIS. Under Minnesota environmental review rules, an environmental impact statement is required only if the project could cause significant environmental effects. The review considers the scale of potential impacts, how long they would last, whether they contribute to cumulative effects, and whether existing regulations address those impacts. It is also important to remember that environmental review does not establish lake management policy or determine whether a project should ultimately be approved. Tonight's question is narrower, whether the project could create environmental impact significant enough to require an environmental impact statement. Importantly, this determination does not approve the project. The proposal still must still go through the city's land use review process, including that public hearing scheduled for March 25th for the conditional use permit amendment and the requested variance. The re resolution before you tonight adopts the findings of fact and conclusion summarizing the environmental review and the response to agency and public comments. If adopted, those findings become the city's record of decision, which will be submitted to the environmental quality board for publication in the EQB monitor. With that, the council's role tonight is simply to determine whether the environmental information gathered through the EAW process indicates that potential for significant environmental effects requiring that EIS. Based on the analysis presented this evening and the information contained in the record, staff recommends adoption of the resolution determining that an EIS is not required. And with that, I'll take any questions you may have for me. >> Thank you for that very detailed report. Uh, council, any questions for for Stephen? >> No questions. >> Okay. Uh, no questions. Is anyone interested in making a motion? >> Before I make a motion, I'd like to just make a comment. Um, I do believe and uh I strongly appreciate everything that uh you have done, Stephen, as well as the Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Comfort Lake Forest Lake Wershed, the Met Council, and Mindot in reviewing this. I think that's very thorough and I think that answers a lot of our concerns and questions. Um, but then I would make a motion, if there's no other comments, >> please do. I would make a motion uh to adopt the resolution number 0309-2602 approving the findings of fact and conclusions and determining that the Tims Marina Doc addition project does not require preparation of an environmental impact statement under Minnesota rule 4410.1700. Have >> a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second that motion. >> Any further discussion? >> All in favor? I >> I opposed. Motion carries. >> Thanks again, Stephen. >> Thank you. >> All right, we're going to move uh the potential workshop reschedule to the next regular agenda item. And Jolie, >> thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. Um we are scheduled next Monday for a regular workshop. Um recently the public works facility steering committee met with W architects and KA to further discuss the schematic design. Um following that meeting, um it was determined that in order for W to bring forward a robust and comprehensive review for council, a little bit of additional time is needed so that they can um review the current concepts and update additional options. Based on that and the fact that we will be short a council member next Monday, um staff would like to propose that we move the regularly scheduled workshop from Monday, March 16th over to Monday, March 30th. And if council is agreeable, I would just request that council make a motion to approve that. >> No conflict. Yeah, I would I would just add um if if the public works facility is on the agenda for that ends up being on that agenda for the workshop that we maybe hold that in council chambers just for the public to be able to view the presentation a little bit clearer than what's available up at the I mean the community room >> that day works for me. >> Okay. Anyone want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to move the reg the scheduled workshop from March 16th to Monday, March 30th. >> I'll second it. >> We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? >> All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Motion carries. >> Next item for discussion or the first item for discussion is city prosecutical services and Jolene. Mayor, members of council, on February 27th, our city prosecutor, Mike Welch, met with Captain Hannah and informed him that he was planning to retire as a city's prosecutor effective April 15, 2026. Before discussing the transition and the plan that we've uh established, I just want to take a moment to recognize Mr. Welch's extraordinary service to this community. He served as a city prosecutor for 43 years, which is truly remarkable. On behalf of the city, I want to express our sincere gratitude and appreciation for his decades of professionalism, dedication, and partnership with our police department and our community. His contributions to the administration of justice in our city have been significant, and we wish him the very best in his well-deserved retirement. Given the April 15th retirement date, um, city staff last week worked with the city attorney, Amanda Johnson, to initiate initiate an expedited request for proposals to ensure that we don't not do not have a lapse in any of our prosecutorial services. The RFP was sent to three reputable local law firms, all of which currently provide services to municipalities in Washington County. The timeline for this process includes issuing the RFP on March 5th, which we did, accepting questions through March 12th, and then receiving proposals by March 16th. If necessary, staff will schedule and conduct interviews between March 17th and March 20th. Following the review process, staff will bring forward a recommendation to city council for consideration with the goal of having a new prosecutorial service contract in place beginning April 1st to ensure a smooth transition before mr's retirement on April 15th. Um so we just wanted to give council an update on where things are at. This is a much more expedited process than normal, but um we we feel confident that this process will result in securing a a strong firm to partner with going forward for our prosecution services. So, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Are you able to name the the uh three law firms that were >> I can I don't have them right in front of me, but give me one moment. um GDO Law, Py and Lemons, and Ecberg Lamers. All right. Any questions? No. >> Thank you. >> I' I'd echo the same um for what uh Mr. Walsh has done for all these years. Uh that is a quite a career and we've been fortunate to have a single prosecutor for for all those those years. So we appreciate all his work and wish him best in in retirement. Yeah, I had the pleasure of working with him in several incidences and always a very wellrespected gentleman and very uh very wellprepared and very very like I say well respected throughout the community and with the county. So I wish him all the best in his retirement. >> Great. So no decision on that. Just you'll bring it back to us once >> information only tonight. We'll be bringing forward um some more information at our next meeting for council to consider. >> Okay, great. All right. Um, without nothing else ahead of us here, uh, we will go into staff updates and we'll start with Ryan. >> Uh, mayor, city council, just a few things to point out for you guys. Uh, Wednesday, I believe Dave will be attending, too, but I will for sure. We're meeting with MDOT, uh, to discuss traffic control and their project staging for stage two of their Highway 97 project. So, I'll be able to bring more information back for you guys at the next city council meeting on that project. Uh Thursday, March 19th is the date set for the bid opening for the 2026 local street pavement maintenance project. Uh last week, public works director Dave Adams and myself worked together to package up a 2025 fiscal year community request through the stoppers office. Nearly we submitted nearly $24 million in that those two requests. And just uh reiterates, we're got two quarters left in the water efficiency grants. Uh I'm starting to see some uh communication that there will be another program after this. Uh there was been some just uh delays in getting that program out, but we still got two quarters left with that water efficiency grant program that we're um providing for residents of Forest Lake. So that's all I got. >> Any questions for >> Amanda? Do you have anything for us tonight? >> No updates. >> All right. And Dave, >> no updates. >> Stephen, >> of course I do. Have you met my boss? >> You you may have seen um uh you may have seen some of the stuff out of our Facebook, but applicants have been subject to some fraud requesting wire transfer for an approval fee. Uh the city issued a press release through online platforms and sent notice to all applicants of the past three months. We'll be working with administration and legal on methods to help reduce future applicant exposure and continued public education efforts. Um if you need a copy of that press release, I can provide it to you. Uh the planning commission on Wednesday will uh focus largely on the comprehensive plan specifically inquiring what opportunities for public engagement the planning commission would like to see. This in preparation of a scoping uh scoping for a request for proposals for consulting services. That scope of work will be brought to the council before its release. Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, uh this Wednesday is also a neighborhood meeting for the Tims Marina proposal. Uh the neighborhood meeting is not limited to the neighborhood around Tim's Marina. It is for all residents of Forest Lake to be able to come and have an informal discussion with the applicant of any concerns and be able to have that kind of discussion um and narrow like kind of maybe iron some things out before the public hearing which would be at that March 25th uh uh planning commission meeting at 6 p.m. in this room. Uh we have a number of land development applications in various states and council will see most of them coming through the preliminary and final approval in April and May. And that's it. >> Thank you, >> Jolene. >> No updates tonight. I just wanted to extend my thanks to our staff during these last two weeks while I was absent um on a vacation, especially Dave who kind of worked through some things in my absence. but to all of our staff just they really did a tremendous job and they're just a pleasure to work with. >> Council member Miller, >> no updates. >> Council member Valento, >> no updates. Council >> member, >> no updates. Thank you. >> Uh I would just say the same. Um first I want to thank Jolene for stepping up in into this interim role. Um she did a great job for the city the last time this came about and uh we have no doubt that you'll do the same. So, thank you for that and for staff holding the fort down, so to speak, well, in her absence. So, great. Anything else comes for the council? All right. We entertain a motion to journ. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I opposed. We're ajourned. Good night, everyone.