[0:08] [music]

[0:13] Good evening everyone. We'll get started

[0:15] uh the August 24th, 2026 city council

[0:18] meeting. And Amanda, if you could take

[0:20] role.

[0:22] >> Mayor Roberts

[0:23] >> here.

[0:24] >> Council member Miller

[0:25] >> here.

[0:26] >> Council member Valento

[0:27] >> here. Council member Ericson

[0:29] >> here.

[0:29] >> Council member Larson

[0:30] >> here.

[0:31] >> And if you're able, please join us in

[0:33] standing for the pledge of

[0:33] >> allegiance.

[0:36] I aliance to the flag of the United

[0:40] States of America and to the republic

[0:42] for which it stands, one nation under

[0:45] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:48] justice for all.

[0:57] right. Our first item is uh

[1:00] presentations and we have the

[1:02] >> Let's approve the agenda.

[1:03] >> Oh, guess we got to approve the agenda.

[1:05] That'd be good. All right. I'm willing

[1:07] to entertain a motion to move.

[1:09] >> I'll second.

[1:10] >> Motion a second. Any further discussion?

[1:12] All in favor?

[1:13] >> I opposed. We have our agenda. Now we'll

[1:17] go into presentations. uh the 2025 audit

[1:20] presentation and Jackie Nolles will be

[1:23] presenting that. Welcome.

[1:27] » Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. I'm

[1:29] Jackie Nolles with Bergen KDB going to

[1:31] be going over a summary of the audit

[1:33] results and also the city's operating

[1:35] results for 2025.

[1:40] The main purpose of our audit is to

[1:42] provide our independent auditors report.

[1:44] [clears throat]

[1:44] Within this report, we state that

[1:46] management is responsible for the dollar

[1:48] amounts in the financial statements and

[1:50] our responsibility as auditors is to

[1:53] provide an opinion on those financial

[1:56] statements based on the results of our

[1:57] test work. This year we are providing an

[2:00] unmodified or a clean opinion that's the

[2:03] best that we can offer and the same that

[2:05] the city has been receiving. What that

[2:07] does is it provides assurance that the

[2:09] financial statements are presented

[2:11] fairly in all material respects. the

[2:14] position of the district as of December

[2:16] 31st, 2025 and all of the activity that

[2:19] occurred within the year.

[2:22] One additional report that we are

[2:24] required to issue is the report on

[2:26] Minnesota legal compliance that is

[2:28] required by the office of the state

[2:30] auditor and we did not have any

[2:32] compliance findings related to that. We

[2:35] did have one internal control finding,

[2:38] the lack of segregation of accounting

[2:39] duties which I'm sure will sound

[2:41] familiar to most of you. it is a repeat

[2:43] finding um just with one person handling

[2:46] multiple steps in a transaction process.

[2:48] So we do want council and management to

[2:50] continue to be aware of that um but no

[2:53] specific recommendations related to

[2:56] changes at this time.

[3:00] Um so with that we'll move into the

[3:02] general fund operating results for the

[3:04] year and revenue was projected at about

[3:08] 13.2 2 million and the council

[3:11] authorized expenditures at an equal

[3:13] amount for a break even or a balanced

[3:16] budget for the year.

[3:19] Actual revenue came in at about 13.68

[3:22] million that is a positive or overbudget

[3:25] variance of about $477,000.

[3:29] While expenditures came in at about

[3:31] 13.17 million, so about $34,000 under

[3:36] budget. and fund balance actually

[3:38] increased by about $536,000

[3:42] as a result of 2025 activity. And we'll

[3:45] get into the details in a little bit

[3:47] here.

[3:50] Um, so looking at that total fund

[3:52] balance for the year, um, you can see

[3:54] it's gone up overall over the last five

[3:57] years in 2025, as I mentioned, up about

[4:02] 536,000

[4:03] in total. And the majority of that falls

[4:05] to the unassigned category which is

[4:08] available for spending on any purpose.

[4:12] That number of about $7.7 million is an

[4:16] important number because we look at it

[4:19] in accordance with the city's fund

[4:21] balance policy. Um so that number is

[4:23] equal to 52.6%

[4:26] of the budgeted fiscal year 2026

[4:29] expenditures.

[4:31] And the city's policy outlines a goal of

[4:33] maintaining an unassigned fund balance

[4:36] of 50% of the subsequent year's budgeted

[4:39] expenditure. So coming in at 52.6% you

[4:42] are in compliance with policy at the end

[4:44] of the year.

[4:48] Um looking at revenues next. In total

[4:52] revenues were up about 5.3%

[4:55] in 2025 compared to the previous year.

[4:58] that was primarily within the property

[5:00] tax source of revenue um due to an

[5:03] increase in the amount levied in the

[5:05] general fund.

[5:07] Other revenues also reported a larger

[5:10] increase and that was primarily due to

[5:12] an increase um in interest earnings

[5:15] include including a positive change in

[5:17] the fair market value of the city's

[5:19] investment portfolio.

[5:23] Um looking at the allocation of revenue

[5:26] sources over the last couple of years

[5:28] very consistent as revenues have

[5:30] increased it has been um consistent

[5:33] across the different sources of revenue

[5:35] in the general fund

[5:38] and looking into a little bit uh further

[5:41] detail with those budget to actual

[5:43] results. Um, as I noted earlier,

[5:46] revenues in total overbudget about

[5:48] $477,000.

[5:51] That positive variance was across all

[5:53] sources except for property taxes due to

[5:56] conservative budgeting specifically for

[5:59] investment income, certain state aids,

[6:01] and also building and development

[6:03] activity.

[6:05] Property taxes was under budget, and

[6:08] that was due to the full levy amount

[6:10] being budgeted. But of course, actual

[6:12] revenue is impacted by delinquents and

[6:14] other adjustments.

[6:17] [clears throat]

[6:22] Looking at expenditures next, um in

[6:25] total expenditures up about 9.3%

[6:30] from 2024 to 2025. Um the city has seen

[6:34] inflationary increases over the last

[6:36] five years. Um, a lot of that increase

[6:39] from 2024 to 2025 was related to salary

[6:42] and benefit increases.

[6:45] Um, the largest increase being within

[6:47] the city's largest spending program,

[6:50] public safety, due to those salary and

[6:52] benefit increases. Also, there were

[6:54] computer system upgrade costs. Uh, pass

[6:57] through fire relief aid was up and then

[7:00] also turnout gear purchases were some of

[7:02] the the larger items within that

[7:04] category.

[7:05] Uh public works expenditures were up

[7:08] about $296,000.

[7:11] Again, salary and benefit increases. Um

[7:14] there were also inflationary increases

[7:16] across supplies, utilities, repairs, and

[7:18] maintenance.

[7:21] General government expenditures were up

[7:23] about $244,000

[7:26] and that was across professional

[7:28] services and salary and benefit

[7:30] increases.

[7:32] And then finally, economic development

[7:34] expenditures of about $174,000.

[7:38] And that was due to increased costs for

[7:40] temporary planning services um during

[7:43] the staff shortages.

[7:49] Um again, we have some pie charts just

[7:52] showing that spending allocation over

[7:54] the last couple of years. And similar

[7:56] [clears throat] to revenues, um we see a similar allocation here across the two

[8:00] years. So as spending has increased, it

[8:03] has been spread evenly across the city's

[8:05] programs.

[8:09] And then looking at budget to actual

[8:11] results for expenditures,

[8:14] as noted earlier, in total under budget

[8:16] about $34,000. Um there were some larger

[8:20] variances within the general government

[8:23] program and the public safety program.

[8:26] in general government expenditures under

[8:28] budget about $200,000

[8:31] and that was due to lower full-time

[8:33] wages and benefits costs than budgeted

[8:36] due to staff turnover partially

[8:38] offsetting that. Public safety was

[8:40] overbudget about $124,000

[8:43] and that was primarily due to

[8:45] professional service costs related to

[8:47] building inspection services during

[8:49] staff shortages.

[8:54] Um, so with that, we'll look at the two

[8:56] enterprise funds of the city next.

[8:59] Starting off with water, operating

[9:01] income up about 5.7%

[9:05] primarily due to rate increases, while

[9:07] operating expenses were up about 8.3%

[9:11] and that was primarily related to

[9:13] increased depreciation expense taken on

[9:16] some completed capital projects.

[9:19] The water fund is reporting operating

[9:21] income of about $726,000

[9:25] in 2025, including all of the

[9:27] depreciation expense. Um, so that shows

[9:30] that this fund is building up future

[9:32] monies for capital replacement costs.

[9:38] And the sewer fund operating revenues

[9:40] were very consistent from 2024 to 2025,

[9:44] while operating expenses were up about

[9:46] 11.6%. 6%. Um that was also due to

[9:50] increased depreciation expense taken on

[9:53] newly completed projects and also the

[9:56] sewer treatment costs were up.

[9:59] This fund reported operating income of

[10:01] about $268,000

[10:04] including all of the depreciation

[10:06] expense. So this fund is also building

[10:08] up future funds for capital replacement

[10:11] costs.

[10:14] And then the last graph just takes a

[10:16] look at the city's tax capacity, levy,

[10:18] and rates over the last five years.

[10:21] The city's total tax capacity has gone

[10:24] up primarily due to increasing property

[10:27] values. The city's tax levy has

[10:30] increased at a consistent dollar amount

[10:32] over the last five years. So, this has

[10:35] resulted in a tax capacity rate that has

[10:37] varied between about 35.6%

[10:41] and 41.6%. 6% over the last five years.

[10:52] Um, and that was my prepared

[10:55] presentation. I'm happy to take any

[10:57] questions.

[11:00] [clears throat] Any questions?

[11:04] I guess I just have one and my staff

[11:06] might be able to help. So the economic

[11:08] development part

[11:11] um being build towards taking I guess

[11:15] using that account to pay for

[11:18] uh you know the extra services of of

[11:20] planners or assuming um

[11:23] >> yeah I noted that as well. I it isn't

[11:25] coded that way in our system. So I'm not

[11:27] sure how the it kind of translates that

[11:30] but the community development department

[11:33] is separate from the economic

[11:34] development department where the

[11:36] community development department has

[11:37] been um capturing the costs for

[11:41] temporary planning services.

[11:44] >> But did that happen in 25 or 26?

[11:47] >> Um we've had temporary planning services

[11:50] various times.

[11:52] >> How's it been? What was it coded in 25?

[11:54] Was it under

[11:56] >> uh always under community development,

[11:57] not economic development?

[12:00] >> So, so that was a change then.

[12:03] >> Yeah, I'm I can't attest to that. I know

[12:06] I'm coding them necessarily.

[12:08] >> Maybe Julian,

[12:08] >> we can definitely take a look

[12:10] >> follow up on that.

[12:11] >> Yeah, mayor and Mr. or Mr. Mayor and

[12:12] Council, I will follow up on that and

[12:14] provide you some background on that.

[12:15] >> Okay, great.

[12:18] Any other questions?

[12:21] All right. Well, thank you for coming

[12:23] tonight.

[12:24] >> Very detailed. Appreciate it.

[12:30] » All right, we will next item is open

[12:33] forum. This an opportunity for them come

[12:35] anyone to come speak to the council on

[12:37] any city matter. Please limit your

[12:40] remarks to around three minutes and

[12:41] state your name and address for the

[12:44] record.

[12:46] Uh we have Brian Gould here, but it

[12:48] looks like you are more on that

[12:50] cannabis. Uh so do you want to speak

[12:52] now? You can there's time to speak at at that agenda item obviously.

[12:58] >> I think that would be fine. Mr. Mayor,

[12:59] he is the applicant. Council like to

[13:01] >> inquire. We can wait till that agenda

[13:04] item comes up. Anyone else like to speak

[13:06] this evening?

[13:08] >> All right. See no one else. We will go

[13:10] into the consent consent agenda. Anyone

[13:13] willing to make a motion to approve

[13:15] tonight's consent agenda?

[13:17] >> I'll make a motion to approve consent

[13:18] agenda items 7A through 7G.

[13:23] >> I'll second.

[13:24] >> All right, we have a motion and a

[13:26] second. Any further discussion? All in

[13:30] favor?

[13:30] >> I opposed.

[13:33] >> We have our consent agenda pass. We will

[13:34] go right into regular agenda items. uh

[13:37] public works facility funding options

[13:39] and Bruce Kimmel from Ellers.

[13:45] » Welcome.

[13:46] >> Thank you.

[13:48] >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council

[13:50] members. Can you hear me? Okay. Is this

[13:52] on? Okay.

[13:54] I'm in the uh circle of uh weird

[13:58] acoustics here, but I'm glad to be back

[14:00] with you here. uh Bruce Kimmel with

[14:02] Ellers and this is following up on

[14:05] [clears throat] a few previous

[14:06] discussions that we've had regarding uh

[14:10] possible approaches to financing this

[14:12] planned or at least proposed public

[14:14] works facility uh most recently on July

[14:17] 13th. And at that meeting that was a

[14:20] really helpful and and productive

[14:22] discussion. It seemed like it was the

[14:25] council's wishes to maintain the current

[14:29] level of street reconstruction funding

[14:31] from the franchise fee at roughly $1.1

[14:34] million. That's what you'll be

[14:35] collecting this year from the franchise

[14:38] fees. [clears throat]

[14:39] And then also uh you had indicated some

[14:42] interest in seeing what the impacts

[14:44] would be if you did a financing approach

[14:47] for the public works facility that was

[14:48] all property taxes or all franchise fees

[14:53] or all sewer and water utility revenues

[14:56] just to sort of level set what those all

[14:59] or nothing impacts might be. And then

[15:01] finally, uh, you asked us to come back

[15:04] with a another funding approach just for

[15:08] purposes of discussion, a new baseline,

[15:10] if you will, and to see if we could get

[15:12] to a level of comfort to, uh, authorize

[15:15] staff to move forward with next steps in

[15:17] terms of planning and and moving the

[15:20] ball along with this project. So, I'll

[15:23] look forward to going through all this

[15:24] with you. Please stop me along the way

[15:26] if you have questions. really want this

[15:28] to be a discussion and we can certainly

[15:31] um look in different directions based on

[15:34] um your preferences.

[15:38] So, uh this is really just a holdover

[15:40] slide from the past presentation, but I

[15:42] did want to note um the current rate

[15:46] structure that you have in place for the

[15:47] franchise fees. You'll recall that last

[15:50] fall you authorized some fairly

[15:52] significant increases in the franchise

[15:54] fees for both natural gas and electric

[15:58] and that based on those changes and the

[16:01] number of customers per category. You

[16:04] can see how that you're you're looking

[16:05] to generate about $400,000 on the

[16:08] natural gas side, about $700,000 on the

[16:12] electric side for about 1.1 million.

[16:14] Might be a little bit more than that,

[16:16] but that should be in the ballpark. And

[16:18] all of that money, as you know, is going

[16:20] towards street reconstruction projects

[16:22] and we would anticipate that would

[16:24] continue in the future as well.

[16:27] Then looking at 100% allocation, for

[16:30] lack of a better term, we took a look at

[16:33] that using a somewhat simplified bond

[16:35] scenario. And I've put the parameters

[16:38] here for your uh consideration. Again,

[16:40] the $35 million placeholder for the

[16:43] project cost. looking at a total bonding

[16:46] amount of about 35 a.5 million. That's

[16:50] probably a little bit high. Most likely

[16:52] we would be a little bit lower than

[16:53] that, but wanted to be fairly

[16:54] conservative for this uh uh purpose.

[16:58] We looked at a 25-year level repayment

[17:00] term and an average interest rate of

[17:03] about four and a half%. That rate is

[17:05] also high. In today's market, you'd be

[17:08] closer to 4%. But again, we wanted to

[17:10] give you a little bit of a cushion, not

[17:13] knowing what will happen between uh

[17:14] between now and then uh in terms of

[17:16] interest rates. Given all those

[17:18] assumptions, you're looking at annual

[17:20] debt service of about $2.4 million per

[17:23] year. And so the going from there, when

[17:26] we looked at putting this just on the

[17:28] property tax levy, you can see that on a

[17:32] $300,000 residential homestead, that uh

[17:35] impact would be about $170 more per per

[17:38] year. It would be about $370 uh dollar

[17:42] more on a $600,000 residential

[17:45] homestead. It's not exactly um

[17:49] proportional uh because you may uh

[17:52] recall there's something called a market

[17:53] value exclusion that helps buy down

[17:56] property taxes for uh values up to about

[17:59] $515,000.

[18:01] Kind of ratchets down and then it goes

[18:04] away completely on value that's above

[18:06] 515. And so that's why um a $600,000

[18:11] property would be paying more than twice

[18:13] what a $300,000 property would pay.

[18:17] If we did a franchise fee approach, um

[18:19] the net additional impact would be about

[18:23] $250

[18:24] per year on a residential gas and

[18:27] electric customer. Uh we we also have

[18:29] the numbers on uh commercial uh and

[18:32] other non-residential customers if you

[18:35] wanted to get into that. And then the um

[18:39] also impact would be roughly the same, a

[18:41] little bit higher, but it really depends

[18:43] on what assumptions you make. Um, if we

[18:46] put it all on sewer and electric or sew

[18:49] sewer, excuse me, sewer and water, that

[18:51] should say, [clears throat] excuse me,

[18:54] the impact would be about $290

[18:58] per year more on top of existing rates.

[19:02] So, um, some differences there, but also

[19:06] some commonalities if you chose one or

[19:10] another.

[19:11] Now with that said, um, from our

[19:13] perspect, sorry, back on that last

[19:16] slide, you mentioned having it for the,

[19:19] uh, commercial on the franchise fees and

[19:20] the the utility sewer. Do you have any,

[19:24] uh, numbers on what, uh, say a

[19:27] million-doll commercial property would

[19:28] be if it was on the property taxes?

[19:31] >> Uh, I can run those very easily. Yeah.

[19:33] Okay.

[19:34] >> I literally could fire up my computer

[19:35] and and and do that. I don't know if

[19:38] that's necessary right now.

[19:39] >> I think if you go back go back one more

[19:40] slide, the franchise fees isn't, correct

[19:43] me if I'm wrong, isn't based on the

[19:44] value of the building, but just on the

[19:46] hookup.

[19:47] >> So like a large commercial building is

[19:49] going to pay 104 a month versus 25 for

[19:51] small,

[19:52] >> right? I'm asking what the what the

[19:53] property tax would be increase would be

[19:56] what the franchise fees

[19:56] >> on a million dollar commercial. Yeah,

[20:00] >> it would m

[20:02] get that sent to us or something. Yeah.

[20:04] >> Yeah. No, we can definitely provide

[20:06] that. Um, you probably uh recall that

[20:09] commercial properties pay a higher

[20:11] classification rate than do residential

[20:13] homesteads, almost twice as much.

[20:15] >> You're well aware of that. And so, uh,

[20:17] and there's no market value exclusion or

[20:19] anything to buy down that impact for CI

[20:22] property, commercial industrial. So,

[20:24] yeah, the impact would be pretty

[20:27] significant on a CI property of that

[20:29] value. Yeah.

[20:31] >> Thanks.

[20:33] So, um, with that, I I think it was

[20:35] helpful to sort of level set just to see

[20:37] if we put the full $2.4 million per year

[20:40] on one type of revenue source or

[20:42] another. That said, as your advisor, um,

[20:46] I I would very much suggest that we look

[20:49] at an approach that blends uh several

[20:52] different revenue sources because each

[20:55] of them has pros and cons, advantages

[20:57] and disadvantages. So property tax

[21:00] supported debt um as you recall you have

[21:03] a lot of debt that is falling off pretty

[21:05] rapidly in the 2030s. You you have a big

[21:09] drop down in 2033 and then another big

[21:12] drop down after 2034

[21:14] to a fairly nominal amount of of

[21:18] property tax supported debt after that

[21:19] point. By no means uh am I looking to

[21:23] bank on that completely. We know that

[21:25] you have other property tax supported

[21:28] needs in the community both on the

[21:29] operating budget and the capital budget,

[21:31] right? So, we can't just solve a perfect

[21:34] um solution for this public works

[21:36] facility and foreclose your ability to

[21:40] address other needs of the city in the

[21:42] future. Um, but there is some capacity

[21:45] that will be freed up in the early 2030s

[21:48] and I think that's worth factoring into

[21:50] a solution. In addition, your franchise

[21:54] fees are pretty low um in terms of

[21:57] nominal dollars right now. Of course,

[21:59] every dollar counts to to taxpayers. I'm

[22:02] not discounting that at all. But on a

[22:04] nominal dollar basis, you could say,

[22:06] "Yeah, we've got some room to move

[22:08] upward on that. On the other hand, if we

[22:11] tried to do the full $2.4 4 million on

[22:14] franchise fees. Um, this might be hard

[22:17] to believe, but you would need to

[22:18] increase franchise fees by $80 or 80%,

[22:21] not $80 next year and another 80% on top

[22:24] of that in 2028 to get to that 2.4

[22:28] million on top of the existing 1.1.

[22:31] Right? So, you're looking at a pretty

[22:33] big uh increase uh in terms of

[22:36] percentages. And as Mr. Adams can tell

[22:40] you, the cost of doing street

[22:42] reconstruction never gets cheaper. Um,

[22:45] and as the city grows, you'll need to

[22:47] keep funding those projects. And so, we

[22:49] want to be mindful that you might want

[22:50] to use franchise fees to pay for more

[22:52] than $1.1 million of street projects in

[22:55] the future, knowing that those needs

[22:57] will never get less.

[23:00] And then finally on the utility rates,

[23:02] they're also maybe a little less visible

[23:04] than property taxes, but still visible

[23:06] to both residents and business owners.

[23:10] And uh if we looked at a 75% 25% split

[23:14] between those two utilities, again,

[23:17] trying to solve for the full full $2.4

[23:19] million, you'd have to raise your sewer

[23:22] rates by about 40% and your water rates

[23:25] by about 20%.

[23:27] Certainly that in and of itself would

[23:30] probably be somewhat challenging uh for folks to swallow and also we know

[23:36] you have more utility projects that will

[23:39] need to get done. Lift stations, water

[23:41] manes, all that kind of good stuff in

[23:43] the future. Again, we don't want to

[23:45] create a solution today for the public

[23:46] works facility that really makes it

[23:49] difficult for you to take care of core

[23:50] infrastructure in the future.

[23:53] So, when we looked at all of these

[23:56] elements, um, both your existing rates,

[23:58] your existing taxes, and your future

[24:01] needs and priorities, I really didn't

[24:04] plan it this way, but, um, it seems to

[24:07] me in looking at all of your present and

[24:10] future uh, situations and and

[24:13] considerations

[24:15] that something like a third, a third, a

[24:18] third approach could be a viable path

[24:21] forward in both efficient and

[24:23] affordability for the city and its

[24:25] taxpayers.

[24:27] So what that might look like and again

[24:29] you have teen ways of structuring this

[24:31] right this is not the only way of of

[24:34] slicing and dicing but if you uh had a

[24:38] third of the project paid from property

[24:41] taxes I might suggest that you have

[24:43] interestonly payments through 2033

[24:47] that's when you have that first really

[24:49] big drop off on your existing tax

[24:51] supported debt and then you would have

[24:54] level debt service for let's say 19

[24:57] years after that. That's what we've

[24:58] modeled. So six years plus 19 years, 25

[25:02] years total on the property tax side. Um

[25:06] I would note that you could actually do

[25:07] the property tax portion faster if you

[25:10] wanted to. There's nothing saying you

[25:11] would need to stretch that that out 25

[25:13] years, but again it all depends on how

[25:16] much capacity you want to preserve for

[25:19] other needs of the city that would be

[25:21] paid with property taxes. So, it's

[25:24] striking that balance. Then on the

[25:26] franchise fee side, you might look to uh

[25:30] increase fees next year and the year

[25:32] after that. You certainly wouldn't need

[25:34] 80% increases. It would be much much

[25:36] less than that um to support level debt

[25:39] service on again about a third of the

[25:41] project cost there on that side of

[25:44] things. And you would you could have

[25:46] level debt service or near level debt

[25:48] service over roughly 25 years on that

[25:51] part. And then finally, we might suggest

[25:54] something similar from water and sewer

[25:56] utility revenues. We really could um

[25:59] look at different allocations between

[26:01] water and sewer. You might recall that

[26:03] in previous iterations we were saying

[26:05] this much exactly from water, this much

[26:07] exactly from sewer. For purposes of

[26:10] making a decision on whether and how to

[26:12] move forward, I might recommend that we

[26:15] leave that a little more open-ended, but

[26:17] to say knowing that you've got future

[26:20] needs again in both the water fund and

[26:22] the sewer fund, how can we uh achieve

[26:26] basically a third of the funding from

[26:28] those two sources again with somewhat

[26:31] more modest uh rate increases in 27 and

[26:35] 28 to then just be able to provide for

[26:38] the debt service over 25 years. With all

[26:41] of these, you would have the ability to

[26:43] prepay or a future council would have

[26:45] the ability to prepay and also the

[26:48] ability to refinance if rates would

[26:51] allow for um a refinancing for interest

[26:54] rate savings, interest cost savings on

[26:56] the future years of the bonds. So we're

[26:59] trying to find a solution for here in 26

[27:01] 27 28 but also know that hopefully as

[27:05] the city continues to grow right the net

[27:08] impact per customer per taxpayer is

[27:12] going to become less. We don't want to

[27:14] bank on that saying, "Oh, yeah, it's

[27:15] going to get super easy 10 years from

[27:17] now." But also, you're in a really good

[27:19] situation in being elected officials in

[27:22] a growing city in that you know that the

[27:25] net per capita impact should be going

[27:28] down as the city continues to grow and

[27:31] as uh there's more customers, more

[27:33] franchise fee payers, and more taxpayers

[27:36] in the community.

[27:38] So, what might this look like? Okay, I

[27:41] know that's a lot of numbers here. I I

[27:43] have to put on my readers myself. And these are all rounded uh to

[27:48] thousands. I didn't want to overwhelm

[27:51] you with all sorts of, you know, numbers

[27:53] down to the dollar, but what we are

[27:57] showing here is how these three pieces

[27:59] might come together. So, let's assume

[28:02] you might issue this debt sometime in

[28:05] 2027. Uh when Jolene and I were talking,

[28:08] we thought maybe in the fall of 2027

[28:11] would be a realistic assumption. Could

[28:13] be earlier, could be a little bit later,

[28:15] but maybe sometime around a year from

[28:16] now. And so with that, you would have

[28:20] essentially a half year of interest only

[28:24] that would be due um on on the bonds

[28:28] uh on or around 21 of 28. So you can see

[28:32] that's really coming from fiscal 27, but

[28:35] it would be that bond year end uh ending

[28:38] on 21 of 28 and some pretty nominal

[28:41] interestonly payments. And again, I'm uh these numbers wouldn't be as as

[28:47] rounded. They would be more more

[28:49] granular than this, but you can see it's

[28:51] about $800,000 in total from across the

[28:54] three payment sources.

[28:57] And then on the utility revenue side and

[29:00] on the franchise fee side, you can see

[29:02] how you go then in fiscal 28 to level

[29:06] debt service. Does everyone see that?

[29:08] How it's about 800 grand per year in

[29:11] both of those columns for 25 years. That

[29:14] just happens to be roughly uh onethird

[29:19] per column of $2.4 million.

[29:23] So if you let it run its course through

[29:26] fiscal 52, the utility funds between

[29:30] water and sewer and the franchise fee

[29:32] fund um would be paying 800 grand each

[29:36] through uh 202.

[29:38] A little bit different on the property

[29:40] tax side and this is again to try to

[29:42] take a little bit of advantage of your

[29:44] existing tax supported debt falling off.

[29:47] So you can see that in that column again

[29:50] you we have that halfyear of payments

[29:53] and then it's interest only of about

[29:56] $530,000

[29:57] for six years while we get through the

[30:00] remainder of the high water mark on the

[30:02] existing debt. And then you can see we

[30:05] go to level debt service of about

[30:07] $940,000

[30:09] for the 19 years after that. So, this

[30:12] approach would save the city about

[30:14] $400,000 per year in property tax

[30:18] supported debt. Do you need to do this?

[30:20] No, of course not. You could do level

[30:22] debt service just like we're

[30:24] contemplating on the utility revenue and

[30:26] the franchise fee side. But again, it

[30:29] seems to me that when you're balancing

[30:30] all of your competing priorities for the

[30:32] property tax dollars, this is a

[30:34] relatively modest um amount of shaping

[30:38] and uh achieving some near-term

[30:41] affordability that could really make a

[30:43] difference for the city and for your

[30:45] future property tax levies and and tax

[30:48] rates over the next five to six years.

[30:51] But of course, that's ultimately your

[30:52] decision.

[30:54] So then when you put all these together,

[30:55] you can see how the debt service um is

[30:59] about $2.1 million for the first six

[31:02] years and then stabilizes at around $2.5

[31:05] million

[31:07] uh after that. Again, assuming no

[31:10] refinancings or early payments of the

[31:12] bonds.

[31:14] Now, let's just focus for a second then

[31:16] on the property tax supported debt. You

[31:19] can see I've replicated that column um

[31:23] uh from the left hand side on the right

[31:26] hand side for what that part of the debt

[31:28] might look like. And then I've layered

[31:31] on also your existing bond payments that

[31:33] are paid from property taxes. Right? So

[31:35] right now you're at again sort of a high

[31:38] watermark of 3 million 3.1 million but

[31:41] then in 2034 that drops by about half

[31:45] right to 1.6 6 million and then down to

[31:48] $400,000

[31:50] after that. Pretty small amount that's

[31:53] paid from property taxes. So if you look

[31:56] at both the new property tax supported

[31:59] debt and the old debt together, you can

[32:01] see that that still ratchets down pretty

[32:05] rapidly over time, even with the new

[32:07] debt for the public works facility

[32:09] added.

[32:11] And if we go to the next slide, you can

[32:14] see in a stacked bar chart, the orange

[32:17] bars are your existing debt payments on

[32:19] existing bonds. You can see how those

[32:22] fall off in 20 after 2033

[32:25] and then again after 2034.

[32:28] So if we did interestonly payments for

[32:31] six years and then started level debt

[32:34] service, you would still have a lot of

[32:36] capacity again for future capital

[32:40] projects or operating priorities of the

[32:42] city. Or like I noted a few minutes ago,

[32:46] if you decided, gee, we would really

[32:48] like to pay that off sooner. We don't

[32:50] think we'll need all of that capacity

[32:53] opened up um for other projects or other

[32:55] priorities. You could certainly

[32:58] reduce the overall interest cost and and

[33:01] have some of that um principle paid off

[33:04] faster.

[33:05] But again, it's all about striking

[33:07] balances, right, between efficiency and

[33:09] affordability and knowing that you have

[33:12] a lot of things you'll want to be

[33:14] investing in here in the city of Forest

[33:16] Lake uh in the coming years.

[33:20] So, in conclusion, but again, this is

[33:22] really just another chapter in the

[33:24] conversation. I want to stress you

[33:27] really do have unlimited options for how

[33:28] you structure this debt and how you

[33:31] repay the bonds. Uh you're in a very

[33:34] good position with your credit rating.

[33:36] You know that you've got strong fund

[33:38] balances. Um you are not maxed out, if

[33:42] you will, in terms of your existing debt

[33:45] or your ability to use taxes or to use

[33:47] franchise fees or to use utility

[33:49] revenues. It's really about striking the

[33:52] right balance between the three that you

[33:54] feel is affordable for your community

[33:57] and still preserves capacity to do other

[34:00] things besides build this public works

[34:02] facility.

[34:03] So given all of that, again, we think

[34:05] that basically a a pie cut in thirds

[34:09] might be an appropriate way to tackle

[34:12] this $35 million cost and that we would

[34:16] recommend some shaping of the debt on

[34:19] the property tax side. Again, to take

[34:21] advantage of that fall-off in your tax

[34:25] supported debt and then level debt

[34:27] service on the franchise fee and the

[34:29] utility revenue side. And from our

[34:32] perspective, that strikes an a

[34:34] reasonable and appropriate balance

[34:35] between again efficiency, trying to get

[34:37] that debt paid off as efficiently as

[34:39] possible, but also affordability and

[34:42] preserving capacity to do other things

[34:43] in the community as well.

[34:46] So, that's what we've got and I'd be

[34:50] happy to entertain uh questions or fire

[34:53] up my laptop, Mr. Mayor. Whatever you

[34:55] want to do.

[34:56] >> Questions.

[34:59] Um, [clears throat] Bruce, a couple

[35:01] questions. Um, the mayor asked about uh,

[35:05] you know, obviously commercial

[35:07] properties and and things like that, you

[35:09] know, let's just say million, 2 million,

[35:11] whatever it might be. Um, when I look at

[35:13] the prices that we've used in here for

[35:16] house cost, um, they seem low to me. And

[35:19] so, I would like to see some pricing on

[35:22] not only $600,000

[35:24] house prices, but million-dollar house

[35:26] prices. Um, you know, at 600,000 I look

[35:29] at this and I go, "Well, that's $370 a

[35:32] year. That's less than a little over $30

[35:35] a month. It's a little over a dollar a

[35:38] day. Sounds great,

[35:41] you know, and I would be all for that,

[35:43] but I'd like to see some of the higher

[35:44] prices as well."

[35:50] » Any other questions?

[35:52] Uh so [clears throat] what if we did

[35:54] this third a third a third do you have

[35:56] the numbers of what percentage increase

[35:59] would have to be on franchise fees to

[36:02] keep the million dollars plus for roads

[36:04] and the sewer and water? You you alluded

[36:07] to an 80% increase if we were going

[36:08] fully on on franchise fees or the other,

[36:11] you know, the utility funds, right?

[36:13] >> Um would you have a a number there if it

[36:16] is this third third? Yeah, it it's

[36:18] actually um I I didn't put this in the um PowerPoint. Um uh but it's it's

[36:26] actually pretty um u

[36:30] intuitive in that remember before we

[36:32] were looking at $2.4 million going just

[36:35] on the franchise fee. Just use that

[36:37] example. And now we're looking at about

[36:39] a third of that, but all the other

[36:41] assumptions staying the same. So instead

[36:43] of an 80% and an 80% you're looking at

[36:47] roughly a 25% and a 25% or whatever you

[36:51] want to however you want to massage

[36:53] that. We might since you had a

[36:55] relatively large increase this year for

[36:58] 2026, you might say let's take a little

[37:00] bit of a breather for 27, maybe not do

[37:04] as much, but then more again in 2028,

[37:07] but it' be basically a 50 to 60%

[37:10] increase overall between the two years

[37:14] as opposed to 160 plus percent. Then

[37:18] after two years then does that keep in

[37:21] its I mean maybe our normal 3% or

[37:24] whatever that we just kind of built in

[37:25] it for

[37:26] >> Yeah. Or you could take a holiday and

[37:29] say okay we don't we're going to hold it

[37:31] steady for a little while and Yes.

[37:33] Exactly. But at that point and actually

[37:36] those numbers are a little high. I think

[37:39] those numbers actually generated enough

[37:41] to fund a little bit closer to $1.2 $2

[37:44] million a year for road projects. So I

[37:47] would say that Mr. Mayor, you could say

[37:49] 25% and 25% would be a reasonable

[37:53] assumption on what it would take just to

[37:56] get this debt service done at a third u

[37:59] going on the franchise fee.

[38:01] >> Okay. And then could you go back to the

[38:03] slide where it shows the debt service

[38:05] falling off?

[38:06] >> Yeah. Um, and I don't know without Ellie

[38:08] being here who would have the answer to

[38:10] this, but and maybe you do, Bruce. You

[38:12] know, we had a presentation last at a

[38:14] workshop last week where we had three

[38:16] big road projects and each of them

[38:18] contemplated bonding. That's not worked

[38:20] into this here, I would assume.

[38:22] >> No.

[38:22] >> Okay.

[38:23] >> No. So, great point, Mr. Mayor. Um

[38:28] that certainly could be a next step and

[38:31] would be very easy for us to do uh in

[38:34] terms of

[38:36] use putting in some assumptions. So you

[38:37] got your orange bars, these blue bars

[38:39] and then maybe some green bars for these

[38:42] future road projects and what that could

[38:45] how much of that capacity could be eaten

[38:48] up and by capacity I mean the white

[38:50] space right there in the chart. Um, how

[38:54] much of that would be eaten up by future

[38:56] road projects? Yeah,

[38:57] >> I think that would be good if council

[38:59] would agree just because it it gives us

[39:01] a we know we have to do the at least

[39:02] those three and likely more. Um, it

[39:05] would be just nice to have that baked in

[39:07] here. So, we're really looking at true

[39:08] numbers for the next 30 years here, 25

[39:11] years on what that might look like. Um

[39:14] and then um

[39:18] there was one other thing you said

[39:19] before that I was going to ask about if

[39:22] we can um on these 20 you know just

[39:25] harder numbers maybe on that 25% and

[39:27] what that would look like um for the

[39:30] increases like to a dollar amount

[39:33] >> um would be helpful I think as as well

[39:36] >> um the utility increases. So I think in

[39:38] the original

[39:40] planning for this, the water and sewer

[39:42] funds, enterprise funds were going to

[39:43] cover maybe as much as 50%.

[39:46] >> Right?

[39:46] >> And we had baked into that 10-year plan

[39:49] some rate increases that would

[39:50] accommodate that to some degree

[39:54] to cover a third based on current,

[39:58] you know, higher priced facility than

[40:00] was originally planned. What do those

[40:02] rate increases look like on the

[40:03] enterprise fund side?

[40:06] Uh,

[40:08] Council Member Ericson, I'm not sure I

[40:10] know what the estimated cost of the

[40:14] project was for those most recent rate

[40:17] increases. So when we ran our numbers

[40:20] here for if we did 100% on the utility

[40:23] fund,

[40:24] >> we were assuming 35

[40:27] million um and it was going to be

[40:32] about about a 40% increase on the sewer

[40:35] rates and about a 20% increase on the

[40:37] water rates based on that roughly 3/4

[40:41] one quarter split. But I think when

[40:44] those numbers were done,

[40:47] well, I guess I I would have to ask

[40:49] staff exactly what assumptions were used

[40:52] there on those rate increases.

[40:53] >> Yeah. I mean, I think the original in

[40:55] the 10ear plan, this project was like

[40:57] $20 million project.

[40:59] >> Okay.

[40:59] >> And so water and sewer is basically

[41:01] covering 10 million. So I suppose we're

[41:03] probably right there. And

[41:04] >> it's probably about a wash.

[41:05] >> Yeah, sounds like

[41:06] >> Yeah. I Is everyone understanding? I

[41:09] think we're even though it's a higher

[41:11] cost, it's a lower percentage and so

[41:13] you're probably going to be about in the

[41:15] same ballpark just intuitively that

[41:18] makes sense.

[41:19] But certainly we could drill down

[41:21] further in updating that 10-year

[41:23] projection and say yeah if it's a third

[41:26] of 35 million and if we

[41:31] however you want to split it up between

[41:33] water and sewer but there again I think

[41:35] it would be helpful maybe to talk about

[41:38] what are some of the specific projects

[41:40] that you've got in the offing as well on

[41:44] the water and sewer side.

[41:47] I don't want this to sort of, you know,

[41:50] get in the way of you deciding on

[41:53] whether and how to move forward with

[41:54] next steps, but I would absolutely uh

[41:58] encourage us having that continued

[42:00] conversation as to what some of those

[42:03] specific dollar amounts might be. Yeah,

[42:07] I think that 10 year plan and

[42:09] contemplated some of the upcoming

[42:10] projects that you know they know they

[42:12] have, but also covering this, I think

[42:14] those water and sewer rates might

[42:15] actually be kind of on par or planned

[42:18] rate increases would be on par with what

[42:20] we're talking about tonight.

[42:21] >> Great.

[42:22] >> One other question. Um,

[42:26] the city maintains some level of

[42:28] investment assets for

[42:31] >> unplanned emergencies and natural

[42:32] disasters. Um, is it been contemplated

[42:35] at all to buy this bond down by using

[42:38] any of those available resources?

[42:41] We have not run scenarios with that

[42:45] assumption. Uh, we certainly could and

[42:49] many cities do that, especially if some

[42:52] of that is really contemplated for

[42:55] capital projects. Um, part of your very

[42:58] strong credit rating is based on the

[43:00] fact that you have strong reserves for a

[43:03] rainy day. So, we wouldn't want to draw

[43:06] too much of that cash down. Also, you're

[43:08] still earning a very good interest rate

[43:10] on those investments. And, uh, you would

[43:13] probably be bonding

[43:15] well, the bond rate if you went out the

[43:16] full 25 years might be a little bit

[43:18] higher than what Ellie can invest at in

[43:20] today's market. But um you know there

[43:25] again it's it's sort of a balancing act.

[43:26] How much cash can you reasonably give up

[43:29] in order to increase affordability

[43:32] but knowing that you'll also be

[43:33] foregoing investment earnings and that

[43:35] could have uh ramifications for your

[43:38] budget as well. But yes, uh we could

[43:41] absolutely run scenarios assuming

[43:44] uh whether it's two million or five

[43:46] million of cash or whatever it might be

[43:48] to buy down that $35 million bonding

[43:51] amount.

[43:52] >> The other alternative to using any of

[43:53] that cash, my understanding is that the

[43:55] majority of that those earnings are

[43:57] simply reinvested. Correct. Verse I mean

[44:00] could could any of those earnings be

[44:03] used to cover some of the debt service

[44:05] >> 100%.

[44:07] >> Be another

[44:07] >> Yeah. to look at it.

[44:09] >> And the nice thing about investment

[44:10] earnings is they are really eligible to

[44:13] be used in any

[44:16] but for any corporate purpose of the

[44:17] city.

[44:18] >> So you could apply those to debt

[44:20] service, you could apply those to any

[44:22] number of things.

[44:24] >> Yeah,

[44:25] >> I I like I like that idea. I think you

[44:28] know you use [clears throat] those

[44:29] investment funds for a major situation

[44:33] or natural disaster. This is a major

[44:36] deal. we in badly need of a public works

[44:38] facility, which we've underbudgeted.

[44:40] It's not knowing what the that building

[44:42] market has done. And so I I think it

[44:45] justifies using some of those to to

[44:47] bring that bond down or that buy buy

[44:50] some debt down for sure.

[44:52] >> And one thing I'll mention, Mr. mayor,

[44:54] council members, um you've got a great

[44:56] finance team and a great interim city

[44:59] administrator. Um who are on top of

[45:02] these things, but we can also help maybe

[45:05] take a look at your reserve levels and

[45:10] not that you know our word at Ellers is is gospel or anything, but if there's

[45:15] an interest in in in gauging how much is

[45:18] really appropriate for a rainy day, we

[45:21] could fold that into

[45:23] later discussions as well. Just to backs

[45:26] stop, if you do make a decision, I'm

[45:28] just pulling out $5 million because 35

[45:30] minus 5 is a nice round 30. But if you

[45:33] did want to use $5 million,

[45:36] um you might like having some

[45:38] backstopping from somebody like Eller

[45:40] saying, "Yeah, this is really reasonable

[45:42] based on your cash flows and you getting

[45:45] property taxes from Washington County,

[45:48] you know, twice a year and all that kind

[45:49] of stuff.

[45:54] uh joy enough direction probably to come

[45:56] back with some more things

[45:58] >> I think so I've got quite yeah no it was

[46:01] a good conversation I'm glad I

[46:02] appreciate everyone's input on that

[46:05] >> u so thank you

[46:06] >> yeah you're welcome

[46:07] >> and we really appreciate these

[46:10] conversations and whatever else we can

[46:12] provide to help um build the business

[46:15] case for moving forward on what seems to

[46:16] be an important project for the city so

[46:18] thank you

[46:19] >> thanks All

[46:22] right, we'll go to 8B Hidden Creek Third

[46:26] Edition Easement Vacation. Abby,

[46:34] » thank you, Mr. Mayor,

[46:37] members of the council. Just give me a

[46:39] second here.

[47:01] Never gets old.

[47:32] All right. Tonight for your

[47:33] consideration is uh Hidden Creek uh

[47:37] third editions easement vacation. So

[47:39] tonight also on the agenda is

[47:41] consideration of a final plat for Hidden

[47:44] Creek uh fourth edition. That fourth

[47:47] edition plat is going to go down in an

[47:50] area right where we have an easement for

[47:52] a temporary culde-sac that was

[47:54] associated with the third edition plat.

[47:56] So where the roadway is coming down Elie

[47:58] I think it's Elie Avenue.

[48:01] Thank you. Uh we have a temporary

[48:03] culde-sac tonight. The consideration is

[48:06] removing vacating that easement for that

[48:09] uh public culde-sac. Um, and then what

[48:12] will happen is if so, should you choose

[48:15] to approve the final plat, the final

[48:17] plat will go over then where that

[48:19] temporary culde-sac was replacing it

[48:22] extending Ele Avenue. And as part of

[48:24] those conditional approvals, we'd also

[48:25] look to get a new easement at the south

[48:28] end of Elely Avenue in the future. Um,

[48:32] so moving the the black circle away to

[48:36] move that line down at the next

[48:37] application that you're going to listen

[48:38] to. Um,

[48:42] you have to hold a public hearing on

[48:44] easement vacations. That's a statutory

[48:46] requirement. Uh, the purpose really is

[48:48] to look to see that there's no public

[48:50] purpose for this public infrastructure

[48:53] at any point anymore. So, tonight staff

[48:56] is asking you to open the public

[48:57] hearing, receive any public testimony,

[49:00] and then close the public hearing. I

[49:03] will note that street vacations or

[49:05] vacations do require four fifths vote of

[49:08] the council. Tonight for your

[49:09] consideration though, staff has um asked

[49:13] or has drafted a resolution resolution

[49:15] number 082426

[49:18] [clears throat] that would uh take um

[49:21] that would vacate the ele. So there is a

[49:25] draft motion here for you. A motion to

[49:27] adopt resolution 08242602

[49:30] vacating the temporary culde-sac access

[49:32] seizement recorded as Washington County

[49:34] document number 4474823.

[49:38] You have any questions for me?

[49:41] >> No. All right. With that [clears throat]

[49:43] at 6:50 we'll open up public hearing on

[49:46] the vacation of the temporary culde-sac

[49:49] access. Uh

[49:53] anyone here to speak to that?

[50:00] Anyone last time here to speak to the

[50:04] vacation of the culde-sac access?

[50:08] Seeing no one else at 6:51, we'll close

[50:12] the public hearing and bring it back to

[50:13] council.

[50:15] Great.

[50:17] Want to make a motion?

[50:19] Um, I'll make a motion to adopt

[50:20] resolution number 08242602

[50:23] vacating the temporary culde-sac access

[50:25] easement recorded as Washington County

[50:26] document number 4474823.

[50:31] » I'll second motion a second. Any further

[50:33] discussion?

[50:35] >> All in favor?

[50:36] >> I opposed. Motion carries.

[50:40] >> Okay, we'll move on to Hidden Creek

[50:42] fourth edition final plat approval.

[50:44] Abby,

[50:45] >> thank you. Uh, Mayor Roberts, members of

[50:47] the council tonight for your

[50:48] consideration is the final plat for

[50:50] Hidden Creek fourth edition. Um, this

[50:53] has been submitted by Headwaters Land

[50:55] Group and represents the last remaining

[50:57] lots to be developed in the existing

[50:59] Hidden Creek neighborhood. As a

[51:01] reminder, we have seen concept plans and

[51:04] working through the preliminary plat

[51:05] process for Hidden Creek South that

[51:07] neighborhood and Eley Avenue will scoop

[51:10] down and move back to the east on Hidden

[51:12] Creek. that is separate at this time

[51:14] from this development.

[51:16] Um, Hidden Creek was originally approved

[51:19] with 125 lots. Originally, it was going

[51:21] to be two phases, kind of an east phase,

[51:23] west phase. We've broken it out into

[51:24] four um, development lots. We're at 18

[51:28] remaining lots to be platted for this

[51:30] neighborhood.

[51:32] So, those lot widths do vary as low as

[51:35] 44 feet wide, um, but do get as wide as

[51:38] 126 feet. Uh that is approval as part of

[51:42] the preliminary plat that was approved

[51:44] in early 2022 that gave that averaging

[51:47] of 70 ft across all 125 lots in the

[51:51] neighborhood. Um that access and

[51:53] circulation, we just vacated that

[51:55] existing access uh or that um existing

[51:59] culdeac at the south end of Elely. Now

[52:02] that that's gone, the plat will extend

[52:04] Ele Avenue and as a condition of

[52:06] approval, we will need a new access uh

[52:08] turnaround access or turnaround

[52:11] culde-sac at the south end of this

[52:12] development. Um construction uh access

[52:16] from Headarters Parkway is something

[52:19] that I'll get into in the next slide,

[52:21] but the goal here is to try to minimize

[52:23] the disruption to the neighborhood as as

[52:26] it has expanded significantly more since

[52:28] the third phase. Public improvements do

[52:31] include water sanitary sewer storm,

[52:33] sewer streets, um completing of drainage

[52:37] trail and park grading work. So all of

[52:39] that still has to be done with this

[52:41] final plat.

[52:43] So one area that is of concern for the

[52:46] city is construction access of the

[52:48] remaining work. So as a reminder, uh

[52:50] Hidden Creek as a whole was 125 lots.

[52:54] 107 lots have been platted and I can't

[52:58] say all, but I would say we're probably

[53:00] maybe 75% of those 107 lots are built

[53:03] out. Um we have had in our development

[53:06] agreements requirement for a con

[53:08] temporary construction access to the

[53:10] south side of Elely Avenue to try to

[53:13] funnel some of that development related

[53:15] work over to the west side of the

[53:18] property so we're not snaking through

[53:19] the neighborhood. Uh we really want to

[53:21] see minimal construction traffic running

[53:23] through that neighborhood. So what is

[53:27] included in your staff report is based

[53:28] on a city planning commission

[53:30] recommendation that that would remain in

[53:33] place and um until the time 85% a new

[53:36] home con completion.

[53:39] That's different than the current plat.

[53:40] essentially says on the

[53:42] third phase essentially says hey use

[53:45] that access road as much as you can but

[53:47] if you're going to drive through that

[53:48] neighborhood be cautious and we had

[53:50] developed a cautious plan. Um that is

[53:54] one area just for discussion tonight in

[53:56] that the way the access road is lined

[53:59] out. It does impede on some of that

[54:01] future development through that area. Um

[54:04] staff has drafted the resolution based

[54:06] on the planning commission's uh

[54:08] recommendation though that we would keep

[54:10] that in place and require all

[54:11] construction traffic to use utilize that

[54:14] route. Also, before building permitting,

[54:17] we do need to ensure that all of all the

[54:19] other public improvements, our roads,

[54:21] our sidewalks, our infiltration basins

[54:24] are in place. Um, as a reminder, even

[54:26] though we talked I talked a minute about

[54:27] Hidden Creek South, Hidden Creek fourth

[54:30] edition does represent the end of this

[54:32] development. We want all public

[54:34] improvements done before we're going to

[54:35] start issuing building permits. And then

[54:38] before we close out this development, we

[54:39] want to make sure we have work,

[54:41] lighting, storm cleaning, record plans,

[54:43] punch list, all those teeny housecaping

[54:45] items that sometimes can linger in phase

[54:48] developments. We want to get it all done

[54:50] as part of this development. So tonight

[54:53] before you is the consideration of a

[54:55] resolution that does encapsulate

[54:57] conditions of approval. Um those

[55:00] conditions do indicate that we need do

[55:03] need to enter into development

[55:04] agreement. We will want some financial

[55:07] securities including 125% of all the

[55:10] incompleted work replacement easement

[55:13] that we just talked about in the

[55:14] previous application and then finalizing

[55:17] all the plans permits easements fees the

[55:20] fees including parkland dedication of at

[55:23] the moment $2500 per lot. Um the

[55:27] planning commission's recommendation is

[55:29] to move forward with the approval of a

[55:32] resolution that did come as a six to

[55:34] one. There was one commission member who

[55:36] just thought it wasn't quite ready just

[55:38] because we have a lot of conditions, but

[55:40] that's pretty customary in our

[55:42] development that we still have quite a

[55:44] bit of loose ends to kind of clean up

[55:47] before we finalize the bow with the

[55:49] development agreement usually. So

[55:51] tonight for your consideration uh staff

[55:54] would recommend you adopt resolution

[55:56] 08242603

[55:58] and there is a recommended motion up on

[55:59] the screen. Um developer Paul Bergamman

[56:03] of Headarters Land Group is here if you

[56:04] have questions for him. Do you have any

[56:07] questions for me?

[56:10] » Council any questions?

[56:16] I didn't know it was so moving. Council

[56:18] member Miller

[56:19] >> allergies.

[56:22] Um, Mr. Ruben, would you like to come up

[56:24] and

[56:25] address the council?

[56:31] » Yeah. Mayor, members of city council, um

[56:34] could you clarify for me, Abby, on the

[56:36] road, this temporary construction access

[56:39] road,

[56:40] >> what is what are you asking for or what

[56:42] is

[56:43] >> the temporary construction access road

[56:44] as it exists today? Yeah.

[56:46] >> To be used until 85% of home completion.

[56:50] That is what the planning commission

[56:51] recommended.

[56:53] So not not just the construction of the

[56:56] 18 lots road but the the construction of

[56:59] the homes.

[57:01] >> Correct.

[57:02] >> Okay. Um

[57:05] we can't um we will work and try to

[57:09] maintain that uh not try we will work

[57:11] and maintain the uh construction access

[57:14] road during the construction of the road

[57:17] but to maintain that road till 85% of

[57:20] the homes are constructed which could be

[57:22] a couple years. What are we doing in the

[57:24] middle of the winter? How are we

[57:26] maintaining this temporary construction

[57:28] road? We have roads there that are built

[57:31] to the standards. If they're too narrow,

[57:34] why don't we come in through the north

[57:35] with our I mean, [clears throat]

[57:38] I understand and and we'll do whatever

[57:40] we can. I think uh Amanda talked to our

[57:44] attorney today on this road. During the

[57:47] construction, we'll try to limit as much

[57:49] impact to the streets as we can through

[57:51] the neighborhood, but do it during the

[57:53] actual home construction. Um,

[57:56] then I want you to deny my final plat

[57:59] because we can't do that. It's just not

[58:01] feasible. I that's that's I don't even

[58:03] know how we would do it. I mean, you're

[58:05] asking me to maintain a temporary road

[58:08] construction for two years or so. So, I I'm not sure what the deal is on that.

[58:15] Um, I think we resolved the other major

[58:18] issue was the pond. Um, that's in

[58:21] process and going to be started. Um what

[58:24] about where do we sit with the dirt

[58:25] pile? Is there any issues that we have

[58:26] to talk to on the dirt pile?

[58:28] >> I think we can finish that out in final

[58:30] grading plan um and through the

[58:32] development agreement.

[58:34] >> So and Amanda, I think you talked to

[58:36] Joel.

[58:38] Can you help me? And this through the

[58:40] construction of the homes um isn't what

[58:44] I understood took place with you and

[58:46] Joel. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. Uh yeah,

[58:50] your honor, council, I I think there was

[58:51] a misunderstanding then because it the

[58:53] communication with um Mr. Holstead was

[58:58] um [clears throat]

[58:59] that your concern was that you would

[59:01] have to put in a new road and that you

[59:04] didn't have a concern about using the

[59:05] current road.

[59:07] >> I don't. But I don't know how this

[59:08] current road can be maintained through

[59:10] the winter through the freeze thaw,

[59:12] through the rain. I mean, when it's dry,

[59:14] you can land a 747 out there. when it's

[59:16] wet, you can't ride a bike through it.

[59:18] So, I don't know. I mean, in order to

[59:21] make this road to last two years is a

[59:25] huge cost. I mean, it it's I don't even

[59:28] get why that's even on the table. I

[59:31] mean, we've got roads in place that are to the standard or loads uh that

[59:37] we're bringing in even for the uh road

[59:39] development. I talked to the contractor.

[59:41] He thinks there'll be approximately 10

[59:43] to 12 days of construction traffic on

[59:46] the roads. That's including the delivery

[59:48] of the pipe, plastic, lightweight pipe,

[59:51] some gravel. The main traffic will be

[59:55] uh when the twoft base is brought in,

[59:57] which will take about 4 days. So,

[1:00:00] there's not a significant amount of

[1:00:02] traffic that's going to be done to to

[1:00:04] develop these 18 lots. But guys, it's

[1:00:07] just not reasonable to ask me to put a a road that I have to maintain for two

[1:00:14] years.

[1:00:16] >> Abby, uh, did was this this was a new

[1:00:20] condition added on by the planning

[1:00:23] commission?

[1:00:23] >> Yeah, the planning commission really

[1:00:24] wanted to memorialize that the

[1:00:26] construction traffic included

[1:00:27] construction traffic associated with the

[1:00:29] construction of new homes. I do concur

[1:00:32] with uh, Mr. Bergamman that that is

[1:00:34] mildly uncustomary. It's not as common

[1:00:37] for cities to do that. I think the

[1:00:39] concern was that we are at the tail end

[1:00:41] of an oversized culde-sac and there are

[1:00:45] just more homes in that vicinity. The

[1:00:48] one thing I will say is that I've

[1:00:50] highlighted the condition that is word

[1:00:53] for word in the resolution. It's on two

[1:00:55] page 257 of the packet that does

[1:00:58] indicate um they shall use the temporary

[1:01:00] access um and it says when weather or

[1:01:04] deterioration makes the temporary access

[1:01:06] unsafe or not reasonable possible we

[1:01:09] could also allow for access onto the

[1:01:11] roads. Now I understand that that still

[1:01:14] require would require all construction

[1:01:16] traffic even home building construction

[1:01:18] traffic but we have put at least

[1:01:20] requirements in here that if weather

[1:01:22] becomes a problem and this is not able

[1:01:24] to be used we can authorize something

[1:01:26] differently. What does that look like

[1:01:29] and how do we I mean do does that as a

[1:01:32] change in the condition and that would

[1:01:34] have to come back to the city to staff

[1:01:36] to okay okay we've got three weeks of

[1:01:39] wet [snorts] conditions now you're okay

[1:01:41] to use the city streets.

[1:01:43] >> It gives the engineer after consultation

[1:01:45] with uh public works the authority to

[1:01:48] put it in writing. Um I think it does

[1:01:50] make it a you know a little clunky or

[1:01:52] could be subjective. Um I you know I

[1:01:56] think that this is a good talking point

[1:01:57] for the council to see if you concur

[1:01:59] with the planning commission's um

[1:02:02] recommendation

[1:02:03] just because I think that that is

[1:02:05] something that um you know definitely

[1:02:09] could set a precedent as well if we're

[1:02:12] going to be requiring temporary access

[1:02:14] roads and all development to all

[1:02:18] construction traffic to use them.

[1:02:20] >> I I think for me that the difference

[1:02:23] here you hear about some more of

[1:02:25] established neighborhoods, uh, Chestnut

[1:02:27] Creek that has been there for seven,

[1:02:29] eight years and all of a sudden a new

[1:02:30] development or new additions coming and

[1:02:33] you have all this traffic. You know,

[1:02:36] most of those homes are relatively new

[1:02:37] and they've all experienced or been

[1:02:39] benefited from people coming in and

[1:02:42] building into that neighborhood and

[1:02:43] building their homes. So, I think they

[1:02:44] would be more understandable that, hey,

[1:02:47] this is just part of living in a brand

[1:02:48] new development and hopefully this thing

[1:02:51] gets done sooner than later. I I would

[1:02:54] be comfortable with waving that

[1:02:55] requirement on this.

[1:03:00] » I don't know. I think I some of the

[1:03:02] concerns that they've had in the past. I

[1:03:04] don't know if it can change or not uh

[1:03:06] when you're coming through a new

[1:03:08] development or an existing development,

[1:03:11] maybe the school times when kids are

[1:03:14] being picked up or anything like that or

[1:03:15] the busier parts of the day. I think

[1:03:18] that's what they're more concerned about

[1:03:19] is the the maybe just day-to-day traffic

[1:03:23] and how that construction traffic might

[1:03:26] interfere with with some of that. I

[1:03:28] don't know if there's a way to work

[1:03:29] around any of that. I think that seemed

[1:03:31] to be one of their big concerns in the

[1:03:33] past.

[1:03:35] >> Abby, in your presentation, you talked

[1:03:36] about a safety plan that's been used on

[1:03:39] the other ones. Like that's worked out

[1:03:40] well, has it? During the third phase, um

[1:03:44] the way the condition of approval and it

[1:03:47] was embedded into the development

[1:03:49] agreement, if I remember right, Amanda

[1:03:51] could correct me if I was wrong, is it

[1:03:53] was it just said all construction,

[1:03:55] traffic, and delivery shall use the

[1:03:56] temporary access from Headwaters Parkway

[1:03:58] to the greatest extent possible. In the

[1:04:00] event it cannot be used, a safety plan

[1:04:02] would be implemented. and they

[1:04:03] supplemented with a separate safety plan

[1:04:06] that included signage of trucks hauling

[1:04:09] no not to exceed a certain mile per hour

[1:04:12] daily safety meetings. Um, we re also

[1:04:15] required a similar safety plan for you

[1:04:18] brought up Chestnut Creek. Again, an

[1:04:20] established neighborhood, Havenwood, you

[1:04:22] know, kind of in the middle um in that

[1:04:25] neighborhood a little bit different

[1:04:26] where they're going to um coordinate, if

[1:04:29] I remember correctly, and please don't

[1:04:31] quote me on this one, that there was

[1:04:33] some concern specifically about school

[1:04:35] bus pickup and drop off times and to

[1:04:37] coordinate um a lag during those, you

[1:04:40] know, very kind of limited windows.

[1:04:43] um you know so it's up those both of

[1:04:47] those safety plans staff worked through

[1:04:49] with the developer.

[1:04:51] I would say that if the council is not

[1:04:53] favorable to condition number 12 then um

[1:04:56] possibly it's a motion to approve the

[1:04:59] resolution with amendment to number 12

[1:05:01] consistent with past development

[1:05:03] practices for Hidden Creek um which

[1:05:06] would then revert back to what we've

[1:05:08] currently been doing in the

[1:05:09] neighborhood.

[1:05:12] The only What I would say is we probably

[1:05:14] would want to amend it slightly that the

[1:05:16] access road is uh removed and the site

[1:05:20] is restored

[1:05:21] upon prior to completion of the

[1:05:24] neighborhood.

[1:05:26] >> I can type that.

[1:05:29] >> Go ahead, Paul.

[1:05:29] >> I'll do that. It's not an important

[1:05:32] whenever you want the road removed,

[1:05:33] we'll do that. I didn't understand

[1:05:35] exactly, but it doesn't matter. It's

[1:05:37] insignificant.

[1:05:38] >> I think

[1:05:39] >> when she wants us to remove the road, we

[1:05:41] will. Yeah. Any other questions, concerns, thoughts?

[1:05:49] >> Yeah, I'm in agreement. I think that,

[1:05:51] you know, number I guess number 12, it's

[1:05:55] calling for 16 homes to be done and

[1:05:58] certificates

[1:05:59] to be held before this road is vacated

[1:06:02] is a little bit over the top.

[1:06:10] You're typing something else for

[1:06:12] potential.

[1:06:12] >> Typing it up really quickly.

[1:06:13] >> Yep.

[1:06:14] >> Thank you for that.

[1:06:26] » [cough and clears throat]

[1:06:34] » Paul, things came to continue to move

[1:06:36] out there. Good sales are great. Ahead

[1:06:39] of schedule.

[1:06:40] >> The builder called me tonight wanting to

[1:06:41] make sure that we got these lots

[1:06:43] approved. It's going so well.

[1:06:44] >> Good.

[1:06:45] >> And he's pushing us to keep going on the

[1:06:48] south. So,

[1:06:49] >> it's good.

[1:06:50] >> Yeah.

[1:06:51] >> It's a little choppy. Um but I added in

[1:06:53] there that with amendment to condition

[1:06:55] 12 be identical to Hidden Creek third

[1:06:57] edition and road is removed and restored

[1:06:59] prior to development completion. A

[1:07:02] temporary access road that might be a

[1:07:05] instead of calling it road. Trying to be

[1:07:08] a little bit more specific.

[1:07:19] Any

[1:07:22] other questions for me?

[1:07:24] >> I don't think so. Council does.

[1:07:25] >> Thank you.

[1:07:26] >> Yeah.

[1:07:30] » Could I make a friendly amendment to the

[1:07:32] motion? Can we move the word identical?

[1:07:35] Technically, we want it to be similar to

[1:07:37] >> similar, but because we're going to

[1:07:40] requiring that they restore

[1:07:41] [clears throat] the road and I'm going

[1:07:42] to tie that to the letter of credit. In

[1:07:44] other words, they don't get the re

[1:07:45] letter of credit release until that road

[1:07:47] is gone. So, I want the ability to put

[1:07:49] in a little bit of teeth, please.

[1:07:52] >> Yeah, absolutely.

[1:07:53] >> Thanks. I'll pull this up for you then.

[1:08:08] » All right. Who's going to make a motion

[1:08:11] on this?

[1:08:13] >> I'll give it a shot. How's that sound?

[1:08:17] I'll make a motion to adopt resolution

[1:08:19] number 0824-26-03

[1:08:23] conditionally approving the Hidden Creek

[1:08:25] fourth additional edition final plat

[1:08:29] case number J26-0446

[1:08:33] based on the findings of fact and

[1:08:35] subject to the conditions contained in

[1:08:37] the resolution.

[1:08:39] This may be amended by the council with

[1:08:41] the amendment to the condition number 12

[1:08:43] be similar to the hidden creek third

[1:08:45] edition and temporary access road is

[1:08:48] removed and restored prior to

[1:08:50] development and completion.

[1:08:53] All right motion. Do we have a second?

[1:08:55] >> I'll second.

[1:08:56] >> All right. Any further discussion?

[1:08:59] All in favor?

[1:09:01] >> I opposed. Motion carries. Thanks, Paul.

[1:09:08] » All right. eight D parkland dedication

[1:09:11] fee study. Abby,

[1:09:17] » thank you. Uh, Mayor Roberts, members of

[1:09:19] the council, tonight bringing back for

[1:09:21] you another, uh, discussion and seeking

[1:09:25] direction on the Parkland dedication

[1:09:26] study. So, as a reminder, um, feels like

[1:09:30] longer ago, but your last meeting,

[1:09:35] uh, you reviewed the Parkland dedication

[1:09:37] study, the history of Parkland

[1:09:38] dedication in the city, including those

[1:09:40] historical increases. We talked a little

[1:09:43] bit about the identifying the needs, the

[1:09:45] capital plan. We looked at our

[1:09:48] comparable cities and um then the

[1:09:51] recommendation of the study that does

[1:09:53] indicate we should be increasing our

[1:09:55] parkland dedication fee in lie of 392909

[1:10:00] per residential unit and 896691

[1:10:04] per um acre of non-residential

[1:10:08] development. The council was concerned

[1:10:10] that that 896681

[1:10:13] uh per non-residential acre of

[1:10:15] development when compared to our peer

[1:10:17] cities might be a little high and asked

[1:10:20] us to fill in some blanks that staff had. So included in your packet was this

[1:10:25] table which goes through each of those

[1:10:27] cities and kind of helps provide a

[1:10:29] little bit more information about the

[1:10:30] non-residential dedication. I included

[1:10:34] in here the percentage um just to give

[1:10:36] you some reference to the city's city of

[1:10:40] Forest Lake is not in proposing to

[1:10:42] increase the percentage of

[1:10:44] non-residential dedication. We're at 7%

[1:10:47] if I remember correctly. I will double

[1:10:49] check that but it's six or 7%. Um so we

[1:10:52] are actually just just slightly above

[1:10:54] some cities but below some other cities.

[1:10:57] Then when we look at that acreage, we're

[1:10:59] really looking at those ones that have

[1:11:01] true dollar values associated with them

[1:11:03] as opposed to a fair market value or an

[1:11:05] appraised value. Um, one of the things

[1:11:08] to note is h where we're where how

[1:11:11] they're applying how cities are applying

[1:11:14] that um per acre fee. Some are applying

[1:11:17] it on the total net acres um so it's

[1:11:21] $9,000 for every single acre. Some are

[1:11:23] applying it just on the dedicated area.

[1:11:27] So in uh Rose Mount when we're like holy

[1:11:30] moly Rose Mount is must have a great

[1:11:33] park system at $90,000 an acre that's

[1:11:37] $90,000 an acre on what is dedicated. So

[1:11:41] if they have 10 acres and they require

[1:11:43] 10% one acre that's 90,000 in the city

[1:11:46] of Forest Lake if you have a 10acre

[1:11:48] development and it's 60,000

[1:11:51] um excuse me

[1:11:54] math in my head. It's a little hard. A

[1:11:56] 10acre development 6% we're going to

[1:11:58] require

[1:12:00] 6 acre, right, Amanda? We can do math

[1:12:03] together in our head. We take that times

[1:12:05] our new valuation of almost 9,000. We

[1:12:09] would be at 54. We're under than what we

[1:12:12] thought would be that kind of maybe

[1:12:14] premier um

[1:12:17] uh premier dedication. But that does put

[1:12:20] us in line though again back to where we

[1:12:23] are in pure cities of that total net

[1:12:25] acres of where we're sitting in terms of

[1:12:28] how we're asking for those fees and when

[1:12:30] we're applying them. So included in also

[1:12:34] in your packet tonight for discussion is

[1:12:36] again that same recommendation uh not to

[1:12:39] change from 392909 per residential unit

[1:12:42] or the 896691

[1:12:44] per uh non-residential acre but I did

[1:12:48] include in there that analysis of right

[1:12:52] now the 896681

[1:12:54] per non-residential acre is based on one

[1:12:58] half of the residential rate. I did

[1:13:01] include what that would be if it was 45%

[1:13:04] of the assumed employee need, 40% of the

[1:13:07] assumed employee need or a third of

[1:13:09] assumed employee need. And the reason I

[1:13:11] did that is for council discussion of um

[1:13:14] you know we can acknowledge that our

[1:13:16] employees that are coming into our

[1:13:18] community during the day are using our

[1:13:21] park system but probably not using it at

[1:13:23] the same level our residents are. what

[1:13:25] is that you know maybe percentage that

[1:13:28] they are using it compared to residents.

[1:13:30] Does that make sense? Right now the

[1:13:33] study [clears throat] assumes half but

[1:13:35] there are some other numbers there to

[1:13:36] kind of if you don't if you still think

[1:13:39] that that's high staff would recommend

[1:13:41] we kind of assume a value so that we can

[1:13:43] still kind of keep the methodology of

[1:13:45] our dedication study consistent.

[1:13:49] So tonight I'm asking you to discuss

[1:13:51] this and provide some direction. I'd

[1:13:54] like to try to get back an ordinance

[1:13:56] amendment to you soon [laughter] to

[1:13:58] modify the parkland dedication fee. Um,

[1:14:01] not only do we have to modify the code,

[1:14:03] but we would also have to modify the fee

[1:14:04] schedule and we would like to get that

[1:14:06] to you in front of you, you know,

[1:14:09] relatively soon, as soon as the council

[1:14:11] is comfortable. Do you have any

[1:14:13] questions?

[1:14:13] >> Yeah. Could you go back one slide,

[1:14:14] please? Can you walk me through this?

[1:14:17] So, the non-residential, what do these

[1:14:19] percentages mean?

[1:14:20] >> Uh, six. So the non-residential the

[1:14:23] percentage means how much of the land

[1:14:25] area of the development. If you have a

[1:14:26] 10 acre um development site in Elk River

[1:14:31] 6% if it's commercial 6% needs to be

[1:14:34] dedicated to the city.

[1:14:35] >> So they're dedicating 6% of that

[1:14:38] >> the land [clears throat]

[1:14:39] >> and they're

[1:14:41] paying some dollars in lie of

[1:14:44] >> so it's one or the other. So parkland

[1:14:47] dedication is we want land and if we

[1:14:49] don't get land we'd like fee in L. So in

[1:14:52] Elk River it's a commercial development

[1:14:54] they want 6% of the developable land

[1:14:57] area and then if there isn't if that

[1:15:00] isn't suitable parkland they would like

[1:15:02] 6% of the county's assessed valuation.

[1:15:05] >> Got it. Okay. So farms and indens is 5%

[1:15:08] of fair market value. Lino it's 10% or

[1:15:12] 2725 of the total acreage being

[1:15:15] developed. So if it's a 10 acre be

[1:15:17] 27,000

[1:15:18] >> correct. So where LO has a lower per

[1:15:21] acreage dollar value they do have one of

[1:15:24] the higher land dedication requirements

[1:15:27] for non-residential. Mhm.

[1:15:31] >> And so we're

[1:15:34] this whatever dollar we settle on is it

[1:15:36] on total net acres?

[1:15:39] >> Ours is on total net acres. Correct.

[1:15:41] >> Okay.

[1:15:47] » Thank you. Any other questions?

[1:15:55] » I you know this was good clarification.

[1:15:57] I you know um I think this was good. I

[1:16:00] feel comfortable moving forward. Um

[1:16:05] » quick question.

[1:16:06] >> Yeah.

[1:16:06] >> So you've given us some options here as

[1:16:08] far as a third 40 45% or 50%.

[1:16:11] >> Um what are other cities or

[1:16:13] municipalities you

[1:16:15] >> So most cities haven't done this kind of

[1:16:18] a

[1:16:20] comprehensive methodology determination.

[1:16:23] We I would say were a little bit more

[1:16:25] groundbreaking. I don't want to say

[1:16:27] groundbreaking. I'm sure there's cities

[1:16:28] out there that have done this, but we

[1:16:30] spent some really good time creating

[1:16:32] some methodology to help back the

[1:16:34] numbers to say this is the system. These

[1:16:36] are the needs. This is the dollar value.

[1:16:39] Um so there isn't it isn't as common for

[1:16:43] cities to say, oh, our non-residential

[1:16:45] rate is just half the residential. Um,

[1:16:48] this was staff and our consultants a way

[1:16:51] to kind of say, well, our employees

[1:16:53] probably aren't here as much as

[1:16:54] residents, but we have just as many

[1:16:56] residents leave during the day that

[1:16:58] workers that come in. Maybe our workers

[1:17:01] that are in the community employees that

[1:17:03] are in the community are using the park

[1:17:05] system about a third of what our

[1:17:08] residents are using it. Maybe our

[1:17:09] residents are using it three hours a day

[1:17:12] and our non-residents are

[1:17:14] [clears throat] using it a third, you

[1:17:16] know, or an hour a day or an hour and a

[1:17:19] half a day. You know, that's kind of the

[1:17:20] mindset that I'd like to kind of hear

[1:17:24] the council's thoughts on. And

[1:17:26] >> what is our non-residential park

[1:17:29] dedication fee in L of now

[1:17:31] >> 7,000 an acre?

[1:17:35] I mean, I guess personally I I I doubt

[1:17:37] that half of all employees use our park

[1:17:40] system. I mean, I think they come, they

[1:17:41] go to work, and they go home. I mean, as

[1:17:44] our employees who leave probably do the

[1:17:46] same and they come home and take their

[1:17:47] kids to the park. Um, so I mean, I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with

[1:17:52] the assumption that half of them are

[1:17:55] using it, but at the same time, I don't

[1:17:57] want us to go backwards. home.

[1:18:00] >> Uh, Commissioner Eric, may I just

[1:18:02] clarify that it's not half the employees

[1:18:04] that are using it, it's that the

[1:18:05] employee is using it half the time of a

[1:18:08] resident.

[1:18:11] » So, if an average resident's maybe using

[1:18:13] it two hours a day, an employee is using

[1:18:15] it one, you know, at half one hour a

[1:18:18] day. [clears throat]

[1:18:21] I just wanted to clarify what that

[1:18:23] methodology was.

[1:18:25] >> I can hear though that that might be

[1:18:27] high, which is why staff had included

[1:18:29] some other percentages in there.

[1:18:35] » So I guess my thought is if we want to

[1:18:37] use this methodology, if we feel like

[1:18:39] this is a good approach, then I would

[1:18:41] probably [clears throat] say, you know,

[1:18:43] consider the 40%

[1:18:46] to have some level of increase versus

[1:18:48] going back to a third. Um, but I'm not

[1:18:51] sure that I'm comfortable going beyond

[1:18:53] that myself.

[1:18:56] Yeah, I I would agree. It's half as much

[1:18:59] uh an employee that comes in who doesn't

[1:19:01] isn't a resident seems a little bit

[1:19:03] high. Um so to to back that down to be a

[1:19:08] little bit more realistic and yet still

[1:19:10] not go backwards um 45 or 40% I would be

[1:19:16] I'd be comfortable with

[1:19:28] And I appreciate the idea of having some

[1:19:30] type of methodology to to justify these

[1:19:33] um these charges.

[1:19:35] >> Yeah. This these aren't arbitrary costs

[1:19:37] that we've had in the past. These are

[1:19:39] this is our system and these are our

[1:19:41] needs.

[1:19:41] >> Yeah. And and I think you know it's

[1:19:45] interesting. I think we asked last time,

[1:19:48] what is the feedback on this from

[1:19:50] developers or what is it? Is it too high

[1:19:52] too? And there really sound like there

[1:19:54] wasn't much negative push back or

[1:19:56] feedback on

[1:19:57] >> No.

[1:19:57] >> For non-residential, we've charged this

[1:19:59] fee for any of our non-residential

[1:20:01] subdivisions, which have been minor

[1:20:04] small since I've been here, but have not

[1:20:05] heard any push back from any of them.

[1:20:09] >> Abby, could I get clarification? So just

[1:20:12] on the residential units, I just want to

[1:20:14] be clear. So on a 1 acre piece of land,

[1:20:18] if we develop that residential, we get

[1:20:20] how many lots out of that approximately

[1:20:22] based on our lot sizes today?

[1:20:24] >> 3.6.

[1:20:28] >> So let's use 6, but we'll leave that up.

[1:20:29] So $3,929

[1:20:31] per unit times three for an acre

[1:20:34] residential.

[1:20:35] >> Correct.

[1:20:35] >> So well over $10,000.

[1:20:38] >> Correct. And yet for a commercial, we're

[1:20:42] only going to charge them $8,900, which

[1:20:44] I've never gotten any push back in all

[1:20:46] the years that, you know, I've worked

[1:20:48] with this stuff. And in terms of

[1:20:49] development, I think those prices are

[1:20:51] very fair comparing to our peer cities.

[1:20:55] I mean, wouldn't you based on the

[1:20:57] analysis you did and what you looked at,

[1:20:58] wouldn't you say that's pretty fair?

[1:21:00] >> Yeah, I I mean, I wouldn't have brought

[1:21:02] to you the 89116

[1:21:05] 8966

[1:21:07] 81 had I not think that it was

[1:21:10] consistent with some of these peer

[1:21:12] cities, especially when we are looking

[1:21:14] at some of the cities that are charging

[1:21:16] based on fair market or assessed

[1:21:18] valuation, [clears throat] they are

[1:21:20] paying a much higher price. Um we're

[1:21:23] basing our valuation per acre on our on

[1:21:27] a dollar per square foot. So 43560,

[1:21:31] we know that that number is going to is

[1:21:34] higher in residential and

[1:21:36] non-residential. I would say that we

[1:21:38] probably are are have a a lower than

[1:21:42] what's really represented here in terms

[1:21:44] of some of these other cities that

[1:21:45] aren't doing a per unit calculation.

[1:21:48] >> Right. That's what I meant to say.

[1:21:52] >> Thank you.

[1:21:53] >> Now, you make you make a good point,

[1:21:55] Council Member Miller. Are we adopting

[1:21:58] specific numbers or are we adopting a

[1:22:00] policy that's going to cause these

[1:22:01] numbers to change over time?

[1:22:03] >> Uh, well, both. Tonight, staff would

[1:22:05] recommend that you accept the Parkland

[1:22:08] uh dedication study and you and accept

[1:22:10] its methodology and then direct staff to

[1:22:13] draft an ordinance memorializing not

[1:22:16] only it but the new fees. Um we would

[1:22:19] anticipate reviewing these on a fairly

[1:22:22] regular basis. you maybe once a year,

[1:22:24] maybe every other year or so as

[1:22:26] development increases, as land prices

[1:22:28] increase um to see if they need to

[1:22:30] increase or even decrease as the

[1:22:33] community becomes developed out. As the

[1:22:35] community becomes developed out, our um

[1:22:38] land values will will should lower in

[1:22:41] some spots.

[1:22:45] >> So, I guess I would I [clears throat]

[1:22:46] would incorporate into the policy what

[1:22:48] that review rhythm is going to be if

[1:22:50] it's annually or bannually for every

[1:22:52] other year, right?

[1:22:55] You want that in the policy.

[1:22:57] >> I think [clears throat] it makes sense.

[1:22:58] I mean, if you're gonna say you're

[1:23:00] arbitrarily just picking it, it would be

[1:23:02] nice to review it every other year or

[1:23:03] something. Could that be added to

[1:23:05] >> Yeah, we can.

[1:23:08] >> I I you know, I I understand what

[1:23:10] council member Miller what you're

[1:23:11] saying. And I I I just if we're going to

[1:23:14] have a specific methodology, the idea,

[1:23:16] and I I can get over this, the idea that

[1:23:18] a a employee that doesn't live here that

[1:23:21] comes to work here eight hours a day or

[1:23:22] whatever uses the park as much as half

[1:23:25] of what a resident that's here 365 days

[1:23:29] out of the year. So, um [clears throat]

[1:23:32] maybe I'm thinking wrong, but is

[1:23:36] um non-residential would that be

[1:23:38] considered apartment buildings as well?

[1:23:41] Uh

[1:23:43] that is a great question. Generally

[1:23:45] we've applied the residential unit to

[1:23:47] non-residential or two apartment

[1:23:49] buildings even though sometimes they are

[1:23:52] considered a commercial entity. Okay.

[1:23:54] >> But generally we're looking at that

[1:23:56] residential unit. We can clarify that in

[1:23:59] that policy.

[1:23:59] >> Yeah. I think it would be good because

[1:24:00] if you build an apartment building that

[1:24:02] has 300 residents, right, they're more

[1:24:05] likely going to use the park than

[1:24:07] someone who has a yard,

[1:24:09] >> you know? So, I think that's good

[1:24:10] clarification as well

[1:24:12] >> that we would continue to use the

[1:24:13] residential unit for our um apartment

[1:24:16] complex or multif family complex

[1:24:19] >> if the council members agree.

[1:24:22] [clears throat]

[1:24:23] >> Well, those apartment buildings go back

[1:24:24] and forth. It seems like depending on

[1:24:26] what policy we're talking about between

[1:24:27] commercial and I mean I know the

[1:24:29] developer of Timber Ridge, you know,

[1:24:31] talked about how big a check he wrote.

[1:24:32] >> Yeah.

[1:24:33] >> You know, when he built those two phases

[1:24:34] and it was the residential was applied

[1:24:36] at that point.

[1:24:38] >> If we treat multif family housing as

[1:24:41] commercial.

[1:24:42] Does that affect the math on this then

[1:24:45] in any way?

[1:24:46] >> Probably if you look at about 12,000 an

[1:24:48] acre for residential versus 10,000. I

[1:24:51] mean, we were doing easy math there and

[1:24:53] I don't do easy math in my head

[1:24:54] necessarily, but it does look like

[1:24:56] residential would fashion a higher rate

[1:24:59] for multif family. Some cities will have

[1:25:02] a lot of communities have a sliding

[1:25:03] scale for multif family um where they

[1:25:06] will actually increase higher with

[1:25:08] multif family for exactly what council

[1:25:10] member Miller was saying likely uh

[1:25:13] strong users of the park system. Other

[1:25:15] communities will actually have that

[1:25:17] lower knowing that they are you know

[1:25:20] that there's a larger dedication lump

[1:25:22] sum and to not prohibit development in

[1:25:25] that way. Um I specifically we didn't

[1:25:29] propose any sort of methodology that way

[1:25:31] because we kind of we base this per

[1:25:33] resident and our residents per

[1:25:35] household. And so really looking at how

[1:25:38] much each household on average citywide

[1:25:42] would be didn't matter if it was a

[1:25:44] single family or a multif family

[1:25:46] apartment or multif family unit

[1:25:54] » and and No push back on these multif

[1:25:57] family because that number gets to be

[1:25:58] large on on that when you're proposing

[1:26:01] that fee to

[1:26:01] >> thus far our most recent development was

[1:26:04] Forest Creek Estates Forest Creek Forest

[1:26:08] Creek apartment down by uh the library

[1:26:10] that was a $2,500 that was not there was

[1:26:14] no question about that. And so um I

[1:26:18] don't believe this is a a really

[1:26:21] customary

[1:26:22] dedication fee or a land dedication or

[1:26:25] fee in lie of land dedication. Um I

[1:26:28] think you know it's been challenged

[1:26:30] quite a bit over the years because of

[1:26:33] just

[1:26:35] development costs money but that's why

[1:26:37] we really do think it's important to

[1:26:39] adopt a methodology that says this is

[1:26:42] our system. These are our future

[1:26:44] employees and residents. This is how

[1:26:45] much each of these things actually cost

[1:26:48] us.

[1:26:53] » So what [clears throat]

[1:26:57] I mean I like this discussion. I'm glad

[1:26:58] that we're having a policy discussion

[1:27:00] and ultimately you're aligned on some

[1:27:01] numbers. Does it make sense to does

[1:27:05] staff have indigestion with having a

[1:27:07] third

[1:27:08] criteria of there's residential, there's

[1:27:11] multif family, and there's commercial?

[1:27:14] we would need to go back and do

[1:27:15] analysis. What we would end up needing

[1:27:17] to do is breaking out our projected

[1:27:20] units um both multif family and single

[1:27:24] family and breaking those out and then

[1:27:25] wanting a percentage. It would take a

[1:27:28] little bit more analysis on the

[1:27:29] dedication study. Not like we can't do

[1:27:32] it, but we'd want to figure out what

[1:27:34] that methodology is and fairly good

[1:27:36] support with the comp plan and then, you

[1:27:39] know, plug in the new comp plan when

[1:27:41] it's uh ready. So then that way we're

[1:27:45] don't have again arbitrary numbers.

[1:27:47] >> Yeah. I mean I think obviously the

[1:27:49] policy is going to have to inform us and

[1:27:52] future councils and future staff whether

[1:27:54] or not multif family is residential or

[1:27:56] commercial. Um

[1:27:59] kind of feel like it's a standing stand

[1:28:00] on its own entity myself

[1:28:03] for this.

[1:28:08] » I wouldn't disagree. I mean it's much

[1:28:11] some extra work. If we're going to do

[1:28:13] this, let's do it right and get it good.

[1:28:16] >> Can I make a suggestion that maybe we um

[1:28:19] table this and move it into a workshop

[1:28:21] setting? Um I think what I'm hearing is

[1:28:24] there's some I think you guys, it sounds

[1:28:27] like the council's fairly comfortable

[1:28:28] with the residential unit for a single

[1:28:31] family residential, but maybe uncertain

[1:28:34] about applying that to a multif family

[1:28:37] unit. I think that there's a difference

[1:28:38] between a multif family rental and a

[1:28:40] multif family condo, right? A condo is a

[1:28:44] single family unit. And so I think what

[1:28:46] staff would want to do is really prepare

[1:28:48] some of that. Um, and then again pulling

[1:28:50] our pure cities data so you can see what

[1:28:53] that really looks like. Um, and then

[1:28:55] maybe having just a little bit more of a

[1:28:57] sit down, making sure anything you think

[1:29:00] of between now and maybe mid I was about

[1:29:03] to say August, but August is almost

[1:29:06] over, midepptember. Um, that let me know

[1:29:10] and then that way you have good amount

[1:29:11] of information prepared for you so that

[1:29:13] we get the direction and that workshop

[1:29:15] and bring something back thereafter.

[1:29:18] Does that sound good?

[1:29:19] >> Yeah, I appreciate the extra willingness

[1:29:20] to do that extra work. Again, if we're

[1:29:22] going to do this, let's get Make sure

[1:29:24] we're checking all the boxes and have

[1:29:26] all the different

[1:29:28] areas covered for different properties

[1:29:31] classifications.

[1:29:32] >> I like that idea.

[1:29:34] >> Do you need a motion to table this item?

[1:29:38] >> Um, sure. If you want

[1:29:40] >> moved.

[1:29:42] [laughter]

[1:29:43] All right.

[1:29:43] >> I'll second it.

[1:29:44] >> All right. Motion second. Any further

[1:29:46] discussion? All in favor?

[1:29:48] >> I opposed. And we have this tabled.

[1:29:52] >> All right. Going into 8 E,

[1:29:57] tobacco license consideration, prime

[1:30:00] tobacco. Amanda,

[1:30:04] good evening, mayor and council members.

[1:30:06] The next item before you is a tobacco

[1:30:08] license submitted by uh Majid Nati Shune

[1:30:13] for Prime Tobacco proposed to be located

[1:30:15] at 843 West Broadway Avenue, SweetC.

[1:30:19] uh staff has completed its review of the

[1:30:21] application which is generally complete.

[1:30:23] However, the applicant only needs to

[1:30:25] submit his updated certificate of

[1:30:27] insurance for the business. The police

[1:30:29] department has completed and cleared the

[1:30:31] applicant's background check. Um staff

[1:30:34] staff's primary concern for this

[1:30:36] application is the proposed location.

[1:30:38] Staff determined that the property is

[1:30:40] located within 500 ft of Bixby Park,

[1:30:42] which does not comply with city code uh

[1:30:45] chapter 11804.

[1:30:47] Um,

[1:30:49] paragraph H,

[1:30:51] a tobacco business did previously

[1:30:53] operate at this location. However, the

[1:30:56] city's tobacco regulations were amended

[1:30:58] in 2019 to establish the park buffer

[1:31:01] requirement. The prior business

[1:31:03] subsequently became a non-conforming

[1:31:05] use. Under city code chapter 153.051,

[1:31:09] 051 paragraph H. A non-conforming use

[1:31:13] expires when has been abandoned for a

[1:31:15] continuous period of one year or more

[1:31:17] because tobacco sales have not operated

[1:31:19] at this location since since 2021

[1:31:22] according to the city's record. The

[1:31:24] previous non-conforming use has expired.

[1:31:26] Accordingly, the proposed business must

[1:31:28] comply with the city's current tobacco

[1:31:30] regulations, including the 500 foot

[1:31:33] buffer requirement. Staff are

[1:31:35] recommending that council deny the

[1:31:36] tobacco license application based on the

[1:31:39] expiration of the non-conforming use

[1:31:41] pursuant to chapter 153.051

[1:31:44] paragraph H and the property's pro

[1:31:46] proximity to Bixby Park pursuant to

[1:31:49] chapter 11804

[1:31:51] paragraph H. And that concludes um my

[1:31:55] presentation. I'm we are available for

[1:31:58] questions.

[1:32:07] >> So, is Yeah, I got a question. So, Abby,

[1:32:12] you and I have had discussions from an

[1:32:13] EDA standpoint of possibly seeing some

[1:32:15] of this land

[1:32:18] developed that's south of the park. It's

[1:32:20] apparently technically part of the park.

[1:32:22] Is it I mean, is that always been

[1:32:23] parkland or did we just end up with that

[1:32:26] land next to the park and now it's

[1:32:27] parkland?

[1:32:28] >> It has always been parkland. It was

[1:32:30] actually deed to the city. I do remember

[1:32:33] in the 70s by Mind DOT it's uh we're not

[1:32:38] exactly I'm not exactly sure why but

[1:32:41] there was a deed uh restriction in place

[1:32:43] that we did reach out to MINDOT last

[1:32:46] year two years ago

[1:32:49] um to ask them about the the deed

[1:32:52] restriction um because the deed

[1:32:54] restriction said it always needed to m

[1:32:56] be maintained as parkland and at that

[1:32:58] time Mindad had said 30 years has lapsed

[1:33:00] uh there's that provision isn't in place

[1:33:03] anymore. I'd have to do some research on

[1:33:06] the why because there was specific of

[1:33:09] why it was given to us and given to us

[1:33:12] as parkland and because of the why

[1:33:14] that's where the 30-year came into play

[1:33:16] and because that 30-year lapse we don't

[1:33:18] need to anymore.

[1:33:19] >> Um so, uh long story short, yes, it is

[1:33:23] currently still parkland. Um it's never

[1:33:26] been officially discussed between the

[1:33:28] council and the EDA about removing it

[1:33:30] from the parks system um and then

[1:33:33] starting to look at development options,

[1:33:35] but it is one of those parcels that have

[1:33:37] been preliminarily identified as the

[1:33:39] opportunity for EDA um in a you know, we

[1:33:42] talked about a vacant building or vacant

[1:33:44] lands analysis for potential

[1:33:46] redevelopment or sale, but this time no

[1:33:49] one has it's still sitting in the park

[1:33:51] system.

[1:33:53] I mean, I suspect looking at the map, if

[1:33:56] that lower section looks like a little

[1:33:58] handle wasn't part of the park system,

[1:34:01] then this would would have been on the

[1:34:03] consent agenda, right? I mean, it's got

[1:34:04] to be over 500 feet, isn't it?

[1:34:08] >> I I believe when when you look, Mr. Mr.

[1:34:10] Mayor, members of council, at where the

[1:34:12] actual park amenities are, it is

[1:34:16] substantially further than what the

[1:34:19] property line to property line analysis

[1:34:21] is right now. Um, I can certainly pull

[1:34:24] up GIS and do a quick measurement to see

[1:34:27] if it is within that 500 ft. However, um

[1:34:31] right now based on conversations that

[1:34:33] we've had with legal, even though the

[1:34:36] park amenities are further from the

[1:34:40] proposed location, it doesn't resolve

[1:34:43] the issue that we have with the language

[1:34:45] in the code this time.

[1:34:50] » Well, looks like we have some things to

[1:34:52] clean up.

[1:34:53] >> Mr. Mayor, members, council, just a

[1:34:55] little bit of context. Um I did some,

[1:34:58] you know, looking back at the 2019 ordinance amendment that was

[1:35:05] brought forward. And there were quite a

[1:35:08] few provisions within our tobacco

[1:35:10] chapter that were were changed at that

[1:35:12] time. And it seemed like the precipice

[1:35:14] for this was um really that was the time

[1:35:17] where the state approved cities moving

[1:35:21] from an 18year

[1:35:24] um requirement for tobacco sales opening

[1:35:27] it up to 21 you know changing that that

[1:35:30] um that age requirement and that was

[1:35:34] kind of the precipice from what I can

[1:35:35] see based on meeting meeting minutes and

[1:35:37] staff reports to kind of facilitate that

[1:35:41] change And at that same time they

[1:35:44] included that 500 foot requirement to

[1:35:47] make that consistent with what the

[1:35:50] requirement is for liquor licenses.

[1:35:53] Um I don't see that there was any

[1:35:56] consideration given to businesses uh

[1:36:01] which may be along Lake Street in our

[1:36:03] downtown district um because Lakeside

[1:36:06] Park is right there as well. So this

[1:36:08] could potentially impact businesses who

[1:36:10] are looking open up in that area of the

[1:36:13] city as well. Um, I think a a reasonable

[1:36:17] option might be that council might want

[1:36:19] to

[1:36:21] um direct staff to bring back a

[1:36:23] potential ordinance amendment which

[1:36:25] allows some consideration for businesses

[1:36:28] along that Broadway corridor and our

[1:36:31] Lake Street corridor because

[1:36:35] we don't want to stifle business in that

[1:36:37] area. Um, but staff's hands are really

[1:36:41] tied in this situation with that 500

[1:36:43] foot requirement in these areas. Um, so

[1:36:48] if that's something council's interested

[1:36:49] in doing, we can certainly look at that.

[1:36:51] I I know I had heard previously from a

[1:36:54] couple council members that there's

[1:36:56] concerns that we have a lot of

[1:36:58] standalone tobacco shops [snorts] in

[1:37:00] town as well. Um, so, you know, this

[1:37:04] might be an opportunity to not only look

[1:37:06] at that distance requ maybe make it more

[1:37:09] businessfriendly, but also perhaps look

[1:37:12] at putting a cap on those tobacco

[1:37:15] standalone shops, not to include the

[1:37:18] current application. So, our existing

[1:37:20] amount of tobacco standalone shops plus

[1:37:23] this one because we wouldn't want to

[1:37:25] negatively impact this business um

[1:37:28] because we're working through these

[1:37:29] things as they're coming to staff's

[1:37:31] attention.

[1:37:34] » I have a question. Um Jolene, maybe you

[1:37:37] could answer this. Um, recently, you

[1:37:40] know, we've had some changes in in the

[1:37:42] state with dispensaries.

[1:37:44] What did I know we determined distances

[1:37:47] for our dispensaries from uh public

[1:37:51] buildings and things like that. What was

[1:37:54] that distance? Do you recall?

[1:37:59] » It was the same.

[1:38:00] >> Yeah.

[1:38:03] [clears throat]

[1:38:05] » So, I As far as opening

[1:38:09] up that that ordinance and changing the the distance, I'm open to that. I

[1:38:15] think in this particular case here um

[1:38:18] because of the layout of the park that

[1:38:20] council member Ericson mentioned the

[1:38:23] fact that there was an existing business

[1:38:25] here at one time operating a tobacco um

[1:38:29] operation

[1:38:31] um

[1:38:32] I I'm open to trying to make some

[1:38:34] changes so that to allow this this

[1:38:37] particular one but if it's a way to kind

[1:38:40] of help maybe clean up some other things

[1:38:42] and I I

[1:38:45] I'm not oppose the idea. I mean, do we

[1:38:47] have a cap on liquor license?

[1:38:50] >> We don't have a cap

[1:38:52] built into statute, there are some caps

[1:38:55] um because liquor licenses are also

[1:38:57] regulated at the state level. So,

[1:39:00] essentially, while we issue liquor

[1:39:02] licenses here, we're almost like

[1:39:03] registering liquor businesses. So, there

[1:39:05] are some caps built into state statute

[1:39:08] for liquor. I don't know those off the

[1:39:10] top of my head. Um but those p primarily

[1:39:14] speak to

[1:39:16] um

[1:39:18] offsale businesses, so liquor stores. Um

[1:39:23] we don't have we we did the council did

[1:39:26] implement a cap for cannabis retail when

[1:39:30] that was being worked through here at

[1:39:32] the city level. Originally there was no

[1:39:34] cap. you know, after some further

[1:39:38] realizations about the realities of of

[1:39:41] those businesses, council did want to

[1:39:42] put a cap on those. So, we've have those

[1:39:44] capped at three within the city. Um, but

[1:39:48] there's no cap whatsoever on tobacco.

[1:39:51] And I think that there's a distinction

[1:39:53] between a tobacco shop, a standalone

[1:39:56] tobacco shop, which is defined in our code, and businesses which offer

[1:40:01] tobacco products as part of their other

[1:40:04] convenience sales, you know, gas

[1:40:06] stations, the Walmarts, the Walgreens

[1:40:09] of the city. So,

[1:40:12] >> any idea how many standalone we have?

[1:40:15] >> Amanda, did you you did calculate that,

[1:40:18] correct? And I I can't recall off the

[1:40:20] top of my head, but I We have five,

[1:40:22] >> correct? I believe um not counting this

[1:40:24] current applicant, mayor, I believe that

[1:40:26] we have somewhere between four and five

[1:40:28] standalone tobacco product shops.

[1:40:32] >> Seems like more [laughter] you drive

[1:40:34] around, but so um yeah, I don't know.

[1:40:37] Then maybe a cap probably isn't

[1:40:39] necessary, but I would like to somehow

[1:40:40] make you know what through the Broadway

[1:40:42] corridor. I mean, we have an exception

[1:40:44] on cannabis for downtown with parks

[1:40:46] right there, but we allow it downtown.

[1:40:48] So it wouldn't be something anything

[1:40:49] different if we can make an exception

[1:40:52] whether it's here or throughout

[1:40:53] different areas. I I I don't

[1:40:57] >> business districts.

[1:40:57] >> Yeah. Business districts that be open to

[1:41:00] that. So um

[1:41:01] >> so making it similar to cannabis.

[1:41:03] >> Uh not no not really just the only thing

[1:41:06] similar is that we have an exception

[1:41:08] where we took Lakeside Park out where

[1:41:10] we're not using a buffer at all. Like

[1:41:12] the park basically comes right up to

[1:41:14] those b you know buildings downtown. Um,

[1:41:18] at 250 though, I think is that if it

[1:41:21] went to 250 on there, is that still or

[1:41:23] is it or is it is it within that 250? It

[1:41:25] seems like

[1:41:25] >> 250 wouldn't get us there for this

[1:41:27] property just given the the parcel where

[1:41:30] Bixby Park is located.

[1:41:35] » So, from that standpoint, it be a policy

[1:41:37] change relative to to the Broadway

[1:41:39] business district.

[1:41:39] >> Correct.

[1:41:43] I'd certainly be open to that and I just

[1:41:45] still want to get the EDA moving on

[1:41:48] looking at land that developed.

[1:41:52] >> And Mr. Mayor, members of council, I did

[1:41:54] speak with the applicant last week

[1:41:56] because I did want to make sure that we

[1:41:57] were being transparent about the the

[1:41:59] challenges here. Um, and he did indicate

[1:42:02] that he still has a lot of work to do

[1:42:04] before he would even be ready to open up

[1:42:06] and, you know, start welcoming business.

[1:42:10] So, he was comfortable with um you know

[1:42:13] if council needed to put a pause on

[1:42:16] consideration of his application and

[1:42:18] look at some other options. Uh he didn't

[1:42:20] think that that would be detrimental to

[1:42:22] his his plan for opening his business.

[1:42:27] >> Well, and that's really I mean I guess

[1:42:29] legally is that the only option here or

[1:42:30] could we approve this even though it

[1:42:32] goes against our what our ordinance

[1:42:35] says?

[1:42:37] I mean, I would prefer to if if it's not

[1:42:40] detrimental to him, and Amanda, I'll let

[1:42:42] you speak to your thoughts afterwards,

[1:42:44] but um I'd prefer to table this if

[1:42:49] possible until a later date just so if

[1:42:52] we are planning to look at ordinances or

[1:42:54] policies to get those situated first and

[1:42:58] then come back to approve something that

[1:43:01] is in um that that's legal with our

[1:43:06] ordinance on our policies. So

[1:43:08] >> yeah, I'm not [laughter]

[1:43:10] >> that's making a motion there to

[1:43:12] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:43:13] >> No, I I would agree.

[1:43:16] Does that make s is that like and I some

[1:43:19] of the qualifiers on this thing would be

[1:43:22] can you put like to to where the central

[1:43:25] park area is? I mean, how can you can

[1:43:27] you do that? Because this this is that

[1:43:29] weird little stretch there. This could

[1:43:31] be a one-off, right? I can't think of

[1:43:32] another park that would have that big of

[1:43:35] a n usable spot that's in a commercial

[1:43:38] district. I I don't know. Maybe there

[1:43:39] is.

[1:43:40] >> I I think Mr. Mayor, the the real

[1:43:42] challenge is is just the way this park

[1:43:45] is situated in the district that it's in

[1:43:47] right now, but also Lakeside, too, to

[1:43:48] your point with what we did with the

[1:43:50] cannabis buffer. Um, so I think we need

[1:43:53] to put some language around both of

[1:43:56] those areas to ensure that there's some

[1:43:58] consideration for business growth in

[1:44:01] those areas.

[1:44:04] So, do we need to deny or can we just

[1:44:06] table?

[1:44:08] >> I would recommend that you table at this

[1:44:10] time. I think that that would be prudent

[1:44:13] and I think that staff can work between

[1:44:15] now and our next meeting to bring you

[1:44:17] back an ordinance amendment to consider.

[1:44:20] Should council decide to approve an

[1:44:23] ordinance amendment um after you review

[1:44:25] what what we can come up with, then

[1:44:28] council could certainly remove this from

[1:44:29] the table and take action on it at that

[1:44:31] time. Okay. So, I'll make a motion that

[1:44:34] we table the tobacco license

[1:44:36] consideration for prime tobacco.

[1:44:38] >> I'll second motion, a second. Any

[1:44:41] further discussion?

[1:44:42] >> All in favor?

[1:44:44] >> I opposed.

[1:44:45] >> We table that.

[1:44:47] >> Mr. Mayor, can I just seek one point of

[1:44:49] clarification? Would the council also

[1:44:51] like to direct staff to look at a

[1:44:54] revision to uh city code chapter 118 and

[1:44:59] to bring back a an amendment which

[1:45:01] captures the spirit of the conversation

[1:45:03] here tonight?

[1:45:06] >> Yes, please.

[1:45:06] >> Would anyone like to make that motion?

[1:45:08] >> I'll make that motion.

[1:45:09] >> I'll second motion and a second. Any

[1:45:12] further discussion?

[1:45:13] >> All in favor? I opposed.

[1:45:16] >> That motion carries.

[1:45:18] >> Thank you.

[1:45:20] All right. Next item 8 G, interim use

[1:45:24] permit cannabis retail. Uh, did I miss

[1:45:28] one? Oh, massage. I did eight, sorry. 8F

[1:45:32] massage license consideration and

[1:45:34] Amanda.

[1:45:36] >> Thank you, mayor, members of the

[1:45:38] council. Before you tonight, two license

[1:45:40] applications submitted by Mr. Pang Shen.

[1:45:42] an individual um massage therapy license

[1:45:46] as well as a massage business license

[1:45:48] for Northern Wellness Center LLC.

[1:45:51] Mr. Shen submitted the required

[1:45:53] applications, fees, and supporting

[1:45:55] documentation. Mr. Shen chose the

[1:45:58] experiencebased licensing pathway under

[1:46:01] city code section 1153.

[1:46:04] He submitted an affidavit stating that

[1:46:06] he had at least one year of prior

[1:46:08] massage therapy experience. He also

[1:46:10] submitted a certificate res represented

[1:46:13] to be a massage therapy certificate

[1:46:15] issued by the state of Maine.

[1:46:18] During staff's review, we attempted to

[1:46:19] verify that information. The employment

[1:46:22] history provided by Mr. Shen cannot be

[1:46:24] verified. More significantly, staff

[1:46:26] contacted the state of Maine to verify

[1:46:29] the massage therapy certificate

[1:46:31] submitted with his application

[1:46:32] materials. The state confirmed that the

[1:46:35] license number on their certificate

[1:46:36] belongs to a different individual and

[1:46:38] the state's licensing records contain no

[1:46:41] record of of a massage therapy license

[1:46:43] for Mr. Shen. Based on these findings,

[1:46:46] staff determined that this application

[1:46:48] materials contain fraudulent or

[1:46:49] deceptive information regarding the

[1:46:51] applicant's professional experience and

[1:46:53] state lensure.

[1:46:55] Mr. Shen has since sent multiple emails

[1:46:58] to city staff expressing his position

[1:47:00] that he takes professional compliance

[1:47:01] and regul regulatory standards

[1:47:03] seriously. Staff has considered those

[1:47:06] statements. However, they do not change

[1:47:07] the information that was submitted with

[1:47:09] the license application or the city's

[1:47:12] obligation to evaluate the application

[1:47:15] based on the requirements of the city's

[1:47:16] code. City Code section 115

[1:47:20] 8.18

[1:47:22] uh paragraph A provides grounds for

[1:47:24] denial of a massage license when an

[1:47:26] application contained fraudulent or

[1:47:28] deception deceptive information.

[1:47:31] [clears throat] The matter has also been

[1:47:33] referred to the FLPD for further

[1:47:36] investigation.

[1:47:38] Therefore, staff recommend that city

[1:47:40] council deny both the individual massage

[1:47:42] therapy license for Mr. paying as well

[1:47:45] as the massage business license for

[1:47:47] Northern Wellness Center LLC pursuant to

[1:47:49] city code section 115.18

[1:47:53] paragraph A. I'm available for

[1:47:55] questions.

[1:48:01] Any questions?

[1:48:04] >> I appreciate the the work you did to

[1:48:07] >> follow up and investigate. And um with

[1:48:11] that, I'm happy to make a motion to to

[1:48:13] deny both the individual massage therapy

[1:48:15] license application for Mr. Shenping and

[1:48:17] the massage business license application

[1:48:19] for Northern Wellness Center LLC.

[1:48:23] >> Motion. Is there a second?

[1:48:24] >> I'll second that.

[1:48:25] >> Motion second. Any further discussion?

[1:48:28] All in favor?

[1:48:29] >> I opposed. Motion carries.

[1:48:33] All right. Now we are at HG interimm use

[1:48:35] permit cannabis retail 955 West

[1:48:38] Broadway. Uh as many know I am in the

[1:48:41] cannabis industry and what I've done

[1:48:43] here since being in that industry. I

[1:48:46] have re uh abstained from any votes and

[1:48:49] actually left the council chambers. So

[1:48:51] I'll be doing that this evening and

[1:48:53] turning this item over to acting mayor

[1:48:56] Vento.

[1:49:02] We'll wait just a moment for Roberts to

[1:49:05] leave the room.

[1:49:16] » For the record, Mayor Roberts has left

[1:49:18] the room and so with interim use permit

[1:49:20] can retail 955 Broadway Avenue West.

[1:49:24] Abby,

[1:49:30] if you can give me a minute to adjust my

[1:49:32] display settings.

[1:49:34] Don't even

[1:49:48] go ahead.

[1:50:04] Thank you, Acting Mayor Valento, members

[1:50:09] of the council. Uh, tonight for your

[1:50:11] consideration is an interm permit

[1:50:13] request from Lavender Dalia LLC, who has

[1:50:16] requested permission for a cannabis

[1:50:18] retail shop to be located at 955 West

[1:50:22] Broadway Avenue. That is in that highway

[1:50:24] business district that we were just

[1:50:26] talking about. Um, the use permit is

[1:50:30] specific for cannabis retail sales. As a

[1:50:33] reminder, when we developed our

[1:50:34] ordinance, we separated the types of

[1:50:36] cannabis based businesses out and which

[1:50:38] would be permissible in which districts.

[1:50:40] So, the retail sales component tonight

[1:50:43] that you're considering wouldn't allow

[1:50:45] for some of the other things like

[1:50:46] cultivation and manufacturing.

[1:50:48] Um, you the tonight you have to uh hold

[1:50:52] up do we have to hold up?

[1:50:55] I think we said hold a hearing, but I

[1:50:57] don't believe you have to hold a hearing

[1:50:58] tonight. I know you don't have to hold a

[1:51:00] hearing tonight. The planning commission

[1:51:01] held one. Um, so purpose of an IUP is a

[1:51:04] temporary use permit. There is an

[1:51:06] expiration. Conditional use permits run

[1:51:08] with the land forever or until we revoke

[1:51:10] them. Temporary, we set a time period

[1:51:13] for our cannabis based businesses. We

[1:51:15] have a duration of five years. Should

[1:51:18] you choose to approve this tonight, the

[1:51:19] duration would end uh August 24th, 2031.

[1:51:24] So 955 Broadway is an existing retail

[1:51:29] building that would be proposed to be

[1:51:31] modified to uh the parking area. Some

[1:51:35] existing drive-thru would be removed.

[1:51:37] Some site improvements overall. Um the

[1:51:40] hours would be persistent or consistent

[1:51:42] with the city code of 8:00 a.m. to 10

[1:51:44] p.m. Monday to Saturday and 11 to 6 on

[1:51:46] Sunday. And it meets in uh the intent of

[1:51:49] the B2 district. So, as we were just

[1:51:53] talking about our buffer distances. So,

[1:51:55] here is our 500 foot buffer um from that

[1:51:59] parkland that we talked about. Even if

[1:52:01] we took that down that property line,

[1:52:04] we're still not touching that park. We

[1:52:06] do have a little

[1:52:09] get my pointer on for you folks so you

[1:52:11] can see what I see. If we took this line

[1:52:14] down of the park, all that would do is

[1:52:16] extend that buffer. It's not within the

[1:52:19] 500 ft of the buffer of the park, but we

[1:52:21] have a 500 foot buffer right here from

[1:52:24] this property that is um RISE. RISE is a

[1:52:28] company or an organization that serves

[1:52:31] adults um with uh with disabilities and

[1:52:35] um puts them to work within our

[1:52:37] community. They don't have any

[1:52:39] programming or or services or um care

[1:52:44] facilities here. So even though it is

[1:52:47] getting tripped up, it's not the same

[1:52:49] licensing that we're looking When we're

[1:52:51] talking about our care living

[1:52:54] facilities,

[1:52:56] um, police have taken a look. Building

[1:52:59] uh, permits are, you know, what pretty

[1:53:01] standard. There were no comments from

[1:53:04] our engineers. Fires, public works.

[1:53:06] There are no watershed rules triggered.

[1:53:09] Outdoor mitigation and signage are going

[1:53:11] to be required and would need to follow

[1:53:13] city codes. So staff did work through

[1:53:16] the findings of that for the planning

[1:53:18] commission. The pling commission did

[1:53:19] hear this at their last meeting. They

[1:53:22] are recommending both staff and uh the

[1:53:23] planning commission are recommending

[1:53:25] conditions of approval that do uh

[1:53:27] identify odor control uh is verified.

[1:53:31] Signage is reviewed through the

[1:53:32] permitting process. The compliance with

[1:53:35] state and cannabis uh city and state

[1:53:37] cannabis regulations because a reminder

[1:53:39] this is just one stop in a long process.

[1:53:42] Um annual new renew and registration and

[1:53:45] then uh that final licensing type and

[1:53:48] use must meet all quotes before

[1:53:51] everything is finalized. So the

[1:53:53] recommendation tonight is to represent

[1:53:55] or represent to approve um resolution

[1:54:00] 08242606

[1:54:02] and there is a draft motion on the

[1:54:04] council's uh screens for your review.

[1:54:08] Applicant Dalia is here to if you have

[1:54:11] questions for him. Do you have any for

[1:54:13] me

[1:54:15] comments or questions?

[1:54:20] is would council like to hear from the

[1:54:22] applicant.

[1:54:24] >> Sure.

[1:54:30] » Good evening, uh, council members,

[1:54:32] acting mayor. Uh, my name is Brian Gold.

[1:54:36] I am, uh, here on behalf of Lavender

[1:54:38] Dalia. I am the, uh, architect, uh, as

[1:54:41] part of the development team. So, I'm

[1:54:44] here to answer any questions you may

[1:54:46] have on uh the zoning.

[1:54:50] » I mean, I think it looks pretty

[1:54:51] straightforward.

[1:54:54] » Conditions and approval.

[1:54:57] [clears throat]

[1:54:57] >> We appreciate you being here all night,

[1:54:58] but [laughter]

[1:55:01] >> I flew here, too.

[1:55:03] Um, one clarifying question I had, Abby,

[1:55:06] um, as we were just mentioning for the,

[1:55:10] um, not the last item, but the item

[1:55:11] before, we have a cap on how many

[1:55:14] cannabis,

[1:55:16] um, stores we have in Forest Lake and

[1:55:20] how many IUPs have we approved. And I

[1:55:22] know in the packet it said we'd continue

[1:55:25] working through regardless of how many

[1:55:27] IUPs

[1:55:28] >> we've approved, but um, can you clarify

[1:55:31] that number? Um, this will be the fourth

[1:55:33] IUP. And remember, IUPs are conditional.

[1:55:36] Then they need to go to the state, work

[1:55:37] through their state licensing. They need

[1:55:39] to work through their building

[1:55:40] permitting, come back, get their city

[1:55:41] registration, get their Did I do that in

[1:55:44] the right order, Julian?

[1:55:45] >> You did. You got it. City registration

[1:55:48] before getting their final permit

[1:55:49] approval from this or registration from

[1:55:52] the state and then getting their

[1:55:54] licenses finalized. So, we will allow as

[1:55:56] unlimited number of IUPs, but we have a

[1:55:59] maximum number of licenses. it would be

[1:56:01] our fourth IUP. It does make it a little

[1:56:04] tricky, right? Um because we've only

[1:56:06] issued one license within the city.

[1:56:08] >> Just quick clarification, acting mayor

[1:56:11] and council members. So, we register

[1:56:12] here. We we've issued one registration.

[1:56:14] >> Thank you.

[1:56:15] >> Um we know that there is one other

[1:56:18] business who has uh pinged um

[1:56:23] administration staff several times to

[1:56:25] move forward their reg registration.

[1:56:26] However, they have not completed they've

[1:56:28] not submitted a building permit

[1:56:30] application. They've not finalized any

[1:56:32] building plans to my knowledge quite

[1:56:34] yet. Um so they've been told that they

[1:56:36] need to work through those processes

[1:56:38] first before we can move forward with

[1:56:40] their registration. So right now we have

[1:56:42] one registration two available.

[1:56:47] » Thank you. Yes, license registration not

[1:56:49] licensing. It does make it a little

[1:56:51] tricky, but um at any one point any one

[1:56:54] of those businesses that do have a

[1:56:56] registration or a state approval could

[1:57:00] not tomorrow, right? And so there are

[1:57:03] those other IEPs that could come in and

[1:57:05] assume um you know move forward with

[1:57:08] their registration.

[1:57:09] >> Well, I think at least one of those

[1:57:11] previously approved IEPs has done

[1:57:13] nothing with it. So

[1:57:14] >> correct.

[1:57:17] Thanks. Any other comments or questions?

[1:57:20] If not, looking for a motion.

[1:57:24] >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution

[1:57:26] number 0824-2606

[1:57:29] approving the intram use permit for

[1:57:31] cannabis retail sales at 955 West

[1:57:34] Broadway Avenue subject to the 19

[1:57:37] conditions of approval contained

[1:57:39] therein, include any amendments approved

[1:57:42] by the city council.

[1:57:44] >> There's a motion. Is there a second?

[1:57:46] >> I'll second.

[1:57:47] >> Motion and a second. Any discussion?

[1:57:49] Hearing none. All in favor?

[1:57:51] >> I.

[1:57:52] >> Any opposed?

[1:57:54] None. Then we can take a short pause and

[1:57:58] bring the mayor back in.

[1:58:00] >> Good luck.

[1:58:00] >> Thank you. Do you guys happen to know

[1:58:02] when the next meeting will be or the

[1:58:04] next uh

[1:58:06] approval process

[1:58:08] >> date wise?

[1:58:10] >> What was that?

[1:58:10] >> I'm sorry. Do you happen to know a date

[1:58:12] of when the next u I guess process will

[1:58:15] be a next approval process?

[1:58:17] >> You are with the city, you'll need to

[1:58:19] then move forward with your state.

[1:58:21] >> Oh, perfect. Okay.

[1:58:22] >> processes, building permitting, those

[1:58:24] sorts of things before coming back for

[1:58:25] registration.

[1:58:26] >> All right. Perfect. Thank you.

[1:58:27] Appreciate it. Thank you.

[1:58:32] » All right. We'll move on to

[1:58:35] ah designated parking requests. Dave,

[1:58:38] >> mayor also received requests from the

[1:58:40] law office at 92 Lake Street South

[1:58:44] asking for designated parking uh stalls

[1:58:46] directly in front of their building on

[1:58:47] Lake Street. Uh their primary concern

[1:58:50] was uh in the winter months and access

[1:58:52] for elderly clients especially uh with

[1:58:55] increased parking demand anticipated

[1:58:58] hardware when that gets built down

[1:58:59] there. As noted in the report, uh the

[1:59:03] property already has its own parking lot

[1:59:05] um in the back and there are multiple

[1:59:08] public parking spots in front of the

[1:59:10] building. Today, Mandot has confirmed uh

[1:59:14] with the city that while Lake Street is

[1:59:16] under state jurisdiction, we can

[1:59:19] regulate the uh the parking, but they

[1:59:22] would have to approve that. So, we can make decisions and allow this

[1:59:27] type of

[1:59:29] then they would have to authorize that decision. Um report listed a number

[1:59:34] of pros and cons. Um staff believes the

[1:59:38] key consideration here is less about the

[1:59:40] individual request but more about the

[1:59:43] president that it's going to set.

[1:59:46] a business specific stall could lead to

[1:59:48] similar requests along Lake Street

[1:59:50] potentially incl reducing public areas

[1:59:53] and accesses um and then creating equity

[1:59:56] concerns of

[1:59:59] preferential treatment.

[2:00:01] Um so

[2:00:04] I provided you with a number of

[2:00:06] different options at the bottom of the

[2:00:07] memo. Um just looking for some

[2:00:09] discussion and direction

[2:00:14] council.

[2:00:16] >> Well, um I'm not really in favor of

[2:00:20] this. Um especially since the

[2:00:24] people involved are inquiring about

[2:00:27] having this out in the wintertime. Um

[2:00:30] seems to be more along the directed area

[2:00:32] of concern. I think with the plowing of

[2:00:34] the highway, this the BMS of the snow uh

[2:00:38] creates more of a problem and the be the

[2:00:40] ability to be able to clear that area uh

[2:00:43] if they do park there. Uh they are

[2:00:45] allowed to park there um on a regular

[2:00:48] basis to park their vehicle. However,

[2:00:52] they already have 16 parking spots

[2:00:56] stalls and that one of them is already a

[2:00:58] handicap. If they are concerned about

[2:01:00] handicap parking, maybe they can

[2:01:03] add another stall to their parking lot

[2:01:06] regarding that problem. Um, or if they

[2:01:09] wanted to do some type of temporary

[2:01:11] thing with a temporary parking sign out

[2:01:14] there or some if they know they have a

[2:01:15] client coming that has uh additional

[2:01:18] needs or accessibility issues, but I

[2:01:22] find that again with uh Mr. Adam saying

[2:01:25] that we're kind of setting oursself up

[2:01:27] for precedence

[2:01:30] uh with other businesses in the area I

[2:01:32] think is sends a message and also to the

[2:01:36] high traffic volume area of that area of

[2:01:37] Highway 61 or Lake Street.

[2:01:43] » Great.

[2:01:46] Any other

[2:01:48] thoughts or

[2:01:50] >> Yeah, I'm not in favor of it. Um, I mean

[2:01:53] the downtown is already underparked and

[2:01:56] you know the fact that they have their

[2:01:57] own parking lot in the back

[2:02:00] I guess be a little surprising if that's

[2:02:02] not able to you know um meet their

[2:02:04] needs. But you know couple that with a

[2:02:07] new retail um store opening right across

[2:02:12] the street. Well, there may be times

[2:02:14] when

[2:02:16] clients for either store or any of the

[2:02:18] stores in that area may have to walk a

[2:02:19] little bit further. Um that's been our

[2:02:21] goal these last four, you know, years of

[2:02:24] making downtown more walkable. You know,

[2:02:26] public works does a fantastic job of

[2:02:28] getting those BMS out after uh the state

[2:02:31] comes through and cleans. Um and so I

[2:02:35] yeah, I would direct option number

[2:02:37] three.

[2:02:39] Um decline the request and maintain all

[2:02:41] on street parking on Lake Street as

[2:02:42] public parking.

[2:02:45] >> Yeah, I think I agree as well. um if

[2:02:48] you're handicapped, not knowing what

[2:02:49] that handicap is necessarily, but it

[2:02:51] just seems so much more dangerous for

[2:02:54] anybody that needs a little extra time

[2:02:56] or a little extra space to move around

[2:02:59] that being on on Highway 61 there would

[2:03:03] just be a bad thing for them. I agree

[2:03:06] with with the other council members.

[2:03:09] [clears throat]

[2:03:09] >> I'm in agreement as well.

[2:03:12] >> All right. Anyone

[2:03:15] willing to make a motion?

[2:03:17] >> Make a motion that we decline the

[2:03:19] request to maintain all on street

[2:03:20] parking on Lake Street as public

[2:03:22] parking.

[2:03:23] >> I'll second motion and a second. Any

[2:03:25] further discussion?

[2:03:28] >> All in favor?

[2:03:29] >> I

[2:03:29] >> opposed. One abstension.

[2:03:34] >> Right. Nine discussion items. Nine. A

[2:03:38] street sign request policy date.

[2:03:40] >> Yeah. Uh, mayor and councel, this is

[2:03:42] kind of an offshoot of this this

[2:03:44] previous agenda item. Um, if that were

[2:03:47] to get approved, then typically we go

[2:03:49] through some type of a vetting process

[2:03:51] of where the signs go, how high off the

[2:03:54] ground they get, um, and all that type

[2:03:56] of, um, stuff. The issue is we don't

[2:03:58] really have a formalized policy. Um, we

[2:04:02] usually follow the same steps. If a stop

[2:04:04] sign request comes in or a no parking

[2:04:06] sign comes in, it gets evaluated in the in the same steps. But right now,

[2:04:11] we don't have an actual written down

[2:04:13] policy that that kind of keeps that

[2:04:15] transparent and know has a resident kind

[2:04:17] of expect what's coming next uh when

[2:04:20] they do make a request. Um, interesting

[2:04:22] [clears throat] enough, we did get a

[2:04:23] stop sign request in between

[2:04:26] the designated parking and now. So, um,

[2:04:29] that's just a good example. We don't get

[2:04:31] a lot of them, but it' just be nice to

[2:04:32] be able to give this resident here's

[2:04:34] your here's our policy. Here's a form

[2:04:36] you fill up and then here's all the

[2:04:37] steps that that follow through. Like I

[2:04:39] said, it's not nothing that we do don't

[2:04:42] do any differently than we do now. It's

[2:04:43] just not written out and it's, you know,

[2:04:45] a policy is good to have up on the

[2:04:47] website and a and a form that would be

[2:04:49] consistent every time there's a request.

[2:04:52] U I tried to cover every single ask

[2:04:55] about what kind of sign it would be.

[2:04:57] That's why it gets a little lengthy, but

[2:04:58] instead of having a stop sign request

[2:05:00] form and then a street sign form and

[2:05:02] then a no parking form and all those

[2:05:05] different forms, you kind of guess of

[2:05:06] just to kind of get it all into one with

[2:05:09] one one request form. So, that's why

[2:05:11] it's it is a it is a lot, but instead of

[2:05:13] having six individual and trying to

[2:05:15] figure out which policy to give them,

[2:05:17] just to kind of keep it all in one. So

[2:05:20] really what I'm looking for is if you've

[2:05:21] looked through it, any uh initial

[2:05:24] feedback, but the goal would be to bring

[2:05:26] that back um to next month's council

[2:05:29] meeting um for adoption and then roll

[2:05:32] that out with that first uh request and

[2:05:34] have that resident go through that

[2:05:35] process.

[2:05:38] I think this is really well thought out

[2:05:40] and um covers all the basis. One

[2:05:42] question I would have is is this sort of

[2:05:43] form

[2:05:45] um on our website in the sense that it

[2:05:47] can actually be filled out. Do we have

[2:05:49] that capability? So they'll just fill

[2:05:50] this out on the website and it'll be

[2:05:53] submitted immediately versus a print.

[2:05:55] And

[2:05:56] >> I have to ask Julene.

[2:05:58] >> U Mr. Mayor, members of council, yes, we

[2:06:00] can certainly build out a form that

[2:06:02] replicates what this [clears throat]

[2:06:03] fillable PDF looks like. So then then

[2:06:05] the form would automatically filter

[2:06:07] through to public works staff for review

[2:06:09] and consideration. Yeah, that' be the

[2:06:11] one thing I make sure to do.

[2:06:16] » I think it looks good. Um, the one

[2:06:19] comment I have is spelling. There was on

[2:06:24] page of the packet 348. I think it's

[2:06:26] page two.

[2:06:28] Um, in the second bullet point, it says

[2:06:30] location of the requested signal. So,

[2:06:33] just

[2:06:37] Oh, besides that, it looks good.

[2:06:41] » You can never accuse Council Member

[2:06:44] Valento not looking through her packet.

[2:06:46] [laughter]

[2:06:47] >> That is thorough. I

[2:06:52] » All right. Anyone make a motion?

[2:06:54] >> Do we need a motion or is this

[2:06:56] >> Oh, it's discussion. I'm sorry. Yes.

[2:06:57] Motion to come in the future. So, I

[2:06:59] think Yeah, I would agree. I think it

[2:07:01] looks great. uh a lot of work, time and

[2:07:03] thought went into this. I appreciate uh

[2:07:05] that and um it's just nice to have this

[2:07:07] policy in place and

[2:07:10] >> so overall at the end and then bring

[2:07:13] that back.

[2:07:17] » Thank you.

[2:07:18] >> All right, we will go into staff updates

[2:07:21] and Ryan

[2:07:23] >> Mayor City Council uh Dave actually did

[2:07:25] that as a test and he even called out

[2:07:28] who would bring that misspelling up. So,

[2:07:31] [laughter]

[2:07:34] uh, so some, uh, public engagement

[2:07:38] communication has been sent out with

[2:07:39] Eurek Avenue. I just want to touch base

[2:07:41] with you guys if you have any questions

[2:07:43] about

[2:07:44] schedule going on, why why now, why is

[2:07:47] this take so long, you know, kind of

[2:07:49] stuff like that. So,

[2:07:51] >> I if you would, I think, you know, we

[2:07:53] I've received some feedback on that and,

[2:07:56] you know, doesn't too hard to go on

[2:07:58] social media and take a look, but uh,

[2:07:59] >> here we go. questions.

[2:08:01] >> Uh, so we'll go back a little bit.

[2:08:03] Highway 97 project that was supposed to

[2:08:05] be a 2425 construction project that got

[2:08:08] delayed. So that's why that's a 25 26

[2:08:10] project, right? Uh, we

[2:08:14] county road 32 or 11th Avenue was

[2:08:16] supposed to be a 26 project too. It got

[2:08:18] pushed to 27 and then it got where we're

[2:08:22] at now to fit with all the other

[2:08:23] projects that are going on in the area

[2:08:25] including the highway 8. They pushed

[2:08:27] that to 28. And we also then ability to

[2:08:30] seek some additional funding for that

[2:08:32] project too. Eureka Eureka Avenue was

[2:08:35] planned for 26. Uh obviously that didn't

[2:08:38] work out with the weather and when we

[2:08:40] finally got the DNR easements that's why

[2:08:42] that's got now being pushed to 27. But

[2:08:44] why do we got to do the work we got to

[2:08:46] do now? So there's three stages uh for

[2:08:50] the searchcharge placements. Each stage

[2:08:53] has three lips. Okay. And after you're

[2:08:55] done with stage one, it needs to sit for

[2:08:58] two weeks so they can monitor it, you

[2:09:00] know, to measure settlement. But the

[2:09:04] early parts of these stages have to be

[2:09:06] done on non-prozen ground. So that's why

[2:09:09] that work has to get going now so we

[2:09:11] don't get in the same situation that we

[2:09:13] did and had to shut the project down. If

[2:09:14] we don't get the search charge placed

[2:09:17] that potentially would have to sit there

[2:09:18] for nine months to get the consolidation

[2:09:20] that we need, you're then now in 28

[2:09:23] project. And now our funding is not

[2:09:25] available anymore, right? So that's why

[2:09:27] now, why, who, what, when, and where,

[2:09:29] why? To answer all those questions. Uh

[2:09:32] obviously, it's not going to be a full

[2:09:34] closure while they do this work. Uh the

[2:09:37] days that they're, you know, they're going to start out their Monday

[2:09:41] with a lot of erosion control placement

[2:09:42] and some so or fence removal, but when

[2:09:45] they do get into the placement of the

[2:09:47] search charge, that's where they'll have

[2:09:49] those temporary road closures to

[2:09:51] complete that work. uh just because of

[2:09:53] the big trucks and equipment that are

[2:09:55] going to be coming in and out of there.

[2:09:57] So that's just a little more background

[2:09:59] when you lay it out like oh yeah now

[2:10:01] that makes sense why we got to come and

[2:10:03] do what we got to do for the search

[2:10:04] charge now. So once it's placed it's

[2:10:06] going to sit there throughout the entire

[2:10:07] winter and into the spring.

[2:10:11] >> When you say temporary closing like just

[2:10:13] for the day or a couple hours or what's

[2:10:15] temporary

[2:10:15] >> for the time that they're hauling

[2:10:17] material in there and getting that work

[2:10:20] done. Right. So if they got they they

[2:10:24] could possibly I mean by working hours

[2:10:26] they could be a seven to seven one day

[2:10:28] right and but if they you know they can

[2:10:30] do those long durations that's just less

[2:10:32] shutdowns that are going to occur

[2:10:34] >> but it would open up in the evening.

[2:10:35] >> Yep. It would open up each evening and

[2:10:38] through the weekends when they're not

[2:10:39] working it would be open until we get to

[2:10:41] that end if we do decide ultimately

[2:10:44] we're going to close the road for the

[2:10:45] winter. But we're kind of also

[2:10:48] monitoring the Highway 87 or 97

[2:10:51] construction, right? Uh can't see much

[2:10:54] going on unless you walk into there

[2:10:56] right now. But there's still about three

[2:10:58] weeks left of concrete work.

[2:11:01] That's a lot of concrete, right? So, uh

[2:11:04] curb medians,

[2:11:06] pathways, truck aprons, and the

[2:11:08] roundabout. So, once that gets done,

[2:11:12] then you know, then you can start

[2:11:14] paving. And I can't remember how many

[2:11:17] lifts off hand, but at least three out

[2:11:19] there. And then the restoration,

[2:11:20] striping, signage, and stuff like that.

[2:11:23] So, uh, all the utility work's done, so

[2:11:28] hopefully things can move a little

[2:11:29] faster. Weather look is looking very

[2:11:30] favorable, you know, but so that's kind

[2:11:34] of what we all kind of got going on in

[2:11:36] that Highway 97 Eureka Avenue area. And

[2:11:39] why?

[2:11:40] >> So, uh, just to clarify, when does this

[2:11:43] have to be done before we have we're

[2:11:46] risk of losing that funding? End of TW

[2:11:48] like what's

[2:11:50] >> 28? If we go past 28, but we want to get

[2:11:54] the work done that we have laid out with

[2:11:56] the schedule and 27 because of the deep

[2:11:58] trenches that, you know, we're going to

[2:12:01] come through there and reconstruct that,

[2:12:02] right?

[2:12:04] 99.99999%

[2:12:06] of the time when we do a full recon like

[2:12:07] that, we want it to sit through one

[2:12:09] winner to go through a freeze thaw

[2:12:11] before we come back and pave the final

[2:12:13] workhorse in 28 because in case if there

[2:12:17] are some settlements, we want to be able

[2:12:18] to take care of those and before the

[2:12:20] final workhorse is done.

[2:12:23] We haven't done a full recon since two

[2:12:26] 15th Street Southwest.

[2:12:29] Okay,

[2:12:30] >> that I mean that's good information that

[2:12:32] that's you know when you when you see it

[2:12:33] on social media and then it's easy to

[2:12:35] question that because

[2:12:36] >> I shouldn't have looked at that because

[2:12:37] then I didn't sleep all the rest of the

[2:12:38] weekend. I'm like dang it. [laughter]

[2:12:41] >> So that's why I was ready to talk about

[2:12:43] >> Yeah. No, that's good because that

[2:12:45] helps. I mean when people reach out to

[2:12:46] us it's we have some facts behind it and

[2:12:49] so pre appreciate that.

[2:12:52] >> Uh anything else? Oh, thanks,

[2:12:54] >> Amanda.

[2:12:55] >> No updates.

[2:12:56] >> Abby,

[2:12:57] >> uh, community development staff was at

[2:12:59] Arts in the Park last week for the third

[2:13:02] time this summer looking at public's uh,

[2:13:05] input on the potential removal of the

[2:13:08] boat launch and or expanded parkland

[2:13:10] space. That was direction asked by the

[2:13:12] parks commission. So, we'll be telling

[2:13:15] that information with survey data coming

[2:13:17] in through the end of the summer here

[2:13:19] and bringing that back to the parks

[2:13:21] commission to uh get some

[2:13:23] recommendations from them to move

[2:13:24] forward with some of the capital

[2:13:25] investment projects that public works

[2:13:27] has been planning for uh lakeside

[2:13:30] predominantly the shoreline restoration

[2:13:31] project needs to keep kind of get moving

[2:13:34] forward. Um lots of continued

[2:13:37] development interest. I know that we

[2:13:39] start seeing leaves um falling, but that

[2:13:42] doesn't mean that development's going to

[2:13:43] slow down at all. We continue to see uh

[2:13:46] people coming in thinking that they're

[2:13:47] going to want to build everything this

[2:13:50] year starting to get a little bit

[2:13:52] challenging and everybody's fighting the

[2:13:54] weather. So, um some things get a little

[2:13:57] bit longer in our review process because

[2:13:59] we are pretty inundated with permitting

[2:14:01] right now. We do have permits in for an

[2:14:04] minor addition at Walmart and at Quick

[2:14:06] Trip. So, just know that there's some

[2:14:07] small things going on in some of our

[2:14:09] commercial properties. I did receive an

[2:14:11] inquiry today for one of our I would

[2:14:13] call it a national chain in the city

[2:14:16] that's in a smaller tenant space moving

[2:14:18] now potentially into a larger tenant

[2:14:20] space. So, that's even nice to see that

[2:14:22] you kind of have some some things moving

[2:14:24] around, people ex businesses expanding.

[2:14:27] Um, and then lastly, we have a new

[2:14:29] building inspector starting on Monday.

[2:14:33] » Thank you, Dave. Uh just one update.

[2:14:35] Corn feed is tomorrow night for the lats

[2:14:38] arts in the park. Um I confirmed with

[2:14:41] Cal he has a bunch of volunteers, but he

[2:14:43] said any one of you are welcome to come

[2:14:45] and shook a few uh dozen or hundred cobs

[2:14:48] of corn. So um should be a nice weather

[2:14:52] it looks like. So that'd be a good uh

[2:14:53] ending of the the arts in the park

[2:14:55] season.

[2:14:57] >> Chief Hannigraph

[2:15:00] Church of Cash.

[2:15:04] Uh, thank you. Um, last Wednesday we had

[2:15:06] our 9th annual FLAW community night

[2:15:08] where the Forest Lake Fire Department

[2:15:10] and Police Department create a softball

[2:15:12] team and take on the traveling coaches.

[2:15:14] Um, we had great weather, great turnout.

[2:15:16] It's a lot of fun to get everybody out

[2:15:18] there, [clears throat] not in uniform,

[2:15:20] be in the community. Um, so that event

[2:15:22] went off without a hitch and it was

[2:15:23] really nice. Um, and then I just wanted

[2:15:25] to mention uh in our hiring

[2:15:27] recommendations in the consent agenda,

[2:15:30] we're hiring our first cso out of our

[2:15:32] program. And that was what one of the

[2:15:34] major components of building that

[2:15:36] program was is to transition these young

[2:15:39] folks that are coming through school

[2:15:41] now. We'll have another one next year

[2:15:43] that will be ready. Um, both individuals

[2:15:46] that are first initial ones have nothing

[2:15:48] but positive things that they want to

[2:15:50] work for Lake Police Department. So that

[2:15:52] program objectives are doing very well.

[2:15:56] >> Uh most importantly, who won?

[2:15:59] >> Uh FL won this year.

[2:16:01] >> Okay.

[2:16:02] >> It's been a couple years, but it was

[2:16:03] good to see it was competitive, so we

[2:16:05] just about ran out of light, so good.

[2:16:09] >> Thanks, Chief Newman.

[2:16:10] >> No updates.

[2:16:12] >> Amanda, anything. Jolene,

[2:16:15] >> um our city's budget survey is live, so

[2:16:18] encourage folks to get out there and

[2:16:20] participate in that. There's links on

[2:16:21] our website, links on social media.

[2:16:23] There'll be information going on next

[2:16:25] utility bill about that. Um, we're going

[2:16:28] to have a little bit of a lull here

[2:16:29] between tonight, our next council

[2:16:31] meeting because Labor Day is upon us and

[2:16:34] just the way the calendar's shaken out,

[2:16:36] um, our first meeting won't be until

[2:16:38] September 14th. City offices will be

[2:16:40] closed on September 7th in honor and

[2:16:44] observance of Labor Day. And then just

[2:16:46] want to point out that we have some

[2:16:47] great employment opportunities posted on

[2:16:49] our website. We have police

[2:16:50] administrative assistant position for

[2:16:52] Chief Hanigraph's team. And then

[2:16:55] starting tomorrow, we have a community

[2:16:57] development assistant position. So,

[2:16:59] encourage folks to get out there and

[2:17:00] check out those opportunities and come

[2:17:02] join our team.

[2:17:04] >> Thank you. Council member Miller,

[2:17:06] >> uh, no updates. Council

[2:17:07] >> member,

[2:17:08] >> no updates.

[2:17:09] >> Council member Ericson,

[2:17:10] >> no updates.

[2:17:10] >> Council member Arson,

[2:17:12] >> planning commission meeting Wednesday,

[2:17:14] six o'clock. If you can make it, please

[2:17:16] show up.

[2:17:17] >> All right. I don't have anything either.

[2:17:19] So with no other business coming for us,

[2:17:22] we are ajourned tonight.

[2:17:35] » [music]

Forest Lake City Council August 24th, 2026

Transcript