[music]
Good evening everyone. We'll get started
uh the August 24th, 2026 city council
meeting. And Amanda, if you could take
role.
>> Mayor Roberts
>> here.
>> Council member Miller
>> here.
>> Council member Valento
>> here. Council member Ericson
>> here.
>> Council member Larson
>> here.
>> And if you're able, please join us in
standing for the pledge of
>> allegiance.
I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic
for which it stands, one nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
right. Our first item is uh
presentations and we have the
>> Let's approve the agenda.
>> Oh, guess we got to approve the agenda.
That'd be good. All right. I'm willing
to entertain a motion to move.
>> I'll second.
>> Motion a second. Any further discussion?
All in favor?
>> I opposed. We have our agenda. Now we'll
go into presentations. uh the 2025 audit
presentation and Jackie Nolles will be
presenting that. Welcome.
» Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. I'm
Jackie Nolles with Bergen KDB going to
be going over a summary of the audit
results and also the city's operating
results for 2025.
The main purpose of our audit is to
provide our independent auditors report.
[clears throat]
Within this report, we state that
management is responsible for the dollar
amounts in the financial statements and
our responsibility as auditors is to
provide an opinion on those financial
statements based on the results of our
test work. This year we are providing an
unmodified or a clean opinion that's the
best that we can offer and the same that
the city has been receiving. What that
does is it provides assurance that the
financial statements are presented
fairly in all material respects. the
position of the district as of December
31st, 2025 and all of the activity that
occurred within the year.
One additional report that we are
required to issue is the report on
Minnesota legal compliance that is
required by the office of the state
auditor and we did not have any
compliance findings related to that. We
did have one internal control finding,
the lack of segregation of accounting
duties which I'm sure will sound
familiar to most of you. it is a repeat
finding um just with one person handling
multiple steps in a transaction process.
So we do want council and management to
continue to be aware of that um but no
specific recommendations related to
changes at this time.
Um so with that we'll move into the
general fund operating results for the
year and revenue was projected at about
13.2 2 million and the council
authorized expenditures at an equal
amount for a break even or a balanced
budget for the year.
Actual revenue came in at about 13.68
million that is a positive or overbudget
variance of about $477,000.
While expenditures came in at about
13.17 million, so about $34,000 under
budget. and fund balance actually
increased by about $536,000
as a result of 2025 activity. And we'll
get into the details in a little bit
here.
Um, so looking at that total fund
balance for the year, um, you can see
it's gone up overall over the last five
years in 2025, as I mentioned, up about
536,000
in total. And the majority of that falls
to the unassigned category which is
available for spending on any purpose.
That number of about $7.7 million is an
important number because we look at it
in accordance with the city's fund
balance policy. Um so that number is
equal to 52.6%
of the budgeted fiscal year 2026
expenditures.
And the city's policy outlines a goal of
maintaining an unassigned fund balance
of 50% of the subsequent year's budgeted
expenditure. So coming in at 52.6% you
are in compliance with policy at the end
of the year.
Um looking at revenues next. In total
revenues were up about 5.3%
in 2025 compared to the previous year.
that was primarily within the property
tax source of revenue um due to an
increase in the amount levied in the
general fund.
Other revenues also reported a larger
increase and that was primarily due to
an increase um in interest earnings
include including a positive change in
the fair market value of the city's
investment portfolio.
Um looking at the allocation of revenue
sources over the last couple of years
very consistent as revenues have
increased it has been um consistent
across the different sources of revenue
in the general fund
and looking into a little bit uh further
detail with those budget to actual
results. Um, as I noted earlier,
revenues in total overbudget about
$477,000.
That positive variance was across all
sources except for property taxes due to
conservative budgeting specifically for
investment income, certain state aids,
and also building and development
activity.
Property taxes was under budget, and
that was due to the full levy amount
being budgeted. But of course, actual
revenue is impacted by delinquents and
other adjustments.
[clears throat]
Looking at expenditures next, um in
total expenditures up about 9.3%
from 2024 to 2025. Um the city has seen
inflationary increases over the last
five years. Um, a lot of that increase
from 2024 to 2025 was related to salary
and benefit increases.
Um, the largest increase being within
the city's largest spending program,
public safety, due to those salary and
benefit increases. Also, there were
computer system upgrade costs. Uh, pass
through fire relief aid was up and then
also turnout gear purchases were some of
the the larger items within that
category.
Uh public works expenditures were up
about $296,000.
Again, salary and benefit increases. Um
there were also inflationary increases
across supplies, utilities, repairs, and
maintenance.
General government expenditures were up
about $244,000
and that was across professional
services and salary and benefit
increases.
And then finally, economic development
expenditures of about $174,000.
And that was due to increased costs for
temporary planning services um during
the staff shortages.
Um again, we have some pie charts just
showing that spending allocation over
the last couple of years. And similar
[clears throat] to revenues, um we see a similar allocation here across the two
years. So as spending has increased, it
has been spread evenly across the city's
programs.
And then looking at budget to actual
results for expenditures,
as noted earlier, in total under budget
about $34,000. Um there were some larger
variances within the general government
program and the public safety program.
in general government expenditures under
budget about $200,000
and that was due to lower full-time
wages and benefits costs than budgeted
due to staff turnover partially
offsetting that. Public safety was
overbudget about $124,000
and that was primarily due to
professional service costs related to
building inspection services during
staff shortages.
Um, so with that, we'll look at the two
enterprise funds of the city next.
Starting off with water, operating
income up about 5.7%
primarily due to rate increases, while
operating expenses were up about 8.3%
and that was primarily related to
increased depreciation expense taken on
some completed capital projects.
The water fund is reporting operating
income of about $726,000
in 2025, including all of the
depreciation expense. Um, so that shows
that this fund is building up future
monies for capital replacement costs.
And the sewer fund operating revenues
were very consistent from 2024 to 2025,
while operating expenses were up about
11.6%. 6%. Um that was also due to
increased depreciation expense taken on
newly completed projects and also the
sewer treatment costs were up.
This fund reported operating income of
about $268,000
including all of the depreciation
expense. So this fund is also building
up future funds for capital replacement
costs.
And then the last graph just takes a
look at the city's tax capacity, levy,
and rates over the last five years.
The city's total tax capacity has gone
up primarily due to increasing property
values. The city's tax levy has
increased at a consistent dollar amount
over the last five years. So, this has
resulted in a tax capacity rate that has
varied between about 35.6%
and 41.6%. 6% over the last five years.
Um, and that was my prepared
presentation. I'm happy to take any
questions.
[clears throat] Any questions?
I guess I just have one and my staff
might be able to help. So the economic
development part
um being build towards taking I guess
using that account to pay for
uh you know the extra services of of
planners or assuming um
>> yeah I noted that as well. I it isn't
coded that way in our system. So I'm not
sure how the it kind of translates that
but the community development department
is separate from the economic
development department where the
community development department has
been um capturing the costs for
temporary planning services.
>> But did that happen in 25 or 26?
>> Um we've had temporary planning services
various times.
>> How's it been? What was it coded in 25?
Was it under
>> uh always under community development,
not economic development?
>> So, so that was a change then.
>> Yeah, I'm I can't attest to that. I know
I'm coding them necessarily.
>> Maybe Julian,
>> we can definitely take a look
>> follow up on that.
>> Yeah, mayor and Mr. or Mr. Mayor and
Council, I will follow up on that and
provide you some background on that.
>> Okay, great.
Any other questions?
All right. Well, thank you for coming
tonight.
>> Very detailed. Appreciate it.
» All right, we will next item is open
forum. This an opportunity for them come
anyone to come speak to the council on
any city matter. Please limit your
remarks to around three minutes and
state your name and address for the
record.
Uh we have Brian Gould here, but it
looks like you are more on that
cannabis. Uh so do you want to speak
now? You can there's time to speak at at that agenda item obviously.
>> I think that would be fine. Mr. Mayor,
he is the applicant. Council like to
>> inquire. We can wait till that agenda
item comes up. Anyone else like to speak
this evening?
>> All right. See no one else. We will go
into the consent consent agenda. Anyone
willing to make a motion to approve
tonight's consent agenda?
>> I'll make a motion to approve consent
agenda items 7A through 7G.
>> I'll second.
>> All right, we have a motion and a
second. Any further discussion? All in
favor?
>> I opposed.
>> We have our consent agenda pass. We will
go right into regular agenda items. uh
public works facility funding options
and Bruce Kimmel from Ellers.
» Welcome.
>> Thank you.
>> Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council
members. Can you hear me? Okay. Is this
on? Okay.
I'm in the uh circle of uh weird
acoustics here, but I'm glad to be back
with you here. uh Bruce Kimmel with
Ellers and this is following up on
[clears throat] a few previous
discussions that we've had regarding uh
possible approaches to financing this
planned or at least proposed public
works facility uh most recently on July
13th. And at that meeting that was a
really helpful and and productive
discussion. It seemed like it was the
council's wishes to maintain the current
level of street reconstruction funding
from the franchise fee at roughly $1.1
million. That's what you'll be
collecting this year from the franchise
fees. [clears throat]
And then also uh you had indicated some
interest in seeing what the impacts
would be if you did a financing approach
for the public works facility that was
all property taxes or all franchise fees
or all sewer and water utility revenues
just to sort of level set what those all
or nothing impacts might be. And then
finally, uh, you asked us to come back
with a another funding approach just for
purposes of discussion, a new baseline,
if you will, and to see if we could get
to a level of comfort to, uh, authorize
staff to move forward with next steps in
terms of planning and and moving the
ball along with this project. So, I'll
look forward to going through all this
with you. Please stop me along the way
if you have questions. really want this
to be a discussion and we can certainly
um look in different directions based on
um your preferences.
So, uh this is really just a holdover
slide from the past presentation, but I
did want to note um the current rate
structure that you have in place for the
franchise fees. You'll recall that last
fall you authorized some fairly
significant increases in the franchise
fees for both natural gas and electric
and that based on those changes and the
number of customers per category. You
can see how that you're you're looking
to generate about $400,000 on the
natural gas side, about $700,000 on the
electric side for about 1.1 million.
Might be a little bit more than that,
but that should be in the ballpark. And
all of that money, as you know, is going
towards street reconstruction projects
and we would anticipate that would
continue in the future as well.
Then looking at 100% allocation, for
lack of a better term, we took a look at
that using a somewhat simplified bond
scenario. And I've put the parameters
here for your uh consideration. Again,
the $35 million placeholder for the
project cost. looking at a total bonding
amount of about 35 a.5 million. That's
probably a little bit high. Most likely
we would be a little bit lower than
that, but wanted to be fairly
conservative for this uh uh purpose.
We looked at a 25-year level repayment
term and an average interest rate of
about four and a half%. That rate is
also high. In today's market, you'd be
closer to 4%. But again, we wanted to
give you a little bit of a cushion, not
knowing what will happen between uh
between now and then uh in terms of
interest rates. Given all those
assumptions, you're looking at annual
debt service of about $2.4 million per
year. And so the going from there, when
we looked at putting this just on the
property tax levy, you can see that on a
$300,000 residential homestead, that uh
impact would be about $170 more per per
year. It would be about $370 uh dollar
more on a $600,000 residential
homestead. It's not exactly um
proportional uh because you may uh
recall there's something called a market
value exclusion that helps buy down
property taxes for uh values up to about
$515,000.
Kind of ratchets down and then it goes
away completely on value that's above
515. And so that's why um a $600,000
property would be paying more than twice
what a $300,000 property would pay.
If we did a franchise fee approach, um
the net additional impact would be about
$250
per year on a residential gas and
electric customer. Uh we we also have
the numbers on uh commercial uh and
other non-residential customers if you
wanted to get into that. And then the um
also impact would be roughly the same, a
little bit higher, but it really depends
on what assumptions you make. Um, if we
put it all on sewer and electric or sew
sewer, excuse me, sewer and water, that
should say, [clears throat] excuse me,
the impact would be about $290
per year more on top of existing rates.
So, um, some differences there, but also
some commonalities if you chose one or
another.
Now with that said, um, from our
perspect, sorry, back on that last
slide, you mentioned having it for the,
uh, commercial on the franchise fees and
the the utility sewer. Do you have any,
uh, numbers on what, uh, say a
million-doll commercial property would
be if it was on the property taxes?
>> Uh, I can run those very easily. Yeah.
Okay.
>> I literally could fire up my computer
and and and do that. I don't know if
that's necessary right now.
>> I think if you go back go back one more
slide, the franchise fees isn't, correct
me if I'm wrong, isn't based on the
value of the building, but just on the
hookup.
>> So like a large commercial building is
going to pay 104 a month versus 25 for
small,
>> right? I'm asking what the what the
property tax would be increase would be
what the franchise fees
>> on a million dollar commercial. Yeah,
>> it would m
get that sent to us or something. Yeah.
>> Yeah. No, we can definitely provide
that. Um, you probably uh recall that
commercial properties pay a higher
classification rate than do residential
homesteads, almost twice as much.
>> You're well aware of that. And so, uh,
and there's no market value exclusion or
anything to buy down that impact for CI
property, commercial industrial. So,
yeah, the impact would be pretty
significant on a CI property of that
value. Yeah.
>> Thanks.
So, um, with that, I I think it was
helpful to sort of level set just to see
if we put the full $2.4 million per year
on one type of revenue source or
another. That said, as your advisor, um,
I I would very much suggest that we look
at an approach that blends uh several
different revenue sources because each
of them has pros and cons, advantages
and disadvantages. So property tax
supported debt um as you recall you have
a lot of debt that is falling off pretty
rapidly in the 2030s. You you have a big
drop down in 2033 and then another big
drop down after 2034
to a fairly nominal amount of of
property tax supported debt after that
point. By no means uh am I looking to
bank on that completely. We know that
you have other property tax supported
needs in the community both on the
operating budget and the capital budget,
right? So, we can't just solve a perfect
um solution for this public works
facility and foreclose your ability to
address other needs of the city in the
future. Um, but there is some capacity
that will be freed up in the early 2030s
and I think that's worth factoring into
a solution. In addition, your franchise
fees are pretty low um in terms of
nominal dollars right now. Of course,
every dollar counts to to taxpayers. I'm
not discounting that at all. But on a
nominal dollar basis, you could say,
"Yeah, we've got some room to move
upward on that. On the other hand, if we
tried to do the full $2.4 4 million on
franchise fees. Um, this might be hard
to believe, but you would need to
increase franchise fees by $80 or 80%,
not $80 next year and another 80% on top
of that in 2028 to get to that 2.4
million on top of the existing 1.1.
Right? So, you're looking at a pretty
big uh increase uh in terms of
percentages. And as Mr. Adams can tell
you, the cost of doing street
reconstruction never gets cheaper. Um,
and as the city grows, you'll need to
keep funding those projects. And so, we
want to be mindful that you might want
to use franchise fees to pay for more
than $1.1 million of street projects in
the future, knowing that those needs
will never get less.
And then finally on the utility rates,
they're also maybe a little less visible
than property taxes, but still visible
to both residents and business owners.
And uh if we looked at a 75% 25% split
between those two utilities, again,
trying to solve for the full full $2.4
million, you'd have to raise your sewer
rates by about 40% and your water rates
by about 20%.
Certainly that in and of itself would
probably be somewhat challenging uh for folks to swallow and also we know
you have more utility projects that will
need to get done. Lift stations, water
manes, all that kind of good stuff in
the future. Again, we don't want to
create a solution today for the public
works facility that really makes it
difficult for you to take care of core
infrastructure in the future.
So, when we looked at all of these
elements, um, both your existing rates,
your existing taxes, and your future
needs and priorities, I really didn't
plan it this way, but, um, it seems to
me in looking at all of your present and
future uh, situations and and
considerations
that something like a third, a third, a
third approach could be a viable path
forward in both efficient and
affordability for the city and its
taxpayers.
So what that might look like and again
you have teen ways of structuring this
right this is not the only way of of
slicing and dicing but if you uh had a
third of the project paid from property
taxes I might suggest that you have
interestonly payments through 2033
that's when you have that first really
big drop off on your existing tax
supported debt and then you would have
level debt service for let's say 19
years after that. That's what we've
modeled. So six years plus 19 years, 25
years total on the property tax side. Um
I would note that you could actually do
the property tax portion faster if you
wanted to. There's nothing saying you
would need to stretch that that out 25
years, but again it all depends on how
much capacity you want to preserve for
other needs of the city that would be
paid with property taxes. So, it's
striking that balance. Then on the
franchise fee side, you might look to uh
increase fees next year and the year
after that. You certainly wouldn't need
80% increases. It would be much much
less than that um to support level debt
service on again about a third of the
project cost there on that side of
things. And you would you could have
level debt service or near level debt
service over roughly 25 years on that
part. And then finally, we might suggest
something similar from water and sewer
utility revenues. We really could um
look at different allocations between
water and sewer. You might recall that
in previous iterations we were saying
this much exactly from water, this much
exactly from sewer. For purposes of
making a decision on whether and how to
move forward, I might recommend that we
leave that a little more open-ended, but
to say knowing that you've got future
needs again in both the water fund and
the sewer fund, how can we uh achieve
basically a third of the funding from
those two sources again with somewhat
more modest uh rate increases in 27 and
28 to then just be able to provide for
the debt service over 25 years. With all
of these, you would have the ability to
prepay or a future council would have
the ability to prepay and also the
ability to refinance if rates would
allow for um a refinancing for interest
rate savings, interest cost savings on
the future years of the bonds. So we're
trying to find a solution for here in 26
27 28 but also know that hopefully as
the city continues to grow right the net
impact per customer per taxpayer is
going to become less. We don't want to
bank on that saying, "Oh, yeah, it's
going to get super easy 10 years from
now." But also, you're in a really good
situation in being elected officials in
a growing city in that you know that the
net per capita impact should be going
down as the city continues to grow and
as uh there's more customers, more
franchise fee payers, and more taxpayers
in the community.
So, what might this look like? Okay, I
know that's a lot of numbers here. I I
have to put on my readers myself. And these are all rounded uh to
thousands. I didn't want to overwhelm
you with all sorts of, you know, numbers
down to the dollar, but what we are
showing here is how these three pieces
might come together. So, let's assume
you might issue this debt sometime in
2027. Uh when Jolene and I were talking,
we thought maybe in the fall of 2027
would be a realistic assumption. Could
be earlier, could be a little bit later,
but maybe sometime around a year from
now. And so with that, you would have
essentially a half year of interest only
that would be due um on on the bonds
uh on or around 21 of 28. So you can see
that's really coming from fiscal 27, but
it would be that bond year end uh ending
on 21 of 28 and some pretty nominal
interestonly payments. And again, I'm uh these numbers wouldn't be as as
rounded. They would be more more
granular than this, but you can see it's
about $800,000 in total from across the
three payment sources.
And then on the utility revenue side and
on the franchise fee side, you can see
how you go then in fiscal 28 to level
debt service. Does everyone see that?
How it's about 800 grand per year in
both of those columns for 25 years. That
just happens to be roughly uh onethird
per column of $2.4 million.
So if you let it run its course through
fiscal 52, the utility funds between
water and sewer and the franchise fee
fund um would be paying 800 grand each
through uh 202.
A little bit different on the property
tax side and this is again to try to
take a little bit of advantage of your
existing tax supported debt falling off.
So you can see that in that column again
you we have that halfyear of payments
and then it's interest only of about
$530,000
for six years while we get through the
remainder of the high water mark on the
existing debt. And then you can see we
go to level debt service of about
$940,000
for the 19 years after that. So, this
approach would save the city about
$400,000 per year in property tax
supported debt. Do you need to do this?
No, of course not. You could do level
debt service just like we're
contemplating on the utility revenue and
the franchise fee side. But again, it
seems to me that when you're balancing
all of your competing priorities for the
property tax dollars, this is a
relatively modest um amount of shaping
and uh achieving some near-term
affordability that could really make a
difference for the city and for your
future property tax levies and and tax
rates over the next five to six years.
But of course, that's ultimately your
decision.
So then when you put all these together,
you can see how the debt service um is
about $2.1 million for the first six
years and then stabilizes at around $2.5
million
uh after that. Again, assuming no
refinancings or early payments of the
bonds.
Now, let's just focus for a second then
on the property tax supported debt. You
can see I've replicated that column um
uh from the left hand side on the right
hand side for what that part of the debt
might look like. And then I've layered
on also your existing bond payments that
are paid from property taxes. Right? So
right now you're at again sort of a high
watermark of 3 million 3.1 million but
then in 2034 that drops by about half
right to 1.6 6 million and then down to
$400,000
after that. Pretty small amount that's
paid from property taxes. So if you look
at both the new property tax supported
debt and the old debt together, you can
see that that still ratchets down pretty
rapidly over time, even with the new
debt for the public works facility
added.
And if we go to the next slide, you can
see in a stacked bar chart, the orange
bars are your existing debt payments on
existing bonds. You can see how those
fall off in 20 after 2033
and then again after 2034.
So if we did interestonly payments for
six years and then started level debt
service, you would still have a lot of
capacity again for future capital
projects or operating priorities of the
city. Or like I noted a few minutes ago,
if you decided, gee, we would really
like to pay that off sooner. We don't
think we'll need all of that capacity
opened up um for other projects or other
priorities. You could certainly
reduce the overall interest cost and and
have some of that um principle paid off
faster.
But again, it's all about striking
balances, right, between efficiency and
affordability and knowing that you have
a lot of things you'll want to be
investing in here in the city of Forest
Lake uh in the coming years.
So, in conclusion, but again, this is
really just another chapter in the
conversation. I want to stress you
really do have unlimited options for how
you structure this debt and how you
repay the bonds. Uh you're in a very
good position with your credit rating.
You know that you've got strong fund
balances. Um you are not maxed out, if
you will, in terms of your existing debt
or your ability to use taxes or to use
franchise fees or to use utility
revenues. It's really about striking the
right balance between the three that you
feel is affordable for your community
and still preserves capacity to do other
things besides build this public works
facility.
So given all of that, again, we think
that basically a a pie cut in thirds
might be an appropriate way to tackle
this $35 million cost and that we would
recommend some shaping of the debt on
the property tax side. Again, to take
advantage of that fall-off in your tax
supported debt and then level debt
service on the franchise fee and the
utility revenue side. And from our
perspective, that strikes an a
reasonable and appropriate balance
between again efficiency, trying to get
that debt paid off as efficiently as
possible, but also affordability and
preserving capacity to do other things
in the community as well.
So, that's what we've got and I'd be
happy to entertain uh questions or fire
up my laptop, Mr. Mayor. Whatever you
want to do.
>> Questions.
Um, [clears throat] Bruce, a couple
questions. Um, the mayor asked about uh,
you know, obviously commercial
properties and and things like that, you
know, let's just say million, 2 million,
whatever it might be. Um, when I look at
the prices that we've used in here for
house cost, um, they seem low to me. And
so, I would like to see some pricing on
not only $600,000
house prices, but million-dollar house
prices. Um, you know, at 600,000 I look
at this and I go, "Well, that's $370 a
year. That's less than a little over $30
a month. It's a little over a dollar a
day. Sounds great,
you know, and I would be all for that,
but I'd like to see some of the higher
prices as well."
» Any other questions?
Uh so [clears throat] what if we did
this third a third a third do you have
the numbers of what percentage increase
would have to be on franchise fees to
keep the million dollars plus for roads
and the sewer and water? You you alluded
to an 80% increase if we were going
fully on on franchise fees or the other,
you know, the utility funds, right?
>> Um would you have a a number there if it
is this third third? Yeah, it it's
actually um I I didn't put this in the um PowerPoint. Um uh but it's it's
actually pretty um u
intuitive in that remember before we
were looking at $2.4 million going just
on the franchise fee. Just use that
example. And now we're looking at about
a third of that, but all the other
assumptions staying the same. So instead
of an 80% and an 80% you're looking at
roughly a 25% and a 25% or whatever you
want to however you want to massage
that. We might since you had a
relatively large increase this year for
2026, you might say let's take a little
bit of a breather for 27, maybe not do
as much, but then more again in 2028,
but it' be basically a 50 to 60%
increase overall between the two years
as opposed to 160 plus percent. Then
after two years then does that keep in
its I mean maybe our normal 3% or
whatever that we just kind of built in
it for
>> Yeah. Or you could take a holiday and
say okay we don't we're going to hold it
steady for a little while and Yes.
Exactly. But at that point and actually
those numbers are a little high. I think
those numbers actually generated enough
to fund a little bit closer to $1.2 $2
million a year for road projects. So I
would say that Mr. Mayor, you could say
25% and 25% would be a reasonable
assumption on what it would take just to
get this debt service done at a third u
going on the franchise fee.
>> Okay. And then could you go back to the
slide where it shows the debt service
falling off?
>> Yeah. Um, and I don't know without Ellie
being here who would have the answer to
this, but and maybe you do, Bruce. You
know, we had a presentation last at a
workshop last week where we had three
big road projects and each of them
contemplated bonding. That's not worked
into this here, I would assume.
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> No. So, great point, Mr. Mayor. Um
that certainly could be a next step and
would be very easy for us to do uh in
terms of
use putting in some assumptions. So you
got your orange bars, these blue bars
and then maybe some green bars for these
future road projects and what that could
how much of that capacity could be eaten
up and by capacity I mean the white
space right there in the chart. Um, how
much of that would be eaten up by future
road projects? Yeah,
>> I think that would be good if council
would agree just because it it gives us
a we know we have to do the at least
those three and likely more. Um, it
would be just nice to have that baked in
here. So, we're really looking at true
numbers for the next 30 years here, 25
years on what that might look like. Um
and then um
there was one other thing you said
before that I was going to ask about if
we can um on these 20 you know just
harder numbers maybe on that 25% and
what that would look like um for the
increases like to a dollar amount
>> um would be helpful I think as as well
>> um the utility increases. So I think in
the original
planning for this, the water and sewer
funds, enterprise funds were going to
cover maybe as much as 50%.
>> Right?
>> And we had baked into that 10-year plan
some rate increases that would
accommodate that to some degree
to cover a third based on current,
you know, higher priced facility than
was originally planned. What do those
rate increases look like on the
enterprise fund side?
Uh,
Council Member Ericson, I'm not sure I
know what the estimated cost of the
project was for those most recent rate
increases. So when we ran our numbers
here for if we did 100% on the utility
fund,
>> we were assuming 35
million um and it was going to be
about about a 40% increase on the sewer
rates and about a 20% increase on the
water rates based on that roughly 3/4
one quarter split. But I think when
those numbers were done,
well, I guess I I would have to ask
staff exactly what assumptions were used
there on those rate increases.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think the original in
the 10ear plan, this project was like
$20 million project.
>> Okay.
>> And so water and sewer is basically
covering 10 million. So I suppose we're
probably right there. And
>> it's probably about a wash.
>> Yeah, sounds like
>> Yeah. I Is everyone understanding? I
think we're even though it's a higher
cost, it's a lower percentage and so
you're probably going to be about in the
same ballpark just intuitively that
makes sense.
But certainly we could drill down
further in updating that 10-year
projection and say yeah if it's a third
of 35 million and if we
however you want to split it up between
water and sewer but there again I think
it would be helpful maybe to talk about
what are some of the specific projects
that you've got in the offing as well on
the water and sewer side.
I don't want this to sort of, you know,
get in the way of you deciding on
whether and how to move forward with
next steps, but I would absolutely uh
encourage us having that continued
conversation as to what some of those
specific dollar amounts might be. Yeah,
I think that 10 year plan and
contemplated some of the upcoming
projects that you know they know they
have, but also covering this, I think
those water and sewer rates might
actually be kind of on par or planned
rate increases would be on par with what
we're talking about tonight.
>> Great.
>> One other question. Um,
the city maintains some level of
investment assets for
>> unplanned emergencies and natural
disasters. Um, is it been contemplated
at all to buy this bond down by using
any of those available resources?
We have not run scenarios with that
assumption. Uh, we certainly could and
many cities do that, especially if some
of that is really contemplated for
capital projects. Um, part of your very
strong credit rating is based on the
fact that you have strong reserves for a
rainy day. So, we wouldn't want to draw
too much of that cash down. Also, you're
still earning a very good interest rate
on those investments. And, uh, you would
probably be bonding
well, the bond rate if you went out the
full 25 years might be a little bit
higher than what Ellie can invest at in
today's market. But um you know there
again it's it's sort of a balancing act.
How much cash can you reasonably give up
in order to increase affordability
but knowing that you'll also be
foregoing investment earnings and that
could have uh ramifications for your
budget as well. But yes, uh we could
absolutely run scenarios assuming
uh whether it's two million or five
million of cash or whatever it might be
to buy down that $35 million bonding
amount.
>> The other alternative to using any of
that cash, my understanding is that the
majority of that those earnings are
simply reinvested. Correct. Verse I mean
could could any of those earnings be
used to cover some of the debt service
>> 100%.
>> Be another
>> Yeah. to look at it.
>> And the nice thing about investment
earnings is they are really eligible to
be used in any
but for any corporate purpose of the
city.
>> So you could apply those to debt
service, you could apply those to any
number of things.
>> Yeah,
>> I I like I like that idea. I think you
know you use [clears throat] those
investment funds for a major situation
or natural disaster. This is a major
deal. we in badly need of a public works
facility, which we've underbudgeted.
It's not knowing what the that building
market has done. And so I I think it
justifies using some of those to to
bring that bond down or that buy buy
some debt down for sure.
>> And one thing I'll mention, Mr. mayor,
council members, um you've got a great
finance team and a great interim city
administrator. Um who are on top of
these things, but we can also help maybe
take a look at your reserve levels and
not that you know our word at Ellers is is gospel or anything, but if there's
an interest in in in gauging how much is
really appropriate for a rainy day, we
could fold that into
later discussions as well. Just to backs
stop, if you do make a decision, I'm
just pulling out $5 million because 35
minus 5 is a nice round 30. But if you
did want to use $5 million,
um you might like having some
backstopping from somebody like Eller
saying, "Yeah, this is really reasonable
based on your cash flows and you getting
property taxes from Washington County,
you know, twice a year and all that kind
of stuff.
uh joy enough direction probably to come
back with some more things
>> I think so I've got quite yeah no it was
a good conversation I'm glad I
appreciate everyone's input on that
>> u so thank you
>> yeah you're welcome
>> and we really appreciate these
conversations and whatever else we can
provide to help um build the business
case for moving forward on what seems to
be an important project for the city so
thank you
>> thanks All
right, we'll go to 8B Hidden Creek Third
Edition Easement Vacation. Abby,
» thank you, Mr. Mayor,
members of the council. Just give me a
second here.
Never gets old.
All right. Tonight for your
consideration is uh Hidden Creek uh
third editions easement vacation. So
tonight also on the agenda is
consideration of a final plat for Hidden
Creek uh fourth edition. That fourth
edition plat is going to go down in an
area right where we have an easement for
a temporary culde-sac that was
associated with the third edition plat.
So where the roadway is coming down Elie
I think it's Elie Avenue.
Thank you. Uh we have a temporary
culde-sac tonight. The consideration is
removing vacating that easement for that
uh public culde-sac. Um, and then what
will happen is if so, should you choose
to approve the final plat, the final
plat will go over then where that
temporary culde-sac was replacing it
extending Ele Avenue. And as part of
those conditional approvals, we'd also
look to get a new easement at the south
end of Elely Avenue in the future. Um,
so moving the the black circle away to
move that line down at the next
application that you're going to listen
to. Um,
you have to hold a public hearing on
easement vacations. That's a statutory
requirement. Uh, the purpose really is
to look to see that there's no public
purpose for this public infrastructure
at any point anymore. So, tonight staff
is asking you to open the public
hearing, receive any public testimony,
and then close the public hearing. I
will note that street vacations or
vacations do require four fifths vote of
the council. Tonight for your
consideration though, staff has um asked
or has drafted a resolution resolution
number 082426
[clears throat] that would uh take um
that would vacate the ele. So there is a
draft motion here for you. A motion to
adopt resolution 08242602
vacating the temporary culde-sac access
seizement recorded as Washington County
document number 4474823.
You have any questions for me?
>> No. All right. With that [clears throat]
at 6:50 we'll open up public hearing on
the vacation of the temporary culde-sac
access. Uh
anyone here to speak to that?
Anyone last time here to speak to the
vacation of the culde-sac access?
Seeing no one else at 6:51, we'll close
the public hearing and bring it back to
council.
Great.
Want to make a motion?
Um, I'll make a motion to adopt
resolution number 08242602
vacating the temporary culde-sac access
easement recorded as Washington County
document number 4474823.
» I'll second motion a second. Any further
discussion?
>> All in favor?
>> I opposed. Motion carries.
>> Okay, we'll move on to Hidden Creek
fourth edition final plat approval.
Abby,
>> thank you. Uh, Mayor Roberts, members of
the council tonight for your
consideration is the final plat for
Hidden Creek fourth edition. Um, this
has been submitted by Headwaters Land
Group and represents the last remaining
lots to be developed in the existing
Hidden Creek neighborhood. As a
reminder, we have seen concept plans and
working through the preliminary plat
process for Hidden Creek South that
neighborhood and Eley Avenue will scoop
down and move back to the east on Hidden
Creek. that is separate at this time
from this development.
Um, Hidden Creek was originally approved
with 125 lots. Originally, it was going
to be two phases, kind of an east phase,
west phase. We've broken it out into
four um, development lots. We're at 18
remaining lots to be platted for this
neighborhood.
So, those lot widths do vary as low as
44 feet wide, um, but do get as wide as
126 feet. Uh that is approval as part of
the preliminary plat that was approved
in early 2022 that gave that averaging
of 70 ft across all 125 lots in the
neighborhood. Um that access and
circulation, we just vacated that
existing access uh or that um existing
culdeac at the south end of Elely. Now
that that's gone, the plat will extend
Ele Avenue and as a condition of
approval, we will need a new access uh
turnaround access or turnaround
culde-sac at the south end of this
development. Um construction uh access
from Headarters Parkway is something
that I'll get into in the next slide,
but the goal here is to try to minimize
the disruption to the neighborhood as as
it has expanded significantly more since
the third phase. Public improvements do
include water sanitary sewer storm,
sewer streets, um completing of drainage
trail and park grading work. So all of
that still has to be done with this
final plat.
So one area that is of concern for the
city is construction access of the
remaining work. So as a reminder, uh
Hidden Creek as a whole was 125 lots.
107 lots have been platted and I can't
say all, but I would say we're probably
maybe 75% of those 107 lots are built
out. Um we have had in our development
agreements requirement for a con
temporary construction access to the
south side of Elely Avenue to try to
funnel some of that development related
work over to the west side of the
property so we're not snaking through
the neighborhood. Uh we really want to
see minimal construction traffic running
through that neighborhood. So what is
included in your staff report is based
on a city planning commission
recommendation that that would remain in
place and um until the time 85% a new
home con completion.
That's different than the current plat.
essentially says on the
third phase essentially says hey use
that access road as much as you can but
if you're going to drive through that
neighborhood be cautious and we had
developed a cautious plan. Um that is
one area just for discussion tonight in
that the way the access road is lined
out. It does impede on some of that
future development through that area. Um
staff has drafted the resolution based
on the planning commission's uh
recommendation though that we would keep
that in place and require all
construction traffic to use utilize that
route. Also, before building permitting,
we do need to ensure that all of all the
other public improvements, our roads,
our sidewalks, our infiltration basins
are in place. Um, as a reminder, even
though we talked I talked a minute about
Hidden Creek South, Hidden Creek fourth
edition does represent the end of this
development. We want all public
improvements done before we're going to
start issuing building permits. And then
before we close out this development, we
want to make sure we have work,
lighting, storm cleaning, record plans,
punch list, all those teeny housecaping
items that sometimes can linger in phase
developments. We want to get it all done
as part of this development. So tonight
before you is the consideration of a
resolution that does encapsulate
conditions of approval. Um those
conditions do indicate that we need do
need to enter into development
agreement. We will want some financial
securities including 125% of all the
incompleted work replacement easement
that we just talked about in the
previous application and then finalizing
all the plans permits easements fees the
fees including parkland dedication of at
the moment $2500 per lot. Um the
planning commission's recommendation is
to move forward with the approval of a
resolution that did come as a six to
one. There was one commission member who
just thought it wasn't quite ready just
because we have a lot of conditions, but
that's pretty customary in our
development that we still have quite a
bit of loose ends to kind of clean up
before we finalize the bow with the
development agreement usually. So
tonight for your consideration uh staff
would recommend you adopt resolution
08242603
and there is a recommended motion up on
the screen. Um developer Paul Bergamman
of Headarters Land Group is here if you
have questions for him. Do you have any
questions for me?
» Council any questions?
I didn't know it was so moving. Council
member Miller
>> allergies.
Um, Mr. Ruben, would you like to come up
and
address the council?
» Yeah. Mayor, members of city council, um
could you clarify for me, Abby, on the
road, this temporary construction access
road,
>> what is what are you asking for or what
is
>> the temporary construction access road
as it exists today? Yeah.
>> To be used until 85% of home completion.
That is what the planning commission
recommended.
So not not just the construction of the
18 lots road but the the construction of
the homes.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Um
we can't um we will work and try to
maintain that uh not try we will work
and maintain the uh construction access
road during the construction of the road
but to maintain that road till 85% of
the homes are constructed which could be
a couple years. What are we doing in the
middle of the winter? How are we
maintaining this temporary construction
road? We have roads there that are built
to the standards. If they're too narrow,
why don't we come in through the north
with our I mean, [clears throat]
I understand and and we'll do whatever
we can. I think uh Amanda talked to our
attorney today on this road. During the
construction, we'll try to limit as much
impact to the streets as we can through
the neighborhood, but do it during the
actual home construction. Um,
then I want you to deny my final plat
because we can't do that. It's just not
feasible. I that's that's I don't even
know how we would do it. I mean, you're
asking me to maintain a temporary road
construction for two years or so. So, I I'm not sure what the deal is on that.
Um, I think we resolved the other major
issue was the pond. Um, that's in
process and going to be started. Um what
about where do we sit with the dirt
pile? Is there any issues that we have
to talk to on the dirt pile?
>> I think we can finish that out in final
grading plan um and through the
development agreement.
>> So and Amanda, I think you talked to
Joel.
Can you help me? And this through the
construction of the homes um isn't what
I understood took place with you and
Joel. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. Uh yeah,
your honor, council, I I think there was
a misunderstanding then because it the
communication with um Mr. Holstead was
um [clears throat]
that your concern was that you would
have to put in a new road and that you
didn't have a concern about using the
current road.
>> I don't. But I don't know how this
current road can be maintained through
the winter through the freeze thaw,
through the rain. I mean, when it's dry,
you can land a 747 out there. when it's
wet, you can't ride a bike through it.
So, I don't know. I mean, in order to
make this road to last two years is a
huge cost. I mean, it it's I don't even
get why that's even on the table. I
mean, we've got roads in place that are to the standard or loads uh that
we're bringing in even for the uh road
development. I talked to the contractor.
He thinks there'll be approximately 10
to 12 days of construction traffic on
the roads. That's including the delivery
of the pipe, plastic, lightweight pipe,
some gravel. The main traffic will be
uh when the twoft base is brought in,
which will take about 4 days. So,
there's not a significant amount of
traffic that's going to be done to to
develop these 18 lots. But guys, it's
just not reasonable to ask me to put a a road that I have to maintain for two
years.
>> Abby, uh, did was this this was a new
condition added on by the planning
commission?
>> Yeah, the planning commission really
wanted to memorialize that the
construction traffic included
construction traffic associated with the
construction of new homes. I do concur
with uh, Mr. Bergamman that that is
mildly uncustomary. It's not as common
for cities to do that. I think the
concern was that we are at the tail end
of an oversized culde-sac and there are
just more homes in that vicinity. The
one thing I will say is that I've
highlighted the condition that is word
for word in the resolution. It's on two
page 257 of the packet that does
indicate um they shall use the temporary
access um and it says when weather or
deterioration makes the temporary access
unsafe or not reasonable possible we
could also allow for access onto the
roads. Now I understand that that still
require would require all construction
traffic even home building construction
traffic but we have put at least
requirements in here that if weather
becomes a problem and this is not able
to be used we can authorize something
differently. What does that look like
and how do we I mean do does that as a
change in the condition and that would
have to come back to the city to staff
to okay okay we've got three weeks of
wet [snorts] conditions now you're okay
to use the city streets.
>> It gives the engineer after consultation
with uh public works the authority to
put it in writing. Um I think it does
make it a you know a little clunky or
could be subjective. Um I you know I
think that this is a good talking point
for the council to see if you concur
with the planning commission's um
recommendation
just because I think that that is
something that um you know definitely
could set a precedent as well if we're
going to be requiring temporary access
roads and all development to all
construction traffic to use them.
>> I I think for me that the difference
here you hear about some more of
established neighborhoods, uh, Chestnut
Creek that has been there for seven,
eight years and all of a sudden a new
development or new additions coming and
you have all this traffic. You know,
most of those homes are relatively new
and they've all experienced or been
benefited from people coming in and
building into that neighborhood and
building their homes. So, I think they
would be more understandable that, hey,
this is just part of living in a brand
new development and hopefully this thing
gets done sooner than later. I I would
be comfortable with waving that
requirement on this.
» I don't know. I think I some of the
concerns that they've had in the past. I
don't know if it can change or not uh
when you're coming through a new
development or an existing development,
maybe the school times when kids are
being picked up or anything like that or
the busier parts of the day. I think
that's what they're more concerned about
is the the maybe just day-to-day traffic
and how that construction traffic might
interfere with with some of that. I
don't know if there's a way to work
around any of that. I think that seemed
to be one of their big concerns in the
past.
>> Abby, in your presentation, you talked
about a safety plan that's been used on
the other ones. Like that's worked out
well, has it? During the third phase, um
the way the condition of approval and it
was embedded into the development
agreement, if I remember right, Amanda
could correct me if I was wrong, is it
was it just said all construction,
traffic, and delivery shall use the
temporary access from Headwaters Parkway
to the greatest extent possible. In the
event it cannot be used, a safety plan
would be implemented. and they
supplemented with a separate safety plan
that included signage of trucks hauling
no not to exceed a certain mile per hour
daily safety meetings. Um, we re also
required a similar safety plan for you
brought up Chestnut Creek. Again, an
established neighborhood, Havenwood, you
know, kind of in the middle um in that
neighborhood a little bit different
where they're going to um coordinate, if
I remember correctly, and please don't
quote me on this one, that there was
some concern specifically about school
bus pickup and drop off times and to
coordinate um a lag during those, you
know, very kind of limited windows.
um you know so it's up those both of
those safety plans staff worked through
with the developer.
I would say that if the council is not
favorable to condition number 12 then um
possibly it's a motion to approve the
resolution with amendment to number 12
consistent with past development
practices for Hidden Creek um which
would then revert back to what we've
currently been doing in the
neighborhood.
The only What I would say is we probably
would want to amend it slightly that the
access road is uh removed and the site
is restored
upon prior to completion of the
neighborhood.
>> I can type that.
>> Go ahead, Paul.
>> I'll do that. It's not an important
whenever you want the road removed,
we'll do that. I didn't understand
exactly, but it doesn't matter. It's
insignificant.
>> I think
>> when she wants us to remove the road, we
will. Yeah. Any other questions, concerns, thoughts?
>> Yeah, I'm in agreement. I think that,
you know, number I guess number 12, it's
calling for 16 homes to be done and
certificates
to be held before this road is vacated
is a little bit over the top.
You're typing something else for
potential.
>> Typing it up really quickly.
>> Yep.
>> Thank you for that.
» [cough and clears throat]
» Paul, things came to continue to move
out there. Good sales are great. Ahead
of schedule.
>> The builder called me tonight wanting to
make sure that we got these lots
approved. It's going so well.
>> Good.
>> And he's pushing us to keep going on the
south. So,
>> it's good.
>> Yeah.
>> It's a little choppy. Um but I added in
there that with amendment to condition
12 be identical to Hidden Creek third
edition and road is removed and restored
prior to development completion. A
temporary access road that might be a
instead of calling it road. Trying to be
a little bit more specific.
Any
other questions for me?
>> I don't think so. Council does.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah.
» Could I make a friendly amendment to the
motion? Can we move the word identical?
Technically, we want it to be similar to
>> similar, but because we're going to
requiring that they restore
[clears throat] the road and I'm going
to tie that to the letter of credit. In
other words, they don't get the re
letter of credit release until that road
is gone. So, I want the ability to put
in a little bit of teeth, please.
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Thanks. I'll pull this up for you then.
» All right. Who's going to make a motion
on this?
>> I'll give it a shot. How's that sound?
I'll make a motion to adopt resolution
number 0824-26-03
conditionally approving the Hidden Creek
fourth additional edition final plat
case number J26-0446
based on the findings of fact and
subject to the conditions contained in
the resolution.
This may be amended by the council with
the amendment to the condition number 12
be similar to the hidden creek third
edition and temporary access road is
removed and restored prior to
development and completion.
All right motion. Do we have a second?
>> I'll second.
>> All right. Any further discussion?
All in favor?
>> I opposed. Motion carries. Thanks, Paul.
» All right. eight D parkland dedication
fee study. Abby,
» thank you. Uh, Mayor Roberts, members of
the council, tonight bringing back for
you another, uh, discussion and seeking
direction on the Parkland dedication
study. So, as a reminder, um, feels like
longer ago, but your last meeting,
uh, you reviewed the Parkland dedication
study, the history of Parkland
dedication in the city, including those
historical increases. We talked a little
bit about the identifying the needs, the
capital plan. We looked at our
comparable cities and um then the
recommendation of the study that does
indicate we should be increasing our
parkland dedication fee in lie of 392909
per residential unit and 896691
per um acre of non-residential
development. The council was concerned
that that 896681
uh per non-residential acre of
development when compared to our peer
cities might be a little high and asked
us to fill in some blanks that staff had. So included in your packet was this
table which goes through each of those
cities and kind of helps provide a
little bit more information about the
non-residential dedication. I included
in here the percentage um just to give
you some reference to the city's city of
Forest Lake is not in proposing to
increase the percentage of
non-residential dedication. We're at 7%
if I remember correctly. I will double
check that but it's six or 7%. Um so we
are actually just just slightly above
some cities but below some other cities.
Then when we look at that acreage, we're
really looking at those ones that have
true dollar values associated with them
as opposed to a fair market value or an
appraised value. Um, one of the things
to note is h where we're where how
they're applying how cities are applying
that um per acre fee. Some are applying
it on the total net acres um so it's
$9,000 for every single acre. Some are
applying it just on the dedicated area.
So in uh Rose Mount when we're like holy
moly Rose Mount is must have a great
park system at $90,000 an acre that's
$90,000 an acre on what is dedicated. So
if they have 10 acres and they require
10% one acre that's 90,000 in the city
of Forest Lake if you have a 10acre
development and it's 60,000
um excuse me
math in my head. It's a little hard. A
10acre development 6% we're going to
require
6 acre, right, Amanda? We can do math
together in our head. We take that times
our new valuation of almost 9,000. We
would be at 54. We're under than what we
thought would be that kind of maybe
premier um
uh premier dedication. But that does put
us in line though again back to where we
are in pure cities of that total net
acres of where we're sitting in terms of
how we're asking for those fees and when
we're applying them. So included in also
in your packet tonight for discussion is
again that same recommendation uh not to
change from 392909 per residential unit
or the 896691
per uh non-residential acre but I did
include in there that analysis of right
now the 896681
per non-residential acre is based on one
half of the residential rate. I did
include what that would be if it was 45%
of the assumed employee need, 40% of the
assumed employee need or a third of
assumed employee need. And the reason I
did that is for council discussion of um
you know we can acknowledge that our
employees that are coming into our
community during the day are using our
park system but probably not using it at
the same level our residents are. what
is that you know maybe percentage that
they are using it compared to residents.
Does that make sense? Right now the
study [clears throat] assumes half but
there are some other numbers there to
kind of if you don't if you still think
that that's high staff would recommend
we kind of assume a value so that we can
still kind of keep the methodology of
our dedication study consistent.
So tonight I'm asking you to discuss
this and provide some direction. I'd
like to try to get back an ordinance
amendment to you soon [laughter] to
modify the parkland dedication fee. Um,
not only do we have to modify the code,
but we would also have to modify the fee
schedule and we would like to get that
to you in front of you, you know,
relatively soon, as soon as the council
is comfortable. Do you have any
questions?
>> Yeah. Could you go back one slide,
please? Can you walk me through this?
So, the non-residential, what do these
percentages mean?
>> Uh, six. So the non-residential the
percentage means how much of the land
area of the development. If you have a
10 acre um development site in Elk River
6% if it's commercial 6% needs to be
dedicated to the city.
>> So they're dedicating 6% of that
>> the land [clears throat]
>> and they're
paying some dollars in lie of
>> so it's one or the other. So parkland
dedication is we want land and if we
don't get land we'd like fee in L. So in
Elk River it's a commercial development
they want 6% of the developable land
area and then if there isn't if that
isn't suitable parkland they would like
6% of the county's assessed valuation.
>> Got it. Okay. So farms and indens is 5%
of fair market value. Lino it's 10% or
2725 of the total acreage being
developed. So if it's a 10 acre be
27,000
>> correct. So where LO has a lower per
acreage dollar value they do have one of
the higher land dedication requirements
for non-residential. Mhm.
>> And so we're
this whatever dollar we settle on is it
on total net acres?
>> Ours is on total net acres. Correct.
>> Okay.
» Thank you. Any other questions?
» I you know this was good clarification.
I you know um I think this was good. I
feel comfortable moving forward. Um
» quick question.
>> Yeah.
>> So you've given us some options here as
far as a third 40 45% or 50%.
>> Um what are other cities or
municipalities you
>> So most cities haven't done this kind of
a
comprehensive methodology determination.
We I would say were a little bit more
groundbreaking. I don't want to say
groundbreaking. I'm sure there's cities
out there that have done this, but we
spent some really good time creating
some methodology to help back the
numbers to say this is the system. These
are the needs. This is the dollar value.
Um so there isn't it isn't as common for
cities to say, oh, our non-residential
rate is just half the residential. Um,
this was staff and our consultants a way
to kind of say, well, our employees
probably aren't here as much as
residents, but we have just as many
residents leave during the day that
workers that come in. Maybe our workers
that are in the community employees that
are in the community are using the park
system about a third of what our
residents are using it. Maybe our
residents are using it three hours a day
and our non-residents are
[clears throat] using it a third, you
know, or an hour a day or an hour and a
half a day. You know, that's kind of the
mindset that I'd like to kind of hear
the council's thoughts on. And
>> what is our non-residential park
dedication fee in L of now
>> 7,000 an acre?
I mean, I guess personally I I I doubt
that half of all employees use our park
system. I mean, I think they come, they
go to work, and they go home. I mean, as
our employees who leave probably do the
same and they come home and take their
kids to the park. Um, so I mean, I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with
the assumption that half of them are
using it, but at the same time, I don't
want us to go backwards. home.
>> Uh, Commissioner Eric, may I just
clarify that it's not half the employees
that are using it, it's that the
employee is using it half the time of a
resident.
» So, if an average resident's maybe using
it two hours a day, an employee is using
it one, you know, at half one hour a
day. [clears throat]
I just wanted to clarify what that
methodology was.
>> I can hear though that that might be
high, which is why staff had included
some other percentages in there.
» So I guess my thought is if we want to
use this methodology, if we feel like
this is a good approach, then I would
probably [clears throat] say, you know,
consider the 40%
to have some level of increase versus
going back to a third. Um, but I'm not
sure that I'm comfortable going beyond
that myself.
Yeah, I I would agree. It's half as much
uh an employee that comes in who doesn't
isn't a resident seems a little bit
high. Um so to to back that down to be a
little bit more realistic and yet still
not go backwards um 45 or 40% I would be
I'd be comfortable with
And I appreciate the idea of having some
type of methodology to to justify these
um these charges.
>> Yeah. This these aren't arbitrary costs
that we've had in the past. These are
this is our system and these are our
needs.
>> Yeah. And and I think you know it's
interesting. I think we asked last time,
what is the feedback on this from
developers or what is it? Is it too high
too? And there really sound like there
wasn't much negative push back or
feedback on
>> No.
>> For non-residential, we've charged this
fee for any of our non-residential
subdivisions, which have been minor
small since I've been here, but have not
heard any push back from any of them.
>> Abby, could I get clarification? So just
on the residential units, I just want to
be clear. So on a 1 acre piece of land,
if we develop that residential, we get
how many lots out of that approximately
based on our lot sizes today?
>> 3.6.
>> So let's use 6, but we'll leave that up.
So $3,929
per unit times three for an acre
residential.
>> Correct.
>> So well over $10,000.
>> Correct. And yet for a commercial, we're
only going to charge them $8,900, which
I've never gotten any push back in all
the years that, you know, I've worked
with this stuff. And in terms of
development, I think those prices are
very fair comparing to our peer cities.
I mean, wouldn't you based on the
analysis you did and what you looked at,
wouldn't you say that's pretty fair?
>> Yeah, I I mean, I wouldn't have brought
to you the 89116
8966
81 had I not think that it was
consistent with some of these peer
cities, especially when we are looking
at some of the cities that are charging
based on fair market or assessed
valuation, [clears throat] they are
paying a much higher price. Um we're
basing our valuation per acre on our on
a dollar per square foot. So 43560,
we know that that number is going to is
higher in residential and
non-residential. I would say that we
probably are are have a a lower than
what's really represented here in terms
of some of these other cities that
aren't doing a per unit calculation.
>> Right. That's what I meant to say.
>> Thank you.
>> Now, you make you make a good point,
Council Member Miller. Are we adopting
specific numbers or are we adopting a
policy that's going to cause these
numbers to change over time?
>> Uh, well, both. Tonight, staff would
recommend that you accept the Parkland
uh dedication study and you and accept
its methodology and then direct staff to
draft an ordinance memorializing not
only it but the new fees. Um we would
anticipate reviewing these on a fairly
regular basis. you maybe once a year,
maybe every other year or so as
development increases, as land prices
increase um to see if they need to
increase or even decrease as the
community becomes developed out. As the
community becomes developed out, our um
land values will will should lower in
some spots.
>> So, I guess I would I [clears throat]
would incorporate into the policy what
that review rhythm is going to be if
it's annually or bannually for every
other year, right?
You want that in the policy.
>> I think [clears throat] it makes sense.
I mean, if you're gonna say you're
arbitrarily just picking it, it would be
nice to review it every other year or
something. Could that be added to
>> Yeah, we can.
>> I I you know, I I understand what
council member Miller what you're
saying. And I I I just if we're going to
have a specific methodology, the idea,
and I I can get over this, the idea that
a a employee that doesn't live here that
comes to work here eight hours a day or
whatever uses the park as much as half
of what a resident that's here 365 days
out of the year. So, um [clears throat]
maybe I'm thinking wrong, but is
um non-residential would that be
considered apartment buildings as well?
Uh
that is a great question. Generally
we've applied the residential unit to
non-residential or two apartment
buildings even though sometimes they are
considered a commercial entity. Okay.
>> But generally we're looking at that
residential unit. We can clarify that in
that policy.
>> Yeah. I think it would be good because
if you build an apartment building that
has 300 residents, right, they're more
likely going to use the park than
someone who has a yard,
>> you know? So, I think that's good
clarification as well
>> that we would continue to use the
residential unit for our um apartment
complex or multif family complex
>> if the council members agree.
[clears throat]
>> Well, those apartment buildings go back
and forth. It seems like depending on
what policy we're talking about between
commercial and I mean I know the
developer of Timber Ridge, you know,
talked about how big a check he wrote.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, when he built those two phases
and it was the residential was applied
at that point.
>> If we treat multif family housing as
commercial.
Does that affect the math on this then
in any way?
>> Probably if you look at about 12,000 an
acre for residential versus 10,000. I
mean, we were doing easy math there and
I don't do easy math in my head
necessarily, but it does look like
residential would fashion a higher rate
for multif family. Some cities will have
a lot of communities have a sliding
scale for multif family um where they
will actually increase higher with
multif family for exactly what council
member Miller was saying likely uh
strong users of the park system. Other
communities will actually have that
lower knowing that they are you know
that there's a larger dedication lump
sum and to not prohibit development in
that way. Um I specifically we didn't
propose any sort of methodology that way
because we kind of we base this per
resident and our residents per
household. And so really looking at how
much each household on average citywide
would be didn't matter if it was a
single family or a multif family
apartment or multif family unit
» and and No push back on these multif
family because that number gets to be
large on on that when you're proposing
that fee to
>> thus far our most recent development was
Forest Creek Estates Forest Creek Forest
Creek apartment down by uh the library
that was a $2,500 that was not there was
no question about that. And so um I
don't believe this is a a really
customary
dedication fee or a land dedication or
fee in lie of land dedication. Um I
think you know it's been challenged
quite a bit over the years because of
just
development costs money but that's why
we really do think it's important to
adopt a methodology that says this is
our system. These are our future
employees and residents. This is how
much each of these things actually cost
us.
» So what [clears throat]
I mean I like this discussion. I'm glad
that we're having a policy discussion
and ultimately you're aligned on some
numbers. Does it make sense to does
staff have indigestion with having a
third
criteria of there's residential, there's
multif family, and there's commercial?
we would need to go back and do
analysis. What we would end up needing
to do is breaking out our projected
units um both multif family and single
family and breaking those out and then
wanting a percentage. It would take a
little bit more analysis on the
dedication study. Not like we can't do
it, but we'd want to figure out what
that methodology is and fairly good
support with the comp plan and then, you
know, plug in the new comp plan when
it's uh ready. So then that way we're
don't have again arbitrary numbers.
>> Yeah. I mean I think obviously the
policy is going to have to inform us and
future councils and future staff whether
or not multif family is residential or
commercial. Um
kind of feel like it's a standing stand
on its own entity myself
for this.
» I wouldn't disagree. I mean it's much
some extra work. If we're going to do
this, let's do it right and get it good.
>> Can I make a suggestion that maybe we um
table this and move it into a workshop
setting? Um I think what I'm hearing is
there's some I think you guys, it sounds
like the council's fairly comfortable
with the residential unit for a single
family residential, but maybe uncertain
about applying that to a multif family
unit. I think that there's a difference
between a multif family rental and a
multif family condo, right? A condo is a
single family unit. And so I think what
staff would want to do is really prepare
some of that. Um, and then again pulling
our pure cities data so you can see what
that really looks like. Um, and then
maybe having just a little bit more of a
sit down, making sure anything you think
of between now and maybe mid I was about
to say August, but August is almost
over, midepptember. Um, that let me know
and then that way you have good amount
of information prepared for you so that
we get the direction and that workshop
and bring something back thereafter.
Does that sound good?
>> Yeah, I appreciate the extra willingness
to do that extra work. Again, if we're
going to do this, let's get Make sure
we're checking all the boxes and have
all the different
areas covered for different properties
classifications.
>> I like that idea.
>> Do you need a motion to table this item?
>> Um, sure. If you want
>> moved.
[laughter]
All right.
>> I'll second it.
>> All right. Motion second. Any further
discussion? All in favor?
>> I opposed. And we have this tabled.
>> All right. Going into 8 E,
tobacco license consideration, prime
tobacco. Amanda,
good evening, mayor and council members.
The next item before you is a tobacco
license submitted by uh Majid Nati Shune
for Prime Tobacco proposed to be located
at 843 West Broadway Avenue, SweetC.
uh staff has completed its review of the
application which is generally complete.
However, the applicant only needs to
submit his updated certificate of
insurance for the business. The police
department has completed and cleared the
applicant's background check. Um staff
staff's primary concern for this
application is the proposed location.
Staff determined that the property is
located within 500 ft of Bixby Park,
which does not comply with city code uh
chapter 11804.
Um,
paragraph H,
a tobacco business did previously
operate at this location. However, the
city's tobacco regulations were amended
in 2019 to establish the park buffer
requirement. The prior business
subsequently became a non-conforming
use. Under city code chapter 153.051,
051 paragraph H. A non-conforming use
expires when has been abandoned for a
continuous period of one year or more
because tobacco sales have not operated
at this location since since 2021
according to the city's record. The
previous non-conforming use has expired.
Accordingly, the proposed business must
comply with the city's current tobacco
regulations, including the 500 foot
buffer requirement. Staff are
recommending that council deny the
tobacco license application based on the
expiration of the non-conforming use
pursuant to chapter 153.051
paragraph H and the property's pro
proximity to Bixby Park pursuant to
chapter 11804
paragraph H. And that concludes um my
presentation. I'm we are available for
questions.
>> So, is Yeah, I got a question. So, Abby,
you and I have had discussions from an
EDA standpoint of possibly seeing some
of this land
developed that's south of the park. It's
apparently technically part of the park.
Is it I mean, is that always been
parkland or did we just end up with that
land next to the park and now it's
parkland?
>> It has always been parkland. It was
actually deed to the city. I do remember
in the 70s by Mind DOT it's uh we're not
exactly I'm not exactly sure why but
there was a deed uh restriction in place
that we did reach out to MINDOT last
year two years ago
um to ask them about the the deed
restriction um because the deed
restriction said it always needed to m
be maintained as parkland and at that
time Mindad had said 30 years has lapsed
uh there's that provision isn't in place
anymore. I'd have to do some research on
the why because there was specific of
why it was given to us and given to us
as parkland and because of the why
that's where the 30-year came into play
and because that 30-year lapse we don't
need to anymore.
>> Um so, uh long story short, yes, it is
currently still parkland. Um it's never
been officially discussed between the
council and the EDA about removing it
from the parks system um and then
starting to look at development options,
but it is one of those parcels that have
been preliminarily identified as the
opportunity for EDA um in a you know, we
talked about a vacant building or vacant
lands analysis for potential
redevelopment or sale, but this time no
one has it's still sitting in the park
system.
I mean, I suspect looking at the map, if
that lower section looks like a little
handle wasn't part of the park system,
then this would would have been on the
consent agenda, right? I mean, it's got
to be over 500 feet, isn't it?
>> I I believe when when you look, Mr. Mr.
Mayor, members of council, at where the
actual park amenities are, it is
substantially further than what the
property line to property line analysis
is right now. Um, I can certainly pull
up GIS and do a quick measurement to see
if it is within that 500 ft. However, um
right now based on conversations that
we've had with legal, even though the
park amenities are further from the
proposed location, it doesn't resolve
the issue that we have with the language
in the code this time.
» Well, looks like we have some things to
clean up.
>> Mr. Mayor, members, council, just a
little bit of context. Um I did some,
you know, looking back at the 2019 ordinance amendment that was
brought forward. And there were quite a
few provisions within our tobacco
chapter that were were changed at that
time. And it seemed like the precipice
for this was um really that was the time
where the state approved cities moving
from an 18year
um requirement for tobacco sales opening
it up to 21 you know changing that that
um that age requirement and that was
kind of the precipice from what I can
see based on meeting meeting minutes and
staff reports to kind of facilitate that
change And at that same time they
included that 500 foot requirement to
make that consistent with what the
requirement is for liquor licenses.
Um I don't see that there was any
consideration given to businesses uh
which may be along Lake Street in our
downtown district um because Lakeside
Park is right there as well. So this
could potentially impact businesses who
are looking open up in that area of the
city as well. Um, I think a a reasonable
option might be that council might want
to
um direct staff to bring back a
potential ordinance amendment which
allows some consideration for businesses
along that Broadway corridor and our
Lake Street corridor because
we don't want to stifle business in that
area. Um, but staff's hands are really
tied in this situation with that 500
foot requirement in these areas. Um, so
if that's something council's interested
in doing, we can certainly look at that.
I I know I had heard previously from a
couple council members that there's
concerns that we have a lot of
standalone tobacco shops [snorts] in
town as well. Um, so, you know, this
might be an opportunity to not only look
at that distance requ maybe make it more
businessfriendly, but also perhaps look
at putting a cap on those tobacco
standalone shops, not to include the
current application. So, our existing
amount of tobacco standalone shops plus
this one because we wouldn't want to
negatively impact this business um
because we're working through these
things as they're coming to staff's
attention.
» I have a question. Um Jolene, maybe you
could answer this. Um, recently, you
know, we've had some changes in in the
state with dispensaries.
What did I know we determined distances
for our dispensaries from uh public
buildings and things like that. What was
that distance? Do you recall?
» It was the same.
>> Yeah.
[clears throat]
» So, I As far as opening
up that that ordinance and changing the the distance, I'm open to that. I
think in this particular case here um
because of the layout of the park that
council member Ericson mentioned the
fact that there was an existing business
here at one time operating a tobacco um
operation
um
I I'm open to trying to make some
changes so that to allow this this
particular one but if it's a way to kind
of help maybe clean up some other things
and I I
I'm not oppose the idea. I mean, do we
have a cap on liquor license?
>> We don't have a cap
built into statute, there are some caps
um because liquor licenses are also
regulated at the state level. So,
essentially, while we issue liquor
licenses here, we're almost like
registering liquor businesses. So, there
are some caps built into state statute
for liquor. I don't know those off the
top of my head. Um but those p primarily
speak to
um
offsale businesses, so liquor stores. Um
we don't have we we did the council did
implement a cap for cannabis retail when
that was being worked through here at
the city level. Originally there was no
cap. you know, after some further
realizations about the realities of of
those businesses, council did want to
put a cap on those. So, we've have those
capped at three within the city. Um, but
there's no cap whatsoever on tobacco.
And I think that there's a distinction
between a tobacco shop, a standalone
tobacco shop, which is defined in our code, and businesses which offer
tobacco products as part of their other
convenience sales, you know, gas
stations, the Walmarts, the Walgreens
of the city. So,
>> any idea how many standalone we have?
>> Amanda, did you you did calculate that,
correct? And I I can't recall off the
top of my head, but I We have five,
>> correct? I believe um not counting this
current applicant, mayor, I believe that
we have somewhere between four and five
standalone tobacco product shops.
>> Seems like more [laughter] you drive
around, but so um yeah, I don't know.
Then maybe a cap probably isn't
necessary, but I would like to somehow
make you know what through the Broadway
corridor. I mean, we have an exception
on cannabis for downtown with parks
right there, but we allow it downtown.
So it wouldn't be something anything
different if we can make an exception
whether it's here or throughout
different areas. I I I don't
>> business districts.
>> Yeah. Business districts that be open to
that. So um
>> so making it similar to cannabis.
>> Uh not no not really just the only thing
similar is that we have an exception
where we took Lakeside Park out where
we're not using a buffer at all. Like
the park basically comes right up to
those b you know buildings downtown. Um,
at 250 though, I think is that if it
went to 250 on there, is that still or
is it or is it is it within that 250? It
seems like
>> 250 wouldn't get us there for this
property just given the the parcel where
Bixby Park is located.
» So, from that standpoint, it be a policy
change relative to to the Broadway
business district.
>> Correct.
I'd certainly be open to that and I just
still want to get the EDA moving on
looking at land that developed.
>> And Mr. Mayor, members of council, I did
speak with the applicant last week
because I did want to make sure that we
were being transparent about the the
challenges here. Um, and he did indicate
that he still has a lot of work to do
before he would even be ready to open up
and, you know, start welcoming business.
So, he was comfortable with um you know
if council needed to put a pause on
consideration of his application and
look at some other options. Uh he didn't
think that that would be detrimental to
his his plan for opening his business.
>> Well, and that's really I mean I guess
legally is that the only option here or
could we approve this even though it
goes against our what our ordinance
says?
I mean, I would prefer to if if it's not
detrimental to him, and Amanda, I'll let
you speak to your thoughts afterwards,
but um I'd prefer to table this if
possible until a later date just so if
we are planning to look at ordinances or
policies to get those situated first and
then come back to approve something that
is in um that that's legal with our
ordinance on our policies. So
>> yeah, I'm not [laughter]
>> that's making a motion there to
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> No, I I would agree.
Does that make s is that like and I some
of the qualifiers on this thing would be
can you put like to to where the central
park area is? I mean, how can you can
you do that? Because this this is that
weird little stretch there. This could
be a one-off, right? I can't think of
another park that would have that big of
a n usable spot that's in a commercial
district. I I don't know. Maybe there
is.
>> I I think Mr. Mayor, the the real
challenge is is just the way this park
is situated in the district that it's in
right now, but also Lakeside, too, to
your point with what we did with the
cannabis buffer. Um, so I think we need
to put some language around both of
those areas to ensure that there's some
consideration for business growth in
those areas.
So, do we need to deny or can we just
table?
>> I would recommend that you table at this
time. I think that that would be prudent
and I think that staff can work between
now and our next meeting to bring you
back an ordinance amendment to consider.
Should council decide to approve an
ordinance amendment um after you review
what what we can come up with, then
council could certainly remove this from
the table and take action on it at that
time. Okay. So, I'll make a motion that
we table the tobacco license
consideration for prime tobacco.
>> I'll second motion, a second. Any
further discussion?
>> All in favor?
>> I opposed.
>> We table that.
>> Mr. Mayor, can I just seek one point of
clarification? Would the council also
like to direct staff to look at a
revision to uh city code chapter 118 and
to bring back a an amendment which
captures the spirit of the conversation
here tonight?
>> Yes, please.
>> Would anyone like to make that motion?
>> I'll make that motion.
>> I'll second motion and a second. Any
further discussion?
>> All in favor? I opposed.
>> That motion carries.
>> Thank you.
All right. Next item 8 G, interim use
permit cannabis retail. Uh, did I miss
one? Oh, massage. I did eight, sorry. 8F
massage license consideration and
Amanda.
>> Thank you, mayor, members of the
council. Before you tonight, two license
applications submitted by Mr. Pang Shen.
an individual um massage therapy license
as well as a massage business license
for Northern Wellness Center LLC.
Mr. Shen submitted the required
applications, fees, and supporting
documentation. Mr. Shen chose the
experiencebased licensing pathway under
city code section 1153.
He submitted an affidavit stating that
he had at least one year of prior
massage therapy experience. He also
submitted a certificate res represented
to be a massage therapy certificate
issued by the state of Maine.
During staff's review, we attempted to
verify that information. The employment
history provided by Mr. Shen cannot be
verified. More significantly, staff
contacted the state of Maine to verify
the massage therapy certificate
submitted with his application
materials. The state confirmed that the
license number on their certificate
belongs to a different individual and
the state's licensing records contain no
record of of a massage therapy license
for Mr. Shen. Based on these findings,
staff determined that this application
materials contain fraudulent or
deceptive information regarding the
applicant's professional experience and
state lensure.
Mr. Shen has since sent multiple emails
to city staff expressing his position
that he takes professional compliance
and regul regulatory standards
seriously. Staff has considered those
statements. However, they do not change
the information that was submitted with
the license application or the city's
obligation to evaluate the application
based on the requirements of the city's
code. City Code section 115
8.18
uh paragraph A provides grounds for
denial of a massage license when an
application contained fraudulent or
deception deceptive information.
[clears throat] The matter has also been
referred to the FLPD for further
investigation.
Therefore, staff recommend that city
council deny both the individual massage
therapy license for Mr. paying as well
as the massage business license for
Northern Wellness Center LLC pursuant to
city code section 115.18
paragraph A. I'm available for
questions.
Any questions?
>> I appreciate the the work you did to
>> follow up and investigate. And um with
that, I'm happy to make a motion to to
deny both the individual massage therapy
license application for Mr. Shenping and
the massage business license application
for Northern Wellness Center LLC.
>> Motion. Is there a second?
>> I'll second that.
>> Motion second. Any further discussion?
All in favor?
>> I opposed. Motion carries.
All right. Now we are at HG interimm use
permit cannabis retail 955 West
Broadway. Uh as many know I am in the
cannabis industry and what I've done
here since being in that industry. I
have re uh abstained from any votes and
actually left the council chambers. So
I'll be doing that this evening and
turning this item over to acting mayor
Vento.
We'll wait just a moment for Roberts to
leave the room.
» For the record, Mayor Roberts has left
the room and so with interim use permit
can retail 955 Broadway Avenue West.
Abby,
if you can give me a minute to adjust my
display settings.
Don't even
go ahead.
Thank you, Acting Mayor Valento, members
of the council. Uh, tonight for your
consideration is an interm permit
request from Lavender Dalia LLC, who has
requested permission for a cannabis
retail shop to be located at 955 West
Broadway Avenue. That is in that highway
business district that we were just
talking about. Um, the use permit is
specific for cannabis retail sales. As a
reminder, when we developed our
ordinance, we separated the types of
cannabis based businesses out and which
would be permissible in which districts.
So, the retail sales component tonight
that you're considering wouldn't allow
for some of the other things like
cultivation and manufacturing.
Um, you the tonight you have to uh hold
up do we have to hold up?
I think we said hold a hearing, but I
don't believe you have to hold a hearing
tonight. I know you don't have to hold a
hearing tonight. The planning commission
held one. Um, so purpose of an IUP is a
temporary use permit. There is an
expiration. Conditional use permits run
with the land forever or until we revoke
them. Temporary, we set a time period
for our cannabis based businesses. We
have a duration of five years. Should
you choose to approve this tonight, the
duration would end uh August 24th, 2031.
So 955 Broadway is an existing retail
building that would be proposed to be
modified to uh the parking area. Some
existing drive-thru would be removed.
Some site improvements overall. Um the
hours would be persistent or consistent
with the city code of 8:00 a.m. to 10
p.m. Monday to Saturday and 11 to 6 on
Sunday. And it meets in uh the intent of
the B2 district. So, as we were just
talking about our buffer distances. So,
here is our 500 foot buffer um from that
parkland that we talked about. Even if
we took that down that property line,
we're still not touching that park. We
do have a little
get my pointer on for you folks so you
can see what I see. If we took this line
down of the park, all that would do is
extend that buffer. It's not within the
500 ft of the buffer of the park, but we
have a 500 foot buffer right here from
this property that is um RISE. RISE is a
company or an organization that serves
adults um with uh with disabilities and
um puts them to work within our
community. They don't have any
programming or or services or um care
facilities here. So even though it is
getting tripped up, it's not the same
licensing that we're looking When we're
talking about our care living
facilities,
um, police have taken a look. Building
uh, permits are, you know, what pretty
standard. There were no comments from
our engineers. Fires, public works.
There are no watershed rules triggered.
Outdoor mitigation and signage are going
to be required and would need to follow
city codes. So staff did work through
the findings of that for the planning
commission. The pling commission did
hear this at their last meeting. They
are recommending both staff and uh the
planning commission are recommending
conditions of approval that do uh
identify odor control uh is verified.
Signage is reviewed through the
permitting process. The compliance with
state and cannabis uh city and state
cannabis regulations because a reminder
this is just one stop in a long process.
Um annual new renew and registration and
then uh that final licensing type and
use must meet all quotes before
everything is finalized. So the
recommendation tonight is to represent
or represent to approve um resolution
08242606
and there is a draft motion on the
council's uh screens for your review.
Applicant Dalia is here to if you have
questions for him. Do you have any for
me
comments or questions?
is would council like to hear from the
applicant.
>> Sure.
» Good evening, uh, council members,
acting mayor. Uh, my name is Brian Gold.
I am, uh, here on behalf of Lavender
Dalia. I am the, uh, architect, uh, as
part of the development team. So, I'm
here to answer any questions you may
have on uh the zoning.
» I mean, I think it looks pretty
straightforward.
» Conditions and approval.
[clears throat]
>> We appreciate you being here all night,
but [laughter]
>> I flew here, too.
Um, one clarifying question I had, Abby,
um, as we were just mentioning for the,
um, not the last item, but the item
before, we have a cap on how many
cannabis,
um, stores we have in Forest Lake and
how many IUPs have we approved. And I
know in the packet it said we'd continue
working through regardless of how many
IUPs
>> we've approved, but um, can you clarify
that number? Um, this will be the fourth
IUP. And remember, IUPs are conditional.
Then they need to go to the state, work
through their state licensing. They need
to work through their building
permitting, come back, get their city
registration, get their Did I do that in
the right order, Julian?
>> You did. You got it. City registration
before getting their final permit
approval from this or registration from
the state and then getting their
licenses finalized. So, we will allow as
unlimited number of IUPs, but we have a
maximum number of licenses. it would be
our fourth IUP. It does make it a little
tricky, right? Um because we've only
issued one license within the city.
>> Just quick clarification, acting mayor
and council members. So, we register
here. We we've issued one registration.
>> Thank you.
>> Um we know that there is one other
business who has uh pinged um
administration staff several times to
move forward their reg registration.
However, they have not completed they've
not submitted a building permit
application. They've not finalized any
building plans to my knowledge quite
yet. Um so they've been told that they
need to work through those processes
first before we can move forward with
their registration. So right now we have
one registration two available.
» Thank you. Yes, license registration not
licensing. It does make it a little
tricky, but um at any one point any one
of those businesses that do have a
registration or a state approval could
not tomorrow, right? And so there are
those other IEPs that could come in and
assume um you know move forward with
their registration.
>> Well, I think at least one of those
previously approved IEPs has done
nothing with it. So
>> correct.
Thanks. Any other comments or questions?
If not, looking for a motion.
>> I'll make a motion to approve resolution
number 0824-2606
approving the intram use permit for
cannabis retail sales at 955 West
Broadway Avenue subject to the 19
conditions of approval contained
therein, include any amendments approved
by the city council.
>> There's a motion. Is there a second?
>> I'll second.
>> Motion and a second. Any discussion?
Hearing none. All in favor?
>> I.
>> Any opposed?
None. Then we can take a short pause and
bring the mayor back in.
>> Good luck.
>> Thank you. Do you guys happen to know
when the next meeting will be or the
next uh
approval process
>> date wise?
>> What was that?
>> I'm sorry. Do you happen to know a date
of when the next u I guess process will
be a next approval process?
>> You are with the city, you'll need to
then move forward with your state.
>> Oh, perfect. Okay.
>> processes, building permitting, those
sorts of things before coming back for
registration.
>> All right. Perfect. Thank you.
Appreciate it. Thank you.
» All right. We'll move on to
ah designated parking requests. Dave,
>> mayor also received requests from the
law office at 92 Lake Street South
asking for designated parking uh stalls
directly in front of their building on
Lake Street. Uh their primary concern
was uh in the winter months and access
for elderly clients especially uh with
increased parking demand anticipated
hardware when that gets built down
there. As noted in the report, uh the
property already has its own parking lot
um in the back and there are multiple
public parking spots in front of the
building. Today, Mandot has confirmed uh
with the city that while Lake Street is
under state jurisdiction, we can
regulate the uh the parking, but they
would have to approve that. So, we can make decisions and allow this
type of
then they would have to authorize that decision. Um report listed a number
of pros and cons. Um staff believes the
key consideration here is less about the
individual request but more about the
president that it's going to set.
a business specific stall could lead to
similar requests along Lake Street
potentially incl reducing public areas
and accesses um and then creating equity
concerns of
preferential treatment.
Um so
I provided you with a number of
different options at the bottom of the
memo. Um just looking for some
discussion and direction
council.
>> Well, um I'm not really in favor of
this. Um especially since the
people involved are inquiring about
having this out in the wintertime. Um
seems to be more along the directed area
of concern. I think with the plowing of
the highway, this the BMS of the snow uh
creates more of a problem and the be the
ability to be able to clear that area uh
if they do park there. Uh they are
allowed to park there um on a regular
basis to park their vehicle. However,
they already have 16 parking spots
stalls and that one of them is already a
handicap. If they are concerned about
handicap parking, maybe they can
add another stall to their parking lot
regarding that problem. Um, or if they
wanted to do some type of temporary
thing with a temporary parking sign out
there or some if they know they have a
client coming that has uh additional
needs or accessibility issues, but I
find that again with uh Mr. Adam saying
that we're kind of setting oursself up
for precedence
uh with other businesses in the area I
think is sends a message and also to the
high traffic volume area of that area of
Highway 61 or Lake Street.
» Great.
Any other
thoughts or
>> Yeah, I'm not in favor of it. Um, I mean
the downtown is already underparked and
you know the fact that they have their
own parking lot in the back
I guess be a little surprising if that's
not able to you know um meet their
needs. But you know couple that with a
new retail um store opening right across
the street. Well, there may be times
when
clients for either store or any of the
stores in that area may have to walk a
little bit further. Um that's been our
goal these last four, you know, years of
making downtown more walkable. You know,
public works does a fantastic job of
getting those BMS out after uh the state
comes through and cleans. Um and so I
yeah, I would direct option number
three.
Um decline the request and maintain all
on street parking on Lake Street as
public parking.
>> Yeah, I think I agree as well. um if
you're handicapped, not knowing what
that handicap is necessarily, but it
just seems so much more dangerous for
anybody that needs a little extra time
or a little extra space to move around
that being on on Highway 61 there would
just be a bad thing for them. I agree
with with the other council members.
[clears throat]
>> I'm in agreement as well.
>> All right. Anyone
willing to make a motion?
>> Make a motion that we decline the
request to maintain all on street
parking on Lake Street as public
parking.
>> I'll second motion and a second. Any
further discussion?
>> All in favor?
>> I
>> opposed. One abstension.
>> Right. Nine discussion items. Nine. A
street sign request policy date.
>> Yeah. Uh, mayor and councel, this is
kind of an offshoot of this this
previous agenda item. Um, if that were
to get approved, then typically we go
through some type of a vetting process
of where the signs go, how high off the
ground they get, um, and all that type
of, um, stuff. The issue is we don't
really have a formalized policy. Um, we
usually follow the same steps. If a stop
sign request comes in or a no parking
sign comes in, it gets evaluated in the in the same steps. But right now,
we don't have an actual written down
policy that that kind of keeps that
transparent and know has a resident kind
of expect what's coming next uh when
they do make a request. Um, interesting
[clears throat] enough, we did get a
stop sign request in between
the designated parking and now. So, um,
that's just a good example. We don't get
a lot of them, but it' just be nice to
be able to give this resident here's
your here's our policy. Here's a form
you fill up and then here's all the
steps that that follow through. Like I
said, it's not nothing that we do don't
do any differently than we do now. It's
just not written out and it's, you know,
a policy is good to have up on the
website and a and a form that would be
consistent every time there's a request.
U I tried to cover every single ask
about what kind of sign it would be.
That's why it gets a little lengthy, but
instead of having a stop sign request
form and then a street sign form and
then a no parking form and all those
different forms, you kind of guess of
just to kind of get it all into one with
one one request form. So, that's why
it's it is a it is a lot, but instead of
having six individual and trying to
figure out which policy to give them,
just to kind of keep it all in one. So
really what I'm looking for is if you've
looked through it, any uh initial
feedback, but the goal would be to bring
that back um to next month's council
meeting um for adoption and then roll
that out with that first uh request and
have that resident go through that
process.
I think this is really well thought out
and um covers all the basis. One
question I would have is is this sort of
form
um on our website in the sense that it
can actually be filled out. Do we have
that capability? So they'll just fill
this out on the website and it'll be
submitted immediately versus a print.
And
>> I have to ask Julene.
>> U Mr. Mayor, members of council, yes, we
can certainly build out a form that
replicates what this [clears throat]
fillable PDF looks like. So then then
the form would automatically filter
through to public works staff for review
and consideration. Yeah, that' be the
one thing I make sure to do.
» I think it looks good. Um, the one
comment I have is spelling. There was on
page of the packet 348. I think it's
page two.
Um, in the second bullet point, it says
location of the requested signal. So,
just
Oh, besides that, it looks good.
» You can never accuse Council Member
Valento not looking through her packet.
[laughter]
>> That is thorough. I
» All right. Anyone make a motion?
>> Do we need a motion or is this
>> Oh, it's discussion. I'm sorry. Yes.
Motion to come in the future. So, I
think Yeah, I would agree. I think it
looks great. uh a lot of work, time and
thought went into this. I appreciate uh
that and um it's just nice to have this
policy in place and
>> so overall at the end and then bring
that back.
» Thank you.
>> All right, we will go into staff updates
and Ryan
>> Mayor City Council uh Dave actually did
that as a test and he even called out
who would bring that misspelling up. So,
[laughter]
uh, so some, uh, public engagement
communication has been sent out with
Eurek Avenue. I just want to touch base
with you guys if you have any questions
about
schedule going on, why why now, why is
this take so long, you know, kind of
stuff like that. So,
>> I if you would, I think, you know, we
I've received some feedback on that and,
you know, doesn't too hard to go on
social media and take a look, but uh,
>> here we go. questions.
>> Uh, so we'll go back a little bit.
Highway 97 project that was supposed to
be a 2425 construction project that got
delayed. So that's why that's a 25 26
project, right? Uh, we
county road 32 or 11th Avenue was
supposed to be a 26 project too. It got
pushed to 27 and then it got where we're
at now to fit with all the other
projects that are going on in the area
including the highway 8. They pushed
that to 28. And we also then ability to
seek some additional funding for that
project too. Eureka Eureka Avenue was
planned for 26. Uh obviously that didn't
work out with the weather and when we
finally got the DNR easements that's why
that's got now being pushed to 27. But
why do we got to do the work we got to
do now? So there's three stages uh for
the searchcharge placements. Each stage
has three lips. Okay. And after you're
done with stage one, it needs to sit for
two weeks so they can monitor it, you
know, to measure settlement. But the
early parts of these stages have to be
done on non-prozen ground. So that's why
that work has to get going now so we
don't get in the same situation that we
did and had to shut the project down. If
we don't get the search charge placed
that potentially would have to sit there
for nine months to get the consolidation
that we need, you're then now in 28
project. And now our funding is not
available anymore, right? So that's why
now, why, who, what, when, and where,
why? To answer all those questions. Uh
obviously, it's not going to be a full
closure while they do this work. Uh the
days that they're, you know, they're going to start out their Monday
with a lot of erosion control placement
and some so or fence removal, but when
they do get into the placement of the
search charge, that's where they'll have
those temporary road closures to
complete that work. uh just because of
the big trucks and equipment that are
going to be coming in and out of there.
So that's just a little more background
when you lay it out like oh yeah now
that makes sense why we got to come and
do what we got to do for the search
charge now. So once it's placed it's
going to sit there throughout the entire
winter and into the spring.
>> When you say temporary closing like just
for the day or a couple hours or what's
temporary
>> for the time that they're hauling
material in there and getting that work
done. Right. So if they got they they
could possibly I mean by working hours
they could be a seven to seven one day
right and but if they you know they can
do those long durations that's just less
shutdowns that are going to occur
>> but it would open up in the evening.
>> Yep. It would open up each evening and
through the weekends when they're not
working it would be open until we get to
that end if we do decide ultimately
we're going to close the road for the
winter. But we're kind of also
monitoring the Highway 87 or 97
construction, right? Uh can't see much
going on unless you walk into there
right now. But there's still about three
weeks left of concrete work.
That's a lot of concrete, right? So, uh
curb medians,
pathways, truck aprons, and the
roundabout. So, once that gets done,
then you know, then you can start
paving. And I can't remember how many
lifts off hand, but at least three out
there. And then the restoration,
striping, signage, and stuff like that.
So, uh, all the utility work's done, so
hopefully things can move a little
faster. Weather look is looking very
favorable, you know, but so that's kind
of what we all kind of got going on in
that Highway 97 Eureka Avenue area. And
why?
>> So, uh, just to clarify, when does this
have to be done before we have we're
risk of losing that funding? End of TW
like what's
>> 28? If we go past 28, but we want to get
the work done that we have laid out with
the schedule and 27 because of the deep
trenches that, you know, we're going to
come through there and reconstruct that,
right?
99.99999%
of the time when we do a full recon like
that, we want it to sit through one
winner to go through a freeze thaw
before we come back and pave the final
workhorse in 28 because in case if there
are some settlements, we want to be able
to take care of those and before the
final workhorse is done.
We haven't done a full recon since two
15th Street Southwest.
Okay,
>> that I mean that's good information that
that's you know when you when you see it
on social media and then it's easy to
question that because
>> I shouldn't have looked at that because
then I didn't sleep all the rest of the
weekend. I'm like dang it. [laughter]
>> So that's why I was ready to talk about
>> Yeah. No, that's good because that
helps. I mean when people reach out to
us it's we have some facts behind it and
so pre appreciate that.
>> Uh anything else? Oh, thanks,
>> Amanda.
>> No updates.
>> Abby,
>> uh, community development staff was at
Arts in the Park last week for the third
time this summer looking at public's uh,
input on the potential removal of the
boat launch and or expanded parkland
space. That was direction asked by the
parks commission. So, we'll be telling
that information with survey data coming
in through the end of the summer here
and bringing that back to the parks
commission to uh get some
recommendations from them to move
forward with some of the capital
investment projects that public works
has been planning for uh lakeside
predominantly the shoreline restoration
project needs to keep kind of get moving
forward. Um lots of continued
development interest. I know that we
start seeing leaves um falling, but that
doesn't mean that development's going to
slow down at all. We continue to see uh
people coming in thinking that they're
going to want to build everything this
year starting to get a little bit
challenging and everybody's fighting the
weather. So, um some things get a little
bit longer in our review process because
we are pretty inundated with permitting
right now. We do have permits in for an
minor addition at Walmart and at Quick
Trip. So, just know that there's some
small things going on in some of our
commercial properties. I did receive an
inquiry today for one of our I would
call it a national chain in the city
that's in a smaller tenant space moving
now potentially into a larger tenant
space. So, that's even nice to see that
you kind of have some some things moving
around, people ex businesses expanding.
Um, and then lastly, we have a new
building inspector starting on Monday.
» Thank you, Dave. Uh just one update.
Corn feed is tomorrow night for the lats
arts in the park. Um I confirmed with
Cal he has a bunch of volunteers, but he
said any one of you are welcome to come
and shook a few uh dozen or hundred cobs
of corn. So um should be a nice weather
it looks like. So that'd be a good uh
ending of the the arts in the park
season.
>> Chief Hannigraph
Church of Cash.
Uh, thank you. Um, last Wednesday we had
our 9th annual FLAW community night
where the Forest Lake Fire Department
and Police Department create a softball
team and take on the traveling coaches.
Um, we had great weather, great turnout.
It's a lot of fun to get everybody out
there, [clears throat] not in uniform,
be in the community. Um, so that event
went off without a hitch and it was
really nice. Um, and then I just wanted
to mention uh in our hiring
recommendations in the consent agenda,
we're hiring our first cso out of our
program. And that was what one of the
major components of building that
program was is to transition these young
folks that are coming through school
now. We'll have another one next year
that will be ready. Um, both individuals
that are first initial ones have nothing
but positive things that they want to
work for Lake Police Department. So that
program objectives are doing very well.
>> Uh most importantly, who won?
>> Uh FL won this year.
>> Okay.
>> It's been a couple years, but it was
good to see it was competitive, so we
just about ran out of light, so good.
>> Thanks, Chief Newman.
>> No updates.
>> Amanda, anything. Jolene,
>> um our city's budget survey is live, so
encourage folks to get out there and
participate in that. There's links on
our website, links on social media.
There'll be information going on next
utility bill about that. Um, we're going
to have a little bit of a lull here
between tonight, our next council
meeting because Labor Day is upon us and
just the way the calendar's shaken out,
um, our first meeting won't be until
September 14th. City offices will be
closed on September 7th in honor and
observance of Labor Day. And then just
want to point out that we have some
great employment opportunities posted on
our website. We have police
administrative assistant position for
Chief Hanigraph's team. And then
starting tomorrow, we have a community
development assistant position. So,
encourage folks to get out there and
check out those opportunities and come
join our team.
>> Thank you. Council member Miller,
>> uh, no updates. Council
>> member,
>> no updates.
>> Council member Ericson,
>> no updates.
>> Council member Arson,
>> planning commission meeting Wednesday,
six o'clock. If you can make it, please
show up.
>> All right. I don't have anything either.
So with no other business coming for us,
we are ajourned tonight.
» [music]