[0:08] Whether in the council chambers or through Town Square Television for tonight’s Mendota Heights City Council meeting on September 1st, 2026. My name is Stephanie Levine, and I’d like to call tonight’s meeting to order. Clerk Bauer, will you please do the roll? Call me. Here. Counselor. I’m here. Counselor. Matsuko. Here. Councilor. Masiello. Counselor. Paper. Here. Councillor. Masato. Absent.
[0:37] Thank you. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the. United States of America. And to the Republic. For which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. May be seated. I’m looking for someone to approve tonight’s agenda.
[1:00] So made by councilor papers or second seconded by Councilor La. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye, aye. Opposed. Motion carries. We are now with public comments. Public comments is an opportunity for residents or residents or members of the public to come forth and speak to the City Council on items that are not on tonight’s agenda.
[1:17] Is there anybody who wishes to speak on items that are not on tonight’s agenda? Okay, we move to the consent agenda. I will read through the consent agenda. If a council member wishes to have an item pulled and discussed separately, you are free to do so. Otherwise, we will approve the agenda in 1 in 1 motion.
[1:38] Consent. Agenda item A approve minutes from the August 18th, 2026 City Council meeting. Pull that by. Who said that? Oh, Matsuko. Um. Item B approved minutes from the August 18th, 2026 City Council work session meeting. Item C approve minutes from the August 20th, 2026 City Council work session.
[1:59] Meeting item D acknowledged the June and July part three financial reports. Item E approved resolution 2020 654 approving an administrative markup. Minor Development Permit for 1143. Orchard Circle Planning Case Number 2020 616.
[2:23] Item F Adopt Resolution 2020 655 providing for the issuance and sale of 1,010,000 general obligation Improvement Bonds series 2026 a item G approved June 2026 and July 2026. Treasurer’s report. Item H approved purchase order for lift station Security improvements. Item I approve out of Metro Travel request item J acknowledge first and second quarter financial and building activity reports and pull that one. J. J. And finally item K approved claims list.
[2:47] Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda without items A and K, A, and J? I’m sorry. So May 2nd. Paper seconded by Councilor Masco. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Councilor Maskell. Yes.
[3:10] Um, my question on the minutes are, is that we had a resident that spoke at the last meeting that sent in some comments of things that she wanted, added to the minutes.
[3:35] And, uh, I, I just have a question, uh, related to that, uh, uh, City Clerk Nancy Bauer said that she had, in fact, listened to the to the tape and at the minute, substantially reflect, um, what was said. Um, resident felt pretty strong that she wanted all of the things that she had mentioned in there.
[3:55] And my question is, is that if she feels strongly about it, you know, and it was said if it was said, um, is there any why is there any harm in adding it? And can we just add it to the minutes and I mean, if it was said, it was said it’s important to the resident.
[4:16] Madam Mayor and Council, um, if you want to amend the minutes to add, uh, verbatim what she said, I you can certainly do that. That is under your purview to do that. I would suggest that, um, you provide direction on how you would like the minutes done going forward so that you’re consistent from public comment or to public comment or, um, and if you’re going, um, verbatim and a transcript of one that you do it for all.
[4:35] I, I agree with that. Um, but in a sense here that, uh, I haven’t really had a problem with the minutes, um, and looking at them, but there are occasional times when people bring things up. It’s important to them.
[4:54] Uh, if someone took the time to read the minutes, particularly someone who testified and said that they would like their comments reinforced or added, um, I it was said I don’t see any problem in doing that. I don’t know that we need to make that a a practice. But when someone comes up and says, I, I think they should do that.
[5:11] And, you know, some of these things, you know, um, she stated that, you know, she had asked for four independent inspection reports that Council member Masiello had said that he would get for her and didn’t, um, and I understand there’s a data practice’s request to request that, but Council Member Mazzarella should have said, why don’t you request that through that? So that and so,
[5:36] um, I just the things that she brought up seem important to her. I don’t know that there’s any harm in doing that. Um, I haven’t gone back and verbatim wrote it down. Uh, you know exactly what she said. And I don’t need Siri, but I think it’s the the concept of what she would like added.
[5:58] And if there’s no harm in doing it, what’s the harm in doing it? It’s up to you guys. You can you can choose to amend the minutes to add, um, a essentially a transcript of of her comments into it. If, if you so choose as counsel. So I think everybody got a copy on the council got a copy.
[6:22] But for the public, the things that were important to Miss Borough that testified was that she had made comments that, uh, the city has a duty to approve the residents, Mendota Heights, that the building is a tear down. Um, and she compared it to tearing down the east wing of the white House.
[6:43] Inspection should be done. Like before a homeowner buys a house. I asked for four independent inspection reports, which I do recall that one that she did ask that, um, she made a comment that tearing down a $10 million building was insane.
[7:05] And the city’s own consultants said the building can be renovated and brought up to code, with additions to the police and city hall. And she didn’t want to see the ball field removed. So I guess those would be the things that I would suggest we just add in.
[7:21] Um, assuming that they were you can the city clerk verifies they were all on tape, which I, I know a few of them were because I remember hearing them, but I again, didn’t do that, so that would be my motion that we add those in. So we have a motion to amend the minutes to add a transcript of an individuals. It’s resident Lindbergh.
[7:43] I think he’s saying something different rather than get a transcript. I think he’s saying if the city clerk verifies that what she said she did say, then add these pieces to it. You’re not asking for a full transcript. Correct.
[8:03] So the summary of what was said, if the summary if this is a summary of what she said, this is fine. Okay. So it just puts it in the record. The motion is to add a summary of of the of those comments into the transcript as requested by uh by the resident. By Lynn Borough and an email.
[8:19] By Miss Borough. Okay. Is there a second to the to the. I was waiting for you to finish your sentence. To the motion. I will second that. Okay. Is there any discussion? Um. Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying I opposed. Motion carries.
[8:48] Is there a next item on the consent agenda? J. I just had a question on page 64. Um, it says the background dated September 1st, 2026. It says property tax revenues are not received until July 2026. It seems like it was copied from somewhere else. And I don’t know the purpose of putting that in when it’s dated the first. If you can clarify.
[9:15] Somebody.. We’ll have director. Finance director come up. In. Right. Explain that high. Madam mayor, members of the council, that statement was just put in there because the property tax revenue shows 0% for the first two quarters of 2026.
[9:35] And it was just a piece of information that our property taxes are received in July of 2026. And you’ll see that revenue on the third quarter. Thank you. Appreciate that. Would you like to make a motion? I would make a motion to approve, uh, six J. Okay. Um, is there a second? Second made by Councillor Barbara Brown, seconded by Councillor Metzger. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[9:53] Aye, aye. Opposed? Motion carries. That brings us to our presentation for this evening. I’d like to welcome Captain Wagner to the podium to discuss the police department squad program update. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of council, as we’re getting things set up here. So tonight, I’m just going to go over, um, our squad assigned program.
[10:21] Here’s a brief overview of what will work with. So in 2023, uh, legislature approved one time public safety fund aid that could be used for, uh, recruitment and retention initiatives. And with that, qualified officers being the most crucial public safety issue at the time.
[10:45] And still today, um, MPD developed framework for an assigned squad program. The program that we put forward would change procurement. Um, of vehicles to purchasing from leasing would increase our fleet size, and it would offer an assigned, uh, take home squad program to officers. 2024. Council approved the program and we started to build it. So the program launched in January of 2025.
[11:11] When I say launched, we, uh, issued our first or signed our first squad car to, um, one of our sergeants. So that was the first one that was out. We expected full implementation, uh, to be the target date of like April 2026 for full implementation for this program would mean that we had enough squad cars to assign to each
[11:34] officer that was able to take one home. We do have parameters around who can have assigned squads, um, and when they can take them home if they would like to. Parameters such as being off probation. And then there’s parameters around the residence.
[11:53] Also, our actual implementation ended up being July 2025, nine months ahead of schedule. So we’re pretty proud to be able to move that forward in an accelerated fashion. Uh, some of the things that move to that forward were cost savings with purchasing.
[12:16] We had grants for some of the equipment, such as AEDs, ceramic plates, um, and then we also had some donations. Uh, additional savings, um, that we had were through some department wide initiatives and efficiencies that we put forward because of this program. And the example I’ll put out there is computers. So within the police department, we would have computers in our holding cell area.
[12:39] The report writing areas, the squad room and other various places. With the launch of a program such as this and assigning squads, we’re able to put a squad computer with each individual and then remove the computers from the police department and just put docking stations, should they need to be at any of those areas.
[12:55] So really, we did not add any computers and we were able to update all of the IT computers or equipment within the police department at the same time, which put forward a cost savings to then move the program forward. Uh, a little bit faster.
[13:12] And then unfortunately, we also needed to replace a couple squad cars that were totaled out. Um, with, uh, with calls that were on, um, and that having the replacements of those kind of sped up the procurement of new ones faster. So going forward, we’ll need to only purchase and procure squad cars, um, as leases expire.
[13:35] So our current fleet that we have is the size of the fleet that we need for the officers that we have and the agency size. So as squads come up and leases expire, we’ll we look at lease extensions, um, if they’re in good shape, um, we’ll look at purchasing leases after the terms are satisfied, if they’re going to be kept a little bit
[13:53] longer, um, or if they’re not in a position or in good enough shape to be kept in the fleet, then we’ll look at replace them with a purchase. And at some point I’ll get this correct. So the two big things that came up with considerations of a program with like this is fuel and maintenance.
[14:15] Um, so in looking at our fuel consumption, we had an additional 2149 gallons of fuel used in 2025. That would be a rough estimate based on the additional miles put on for officers that took the squad.
[14:43] So to offset that, we have a fuel surcharge that we have in place based on the distance from officers and the home, and between that and the department, their home and the department. So, for example, in 2025, um, we collected $6,330 in fuel surcharges that um, with the launch in 2025, not every officer was taking a squad home.
[15:07] Um, and there was some things that were in play there that that number is lower than what we’re projecting for this year. And so I do have the current 2026 estimate, estimated number, um, at roughly $10,000 a year, because we’ll have our full, um, the full PD will have the opportunity to take them home.
[15:28] And that would be the, the current rate at what would be our policy has this fee set annually by the police chief. So the rate that they’re, um, being charged for the fuel surcharge, uh, additionally, we’ve found other ways to maintain fuel efficiency.
[15:49] Um, and one of them is installing, uh, shore power chargers on all of our new squad cars that we, uh, purchasing. So because of the equipment and some of the things that are in the vehicles, we have to keep them temperature, uh, maintained. But we also need to be able to keep the computer equipment running by bringing them into the garage and plugging them in, which we have done and having them on shore power.
[16:08] We’re able to keep the cradle points and the computer equipment. Um, maintaining and running while they’re in the police department. What short power. Uh, shore power is the ability the fire department uses it. Also, it’s plugging in a vehicle, and it’s like an onboard charger that keeps all of the equipment charging.
[16:31] Um, within the vehicle. So for a squad car, we run what are called cradle points, and they’re, um, there are access points to cell towers and our computers when we dock them in the car. That’s how we reach cell towers and get all of our calls and stuff.
[16:51] So with that, we have to keep those running and they have to be powered on. Otherwise they’ll sorry, they’ll they’ll shut down. And then it takes some time for them to boot back up. And if we have to go to a call quick, that’s not really conducive for it.
[17:06] So the shore power is just an onboard charger that we can plug them in. Um, within the PD and the garage. Thank you. Um, so that saves us by not having a mile outside about half a gallon of gas per hour is what Ford figures the police SUV burns, um, at idle. So we have right now three garage stalls.
[17:25] So if we do it more than that, um, on shift, then that becomes a little bit of an issue. But right now we’re doing that what we can with it. So the other component was oil changes.
[17:46] And based on the distance that officers live from home that are taking their squads home, we figured out about approximately 18 additional oil changes per year for the 12 squads that are being taken home right now, and then we continue to maintain contact with our mechanic to ensure that he has capacity. Um, that everything is working well for him. Also.
[18:07] In the considerations, this is just a graph that kind of shows that average and that kind of goes back to the the gallons of fuel used and that it kind of all lines up. So our five year or our average, I should say, from 2019 to 2024 was roughly 16,000.
[18:28] We go to 2025 and we have a difference of about 2600, which is not really far off from what this number is. The thing to take note on with this graph, though, is that we also, in 2025, fully staffed at 17 police officers.
[18:47] So there’s more patrol time, there’s more time just because of the sheer numbers of officers that are are working their patrol shifts. Outcomes and benefits. Uh, positive impact on recruitment and retention. Can’t say that this is the only reason that we’re fully staffed, but it certainly is helping.
[19:10] Uh, on 423 of 2025, we achieve full strength in our staffing levels. And it’s the first time in since 12 years, 2014, um, takes roughly $40,000 or a little bit more to get an officer through FTO. Uh, so to have somebody be fully staffed and not continually, um, fto new officers is a is quite a big savings.
[19:37] The next bullet, the new story that was April 3rd of this year. They published a story that 1 in 3 law enforcement agencies are still hiring, and that about 10% of the current 10,800 active officers are eligible to retire. So there’s another there’s still a little bit of more that needs to be done within this industry.
[19:54] But we are we are doing well. Outcomes and benefits of the program. The the one is that mitigates our location vulnerabilities, although not all officers that are assigned to squad car are taken at home, many of them are. And that’s really allows them, um, to not be in one place at one time.
[20:17] Should anything, any bad actor or anything come in and hit the fleet. We’re also able to respond, um, directly to a scene from home. I do have an example in there.
[20:35] Um, and you can read it, but on the morning of April 7th, we had three officers that were able to respond directly to a scene of a missing person that had been missing all night, and that person was actually located by two of those three responding officers when they got in. So they were able to come code from their home as they were heading into work anyway, already with all their gear. Um, cutting down time and and delay.
[20:58] Long term. Um, costs will be lower, so fewer squad turnovers. The lease that we had set up that we were within required to change over every three years of a squad car, that’s just the way they were structured by the state, based on the number of miles, um, and everything.
[21:18] So every three years we were turning over a squad car, the, the cost to turn over a squad car, especially if there’s a, a change within the body style, can reach upwards of 20 to $25,000 just to change it over of everything matched up, you’re looking at about 10,000 with graphics and all that.
[21:38] So by cutting down on the amount of turnovers, um, we’re saving money that way. So we’re extending our turnover time up to ten years based on the mileage that we’ve calculated.
[21:56] Um, and then all of our new purchases actually have an eight year, 150,000 mile warranty through the manufacturer. And then we did find and we have found, and I think that most people would find that when you have an individual who’s accountable for all the equipment and everything in the car, there is an unintended outcome that they will take care of it, and it’s better maintained because they
[22:11] are the ones responsible and we know where to where to go to. If there’s an issue. And they want to make sure that what they drive is, is up to par. So looking forward for that sustainability, um, we’ll continue to look at upcoming replacement schedules.
[22:33] We currently have four vehicles in the patrol fleet that are under leases, and we’ll continue to monitor those, whether they’re lease extensions with the state or, um, purchasing them or the need to turn them in. Um, but there’s four within patrol that need to be addressed. Still, in the coming years.
[22:54] And then we’ll continue to budget and purchase for those that are needed. The budget line for squads for sustainability. What we’re looking at is maintaining the budget line to avoid the spikes and dips and the purchases.
[23:13] Um, we’ll continue to monitor the mileage and and the outcome or the outlook for the vehicles as they’ll need to be purchased. And then at the end of the year, looking to, um, move the funds that would be in that budget line to an equipment reserve fund and then monitor that fund to make sure that that fund can always, um, take on any expenses that would be needed for replacement of fleet that’s coming up.
[23:32] And that’s all I had. But I will stand for any questions. Thank you very much, Captain Wagner. Um, counselor. Moscow. Hi, captain. Thanks for the report. Um, sounds like it’s pretty successful. How many total squads are we going to have then? Uh. Thank you.
[23:50] Um, mayor and members of council, the number of squads that we have are included for patrol and administration is 22. So we have two right now that are, um, set up to be used. And should we have one that’s crashed? We’ll transfer the equipment in there, but we have them. Okay. Um, the, uh, a couple.
[24:15] Of questions that I get. And just for the public, because I know I’ve, I’ve asked these, but, uh, um, when does an officer shift start? If they take it home. Thank you for the question, mayor.
[24:30] Members of council, the the way the our policy is written is the officer shift does not start until they get to the police department for roll call. So the expectation is that if if it was a our afternoon shift, for example, starts at 3:00.
[24:51] Um, for 1500 hours in the afternoon, the officer would need to be here before the shift starts and still attend a roll call unless there is a priority call. Like the example, given the expectation and the policy would state that they will be here for roll call. And that is when shift starts. Okay. So their. Shifts. When they get to. Work does not leave home. When they leave their home. Um, like State Patrol or other other agencies like that.
[25:09] Um, and then uh, how much time? I mean, patrol officers, you know, in saving an idling, how much time would they spend here? Um, with the car idling versus being out on the street or being someplace else? I mean, is it. Thank you for the question.
[25:30] I, I would have to look into that further. It’s really call dependent. Um, if if they’re processing evidence, the car is going to be here longer if they’re doing follow up phone calls or meeting with a victim downstairs or a suspect, they’re going to be in in building longer. So it’s really called dependence.
[25:48] Um, from day to day. And I, I’d have to find a way to really kind of hone in on that, because I think it’d be really difficult. Sure. I just, I know when we were down in Rosemount doing a tours of building tours and stuff, um, the chief even said the the cars were still parked outside, even though the
[26:05] officers had a garage to park in. But it was more convenient for them to to go out the squad or the the door than to park in the garage.
[26:20] So obviously, as we’re looking at making it an investment in a building, um, having it right sized would be important. Um, then the last question that I have has to do with I had a, you know, have had a question from, from some residents that have said, well, if they’re driving to and from home and stuff like that, and we’re recovering fuel costs, what about the additional maintenance and wear and tear?
[26:39] And why is it like the IRS mileage thing being used, uh, instead of, uh, a fee that’s set by the chief, which we probably should talk about that because I thought all fees were set by the council so the chief can set them, but we should ratify them, I think.
[27:00] But why would we not use that scenario? Uh, thank you, mayor, members council. I would, when we designed and set up the program, we looked at the recuperating or recouping the cost of the fuel itself, and then, um, knowing there was going to be some expense and, um, beyond that, it would, might kind of would maybe push
[27:26] the program to the side of as far as the the benefit of having an office or take at home. Um, and then how are you? Hi, chief. How would you like to. This is really a question for me that I want you to have to.
[27:41] I didn’t want to have to answer, as we have discussed, and we have talked about this question before. So I assume this is for the benefit of the public audience. Yeah. I do not set the fee. The fee is a rolling five year average of gas prices in Minnesota, based on the highest number.
[27:58] Now, I did not readjust that as we came into 2026, because Stevie Wonder could see where gas prices were going. And in 2025, the prices were much lower.
[28:13] And I did not want to adjust that average lower, only to have to make up for it later and to see our taxpayers seeing less come in during 2026, when it was obvious that prices were going to skyrocket. We do not use the IRS for mileage because many things are built into that mileage fee, not just fuel and maintenance. And, uh, the type of driving that police officers do is not well, their on shift is nothing like routine driving.
[28:36] So to say that an officer is equally responsible for the maintenance on that car is like saying, I have a race car that you take in a race, then I drive it home, but I have to put as many new tires on it as you do.
[28:50] So all of those things were taken into consideration when we set those fees, and the council did approve that. Thank you. Council. Uh, one last question.
[29:10] If you can answer it in a very general form, we thought that having the cars there would be a retention issue, that people would want them in a very general way, high level. Why do some people choose not to take them home? Uh, thank you for the question, mayor. Members of the council, not everyone is able to just because of the requirements we have around the policy itself. Not everyone lives in an area where they can park it either indoors or under security surveillance.
[29:28] Not everyone lives, um, in a in a they don’t have a room for parking it off street. Uh, there’s a number of issues or reasons I should say, but there’s only a small percent. Um, maybe 25% that don’t take it home. So 75, roughly to 75% do. Thank you. Any further questions? Oh, counselor paper. Thank you for the report.
[29:52] I just have one question. So let’s imagine that an officer is on their way either to or from work, and they see an incident, whatever that may be. What level of incident do they need to see to get involved? Because they’re in a cruiser. I don’t know how the rules work.
[30:13] Thank you. Mayor, members of council. If, uh, if there was a something happening that met or rose to the level of criminal activity, that was a need to be involved, I would I would anticipate they would be involved or get involved.
[30:35] Um, I mean, and I think of even from driving in my personal vehicle, if someone if I see an accident, I’m going to stop for that accident. Okay. Um, if it was somebody who was just speeding by, they’re not going to. We have policy that restricts just enforcing traffic and things of that nature. But if they if they see that there is a wreck, they’re obligated to tend to that.
[30:53] Yeah. I mean I would yes. And just as I would even in my personal vehicle. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Uh, I guess my only comment is I just want to say thank you. I know chief came to came to us with a, um.
[31:11] I wish you would have shown it, but it basically showed that after a certain number of years, I don’t know how many the the cost that the cost of the program actually is lower than what we were paying over the leases, which was, um, a state program that at one point was very, very favorable to police, police departments.
[31:26] And over time, the lease terms became less and less favorable. And many, many, many, many police departments were actually forced to keep in that lease model.
[31:48] But because we have that that sort of initial funding from from Covid that enabled us to take advantage of the two things happening at the same time. One, we had some money that would allow us to actually start this program and to get away from a lease program that was no longer favorable to our taxpayers. So in this in this incident, we have a case of saving taxpayer dollars.
[32:08] We have an incident of of of, I think, better service for our community because we are able to attract and retain officers through this program. And third, we’re able to compensate for for some of the shortcomings of our, of our of our police station downstairs officers, one of the big advantages is officers can change into their uniform at home, rather than using the
[32:28] facilities. I say that with quotes because they’re really not appropriate facilities. They can change at home and they can come here fully dressed. That’s that’s I know it doesn’t seem like a big deal, but if you’ve ever seen the video of people trying to use the locker rooms, you’d see why.
[32:44] It’s really nice when officers can actually change into their, uh, change into uniforms at home and come into work fully dressed. So with that, there’s an the shortcoming that that does help help mitigate temporarily the shortcomings for the the the police department.
[33:05] So with that, uh, any further questions or comments? No, I will say thank you very much to Captain Wagner. We really appreciate your service. And I’m glad that you were here. We move. We have no public hearings this evening, so we are going to move into our new and unfinished business. Nine A is municipal campus building project. The petition for environmental assessment worksheet.
[33:26] I’m calling um, Amy Schmidt, Esquire to the our city attorney to the podium who will lead us through this item. Good evening. Mayor. Members of the council. This is the first time I’ve ever stood at this podium. And hence, the first time I’ve ever used this little trick. So forgive me if I fumble a little bit.
[33:41] I guess maybe just because of that, I just will take a moment for people who are watching or are in the audience for the first time and noticing if for anybody that has noticed that, um, that Mister Schmidt sits in, in, in, in council chambers for our meetings, she is the city’s attorney.
[34:00] She is a lawyer, a lawyer with Campbell Knudsen and a expert in city, uh, city business. And she has been all cities have city attorneys. And Mr. Schmidt is our city attorney. And maybe you can just briefly just tell people who you are so that everyone understands where you come from.
[34:19] So. Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, I, as you say, I am an attorney and partner at Campbell Knudsen. We are a law firm that represents more than 40 different municipalities in the Twin Cities in the exurbs. And further beyond into greater Minnesota. As, um, as needed.
[34:37] Um, I have been in municipal practice for coming up on 24 years. Um, and that’s just in my time as an attorney. Before that, when I was in law school, I had the a job as a law clerk with the Saint Paul City Attorney’s office, and that was
[34:52] where I decided that I was that I really liked municipal practice. So here I am, you know, 26 years later, um, because I started there in October of 2000. Um, so I don’t know what else you need me to tell you about myself, but. People should know that they have. We have a city attorney.
[35:11] People may not. They don’t see you very often, but we are. We are not lawyers. And we need legal advice. So we appreciate your service. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so the item that is on the agenda tonight in front of you is related to the municipal campus building project.
[35:35] Uh, the city received, uh, the from the Environmental Quality Board with the state, um, that a request for an environmental assessment worksheet. So that’s the issue. That’s before you tonight is whether it is your it’s your job tonight to determine the need for an EAW for the proposed project. Is somebody else. Doing the number for me? Okay. A big. Bob hit okay.
[35:59] Sorry it moved and I didn’t think I hit a button. So maybe not. Maybe. Maybe. Yeah. Well, Nancy moved it the first time. Okay. Thank you. Nancy. Um, so as as I said, the petition was submitted. Um, if you want, we can go into the requirements of the petition.
[36:19] But the bottom line is that it was submitted to the Environmental Quality Board on on August 24th. And the very next day, the EAC be determined that it was a valid petition.
[36:41] All of the signatures were sufficient to be to make it a valid petition, and the ECB’s job is to determine who the responsible governmental unit is. That’s you’ll hear me say, argue quite a bit tonight. Um, and the argue informs the city in this case, because they determine that the city is the appropriate governmental, responsible governmental unit, um, to make the determination of need. Um, so they made that determination. They notified the city of that determination.
[37:05] And officially transmitted the the petition to the city administrator. And that’s important because that’s where the the clock starts ticking on the number of days that the City Council has, as the argue, to make a decision on the determination of need. And we’ll get into that timeline just a little bit later.
[37:26] So they’re basically three primary, uh, parts of the law that apply. There’s the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, which is also known as Nepa. Um, and that’s included in Minnesota Statutes chapter 116 D um, and also the Minnesota Rules, part 4410.
[37:50] Um, these rules and the statutes apply to both environmental assessment worksheets, but also environmental impact statements, which is a more in-depth study, environmental study on a project. And that’s not at issue here just yet. But then there’s also a provision in the city code of in the zoning.
[38:10] It’s housed in the zoning code, where the city has adopted all of the state statutes and the state rules, but then also has, um, the the ordinance that sets out the procedures internally on how, um, on how a EAW would, would come forward.
[38:36] And it also provides the um for an a different category of, of EAW that’s not specifically in the statutes, and it’s considered an optional EAW under the city code. Um, and the terminology gets a little fuzzy, but we’ll get into that and try to sort that out as we go. Um, so an EAW what is it? It is under the rules, a brief document, and it’s prepared in workshop format.
[38:59] Since it’s an environmental assessment workshop or worksheet, I should say worksheet. Um, and it’s designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an EIS is required for a proposed action.
[39:17] An action usually is, you know, a project, um, of some variety, whether it’s a construction project, whether it’s mining, whether it’s excavation, and it can be a long, long list of possibilities. Um, and so there are two types of EAW. There are mandatory and discretionary, a mandatory EAW is required when a proposed project either meets or exceeds the thresholds that are set out for any of those EAW categories.
[39:38] And like I say, there are lots of different categories. Um, and a discretionary EAW um may be ordered by an RGU for any project that doesn’t meet those thresholds. So it’s below the thresholds and it’s not exempt.
[40:01] So there are we’ll get to the list of of or the reasoning for when a proposed project would be exempt from EAW requirements. So for a mandatory EAW um there are a couple of there are several different factors. Um, Mendota Heights is considered a third class city, not because you’re lower than the first and the second. It’s based on your population.
[40:22] Third class cities are cities that are between 10,000 and 50,000. I had the number written down and now it escapes my mind. Um, but it’s based on the fact that you’re just over 10,000 in population, that you fall into the category of third class city.
[40:46] Um, and so a, a an EAW would be mandatory if the project is either construction of a new or an expansion of an institutional facility. I underlined that and highlighted because that’s the piece that we’re talking about here under this, under the definitions in um, in the rules, uh, a government building is, is, is included in the definition of institutional facility.
[41:10] And so if the project were an institutional facility that exceeds or is equal to 200,000ft, and that’s just measured by gross floor space, it’s not the it’s not the curtilage. It’s not the, the land around the the the, the building. It’s just the buildings. Square footage.
[41:31] And in addition to the first one, we also have the it will be it would be mandatory if the proposed project would change or diminish the course, current or cross section of one acre or more of any public, water or public waters.
[41:52] Wetland, um, and you would need a different expert to tell you about what those mean for public water and public waters, water, wetlands, because, um, that’s beyond my expertise. That’s why you have Krista. Um, and then the other possibility would be if a project would cause a total, the would cause an impact to a total of one or more acres of wetlands, regardless of the type.
[42:12] Um, and this gets into a very, um, long and convoluted list of circumstances that don’t really apply here, but it’s in the rule. So I included it in the slide just for just to be thorough. Um, as opposed to mandatory, you have the discretionary EAW. So if a proposed project is below the thresholds, um, an argue still has the the ability to order an EAW.
[42:35] If one of the four of these next four things conditions exist where the project is not exempt. And again we’ll get into what exempt is in a minute. And the RGA argue determines, um, on its own, not pursuant to a petition, um, that because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental
[42:59] effects. So that may have the potential for for significant environmental effects is the key phrase, um, that’s what every that’s what your decision comes back to, um, is whether there would be the or were there may be the potential for significant environmental effects.
[43:19] The second one on this slide is similar to the first one. It’s the same thing, except number two is when there is a petition, which is a situation you’re dealing with here because you did receive a petition. And then on the next slide, um. An EAW could be ordered.
[43:42] Um, if the argue or if the I’m sorry if the EQ be determines and this has nothing to do with an exemption, it’s just an independent, um, determination by the EQ, be that there is a potential for a significant environmental effects.
[44:04] And then the last one is that a proposer of a project, if they just if they voluntarily ask to have an EAW, um, prepared just so they can make a determination for that potential, um, and here, just for reference, because this is a city project, the city is considered the proposer.
[44:23] So it’s a little it’s a little awkward that you’re both the project proposer, you’re the owner of the property, and you’re also the the argue. But that was the determination of the of the EQ, be that that as the city Council that you are the appropriate argue so exemptions. We’ve talked about this a little bit.
[44:39] So for a third class city based on population like Mendota Heights, a proposed project is exempt altogether if it is for construction of a new or expansion of an existing institutional space. If the or institutional facility, if the facility is less than 50,000ft.
[45:01] And again, that’s the gross square feet of the building, um, of floor space, not the the land, not the, um, not the perimeter of, of the building. Just it’s just the gross floor space of the building. Questions so far? I thought that might be a good place to stop and ask questions. Define significant environmental effect. There is no definition in the law of what that is.
[45:22] Um, but the law, as we’ll get into in the next slides, does give you some factors to consider in making that determination. Um, it’s and part of the, the, the decision that you make is whether it may have the potential for it’s not just significant significant environmental effects.
[45:45] It’s a it’s kind of um, there’s a very high level, uh, legal term called squishy, uh, that it’s kind of squishy to be able to know what the exact definition of, of that means. Any other questions? So bullet number four doesn’t really state that it has to be significant.
[46:10] The proposer in this case could just say we just want to do it. So we go through the process and we’ll document any impacts. Because it’s a pretty structured process. It is. And it just runs you through a list of things and it just documents it and helps answer any questions that there may be.
[46:25] Right. And number four is, uh, is it does it does touch on the potential for significant environmental effects, but it’s because it’s voluntary and it’s just it’s it’s based on a request basically from a proposer that, you know, I just, you know, if I’m the proposer and I have a big
[46:47] project and I just I just want to know, is it going to is it could it could there be some potential here. Um, and you know, is it a way to head off, you know, some sort of problem you might run into down the road if you, you know, if
[47:00] there’s more water on the site than you expect or whatever, it’s just a way to, um, to make that determination voluntarily. Um. We good? All right. So what are you asked to do? That’s kind of, you know, the big question.
[47:24] So, um, you’re as the argue, you’re responsible for preparing and reviewing environmental documents. If you if you have the if you order an EAW, the in your role as the argue, not in your role as the proposer. This is where we’re going to have to kind of start, you know, two lanes here.
[47:46] So in your role as the argue, you would accept all of the information that would be prepared or that would be presented, um, to go into and into the EAW, um, you have to verify the accuracy of it and then you have to you have to comply with the review process under Nepa in a timely manner.
[48:03] So I mean, it’s it’s not something that you can kind of drag your feet about you. You need to kind of keep the review moving. Um, and so it’s, um, the it gets a little difficult where you, as you know, even the two of you right now are engineers. Um, not everybody has the technical expertise to do all of this.
[48:30] So you would rely on consultants with the expertise if you had, you know, in other larger cities, there may be staff, um, employed by the city directly who would have that kind of expertise. But, um, or if there’s capacity issues, you know, there would be, um, you would rely on consultants in this situation to, to do that work.
[48:52] Timely manner. On average. Can you give us a best guess of if we filled it out about how long this would take? Is this a two week, a one month, three months? I think that a good estimate, and it is only an estimate would be about 2 to 3 months.
[49:11] Um, because if you do order it, you, um, there has to you first you have to gather all the information and then there’s a 30 day public comment period where you have all the information put together. It’s it’s published.
[49:30] And you have, you know, members of the public can review it, way in your surrounding communities have, um, the opportunity to weigh in, um, and review it and offer comments. So it’s probably at least a 2 to 3 month process. Thank you. That’s helpful. Okay.
[49:55] So we go through the processes RG you, um, can that report or whatever comes out then does that connect with you? The planning Commission and then come to us for the recommendation. Or is it solely directly to the city council, you know, or do we have choices? I think I would have to I want to look into that.
[50:11] And before I answer and try to give you an accurate answer, I think that, um. I’ll add that to a list of things to get back to you about. I want to make sure that I don’t don’t misspeak. So, um. Mayor and council, I believe it’s within 30 days after the public comment period that the city council does need to act on, on the application or the petition. That’s right.
[50:32] And I just I just don’t know if there’s anything in the in the way you’ve set up your planning commission, what their, what their scope is. And if they have some role in that. Um, it’s certainly not required by the, by the state statutes or the rules. It would just be a matter of your city code.
[50:50] Um, whether that’s part of their purview. I don’t want a bigger city. I just don’t own a third class city. That in the bigger city, it’s run through the planning department. Right. And the planning commission. Right. And then it goes to either the city council or to the mayor from that point. So. But I don’t know what.
[51:10] Right. I would I’ll double check your city code when I, when I have it in front of me. Um, but and I’ll get back to you on that question. Okay. So basically what you are asked to do is determine whether a proposed project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, just like we’ve said already, this
[51:32] is kind of the put the star on this slide, because this is really what it comes down to. What your decision is. Um, so you’re you’re making the determination of need.
[51:50] Um, and so if you if you do make that determination, then the EAW has to be prepared as early as practicable in the development of the proposed project. Um, what I have there is that most often EAW would, would, would be initiated either by petition or, um, within some other part of the process that, um, it would be it’s usually after an application is submitted and you in a situation where the
[52:13] proposer is not the, the, the same thing as the, as the argue or the same entity as the argue, um, you would have um, usually it would be an application is complete, it’s submitted.
[52:39] And then that’s where the, the questions start to arise about whether or whether there could be the potential for significant environmental effects here, because this is a public project, because the proposer, as is a public entity, the process itself has been very public. And so all of the different deliberations that you all have had, um, all the design work that’s been done has all been out there for the public to, to see.
[52:58] And so the questions are sort of happening earlier this time. Um, and this instance. So like I say, even if it usually does happen later in other projects, it is appropriate that it can happen now.
[53:17] Uh, otherwise the, the ecobee would not have, um, made the finding that, that the petition was valid at this point. So. Um, so the way that you make the determination is that you look at the evidence that’s presented by the petitioners. So everything that’s included in the petition, you can look at any evidence that’s presented by a proposer.
[53:43] In this case, it would be your consultants, as they have informed you in your proposer, under your proposer hat, not your argue hat. Um, and then, you know, anybody else who’s who doesn’t fall into the category of petitioner or proposer, any information or evidence that they can provide that’s relevant. Um, and then you can also rely on evidence that you individually already know just from your own.
[54:01] You know, the fact that you live in the community, that you’re aware of the project and, and all of the other, um, considerations that that may come into play. Um, and then there are factors that are set that are set in the rules. And it’s kind of a long list.
[54:21] Um, so you have to consider the type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects. Uh, you have to look at the cumulative effects that could come into play, and then that those four bullets under that second, all those four bullets are the things that you would look at related to cumulative potential effects.
[54:45] Um, and then that we can go to the next slide. I’m not going to sit here and read to everybody. Um, one. Yeah. Right here. Thank you. Thank you. Ryan. Um, and then you would also consider the extent to which in the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by another entity.
[55:02] You know, like MPCa or DNR or other things, other entities that would have some jurisdiction. Um, and then the extent to which the environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled, uh, and that’s, that can be where they could be controlled through another, uh, II, through an EIS that exists on a property or other environmental studies that have been
[55:28] undertaken or created or initiated by a completely separate process, but would still apply to the to the property at issue. So then you have your Mendota Heights city code. So like I said before, you, the city code adopts and incorporates all the state statutes and rules.
[55:47] So all of those factors that we talked about, the standard, the job that you are charged with, with doing all of that stuff is also included in your city code. But in addition to all of that, there’s also another category of optional EAW.
[56:08] And it’s not the same as the discretionary EAW under the state rules and statutes, but it’s optional as it’s as it’s categorized under your city code. And as I read your city code, I think that this was created as a way to have an administrative process for the zoning administrator who is dealing with an application and in their expertise or in the expertise
[56:27] of of the engineers on staff, recognized that there may be a potential for for significant environmental effects. And the the the zoning administrator can initiate the request for an EAW under this optional category.
[56:50] But it also, as I read it, it also leaves the city Council the authority to to order an EAW. Um when a if a petition is is received just like here, it’s not just an administrative administrative process that would apply. So you have to consider all of the factors that we’ve already talked about. And in addition to those, you would have three additional guidelines.
[57:11] Um, and this is what’s, what’s written in your in your city code. Um, is the action which is the project to be, to be in or near an area that is considered to be environmentally sensitive or aesthetically pleasing. Is the action likely to have disruptive effects, such as generating traffic or noise or.
[57:29] And are there public questions or controversy concerning the environmental effects of the proposed actions? So let’s say on this on the previous slide. So these are factors that you are guidelines that you would apply to in addition to everything that we’ve already that we’ve already talked about.
[57:49] As you make the decision, you would use the same process of, you know, the evidence that you would that you would consider from the proposal, from the petitioner, from others known to you all the same factors that we talked about on one of the previous slides.
[58:10] Um, and so, you know, I, I’ve talked a lot about just the kind of process and the, the, the factors that you have to consider in making the decision. I’m not I’m not in a position to make comments about the evidence itself. That’s that’s what your job is to interpret and to gain. Um, information from engineers and other experts.
[58:32] Uh, the city’s consultant, um, has the, the civil engineer that is a subcontractor for the project. They provided a memo. Their design tree is the, um, is the the subcontractor that works with ICS on the project.
[58:58] And so the information that they’ve given you about the kind of the technical aspect of, of the proposal and the the factors that you consider in making the determination of need, um, that is available to you.
[59:21] And even though it’s not necessarily his lane Kyle from ICS is here that he could maybe answer some questions that aren’t too technical, but he relies on engineers just like I do for all the for all the technical expertise. So the when it when you’re making a decision I mean I understand that there’s uh perhaps been a question, um, of the fact that is there essentially a is it appropriate for the consulting engineer who was already working on the project to be the one to give you an evaluation of the
[59:45] evidence? And is it independent or objective enough? There’s nothing in the rules of the law that requires, um, at this stage of the process, uh, an independent or unbiased, uh, experts to, to give you technical advice.
[1:00:06] Um, it’s, you know, in fact, because of the very short time frame which we’ll get into in the last slide is it’s really impractical for the city or any argue to be able to hire a third party, to be able to come in and do a full analysis.
[1:00:29] And so the way that that you, as the argue, handle the, um, any concerns you might have about the objectivity or independence of the consultants that that you have already under contract. Um, if you have those concerns, then it’s just like you do in any other decision that you make. You can weigh the evidence.
[1:00:47] If you think maybe there’s there you’re concerned about the quality of their work, the Accuracy of what they do. What have you. Then maybe you don’t give their. Their interpretation or the information that they’ve given you. Maybe you don’t give that as much credibility or credence as you might give evidence that you trust from somebody else.
[1:01:05] Another source that is, um, in that list of, of sources that you’re allowed to consider. Um, you know, the petition itself contains evidence, but at the same but in most cases and I don’t know for a fact in this case, but in most cases or many cases, I guess, I don’t know what the, the right, you know,
[1:01:22] quality quantity is there. But in a lot of cases, I guess, um, the petition isn’t prepared by a person with extensive technical engineering knowledge. Um, that may be in this case, I don’t know.
[1:01:41] But so you make the decision on how much weight you want to give to the evidence that’s in front of you as you make the decision. Does that make sense? Okay. So the last slide is to talk about, um, kind of the timeline. I’m sorry. A quick question before we leave that okay. The EAW that’s. Ordered under the city code. Still follows the same process. Still goes through the cube. It doesn’t.
[1:02:06] We don’t have our own EAW process. That’s correct. It’s the same EAW process. That’s correct. It would go once you make your decision. Um, it would have to be transmitted to the EAC, be it would be published in the Ecobee monitor.
[1:02:26] Um, and and it would um, follow the same processes as you would if you did not have that provision in your code. So the timeline that you’re under here is pretty tight. Um, 15 business days to make a decision. 15 days that is calculated from the day that the that the petition was officially transmitted to the city from the cube.
[1:02:47] Uh, so by my calculations of business days from that date to completion would be September 15th. Um. I’m sorry, September 16th. That’s an error on the slide. It’s September 16th. You have a city council meeting on the 15th, so I apologize for that. It is the 16th, not the 15th.
[1:03:08] Um, the cube is required to grant an extension of 15 days. Um, if it’s requested by the argue. So if the if you, as the argue think you do want to take that additional 15 days and you request it. Excuse me. That would put your your final deadline at October 7th of this year.
[1:03:31] And so I don’t have slides that outline your, um, the, the options that were that I, that I included in the memo. That was, that’s part of the package or the packet of the agenda packet. So if you have questions about those options in the draft resolutions that are included in your packet, I’m happy to answer those.
[1:03:46] I’m happy to answer any other questions that you have about the process, about what your job is. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Are there any questions for the attorney? Yes, counselor. Paper. Do you have an idea of what, uh, an environmental assessment worksheet. Cost. Ballpark. Mayor, members of the council.
[1:04:09] I know that the city administrator and city staff have kind of found. Some have tried to get that information. It’s my understanding that there have been a couple of other engineering firms that they’ve that staff have spoken with, and there’s a range of about 25,000 to $40,000. Thank you. For the questions. Let me follow up with that.
[1:04:32] If we had to pay the 20 or 30,000, and I’m not directing this question to you, where would that money come from? Um, madam Mayor and Council, I turn to the our finance director, Kristen Baker, for that. Madam mayor, members of the council, each year there are some contingency amounts built into the budget. Um, there is a $40,000 contingency amount that would be available.
[1:05:09] And there’s also an additional amount, um, in the, in the admin budget and the general fund, if needed. Thank you very much. Councillor Metzger. Since this is part of the project, would not be eligible for pre design and design expenses for the grant if we accepted the grant or be part of the project itself. Because it’s.
[1:05:31] I do not know the answer to that question. I would have to we would have to be in touch with our grant administrator regarding those costs. Okay, exactly. Madam Mayor and Councillor, Moscow. Um, we would have to talk with our public safety grants administrator to see if if the EAW, since it’s not necessarily required.
[1:05:55] I guess if it would be an eligible expense under the state bonding dollars. Well, it I mean, it could be required because we make it required. true type of thing. So then it would be required. And we got a petition from residents. So I think we could fit into a category that it does.
[1:06:13] But it seems to me that but for the building and, but for the design process and everything else, that it seems to be a legitimate project expense that would be covered. Right.
[1:06:30] I think you would want to have the terms of the grant agreement in place to know the answer to that question, and it actually is beyond the scope of what you’re really asked to do tonight. Right? Because, I mean, I’ll be asking a question later about, I’m sure, the terms of the grant and stuff like that. So. Okay. Any further questions? Thank you very much. All right. Um, no further questions. I am looking for a motion counselor paper.
[1:06:55] Are you looking for a motion for from our packet? Are you looking for a motion to open up to public discussion? Oh, I’m sorry. Thank you. I’m looking for a motion to open up a public discussion. Okay. Second. All right, so we are in a the public discussion.
[1:07:13] So I just want to remind folks this is there there’s two items on tonight’s agenda about the municipal campus. So if you wish to speak to the petition for the EAW, this would be your opportunity to speak.
[1:07:33] If you wish to speak in general about the municipal campus project, I would urge you to wait for item nine B so if anybody wishes to speak to the municipal campus building, the petition for the EAW, you are welcome to speak now and just make sure you give us your name and your address. Thank you. Mayor Levine. And council members. My name is Kathleen, homesteader, 1248 Culligan Lane.
[1:07:55] I’m the representative for 190 petitioners for the Municipal Campus Environmental Assessment Worksheet. This petition asks the city to prepare an EAW so the project’s environmental effects are understood before the plans are finalized and construction begins. In response to our petition design, Tree Engineering provided a memo to ICS, the city’s owners, representative.
[1:08:25] Because the memo came through, the team managing the project, it is not an independent environmental review that creates a clear conflict in roles. The project team should not be the sole judge of, whether it’s own project requires environmental review.
[1:08:49] On pages 195 through 199 of the packet design tree states that approximately five acres of this 13 acre site are wetlands, yet concludes that the project does not involve an environmentally sensitive resources. We have difficulty reconciling those statements. There is also a basic discrepancy in the project description. Design tree calls the building approximately 40 40,000ft excess.
[1:09:24] On August 15th, presented a total of 46,298ft, and on August 18th, ICS stated that the building is now between 48,000 and 49,000ft. The city’s draft resolution states 49,963ft. That is just 37ft below the 50,000 square foot exemption threshold, which number is accurate? What is excluded and which building and site plan did design tree evaluate before the council relies on square footage to make a legal finding, these figures should be reconciled.
[1:09:58] Design tree says. Drainage, erosion and other impacts can be handled through grading plans. Stormwater design permits and engineering controls, but mitigating a problem later is not the same as understanding it. Before construction, the existing city hall has a documented history of water intrusion. We are not claiming the wetlands caused these problems.
[1:10:25] We are saying that this history demonstrates why water drainage and soil conditions deserve careful study. Before constructing a larger building next to nearly five acres of wetlands under Minnesota Rule 4410 1100, the council does not need proof that environmental harm will occur.
[1:10:54] The question is whether, because of the project’s nature, nature, nature or location, it may have the potential for significant environmental effect. 190 residents are asking for another level of due diligence. An EAW would not stop the project. It would provide a transparent process for answering these questions before decisions are made that may be difficult to reverse.
[1:11:21] We understand your desire to keep this project on schedule, but the schedule should not become more important than understanding the land we are building on. If the environmental questions are manageable, an EAW will document that. If concerns are identified, it is far better to understand them before construction than to rely on mitigation afterwards. I respectfully ask you to vote yes and order an EAW, whether through this petition or through the city’s own authority. Thank you.
[1:11:48] Thank you. Anybody else who wishes to speak to the EAW? Good evening. My name is Jonathan Ehrlich. I live at 1044 Douglas Road. Uh, madam Mayor and council members, I’m here tonight to ask you to deny the petition for an environmental assessment worksheet for the municipal campus project.
[1:12:13] I don’t question the good faith of people who sign this petition are raised. Environmental concerns. I question whether those concerns justify the extraordinary step of adding another layer of environmental review. Let me start by saying what I hope is uncontroversial. I support environmental protection.
[1:12:37] I think the city should protect wetlands, manage stormwater responsibly, control erosion, and comply with every environmental requirement that applies to this project. But I also think environmental review should be proportional to environmental risk and used for their intended purpose to identify and address significant environmental risks, not to create another layer of delay and expense for a project that’s already subject to extensive regulation. And that distinction matters here.
[1:12:59] The petition itself tells us that this project is below the applicable mandatory AAUW threshold. It also does not meet the identified thresholds for public water or wetland impacts in the city’s engineering. Analysis concludes that the relevant factors do not indicate that this project may have the potential for significant environmental effects.
[1:13:20] The petition raises questions about wetlands, stormwater grading, groundwater, vegetation, and construction impacts, and these are reasonable things to consider. But the petition itself does not claim that any of these impacts have actually been demonstrated in any way, and these aren’t issues that exist in a regulatory vacuum.
[1:13:45] The project remains subject to extensive regulatory requirements regarding stormwater control, erosion, sediment controls, permitting, site plan review, building codes, and other environmental safeguards. So I think you should ask a very simple question.
[1:14:06] What additional environmental protection are you actually buying with an EAW that you aren’t already getting through the regulatory processes that apply to this project? What exactly are you accomplishing by adding another formal process? Do you really think that an EAW is going to find significant impacts that are going to require you to do an EIS for a project of this scale? Really, we should also be honest about the cost of delayed the packet estimates.
[1:14:25] Another 23,000 to $40,000 in consultant costs just to complete the EAW, and the PCB has made clear that the project can’t move forward to a final government decision. While the petition is pending, these costs don’t exist in isolation either.
[1:14:41] Every month of delay has consequences for a major public construction project in the millions of dollars, and these costs will be paid by taxpayers. I’m not asking you to ignore environmental concerns. Quite the opposite. I’m asking you to file environmental rules that are rigorous, predictable and proportionate to the actual risk. You can and must protect the wetland. You can and must manage stormwater.
[1:15:00] You can and must enforce erosion controls, and you can and must require responsible design and construction. But we don’t need to turn every plausible environmental question into another formal regulatory proceeding. There’s one distinction that I think is especially important. Controversy about a project is not the same thing as evidence of a significant environmental effects.
[1:15:21] If this EAW is being used because the public and the council believes the project itself should be reconsidered, let’s have that debate openly on the merits of the building, its cost, its design and its location. But let’s not weaponize environmental review as a proxy for that debate.
[1:15:44] Please deny the EAW petition and allow this project to proceed through the environmental and permitting processes that already apply. We need a city government that can do two things at once protect what matters and build what the community and what our public servants need. Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Steve Bali, 975 Karen Road. Madam mayor, members. Of the City Council. I’m here. tonight to.
[1:16:09] Ask the council to apply the municipal campus. To apply to the municipal campus project. The same environmental standards. That the city of Mendota Heights has established for itself in other areas.
[1:16:32] This is not a request to stop the project is a request to make sure that before we build something intended to serve this community for generations, we understand its potential environmental consequences. The city has repeatedly demonstrated that environmental stewardship matters, and I applaud everyone here for that. The City Council has established goals to protect our natural spaces and invest in our natural resources.
[1:16:57] The city’s Natural Resources Management Plan provides a framework for protecting and improving those resources and on its own water resources page, the city recognizes the importance of its wetlands and surface waters, and state that states that it strives to enhance, protect, and restore them. These are more than words. The city monitors wetland health, monitors water quality, who reviews wetland impacts associated with development.
[1:17:22] And just this past year, before determining the feasibility of geothermal energy at the Public works facility, the city authorized a technical assessment that includes test borings and analysis for geology and aquifer conditions. That represents very reasonable principle that we act, that before we act, we gather the information necessary to understand the consequences of our actions.
[1:17:45] I believe we should apply that same principle to the municipal campus project. The campus project has now advanced into design development, but questions remain concerning how construction, grading, stormwater changes in drainage and long term operation of the site could affect the surrounding wetlands and water resources. We should answer these questions before construction rather than discover the answers afterwards.
[1:18:10] Minnesota’s environmental review process gives the city a way to do that. The Environmental Quality Board specifically provides that a government unit may order a discretionary environmental assessment worksheet. When a project may have the potential for significant environmental effects and AAUW does not approve or reject the project.
[1:18:33] Its purpose is to gather information, identify potential impacts, and help decision makers determine how those impacts can be avoided or mitigated. So tonight, I’m asking you this council to make to make it possible to direct your staff to initiate a voluntary discretionary environmental assessment of the municipal campus project with particular attention to wetlands, hydrology, stormwater, groundwater habitat and construction impacts.
[1:19:01] And to have that assessment completed before final construction decisions are made. Does doing this does not mean that the municipal campus should not be built.
[1:19:18] It means that Mendota Heights is willing to hold itself to the same environmental standards that it asks of others, for a project that may stand on the site for the next 50 to 75 years. Taking the time to understand its environmental consequences is not an obstacle to responsible government. It is responsible government. Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Okay. We will close our move. We close the hearing. Okay. Second. All right. We are closed.
[1:19:49] Um, is there a motion? I’d like to make a motion, please. Councillor Pepper. I move, we adopt the third option. Resolution ordering, optional environmental assessment worksheet pursuant to city code section 125-1 for proposed municipal campus project. I will second that. Discussion. Yes, I’ll start. 190 residents spoke out. We have been clear about the project. Project has had transparency throughout.
[1:20:37] This project is being built to a high standard that we require others to hold themselves to. We are now looking at doing an environmental assessment worksheet over a turfgrass ball field. But this is what the community is asking for.
[1:21:06] And it is something that, uh, maybe we didn’t need to do based on all of the rules and guidelines that were presented to us. We’re looking at spending now 25 to $40,000 so that we can feel good about what we’re going to do in a time when we are working diligently within the budget workshops to trim
[1:21:28] and cut whatever we can in order to try to hold our costs as low as possible while continuing to offer the community the best level of service that we possibly can, and that the residents have come to expect from their local government.
[1:21:55] Um, this is a lot of money, and every time we spend money, I hope that it’s justified. But 190 people have asked for this. And if we don’t do this, we’re going to run into more problems. We’re going to create more delays for ourselves.
[1:22:27] So, um, we’ll get a we will get our transparent report telling us what we may or may not have, hopefully that we don’t we don’t come up with any surprises and get further costs and make this even more expensive than it needs to be. Um, we are working very hard at really recognizing the rising costs of everything around us. Our budget sessions are filled with robust discussion.
[1:23:00] The county has left us in a terrible position with their proposed levy, and we’re very aware of of the rising costs. And this is just this is another one that when we’re working within the B3 standards, this seems to be a place that maybe these weren’t the best guided dollars. But however, this is what 190 people have asked for.
[1:23:23] So I’m proposing that we follow. We miss Dolly. Um. We we will follow our guidelines with the third option. So my piece. All right. Councilor Natsuko. I, uh, I would support this as well. Um.
[1:23:54] I know it may seem like being something extra and stuff like that, but I echo council member paper in the fact that, you know, we are accountable to the residents. Residents have desire. The EAW, in my opinion, and I’ve been involved in a number of them, small and large sets, a specific guideline of things that you follow and evaluating things like that to address the issues.
[1:24:16] I’m also heartened by the fact that, and I don’t know that we’ve made a decision. I didn’t know that we made a decision that we’re accepting this grant yet. And the B3 requirements, um, because I don’t think we really done that, um, in that regard.
[1:24:40] Um, I know when we passed the motion back in December of 25, we were I think all of us were pretty confident that we probably were not going to get any funding in that regard when it moved forward. So, um, it’s news to me that we’re moving forward. But what I can say about that is, is that. if the EAW follows the same questions, comments, etc.
[1:25:05] that are required under B3, I don’t think it’s wasted work. Um, I don’t we’re going to pay for it anyway if we go through it and we add siege in and we take the grant, um, there’s some pretty stringent requirements here. I think the EAW does the same thing.
[1:25:25] Uh, in that regard. So we’ve got to do it anyway. If we take the grant and if we don’t take the grant, then we’ve still done due diligence according to what our, uh, philosophy and our feelings are and how things should fit in the community. So I don’t think it’s wasted dollars.
[1:25:46] Um, it does some stuff with the timing. Um, but I agree with Councilmember Paper. I firmly believe that the consequences of not doing it are riskier than the consequences of doing it. Councilor. I would echo what these two wise men have said. Um, exactly. This is something that our residents want.
[1:26:13] And I also believe that we should not be taking a risk of not knowing some of the information that will be gathered from this, and we need to find it out if we care about our environment, we should be doing what we ask our residents to do. I do have a question for the maker of the motion. Hello. I’m listening.
[1:26:37] Okay. Um, does your motion include who would be doing the, um, the EAW, or are you leaving that for a separate motion or staff to decide? I, I am not going to alter the motion. I’m going to stay with the one that is written.
[1:26:59] Uh, I would I would assume that we’re going to go out to bid for this like we do all of our other contracting work. Uh, maybe I’m wrong. I don’t I don’t know the process of going out and hiring a contractor for an EAW.
[1:27:16] Is it a do we send out an RFP? How does this work? Um, madam Mayor and Councilor Paper, um, Ryan has worked with our engineering professionals, our engineering consultants. Um, we would probably do ask them to submit a proposal. They’ve generally done that. That’s where the cost estimates have come from. But, um, based on clarification received from council tonight.
[1:27:36] Um, we would shore that up a bit with, with the two folks that we have had a conversation with. Correct. Yeah. So, uh, professional services are not required to be competitively. Competitively bid. So I would just ask the two, uh, consulting firms that I’ve talked to just to submit a formal proposal.
[1:27:58] And then we would ask council to award a contract at the next meeting. Okay. So that that’s through us, not through ICS. Correct? Correct. Okay. Would I see us be able to bid on this if they wanted, or put together a proposal? I am not planning to have this an open proposal.
[1:28:18] So we would just send this to, you know, two reputable firms that I’ve already talked to. Uh, the more if I open it up. I mean, we could get 50 proposals. And then after. Agreeing with you, I’m just simply asking. I usually don’t disagree with you. So. Okay. So good. I just wanted that clarification. There may be some costs through ICS.
[1:28:38] Just, uh, our consultant is likely going to need some documentation, you know, so there may be, you know, some hours that ICS is going to have to do to support the EAW process. Okay.
[1:28:58] So in the meantime, while this is being prepared, it’s my understanding that ICS will stop moving forward on the project. But they may be called in to help answer questions. Correct. Just to provide the, you know, a grading plan where we’re at today, you know, just, you know, provide some square footage of the building is there, you was some discrepancies that were identified earlier.
[1:29:18] Um, so hopefully to help just answer all those questions and make sure the EAW is accurate. And do you know when we should expect the results from the borings? I, I do not have that date. I believe there was a yeah. I think it was like three weeks from the completion or there was a timeline. I heard one week. I’ve heard two weeks, I’ve heard three weeks.
[1:29:36] Calling on the, um, the inner tech has said about 1 to 2 weeks after the completion and the completion of the borings occurred on Friday, the 21st. Right. Okay. We should expect them in the next week. Exactly. So? So that would be available also for the eyes. All right.
[1:29:57] So with that I’m very comfortable continuing my second and support the motion. Okay. Um, when you go last everything’s been said. So I will say nothing else. Um. With that. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We move to the next item on the new and unfinished business, which is item nine. Be Municipal campus building.
[1:30:24] Project update. I will call.. Um, Madam Mayor, we do have Kyle Walter with ICS in the audience. Um, I can give just a brief update because it really is very brief. Um, since our last, uh, city council meeting, um, uh, we haven’t really been able to do much.
[1:30:46] Um, given the filing of the EAW petition, um, because it does pause all work on the project, ICS and PCB architects and the other consultants with the project have not worked on it since that, uh, filing of the petition. Um, and so now going forward, um, they will continue to not be working on it.
[1:31:06] So that’s where we are. Um, we are in the planning and design stage. I know there’s been some questions and some assumptions that we have bid it out for construction. We are just not at that point yet. Um, things are are moving down the decision funnel. And so Councillor Maseko asked about the state bonding grant terms.
[1:31:33] Um, we don’t have our grant agreement yet because we haven’t gotten far enough down in that decision funnel to submit that to the state. Meaning that you haven’t decided if you’re going to do the B3 requirements and thus take the state bonding dollars. So that decision has not been made.
[1:31:51] Um, some of that work has been done, though, in order to analyze, um, the, the cost benefit, if you will, of the B3 requirements. And so that’s why design Tre referenced those in their memo.
[1:32:11] So um, we do have Meredith Lawrence, our Parks and Recreation director, who will provide for you tonight an update on the baseball field realignment plan. Uh, she has been working on, um, securing cost proposals based on the direction that you provided a couple weeks ago. So.
[1:32:35] So before we get into that, um, the question I have is then, I mean, since all work is stopped now, is the work on analyzing the the, uh, whether or not we accept the grant stopped as well as the POC meeting going to occur on the eighth. Um, councilor Moscow. We will cancel that POC meeting that is scheduled for the eighth. Um, the work on the state grant will be halted until the AAUW is done. Okay.
[1:33:03] Are you ready for me? Okay. Sounds good. Good evening. Mayor. Members of the council, thank you for the opportunity. Tonight’s staff is going to provide for you a brief update on the ball field realignment project. We didn’t know exactly where the previous item would go, so I will try and make some amendments to this. Based on that. Is that on? Um, yeah.
[1:33:24] It’s a really good question. Okay. Well. We’ll have some help from some friends. Um. I think this is my next slide. Let’s see. Yep. Okay, so, uh, just an update on the timeline. So, um, we’ve been having discussions with the Two Rivers Athletic Association now since. Since May, staff has been having conversations prior to that.
[1:33:52] And so May 28th, we did meet with the Two Rivers Athletic Association to discuss the potential loss of Martin Satterfield. June 30th, we met with trial again to review ideas and preferences for solutions. July 15th, we met with Traore again to discuss solutions.
[1:34:14] July 21st we had a work session where council provided direction to staff on how they would like us to proceed. July 31st we met again with Traore to discuss the scope of the quotes being obtained to determine if there was anything being missed, and to make sure that staff and the Two Rivers Athletic Association are on the same page.
[1:34:30] August 24th we met to review the quotes with Traore, and I met with Traore again on August 28th to answer questions that they had on the scope. Um, a reminder that July 21st you did provide direction to staff to obtain quotes, to determine firm costs, to relocate the and saddle field.
[1:34:52] Understanding there is no loss and it looks like it got cut off, but no loss of quantity and quality as what that should say since the work session. We got into that information gathering stage. So again, there is I have no direction from you to move forward with this.
[1:35:11] What I am here to do is to provide you with quotes and price estimates, should you want to move forward with this. Um, staff from Parks and Recreation, Park Maintenance and Engineering have reviewed the park sites. And I’m going to need to get some notes. So I remember what this says.
[1:35:28] Um, staff from Parks and Recreation, Park maintenance and Engineering have reviewed the park sites that you provided us to determine what was feasible. And we are in the final stages of obtaining quotes. I have a final meeting tomorrow to get those complete. Um, next slide.
[1:35:50] So the municipal campus building project, ball field realignment plan, we are proposing that would happen is the Merton Saddle field would become, uh, that field would match at Victoria Highlands and then Victoria Highlands Field would become the Ivy Hills fields and the Ivy Hills Field, potentially. Then in order to ensure that that quality and quantity piece that we’ve all been working towards is met, we would build a smaller T type size field here at the municipal campus, uh, site.
[1:36:15] So that’s kind of our realignment plan. Um, to ensure that dimensions and, um, all of the amenities are met. So the scope of the quotes that we are in the process of finalizing, uh, Victoria Highlands, uh, would have infield and outfield irrigation. Again, these would be to match Merton Saddle Field.
[1:36:39] Um, so a water connection is necessary for that. Fencing, backstop, dugouts, outfield, sideline fencing, batting cages, electrical for irrigation and batting cages. Uh, a grass infield warning track and GPS leveling to make sure that the the infield is is, uh, quality. There we would have the electrical connection and then a concrete pads for bleachers and dugout benches.
[1:37:03] So that is the scopes scope of the work that we are in the process of finalizing. And then at Ivy Hills, a reminder this would then match what is at Victoria Highlands currently. Uh, so backstop fencing, dugouts, outfield fence, sideline fencing, uh, a pitching mound, again, a GPS level of the infield and concrete pad for bleachers.
[1:37:27] Um, so staff is again almost complete with quotes. Um, we believe that the project total cost for the ball field realignment will cost between 300 and 400,000 total. So not per park, but the total, uh, portion for Victoria Highlands and Ivy Hills. We’re looking at that 300 to $400,000 amount. Meredith. So that’s 3 to 400,000 just for those two parks. Correct.
[1:37:54] And then the ball field park here. I mean, I won’t hold Kyle to a number, but he threw out a number of 330,000 about a month ago. I have not done any work on what the new field at the municipal campus site would be.
[1:38:12] So I don’t know if you want to defer to Kyle on that, but I don’t have that number tonight because I have not been directed to work on. That.
[1:38:31] And can you have that number for when the planning, when the Parks and Rec discusses it? Unless ICS has information that I am unaware of, I don’t believe in a week I can get, that complete. I don’t think that would be your responsibility. It would. It was something that Kyle mentioned. And when we put the project together and he threw out 330, if that’s the number, um, that’s the best that they have, then that’s the number.
[1:38:48] Um, then we have a total package of what the total package is. Sure. So for community engagement, we know that that’s an important component in the work we do for Parks and Recreation. So notice letters were sent out on August 25th to homes in proximity to both parks.
[1:39:08] We have received comments already and questions that we’ve been engaging with residents on. Uh, we’ve also posted on Facebook and the Friday news to ensure that the word is getting out. And if people have comments that we would love to hear them.
[1:39:25] And we are planning a public comment period or opportunity for residents at the September 8th Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, at which time to any correspondence received by staff will be provided to them, as well. So this is the slide that I didn’t really know where we were going to go to tonight.
[1:39:41] Um, staff was planning to bring final coats to you next meeting. Um, we’ve been working with Tara to try and come up with a way to not have any impacts to them, and the only way to do that was to move forward at the September 15th meeting, to get a majority of that work done this fall.
[1:39:54] Um, I do not believe that will be the case anymore. So, um, I think what we will do and staff will kind of regroup after this. I think my plan will be to still hold the public comment period next week. We’ve noticed that, and I do want to give residents an opportunity to provide comments.
[1:40:11] Should we go down that path. And then I think our bids will probably become invalid and we’ll have to rebid the project when we get to that point. So, um, all good on my end. That’s my update for tonight. If I can answer any questions, I’m happy to, but that concludes my short presentation. Thank you so much. Councillor Maskell.
[1:40:31] Um, why? I mean, based on what we did tonight, how does that impact what we do here? Sure. Madam mayor, members of the council, um, I was planning to bring coats on the 15th. I don’t believe, based on the kind of EAW piece of stopping the work that you would want to see on the 15th.
[1:40:56] Well, to consider, but. This this is a this is separate from I mean, it’s tied to the project in the sense that it’s tied to the project. But, um, I’m not sure if it’s tied to the maybe that’s a question for Amy. If it’s tied to the project enough that we should stop, because depending on what happens.
[1:41:21] This is in that lovely category called squishy. Um, no, madam mayor, members of the council, I think that, uh, if the direction is to stop work on the project because of the EAW, then this work needs to stop to. Correct.
[1:41:48] And as Meredith mentioned, the quotes would probably, uh, become invalid based on the timeline that you’re faced with. Anyway, because of the change, for the time that’s going to take to do the W, so it may not really be worthwhile. Sure. And I. Would be impractical to keep going. Yeah. Thank you, Attorney Schmidt.
[1:42:04] I would also add that my understanding is if we don’t move forward with the municipal campus project having an impact on Merton’s field, that I don’t believe any of these other components to the ball field realignment plan would occur. But that being said, I don’t know from a legal perspective, but if you want to see quotes on the 15th, I can do that. If the attorney is okay with that.
[1:42:23] My other concern is if we publicize the quotes, it’s going to be tougher when we go out to bid to get good quotes, when everyone knows what everyone has bid on the project. Okay, counselor.
[1:42:45] Um, if in the future we decide on doing the project, you just, um, outlined, which I kind of call a domino effect. Sure. Um, where would we. How would we pay for that? Mayor, members of the council. Um, this would be calling on Kristen, I think, phoning a friend. But I think in discussions we’ve had with staff, um, special parks fund could be a discussion.
[1:43:05] Um, I think fund balance could be a discussion. I think we could levy for it, but, Um. Okay, so. I necessarily go into the construction costs because we’re doing it because of that field. I think this is where I’m going to let Kristen take. Over as finance director. And not have the Parks and Rec director provide that financial advice.
[1:43:24] Works for me. Um, I think as far as costs for the fields, um, you probably have to to, you know, is it a cost, a project cost? Do you have a project? Um, you know, you have you can use special parks fund, you can use fund balance. You can levy for it.
[1:43:41] I mean, it’s really up to your your decision to decide how to fund it. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Yeah. Just. Answer.
[1:44:05] I mean, as far as even getting quotes on the 15th, um, in that regard, I mean, do we really have contractors that said, in the next six weeks they could put this all together and do it and get it done? I mean. Yeah. Or are we paying a premium for doing that? No. Mayor, members of the council, um, Tron I met last week and one of their big concerns is timeline. They are concerned about capacity and quality, as we’ve discussed.
[1:44:26] And, uh, this project not getting done in the fall means that if we work in the spring, they will likely be down two fields at that time. And that’s going to be a really tough, uh, impact on their families. I think about 70 families is what they’re estimating.
[1:44:43] So I had gotten bids and after I had gotten the bids, reached out to those contractors and asked, could we make this happen this fall for the components to not have an impact them in the spring? And they said they could make it happen for us if we had approval on the 15th, um, with no increase in price.
[1:44:59] So I did feel somewhat confident. Obviously, we would need to work through the pieces of having contractors working together and making sure timelines, um, matched. But I did feel fairly confident that we could we could make it happen. Um, I don’t know.
[1:45:18] You know, what that will look like, depending on if this project moved forward and when that timeline would be. It, it seems like it’s probably just with the EAW process and a 30 day window to for public comment. And that’s after the work has been done to get started. That the earliest this could get going is in the spring.
[1:45:39] Mayor, members of the council without approval on the 15th. There is no way this will will happen this fall. Okay, any further questions? Uh, counselor paper. Thank you. I have one comment. Um, talking to two contractors that are out in the field.
[1:46:02] The dry weather this summer has been very favorable to them, and they are plowing through work. And there is availability this fall, but is now a moot point. So yep. Thank you very much. Thank you. Um, I would say this is called unintended consequences. Um, with that, we are now moving to the public comment portion of the municipal campus building project.
[1:46:30] If anybody here wishes to speak to the municipal campus building, they are welcome to do so. At this time, we don’t have any, um, as you have all noticed, all the work has stopped. We don’t have any, um, anything to decide. But certainly the public is welcome to to comment on the municipal campus building.
[1:46:48] And if you wish to do so, now would be, um, is your opportunity. Anybody wishes to speak. Okay. Looks like. Oh, okay. Um, my name is Liz. Petrel. 645 Quail Ridge Circle. Um, madam mayor, Council members, uh, thank you for providing an opportunity for me to speak with you tonight.
[1:47:24] And I, I am coming simply to speak my truth. Uh, and my observations, um, and they are these, I think, as you are all well aware, I involve myself in this project very early on. In fact, I was at one of your first workshops where I spoke rather passionately about what I thought about the project.
[1:47:50] The project, and, uh, particularly about any attempt, um, to save this building. Uh, after my long experiences on the city council with moisture invasion and potential employee health risks. Um, uh. You have received a tremendous amount of documentation, facts and figures.
[1:48:33] Um, you, the staff has worked tirelessly to provide you with the information that you need to make decisions on this project. Uh, and in December, you all appeared to come on board.
[1:49:00] Uh, after a tremendous amount of this work and also including focus groups that you held up here with residents, um, to go forward with this project, uh, you even cared enough about this project. Um, to have staff work tirelessly to put together presentations for the state to host state legislators here, uh, to get some extra funding for the project. And in my experience, this city has never received a dollar from the state. In fact, it’s been quite the reverse.
[1:49:24] And we’ve always lamented that fact. You know, that we’re a small city and and we have needs and our needs go largely unrecognized by the legislature. And, and at some point, you are going to have to make a decision.
[1:49:51] And my observation, in my experience, uh, serving in municipalities, serving in nonprofits, is that more harm is done by delay and lack of decision making than by actually making a decision that is not popular, that more harm can be done. And I would like you to think about that.
[1:50:13] Um, as regards taxes, you know, I mean, we’ve also had a, you know, we’ve had a, you know, on Facebook and social media as regards this project. We’ve had some kind of firsts in the city. We’ve had people who aren’t in the city, uh, commenting on our project. We’ve had fictitious people commenting on our project. Um, and I find that very disturbing.
[1:50:37] Uh, and I would certainly hope that that no resident in the city or this group is swayed by any of that activity on Facebook. In fact, if you watch it lately, there’s been some rather serious pushback from some residents about some of the the claims false information.
[1:51:02] Uh, and hysteria that this project seems to have generated on the part of some individuals. You’ve also taken a tremendous amount of citizen feedback. And as a result of the citizen feedback, you’ve actually changed your project.
[1:51:28] I mean, I’ve always maintained that I can never remember a project that has come into the city that that came in the, uh, that went out the same way it came in. I mean, I always remember receiving citizen feedback. I always remember the city adjusting a plan when it’s able to accommodate residents so that in some way it’s a win win for everyone.
[1:51:51] And I’m rather proud that that’s our procedure. Um, people talk about rising taxes and there’s, you know, there’s just a fact. I’d like to point out that the city fathers who decided how the city was going to develop, uh, made the decision that this was largely going to be a residential community.
[1:52:19] We have very little business and industrial and the little that we have, the taxes that we take in from there. And someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we lose about 40% of that goes back to the state, uh, because of economic disparities, which is, um, some people claim it’s it’s why the state runs as well as it does, that they can take money from
[1:52:42] people like us, give it to communities who have less money and resources. But people like ourselves. I know Saint Louis Park struggles with the same thing. We all have aging infrastructure, no different than any other city.
[1:53:07] And and when you have largely a residential city, everything that the accumulation of all those costs is done on the back of the residents. And we lived in Shangri-La for a while. The bulk of the development in the city happened in the latter part of the 80s and the early 90s, and in what that brought about was all brand new infrastructure. While the infrastructure is old now.
[1:53:32] And so for many years we got by with limited increases in taxes because we didn’t have aging infrastructure to pay for. But we do now, and that’s going to reflect itself and the taxes, as is the fact that we have to pay a competitive wage. And that has to reflect itself in the taxes.
[1:53:57] And but I’m I am still here to say we built our home here in 1987. I came from Highland Park in my taxes on my home are still less than I was paying on my house in Highland Park in 1987. Um, so although taxes may continue to to increase and, and residents may find that hard to accept uh, compared to other cities, I think that’s still a bargain.
[1:54:30] Um, I, I want you to know that there is a tremendous amount of support in the community for this project, and, uh, whatever form you decide to make a take, my only request is that this building is not saved.
[1:55:03] Uh, and I’ve been pretty clear on my reasons why, but, um, my concern is that this can has been kicked down the road for so long, and as it’s been kicked down the road, it is becoming more and more and more and more costly. And when is that going to stop? Uh, and I think you really need to take a serious look at yourself and how you’re operating and how you’re making decisions.
[1:55:28] Uh, and, uh, and hope we are not finding ourselves four years from now that we haven’t done this, because we’re still delaying and and that. Okay, now we really have to do something and we do a poor project. And that’s my concern.
[1:55:54] That’s my nightmare about how this group is functioning right now. And I just find that very disquieting. I mean, I told you early on I just didn’t want this building reused. I didn’t care how you made the final project look, but, please, you know, I and this eaw, I this is my other concern.
[1:56:14] You’re going to get the EAW back and then you’re going to have a group who’s going to say they’re not satisfied and that you need an ice. And then what are you going to do. I mean I you can almost write the script for that right now. Uh, I’m also very concerned about your staff.
[1:56:36] Uh, and the circumstances under which they’ve been functioning. And I hope you are treating them respectfully. I hope you are appreciating the work that they’re doing and letting them know that, and that you support them. Um, I mean, I just think that’s tremendously important. I mean, I’ve never shied from, uh, citizen input.
[1:57:05] I mean, and you haven’t you’ve adjusted your project because of their input. That’s all a good thing. But at some point you need to act. And I am begging you to set up a timeline about how you’re going to act, when you’re going to act.
[1:57:32] Um, and, and so the, the needs of City Hall and the police department finally get addressed. Uh, I had another former council member call me this evening and says he really doesn’t think you understand how expensive it is to build anything nowadays. Uh, his example was, uh, the recent, uh, swimming pool at Saint Thomas Academy.
[1:58:03] Just the swimming pool was $12 million, and it’s not as nice as the one that the school district built. Uh, and so that will just give you a little bit of an idea of what the expense of construction is nowadays and how much of a shock the final cost of this project might be. But this is what it costs to build something nowadays.
[1:58:25] And had this been addressed sooner, had this can been not kicked down the road, we wouldn’t be paying $30 million. And so, please, you know, let’s not put ourselves in a situation where we’re paying $40 million, uh, you know, because we just can’t do that.
[1:58:51] So anyway, I, I been sitting at home simmering, uh, and I thank you very much for letting me vent, uh, that I just felt at some point, I just had to come and speak. So thank you very much. Thank you, thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? To me? Yeah. Hi, Janine. Joseph, 1915 Walsh Lane. I’m just going to share with folks.
[1:59:16] Um, I’ve been coming to these meetings. In all honesty, I could not come at the end of last year. Corporate America does not allow me to have any free time at the end of the year. Um, as many of you know, I’ve worked at some of the largest companies here. Uh, target 3 a.m.
[1:59:35] , land O’Lakes, General Mills and I design data. It is very much the same as designing any building. We have to architect it. We have to model it. We have to design it. It’s all based on requirements.
[1:59:56] I have to go in front of CEOs and boards of directors to get many more tens of millions of dollars than what this is costing. I have to talk to people who are the users. So the residents, it’s all very much the same. And so I just want to share that. I feel like what this is really missing is really solid communication. I’m not opposed to a new building.
[2:00:16] If you can prove to me that that is really, truly needed, what are the requirements? What did you do documented also that people can have that put it in a one page document.
[2:00:33] If I were to go to any of those employers, I just said and gave them what I’m hearing from this, it would never be approved. You have to go into the weeds. You have to do things that you think are stupid, because that’s what it will make people comfortable. So we’re arguing about a 20 to $40 million EAW, but we’re going to spend $400,000 on baseball fields. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
[2:00:52] Right? So I just would like to really recommend that you guys improve your communications to the people. That’s why people keep coming up here. That’s why people are unhappy. They’re not hearing the details that you seem to all know. Right? So that is just a recommendation. Observations.
[2:01:11] From what I’ve been seeing, people are very unhappy. There are some people who are supporting this. There are a lot of people who are really, really unhappy about this, and they’re not unhappy about the idea that we may need a new building. I think they’re really very unhappy about how it’s been handled and how it’s been communicated. So that’s just an observation for you.
[2:01:29] This is exactly what I do for a living. It’s no different than what I do. And I think you have to just take a step back and say, what are they looking for? I don’t see it when I go look for information. Quite frankly, I don’t find it. So if it’s out there, please point us to it.
[2:01:48] Or like I said, one page. Lay it all out there. Here are the requirements. Here’s what we’ve done. Here’s why you’re going to love it. Um, make it simple for people to understand. I just don’t think we have that right now. Thank you.
[2:02:08] Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Hi, I’m Amy Boley, 975 Karen Road. Um. I’ve lived in Mendota Heights since 1966. Pretty much. consistently. And, um. It’s in my blood. It’s very much a part of of who I am in my DNA. And I. To me. Um, when I. First learned. About. This project. it came.
[2:02:37] in a news, uh, pamphlet, a newsletter, and the. way it was. Described. And I believe. The vote had already. Happened, but the way it was described was the new bill, the cost of the new building was such, and the cost of a renovation of renovating this building to get it to a healthy place, a place that would be functional.
[2:02:59] I’m not I don’t want, you know, maybe hopefully. It’s obvious this to be a sick building at all. But the the information I was provided said that there was a way to improve this building so that it would be healthy and that it would be functional and up to date.
[2:03:14] And that cost was, I don’t know, something like half, half the price or even less than half. And that’s when I mean, I was really puzzled as to how that made sense, that we were going to spend twice as much money for a brand new building when we could update this building in such a way that it would be sufficient for our police
[2:03:35] department, for the health of the staff, have the room that was needed to to be sufficient for for the the city at the size that we are, which we haven’t grown. To me, I just don’t understand.
[2:03:57] In a city that has maintained the same basic population, why we are building it sounds to me like a campus For something much bigger than than what we are and bigger than what we need. To me, I don’t look at the cost of what the value will be of the City hall for Mendota Heights in however many years the value is the space that it provides when we need it.
[2:04:16] It’s not going to be something that is for a higher price, like a home. So to me, it just doesn’t make fiscal sense to be building something new. And when there is that much more reasonable proposition of maintaining what we have and expanding on what we are expanding and what we have and improving it.
[2:04:40] And the last meeting that I was at, which was two meetings ago, it was mentioned that it was being relooking at as an option to actually improve upon this building instead of building new. And since then, I haven’t heard anything more on that.
[2:05:00] It doesn’t I and if there has been more information released on that, then, you know, I would certainly love to to find out what that what that is. Because I thought that was a really interesting proposal that you were you were going down that road again.
[2:05:19] Um, and so I would love to, to know if that still is a possibility to be looking at that, because to me, that just seems like a reasonable possibility. And I would like our city Council to, to consider that. So thank you very much. Jerome Mulvihill. 1154 Orchard Place. I will be brief. There’s a lot of discussion about cost. I’m a consulting engineer. I’ve done it for 40 years.
[2:05:58] Cost can be controlled by bringing in multiple 2 or 3, four consulting firms. They will give you your they will give you schematic designs. They will give you costs. They will give you fees. And they compete against each other. And then we don’t have exorbitant costs like we’re seeing. I’m not against a new building. I’m not. But I would think this building can be renovated.
[2:06:22] There’s many. I’m a structural engineer by trade. There’s always something you can do. I have built bridges for years. We never go in and say, let’s take the bridge down so we can widen it. We always look at what is good and what is bad, and we work from there. That’s all I want to say. Thank you.
[2:06:52] Hi, I’m Sharon. Benjamin Oxford. I was not planning on speaking, but I wanted to say I. I somewhat agree in terms of the communication piece. I know you all have been working really hard.
[2:07:15] I started digging into the numbers, um, a few weeks ago, and there’s a lot of numbers out there, and there’s a lot of ambiguity. I think, in the general population of understanding what those things are. I’ve heard, you know, just this afternoon, the word palatial used, um, I was given by chief the Mendota Heights space program, which was the space analysis that was done for city council and police.
[2:07:39] And I was able to dig into it this this afternoon. And I think this is the kind of detail that would educate, um, or give information to people to understand that we’re not looking for fancy schmancy things.
[2:08:01] When you’ve got two people sharing a cubicle or somebody using a closet or that kind of thing. So I think that, um, there is, uh, additional detail that you all could provide. I personally am, um, digging into it and trying to look at it based on facts, not comments or opinions, but on facts. And once I have that, I will share it out with whomever might be interested.
[2:08:23] Um, my preliminary analysis is really trying to compare apples to apples. Unfortunately, numbers change. Um, and the only thing I have to go on, um, where it presented different scenarios was the November um, the November dec that explained what it would cost if we built new, if we remodel, if we
[2:08:46] remodel in something else. I think at the end of the day, um, the decision is not do we do something? But the decision is, um, what is the delta between if we remodel or we do something new? So when we talk about that, it’s going to cost
[2:09:06] taxpayers X amount of money is going to cost them an amount of money regardless with those options. But it’s really the delta. And so as I dig into the numbers, hopefully I can get some answers that I’ve sent to, um, folks at the city, uh, with square footage and whatnot.
[2:09:29] But I’m really hoping that at the end of the day, I have some clear data that will help tell the story, and it will become more obvious what the right path forward would be. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? A mayor council? My name is Jack Vitale. Uh, 1334 Silverdale Road and Ivy falls. I two points on communication.
[2:10:03] The other one is on the the quality of the team that’s developing this plan. First of all, on communication, I congratulate the city on the excellent communication that has been done on this project. There’s been negative comments. However, I remember, um, about Halloween last year.
[2:10:28] I became aware of the project. I think it was the 28th that you had, um, information. The project was beginning. Then in January, early January, I read and I simply read the Friday news and I read The Heights highlights.
[2:10:50] I don’t I don’t read the Facebook, but I learned in early January that you’re going to you were looking for three citizens to give citizen input to the project. And I volunteered and evidence that your communication is excellent. There were 19 people that volunteered for three positions to work with this team.
[2:11:17] I was pleased that I was selected, and since that time I’ve probably gone to about 20 meetings with the team, with the architect, with the engineer, with the contractor, and so that’s my first point is communication. I think it’s been very good.
[2:11:39] And if people want to know what the project is and what it contains, they just have to come to the meetings and listen, which I’ve been doing for since January, February the 2nd. The second point is the quality of the team that’s doing this work. We have, in my opinion, an outstanding city administrator. We’ve got a very, very outstanding police chief. The two of them are working on this.
[2:12:02] They’re at almost every meeting. And then we have what, in my opinion, an outstanding contractor, architect and engineer and I speak. I could say give some confidence to what I’m saying because as vice President Honeywell, I probably was in charge of over 20,000 projects for installing, heating, ventilating, air conditioning and security in commercial buildings from
[2:12:34] Munich Airport to 55 Water Street to the Target Center. And, um, so I’ve been observing the staff and I think from my point of view, this project is on the right track.
[2:12:58] We have an outstanding staff that’s developing this, and there are, as I sit through meetings, there are so many people asking questions. But this the staff is considered the remodeling of this building. They’ve considered location. They’re considering issues with the ballpark. There’s they’re considering all kinds of things that are coming up as questions. They’ve gone through many of these.
[2:13:22] And if the soil borings, for example, turn out that there’s a problem, they will deal with that we may not be able to build there, but that they will decide that this team. So I think the project is moving along well, and I would recommend not a delay in this project to consider 5 or 10 other possibilities.
[2:13:46] I guarantee you, with my experience at Honeywell, if you delay this project, number one, you’re expressing a question, in my opinion, on the quality of your staff and the team that is working on this project. And number two, the cost will definitely go up if you delay this project, keep it on track, keep it on track. Thank you.
[2:14:24] Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? My name is John nine 2094 Patricia Street and Mayor Council. Just a couple, uh, very brief comments because I think the 3 to 4 minute limit is stretched out a little bit this evening. But that’s all right. I’m going to keep it very brief.
[2:14:48] Uh, personally, I’m, uh, one of the founding members of the new organized Mendota Heights Citizens for Responsible City Planning. It’s a group of around 15, 20, 25 individuals that are basically, I would say, the same platform that you’ve heard from me and you’ve heard from from many other people. Fiscal responsibility rehabbed this building. Add on for the police, save the field.
[2:15:21] I mean, to us, that’s that’s our platform. But we’ve taken to another another stratosphere, responsible city planning. Well, let me tell you this. It’s not going to it’s not going to end at the municipal campus project. There’s lots of lots of different projects coming down the road. You know, whether it’s levies, whether it’s taxes, it will not stop.
[2:15:48] But if we can get a group, a group together that has input that we can all listen to and be a part of, I think that’s very I think that’s very exciting.
[2:16:08] Uh, when I talk about many things coming down at the, At, we’ve, we’ve said this many times this evening, at the end of the day, you know, when this building gets done and when this, when the weather is new or rehab gets in full swing. So whether it’s five years now, ten years 20, the new building potentially could be 20, 30, or 40 years standing. The new building potentially 50.
[2:16:30] I’m not going to be here and I’d probably have to believe that maybe 85% of the people are not going to be here. We’re building. We’re building whatever we build for the future for our children, for our grandchildren. To me, that’s the most important. For me, family comes first. Everything else is nonsense.
[2:16:51] Family comes first. I want the best. I want the best for my family, my children and my grandchildren. So I I’m wondering, I’m wondering when we discussed as a group. The KW. Okay. We we discussed this, that this is environmental impact.
[2:17:19] Potentially we feel as a group that why are we waiting to the last minute really to throw out this, uh, whole process of the EAW. To me, this should have been discussed and thought about and maybe it had, but the details were missing because we would not have been here today.
[2:17:42] And the motion that you took, if the information was presented by the consulting company or the council, this would not be an issue. And so I’m glad we’re you past the motion. You brought it up, you passed the motion. Okay. To do the AAUW because this decision has not made so much for us. The long term effect, it’s for our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.
[2:18:08] So please remember that and thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Mayor, Council members Scott Van, 1870, Hunter Lane I will also try to be quite brief.
[2:18:47] Um, first I want to start by following up, um, with the very end of the last council meeting, Stephanie used the word experts at least three times, I think, and saying, we have to listen to the experts and we have to go with their recommendations. Um, but remember, these experts are also salesmen. They will make more money by building a more expensive project. Um, there’s other experts around.
[2:19:12] Two, you know, you’ve heard from other engineers different opinions, and you’ve also heard, um, from people in similar businesses, but this is, um, some research, some hard work done by a person concerned resident. And I want to just give some of the highlights from the paperwork. I believe you’re all sent. Um, yesterday. So you have it. If you haven’t read it, I please ask that you do.
[2:19:41] As a concerned resident and retired licensed architect and professional engineer with over 47 years of experience, including large projects, both new construction and renovations, repurposing of space and facility use, Ada upgrades, structural assessment, repair, strengthening of structures, and combining and obligations with projects. That’s the background of this individual.
[2:20:05] And to be brief, I’m just going to highlight some of the things I found interesting. He mentions. Um, well, let me add, we all know architects like to build new things different, try to impress themselves and maybe others. Um, maybe get a recognition for something.
[2:20:32] So, um, having said that, um, here we go. Even the proposed building aesthetics reflect Ike’s opulence. Image for City Hall and police station, not the image the Mendota Heights community’s request, and a vision for the city hall and police station, one that captures the residential scale of the site and the community pride in the site’s natural natural prairie grasses and
[2:20:54] flowers, which coalesce into the adjacent swampland and ecosystem. Another comment that the type of design does not complement the project site north of highway 62, it is as distracting as a pimple on a person’s nose. You gotta laugh at that one.
[2:21:19] The residents have consistently requested a residential scale facility, complementary characteristic of the site. Architecture has a fiduciary responsibility to the client to comprehend and deliver the project needs, interests, goals, and functional, operational and maintenance costs within the project’s financial constraints. This person did a couple of months worth of research into all of the paperwork that he could find online, and and everything that Ike’s has produced.
[2:21:49] So he just didn’t make this up. He analyzed all their square footage, found some errors, and has quite a few other opinions, which is another reason I invite you to read those pages that he sent to you. He expects architecture also to cut corners with repetitive use of standard details to save costs.
[2:22:12] It’s okay to copy other buildings and other things. The lobby renderings of the new facility are impressive. This is a small city hall and police station. Who are we trying to impress? The image could be a hospital or airport.
[2:22:32] What is the cost benefit? Do we need a tuxedo or will a suit or sport jacket provide the same function? The added height of the new proposed building creates snow drifts that increases snow load on the lower roofs. The added volume of space increases heating, cooling, ventilation and operation and maintenance costs. To reach that height requires a maintenance lift or scaffolding to reach for service and cleaning.
[2:22:55] A maintenance lift requires entry doors that can accommodate access in and out. The floor structure needs to accommodate the concentrated loads. He found some errors not knowing all the architectural legalese and verbiage. I’m not going to go into that, but his conclusion was to understand the error.
[2:23:22] I have attached the ICS September 3rd, 2025 report where I have attempted to highlight the errors contributing to the total error area error. He cannot comprehend presenting a document with such simple calculation errors. Granted, some of the specifics may have changed since that time, but it the ICS proposed building solution destroys the existing community site amenities and includes an enormous construction budget.
[2:23:53] Does this represent the city website, which probably highlights the environmental conscious of our community? We’ve heard a lot of that tonight about the environment. There’s a couple of minor things to say about the design. I understand the police need for defensive tactics and fitness training.
[2:24:22] Can the police fitness, defensive tactics and fitness training be combined into one space and achieve efficiencies? As for city staff, I was on an employee benefit committee for 17 years. Fitness was a priority. The feasible solution was to provide it within the employee health plans. The employee simply signed up at a fitness center of their choice. Almost done. Again, these are his conclusions.
[2:24:50] After lots of research, the ICS documents continue to confuse the issue, intimidate the community, deflect from the facts, and coerce the community to over build and spend the on their needs. The building aesthetics represent themselves, not the community. Request. They have convinced the City Council to over build. Get it now.
[2:25:14] Our costs will only go up and we keep hearing that. But honestly, in 3 or 4 months do we think there’ll be that big of an escalation in prices, even 5 or 6 months? Maybe. But then again, maybe not.
[2:25:36] Finally, his recommendation is I advocate the city Council immediately hit the emergency stop button on ICS, stop the project work, stop wasting money. Also, his comments I see us as a developer. It may be Midwest based, however, it is a portfolio of Blackstone, the largest alternative asset manager. Their income is derived from fees. The larger the project, the larger the fees and profit they outsource.
[2:26:02] The real project design and construction work I see us is failing the Mendota height community. Our state, as many qualified design architectural firms with city hall and police station design experience. They do not need a project management firm to deliver the city’s necessary project needs. Cut out the middleman, assemble a request for proposal, provide the firm the other firms access to all documents, including CAD.
[2:26:27] And that was the end of his remarks. And I just wanted to share those. So they are in their records on TV and just show that there are other experts out there that come up with some different solutions.
[2:26:44] Now, we may not agree with everything they’ve stated on either side, but I just want to emphasize there’s experts on both sides of most issues. Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Anybody else? Okay. Um, then we move on to, uh, community, uh, city administrator announcement. Oh. Can I just one question. Yeah. Um, in the report, um. I think. Uh.
[2:27:14] City Administrator Jacobson put in a phases of construction. And where we’re at. Um. Um, my question is, where does the financing or deciding on the financing fit on this continuum? I would say, um, it would have come at more.
[2:27:39] So the end of design development, again, think of it as your decision funnel. As you get clear clear on what you’re proposing, what the project is, what the building will be, your numbers become clear, which means your financing number becomes clear. So towards the end of design development, we would have had elders come in and and describe the financing piece of it.
[2:27:59] And you would do that exercise of working through that. So the financing will occur before the construction documents or after. To be determined. That will be a decision that you folks would need to make. We would provide you with the information and the analysis from our financial advisors.
[2:28:18] As you’re going down that decision funnel, as your building is becoming clear and as your number is becoming clearer, but that would ultimately be a decision that US Council makes, okay. And at that point we have three, three choices as to how we finance it. Yes. And then that.
[2:28:38] For pre-approval on the bonding, we could authorize it and subject to a reverse referendum. Or we could move down a path of the lease revenue or some other funding source. The first two of which have community involvement or opportunity. I guess the third one does not have.
[2:29:04] Correct? Yes, yes, I believe that’s a general summary of, um, between City Attorney Schmidt’s, um, information that she’s provided and what Elas has provided, that that is generally a summary of your financing opportunities. Okay. Because the third one does not interest me.
[2:29:27] Um, in that regard, and I, I mean, I would commit to that that, um, that I’m not interested in financing or doing any type of financing mechanism that goes around residents having a say. And I think that it’s incumbent upon us as a council together to work towards getting agreement and conciliation around a project. Um, in the process. So that’s my commitment. That’s where I want to go with this whole thing.
[2:29:50] And I think it’s a process that people are concerned about. Um, cost may be an issue, but I think it’s more about process and input and a feeling that they’ve had a say and had a willingness. They’ve had the information and can do that.
[2:30:10] And I don’t think that this process that we’ve done has been very good about bringing that in. We’ve done a very good job communicating out what our decisions have been made. Um, but we have not done a very good job bringing them in to be part of our decision making process.
[2:30:29] So, um, I just wanted to make sure that when we’re looking at financing, we are going to be accountable to the residents.. Any further comments? Council paper. Or project is stopped. It’s just stopped. And now we want to talk about financing. No, I just wanted. To know the project is stopped. It’s just it’s stopped. Perfect. That’s all. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Comments by council. Okay, I’ll move on to announcements.
[2:30:54] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a couple announcements tonight. Tomorrow evening. So Wednesday, September 2nd from 6 to 7:30 p.m. at Market Square Park. We do have our final, uh, summer concert.
[2:31:14] Um, it will close out the season with Liliana Randall with Lilly Horizon, which is a pop rock and country music group from Mendota Heights here. So that’s tomorrow night, uh, 6 to 730 at Market Square Park. Uh, City Hall will be closed on Monday, September 7th in observance of Labor Day. And then on Friday, September 11th, we do have our go golf event coming up at the par three community golf course.
[2:31:34] However, it’s a really popular event. So this is full, but a waiting list has been open. So folks, if you want to join the waiting list that is available on the city’s website, um, and that’s all I have. Great. With that, we’re going to move to council comments. I’ll start with Councillor Barbara Baum.
[2:31:50] Hi. I’m just going to make it really short tonight. Um, I want to welcome Happy Joe’s to Mendota Heights for those people who weren’t there yesterday. And there were a lot of people who showed up there yesterday.
[2:32:09] Uh, this is a national pizza restaurant, and people are coming from a long distance outside of Mendota Heights just to see it. So if you haven’t tried it, try it. But when you do, you may want to call ahead and find out what the wait is, because getting pizzas were over an hour yesterday. Yeah, but it’s interesting and we need to support our businesses in Mendota Heights. Okay. Councillor Metzger.
[2:32:31] I would just echo that and it’s good to see that. And I’ve participated at Brixworth. If you haven’t been there, that’s a nice place to be as well. And another nice amenity in the Mendota Plaza that we have. So good place to congregate. And, uh, you know, maybe turn into our own cheers, so to speak.
[2:32:54] So get your own. You get your own chair. So, uh, then we’re, uh, school will be, uh, opening here in the next week. Um, there’ll be kids and buses and things like that. Make sure that, uh, we’re cognizant of the fact that it’s time to be safe.
[2:33:16] People are out there, and, uh, well, summer isn’t over. The beautiful time of fall is coming up where people still like to get out and walk around and enjoy the fall before we freeze. So, um, good luck to all the kids going back to school. Counselor Pepper. Thank you. I want to thank everybody for coming in tonight.
[2:33:37] Great to see, uh, friends and family coming in and participating and reaching out. Uh, I want to wish everybody a happy New Year upcoming that celebrates. Thank you. Um, I just want to say thanks for everybody who came here, for all of the people who who showed up and who who who spoke their truth.
[2:33:58] I, we appreciate hearing from our public and we there was a lot to be said, and I think there’s a lot of follow up that we we can be doing as well to make the process more understandable for the community. So I do appreciate that feedback, especially, uh, with that, I also want to say welcome to the first day of meteorological fall.
[2:34:14] It is now fall. It doesn’t feel like it, but it is. Uh, those kiddos are going to be starting back to school. So please just be careful when you, especially those the we’ve got a lot of people running sports, all those kinds of things. Be careful. Especially especially on the roads.
[2:34:28] And I will tell you, I was at the uh, I was the opening of Happy Joe’s and I ate the ice cream, and there was no, there wasn’t a there wasn’t a very long wait. It’s $0.99 for a scoop of ice cream.
[2:34:42] We asked if they were charging us the wrong amount because we thought maybe it was. They were charging us too little, but they said no. A scoop of ice cream is $0.99. And it’s Bridgman. And it’s Bridgman. It was so good. So I highly recommend, um, to, to to you can order a pizza and while you’re waiting for your pizza, get some of that ice cream.
[2:34:59] Uh, with that, I’m looking for a motion to. Adjourn. So made uh, second. I’ll second. Council paper, a second by council. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye, aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Good night. Thanks for joining