[00:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat] So I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda as prepared. [00:15] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So moved. [00:16] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Second. [00:18] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. [00:22] **Council Members:** I. [00:24] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I. Is approved. Do we have anybody with public comments or inquiries this evening? None. Okay. On the [clears throat] consent agenda this evening, we have approved payments and dispersements. Approved pay request one for the 2025 Seal Coat Project. Approve East Village 7th edition security reduction. Approve disposal of excess or retired assets. Approve sewer manhole lining. Adopt ordinance updating park hours for pickle ball. Approve November 4th, 2025 city council meeting reschedule. Approve airfare for conference for city administrator. Approve city council letter of support for Lake Elmo Association 3M priority 2 grant. and approve knightsbridge street name correction. I'll entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda. [01:10] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Move to approve the consent agenda. [01:12] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Second. [01:14] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Have a motion and a second for approval of the consent agenda. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. [01:18] **Council Members:** I. [01:20] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. Consent agenda is approved. Moving into our regular agenda, we have Inwood Town Homes first edition final plat and easement vacation along with the public hearing. Miss Jensen will be presenting. [01:32] **Morgan Jensen (City Planner):** All right. Thank you, Mayor. [clears throat] Okay, so tonight we are reviewing Inwood Town Homes first edition. As a reminder, the Inwood preliminary platinum PUD was approved in 2014. This included an EAW which included a number of mixed housing type units. [clears throat] The first through fifth edition which were the single family detached units were developed between 2015 and 2017 and Inwood sixth edition which is that quick trip was approved in 2020. The image on the right hand side here is the concept plan. Moving into the specific request, the applicant is M&I Homes of Minneapolis and St. Paul. [clears throat] The property is zoned high-density residential with that Inwood PUD. It is guided in the city's comp plan as high density residential. The first addition is to include 54 attached units which is a density of 11.7 units per acre [clears throat] which is within that allowable HDR density range. Um as a reminder the prelim plat was approved with 271 units. There's three requests before you that final plat, final PUD and easement vacation and then history on the Inwood town homes. City council will approve prelim plat in June of this year and Met Council approved that comp plan amendment also in June of this year. So, here is the final plat. This will include a handful of outlots for future development. It'll include outlot A, which is that private street running throughout the development and then 54 attached units. Looking at the easement vacation request. So, there is an existing easement for drainage and utility purposes that runs over a portion of the property. The applicant is proposing to vacate this easement and rededicate necessary easements within the final plat. Staff finds this request consistent with preliminary plat approvals and it cleans up the title work for the applicant. And then that image on the slide, the hatched area is that existing easement. In reviewing the final plat and final PUD request, staff finds that the PUD minimum requirements have been met and the following three PUD objectives have also been met. The first is appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The second is housing of all types and opportunities for life cycle housing and the third is for coordination of architectural styles and building form for compatibility within and [clears throat] surrounding the development. The application was sent out for agency review. The watershed indicated that a permit has been obtained for this project. The fire department provided their memo—standard comments related to drive lanes, addressing, accessing, street naming. Landscape architect provided a memo that the tree preservation and landscape plans do meet the standards with the PD flexibilities that have already been approved. The city attorney provided a plat opinion with revisions. The city engineer also provided a memo requesting revisions. And then this is not a formal memo in the staff report, but I did receive a handful of calls from residents checking in on this project asking for that crossing over Fifth Street for these residents to access Ivywood Park. With our new crosswalk policy, there is a possibility for a crossing. The design is in review and that would be brought to city council at a later date. And then just as a reminder, there are a handful of flexibilities that city council approved via ordinance 2025-12 related to lot size, setbacks, impervious surface, public street frontage, and spacing. In summary, staff is recommending seven findings of fact related to consistency with the 2040 comp plan, the zoning district, subdivision regulations, preliminary platting, and design standards. and staff is recommending 11 conditions of approval. Most of these are standard such as satisfying those agency review memos, entering into the necessary agreements, paying the necessary fees and obtaining the necessary building or signage permits. And then there is a standard condition for the easement vacation that if approved, a notice of vacation proceedings is submitted to the county for recording. As part of the easement vacation process, a public hearing is to be held tonight. This was published in the local paper on September 26th and mailed to property owners on September 22nd and staff has not received any formal public comment at this time. With that, I have two motions for you. I can stand for questions. [05:43] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We do have the applicant here. You have any questions for them? Is it going to be an issue for the crosswalk to start to develop it prior to some of the data being known since obviously there's no people living to the right there on the south to impact the counts. [05:58] **Morgan Jensen:** Um when I talked to public works they indicated that it meets right now. [06:02] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So I anticipate it would meet even more with the new development. [06:04] **Morgan Jensen:** Even more. Thank you. [06:06] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Any other questions? [clears throat] Um, guess I could entertain a motion to go into the public hearing. [clears throat] [06:14] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** So moved. [06:15] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Second. [06:17] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. We do have a motion and a second to go in the public hearing for resolution 2025-066. So all those in favor, please signify by saying I. [06:24] **Council Members:** I. [06:26] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I. We'll go into the public hearing at 7:08. Anybody wish to speak on the— [Silence] Motion to close public hearing? [06:36] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Motion to close public hearing. [06:38] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Second. [clears throat] [06:40] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All those in favor of closing the public hearing I. [06:42] **Council Members:** I. [06:44] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Public hearing's closed. All right, I'll [snorts] I'll entertain a motion for the resolution. [06:49] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Move to adopt resolution 2025-066 approving the easement vacation request by M&I Homes for the subject property with the findings and conditions therein. [06:58] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Support. [06:59] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion and a second discussion. [clears throat] Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. [07:07] **Council Members:** I. [07:08] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Resolution 2025-066 is hereby approved. If we could keep cell phones on a vibrate mode or a silent mode, that'd be appreciated. [07:18] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Move to adopt resolution 2025-067 approving the final plat and final PUD for the Inwood Town Home Development requested by M&I Homes with the findings and conditions therein. [07:29] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Support. [07:31] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion and a second approving the final plat and final PUD for the Inwood town home development. Discussion. [07:38] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** I know I brought it up at the preliminary plat. I do have some concerns for the density that I brought up at that time. But from the preliminary to the final, everything appears to be the same. So that's why I'll be voting in favor. [07:51] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. Anyone else? I'll call the question. All those in favor of resolution 2025-067, please signify by saying I. [07:58] **Council Members:** I. [08:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Resolution 2025-067 is approved. Next item on the agenda is Friends of Sunfish Lake Park recommendation letter. Assistant Public Works Director Swanepoel. [08:12] **Adam Swanepoel (Assistant Public Works Director):** Thank you, Mayor and Council. As part of the 3M settlement, $20 million was set aside for priority two. This priority two is for projects that restore or enhance the aquatic resources, wildlife habitat, fishing, outdoor recreational opportunities in the areas in Washington, Ramsey, Dakota counties, and downstream of the Mississippi that were affected by PFAS. In the spring of 2025, staff came before you as far as to support the Friends of Sunfish Lake who had provided three proposals to this priority two grant for three purposes. One was for forestry and trail recreation. The second was to create a boardwalk in Sunfish Lake and the third was for a fish study to do a study on the fish advisory in Sunfish Lake as well. So before you tonight, staff is looking for support from City Council if the city council supports the projects being presented by the Friends of Sunfish. I do have the applicant here with us tonight as well if for additional questions, but just a summary of those projects. Again, the forestry one is to continue the buckthorn removal in Sunfish Lake. The boardwalk is to prepare or create a 300-foot boardwalk that would cross the northeast west side of Sunfish Lake. And then the fish advisory would be doing a study of the fish that are currently in there to see the rehab of any PFAS that do—if they are contaminated with PFAS and post those findings [clears throat] for the public. With that, I'll take any questions. Or again, I do have the applicant here if we'd have questions for him. [09:54] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Yeah, I have some questions. So, just questioning the boardwalk across the west side of Sunfish Lake. And it appears that once that is built, who's going to be responsible for maintaining that into the future? [10:04] **Adam Swanepoel:** So yes, that was brought up to the applicant as well that the public works or the city would be responsible going forward. The applicant did indicate like neighboring communities have something very similar—about five years before you'd have to do any type of maintenance to it including staining or any type of fixing with that. [10:24] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Is there a question? Yeah, question. So, when [clears throat] you get to talking about the clearing the snow off the boardwalk, um I'm not sure the size of it. I mean, is this something that the groomer can go across where, you know, it could be used for snowshoeing, skiing, or is it just it would not be able to be used during the winter essentially? [10:44] **Adam Swanepoel:** Yeah, it'd just be for a crosswalk. City staff wouldn't be plowing or removing snow from it. Definitely wouldn't hold up to like any type of equipment either. So, yeah. So, it'd just be snow covered. Likely you could probably ski across it or walk across it. [10:56] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay. [10:57] **Tony (Applicant, Friends of Sunfish Lake):** Yeah, please approach the podium. I live at 5050 Kirkwood and I'm the founder of the nature center. I wrote up the proposals. I spoke to the city engineer of Oakdale about their boardwalk which was installed in 2014. It's very similar in intent and structure as to what we’d put in if we could. They say they don't bother clearing in the winter because they're concerned about damage caused by equipment and they haven't had any problems. Their maintenance cost, as he mentioned, was fairly low. They had to replace a couple boards. There is a little bit of damage caused by a falling tree, but there won't be any trees near ours. So, of course, it's like anything else. You have a trail, you have to maintain it. You have a street, you have to maintain it. The proposal asks for two years of maintenance after it's finished out of the contract that we get. And then the city would have to decide whether to keep maintaining. [12:00] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay. Any other questions? All right. [12:03] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Motion to support and submit letters of support from the City of Lake Elmo for the Friends of Sunfish Lake Park. [12:11] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Second. [12:12] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion and a second discussion. [clears throat] There's one thing I didn't ask about I should have asked is who's designing this boardwalk? [12:22] **Tony (Applicant):** Mr. Mayor, there would be a design contract that goes out before the actual construction contract and once the design is completed in a proposal it would be brought to council to decide whether they like it or not. [12:35] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** And then will you be doing the same thing as putting out a proposal out for the construction of the boardwalk? Will we be putting out an RFP for the construction of the boardwalk as well, Tony, for bids? [12:44] **Tony (Applicant):** Right. If we win the award, our organization would handle all that. We'd put out an RFP for the design. We'd bring the design back to council and then if council approves, we'd go for the construction. We've taken Peter Castler's suggestion that he didn't want to have it too visible and we're going to try to make it less obtrusive on the landscape. But as far as the actual design goes, it's pretty straightforward based on what works in this area from what I understand. [13:11] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. Council Member Holtz. [13:13] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I just want to thank Tony number one for taking the time to issue these and to ask the settlement team for it. Don't know if he'll get it or not, but there's a set amount of money and we know members of other communities are asking for dollars from the same fund. So, if we have a chance to add assets to the community because a member of our community stepped up, we are better for it. [13:34] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** True. Anyone else? I'll just echo that [clears throat] I'm really in favor of all three and I appreciate the Friends of Sunfish Lake and Tony, all the effort you guys put into this. This is not a light lift by any means. It's a lot of work and this isn't the first time you've done this. So I'm really appreciative and I think all three would be great. I know there's concerns with the boardwalk for the maintenance, but I think if we get it built, I think we're going to see that it's used a lot and I think that maintenance will be well worth it. Okay. All right. I'll call the question. All those in favor of motion to support and submit letters of support from the city of Lake Elmo for the Friends of Sunfish Lake Park, please signify by saying I. [14:21] **Council Members:** I. [14:22] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion passes. All right. Next item is RFP, [clears throat] former fire station and parks building. Director Stoopa will be presenting. [14:34] **Jason Stoopa (Economic Development/Staff):** All right. Good evening. Tonight we're talking about the old fire station RFP, the EDA committee's recommendation. So, a little bit of background. The city issued an RFP on the former fire station and parks building in June 17, 2025. The city received nine proposals and the three receiving the highest scores were determined to be the finalists. The proposals were presented to the EDA RFP committee and the committee voted to recommend Tap and Ladder / Machete to the City Council, and the second and third choices would be alternates. Tap and Ladder / Machete won the majority vote for first place. It was a 6-4 vote and subsequently there was a motion that was approved 10-0 to recommend the proposal to the city council. [clears throat] I'll give a background really quick on the scoring criteria just to remind everybody what was reviewed. Community benefit was 65 points. Land use was 30 points. We basically when we talked to proposers we emphasized what the village study said which were retail, restaurants, tap rooms, brew pubs. We talked about mixed-use developments too if they were outside the fire station footprint. [clears throat] We stressed preservation and design. We really wanted to preserve the fire station public space and streetscape improvements. Just understanding that there should be more landscaping in the open parking lot area and then parking due to the limited parking in the old village. A parking plan should be submitted that retain some space is possibly public and enhances landscaping in traditional neighborhood development and we also put a creative plan to retain some public parking would be awarded points if determined that it enhances public space. Second was economic impact. This was 10 points. So the proposed use and job creation was five points and if the project could draw people to the old village whether that is residents that want to live around the old village or additional businesses. So that's the 10 points for the economic impact. And then 25 for developer qualifications, 10 for experience and success, their approach and timeline, and then proof of funds—just kind of looking at the scope and how they would go about completing the project. So the summary for Tap and Ladder / Machete: Brian Height and Amanda Urban in partnership with Julian Okampo propose to transform these two landmark properties into welcoming, locally owned destinations that preserve their historic character while introducing fresh modern amenities. The site will be acquired in one joint plan but proportionately divided allocating approximately 30% to the parks building and 70% to the fire station based on the final project square footage in coordination with city officials. This is a rendering of Tap and Ladder and the conversion of the fire station. And just to go over Tap and Ladder really quick, it is a permitted land use. The fire station will be transformed into Tap and Ladder, a self-pour tap house and casual dining restaurant with approximately 150 seats. Guests will enjoy an approachable menu—burgers, brats, fish fry, and unique signature dishes—alongside a 28-tap self-pour wall, craft sodas, and locally inspired cocktails. Indoor spaces will include flexible seating, a dedicated children's play area, and heritage displays honoring Lake Elmo's fire service and local veterans. Full view garage doors and a spacious patio will create a seamless indoor-outdoor experience with seasonal events and community programming year-round. And this is a look at a renovated parks building, Machete. It's also permitted use. The parks building will become the second location of Machete Cocina Mexicana. A bold, chef-driven concept already thriving on the southwest side of Woodbury. Known for its vibrant flavors, handcrafted tortillas, and signature quesadota, Machete will bring authentic Mexican cuisine and a curated beverage program to the old village. A patio overlooking Lions Park will create a lively connection between the restaurant and surrounding public spaces. So, we also looked at the economic impact. We're looking at the fire station—the buildout would be right under a million dollars for the fire station and [clears throat] just over 700,000 for the parks building. We asked about full-time equivalent employees provided: three full-time for Tap and Ladder, 20 part-time, and Machete [clears throat] three full-time and 17 part-time employees. Parking requirements—and we mentioned this in the presentation—we've talked about this. Parking requirements may be waived in the village used area recognizing the availability of on-street and shared parking facilities. So the estimated range—it's difficult to determine until we get finals—is 47 to 65 spaces. There are multiple parking plan scenarios that were created, but they could provide 30 to 50 parking spaces. This is just one of the plans to create parking where access would be through the alley. So that's just one of them. You can kind of see the site layout. Also requesting a purchase price that was considered—not in the scoring committee initially, but when the committee came with the presentation that was considered. We don't know the appraised value yet. So it's $750,000 purchase price or $150,000 less than the appraised value whichever is less. And that's to go into business subsidies and certain things that would qualify. So the issue before the council is: does city council accept the recommendation from the RFP review committee to move forward with the selection with the selected proposal from Tap and Ladder / Machete team to purchase the former fire station and parks building? [clears throat] The options are: accept the proposed recommendation by the committee, do not accept it, or table for further discussion. This is the motion. [20:38] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Questions for Director Stoopa? Council Member Holtz. [20:41] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So in terms of process we have potential motion there but even after tonight the next steps then are, say hypothetically that has passed, that doesn't mean it's being built. What are the next steps? I know we would have potential for close session. What does it look like in terms of timeline for when plans need to start being sent to obviously to city inspectors to planning? What's that process look like? [21:05] **Jason Stoopa:** Definitely a couple steps. So the first step would be close session looking at pricing conditions and working through those issues. We also have to have an appraisal done with their preferred layout. So we need to know what the layout looks like and then get that appraised. We need to move forward on the survey through our internal team looking at easements and right-of-way dedication and getting that started. Once that process happens and the council is comfortable with moving forward with the proposal, that's when we can schedule a closing. I think the closing would be January, February is what we're targeting. If any business subsidy was requested, that would have to be reviewed by one of our advisers to see if it qualifies and specifically that would come back to the council too. We do not have a business subsidy policy. So that policy would also have to be adopted. So that could add a couple months to that process. [22:04] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Thank you. [22:05] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Just for ease, you made a comment about the appraisal will be based on their plan. Is the appraisal of the property as it exists today? [22:15] **Jason Stoopa:** When we went to get the appraisal, there's seven parcels. So, it was difficult for the appraiser to give us a value to speculate what it is a value on what is there today. But we want to know because it's going to be two lots. So, we need to know where to split the lots and then basically assign value to both lots. [22:33] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you. Council Member Hirn. [22:35] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Yeah. Can we dig into a little bit as far as kind of like what insurances do we have? How does it work to ensure that the projects that are being proposed are what actually take place? You know, things happen, the price ends up being more to take care of the public works building. You know, how does that work as far as ensuring that this project as kind of as presented does actually occur? [22:58] **Jason Stoopa:** So in the beginning we worked on what a clawback provision would look like and we decided, working with our adviser, to wait, and that would be processed through the close session and create those terms and conditions. So the idea is if they didn't perform there could be a clawback provision taking the property back. It could be a buyout of the property. There's different ways that that could be set up. In terms of just looking at one thing that we don't know right now—the phase two is completed in terms of the testing, but it will be a few more months until we get the results back and whether we need a response action plan. Addressing contamination is not considered a business account towards the business subsidy. So that's something that the council could also negotiate. So if it were to be contaminated in a plan, that's something that could potentially lower the purchase price essentially. That wouldn't be considered a business subsidy. [23:54] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Not trying to jinx anything. I just had a question about the parking situation. So, it looks like on the map there's 34 parking stalls right now with the range stated above as 45 to 65. [clears throat] So, where are those additional spaces going to be? [24:08] **Jason Stoopa:** So I believe just this is probably not the highest end of the plan that they submitted. So I think this could also be drawn a little bit differently. There's also not parking behind the fire station. So I'm not sure why that's not shown. If there's a use behind the fire station, if it's access for dumpsters, I'm just not sure. Potentially there could be more parking there. They're very close to meeting the standard. There's going to be on-street parking. I believe two spaces in front of the patio would be open for access to the fire station—that would be added to on-space parking. So that's the extent of what that would look like in terms of parking. So it's not uncommon to waive it and that's written into the code. So you could get probably what we looked at of close to 50 spaces and it may be right there in line with code requirements. And as you know, a lot of times code requirements are kind of high for parking. That's the standard. [25:05] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** And has it been looked at with the conflict of Lions Park—all the baseball players that are coming? How will that affect the parking requirements? Because I feel like a lot of those spaces will be taken most of the spring and summer for people that are going to watch baseball. [25:21] **Jason Stoopa:** I think when we looked at all the proposals, it is something that I did not review specifically—the committee reviewed it. It was definitely one of the proposals that provided most of the parking too. So they did a pretty good job addressing the parking. They are here tonight too to talk about some of the particulars if they want to. If you want to understand better the shared parking aspect because I didn't include that in the presentation but they were open to shared parking. So, if you want to ask them, they could. They're here to answer questions too. [25:48] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Sure. Yeah. I mean, are you guys going to have to... I guess would it be restricted parking for people that are coming downtown? They could park in your lot, go to different establishments, or is it strictly going to be assigned for Tap and Ladder / Machete? [26:01] **Brian Height (Applicant, Tap and Ladder):** No. Uh, so we submitted about eight different potential layouts. Um, so that was just one of them and the range was about 30 to 50. Obviously, once we figure out the actual plat and work with our estimators and architects to figure out what the best layout would be, we assume that would fall within that range. Um, and our plan is to leave the parking lot open to the public all the time. Parking is an issue downtown and we want to help out wherever we can with that. [26:30] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay, great. Thank you. [26:32] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Next, Council Member Dragisich. [26:34] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Um, wouldn't the proper motion to be entered into negotiations for a development agreement? I mean, the sale is part of it, but in a deal like this, typically you say, "We're going to sell you the land for X and you commit to build Y and invest Z and do other things that's in their proposal." So, as we move forward, we know we're getting exactly the development that was proposed to us. We don't sell the land and then they put up a temporary peanut shack and say, "Oh, well, we weren't committed to do anything else." I'm not saying that you would either, but in my experience, usually a very detailed development agreement that spells out all those terms and conditions and then we all know going forward how the development will work. The public knows what we're entering into an agreement for. [27:18] **Jason Stoopa:** I would think that would be the first step is enter into a purchase agreement. So, I don't know, Sarah, if you want to add. [27:26] **Sarah (City Attorney):** Uh, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, yes, we would enter into what's called a purchase and development agreement. So, that would spell out all the terms of the purchase of the city property in terms of what they're paying, what the conditions are, and then it would probably have some type of clawback provision in there that would allow—that would make them build whatever they're proposing to build on the site within a certain amount of time. And if they don't do that, then the city can take back the property. So that would be in the purchase and development agreement as well. And then if there's any other assistance requested, that would be addressed as well in that contract. [28:03] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So, do you suggest that that language [clears throat] be added to this motion? [28:07] **Sarah (City Attorney):** Um, I don't think it's absolutely necessary because I mean that's just the next step. I mean, negotiations. I think that's what we would be negotiating next is the purchase and development agreement. But if you want to specify that, that's fine. [28:22] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Thank you. [28:23] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So, in terms of the the parking question, I know there was another proposal where they allocated some of their usage to be on the rooftop. I know your proposal has space being used on the ground level for the patio. Is that a possible situation where that adds parking space and instead the rooftop is used instead of the patio? [28:44] **Brian Height (Applicant):** Yes, we saw that. We've talked to one of our general contractors about that possibility um because we haven't been able to get up on the roof and do a structural engineering inspection or anything like that, we don't know the possibility of that. Um but that is something that we have talked about and would consider doing instead of the front patio or a smaller front patio and a rooftop patio. Um I think the basic gist is once we actually have the ability to get in and do a thorough inspection on both buildings, we'll have a much better understanding of what is or is not feasible. Um once we get to that point, then it's part of the proposal that we submitted talks about regular communication via social media to the community about what is happening. Um and regular communication with the city officials on—here are the steps we are taking. Here's what we have found out, here's the changes we may need to make, making sure that everyone is up to date on every aspect of what we're planning to do. [29:38] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Gotcha. So it is definitely something that you would consider and plan to look into. [29:43] **Brian Height (Applicant):** Yes. Yep. [29:44] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Thank you. [29:46] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Here as a more concise way to say it. [clears throat] I don't mean to speak so much, but um one thing I I would like the council to consider adding to this motion is as we move forward and we look at perhaps business subsidies and TIF has mentioned in this as a possibility and all those things that's going to require a lot of analysis and expertise we don't have on staff. And I think we should add a motion or add to this motion that authorizes staff to get that expertise they need. I'm it's available in a number of sources. Um I had a conversation with Jason the other day about about that. There's some requirements under law on return on investments and all those kinds of things we don't need to go into here. Um opportunity for them to learn as well. But I think if we get down that road and determine as we're going that tax increment is needed or some other subsidy otherwise we should have that expertise available to our staff so this thing moves along. We're not delaying it because we’re not ready to deal with it. [30:52] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** And the attorney agrees with me. [laughter] Did you shake your head? [30:58] **Sarah (City Attorney):** Yes. And Mr. Mayor, some of this would be addressed in if the city adopts a business subsidy policy, it'd be addressed in there. And then also if they do apply for TIF, in the TIF application, it would, you know, they'd have to make a deposit to cover some of the city costs in terms of its financial advisor and and legal advisor. Um so that would be done when they apply for TIF and then also in the business subsidy. [31:25] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I am 99% sure of the answer, but because the question was posed in the community, I just want staff to be able to address it. A question was asked, is there an issue with a liquor license next to a park? And I know the answer is no, but can you just confirm our language is the issue of a distance to a school, not distance to a park. Correct? [31:42] **Jason Stoopa:** Correct. [31:43] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Thank you. [clears throat] [31:45] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** And what would the hours for Tap and Ladder be right now? [31:48] **Brian Height (Applicant):** Uh we're thinking—got to think through this here—so 4 to 9, Monday through Thursday. Friday, Saturday, Sunday open at 11:00 for lunch. Friday, Saturday close at 10. And then Sunday also close at 9:00. [32:04] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Got it. And for Machete? [32:06] **Julian Okampo (Applicant, Machete):** Machete is open seven days a week and open at 11, close at 9:00 Sunday through Thursday. Friday and Saturday open at 11, close at 10 and then that's not set in stone. That can also change but this is what we do right now in Woodbury. We've had a lot of people that we've talked to ask are you going to be open for lunch every day? I think that's something we consider. Someone asked are we open for breakfast? If we did, I mean we would consider things. We would take the advice of what the city would like to see, what residents would like to see. Um, it's not really set in stone. It's going to be a family-centered location. We're not planning on staying open till midnight 1 or two and having parties and all those types of things. It's going to be very family-centric. [32:47] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** And that kind of leads into my next question—is there set hours for like the kids play area or is that open till 10 as well? [32:55] **Julian Okampo (Applicant):** Yeah, something we could talk about a little bit more in depth. I mean, it's what we're thinking right now is arcades, rock climbing wall, some dress-up costumes for kids, toys like fire trucks and police cars and things like that, lots of public safety books. Um, so if someone brought their kids there and they happened to be there until 9 or 10, then that would be up to them to be able to use that. [33:18] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Yeah. Okay. And is there staff around? Like if you went to like a Lifetime where there's people in the play area or is it all glass walls where parents are watching them through there? [33:28] **Julian Okampo (Applicant):** A little bit of both is what our plan is right now. Again, we're trying to be flexible and as we look—walk through the process—we'll probably change our minds here and there. Um but the basic thought we've had so far is Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, teams come in and volunteer and help. Um, and then we would also have our own staff on hand to be able to have someone in the kids' zone and things like that. Oh, yeah. We would be donating to those organizations that wanted to staff those with, you know, baseball players, softball players, Boy Scout, Girl Scout, things like that. [34:03] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Thank you. There's one more. [clears throat] Again, I I I don't want to jinx anything. I just want to have a clear understanding of, you know, if challenges do arise. What is the game plan? How do you approach those? Maybe what concerns do you guys have going into this? Um, again, I I know you've done a ton of work on this already and looked into it. So, I'm sure a lot of this has been thought out, but just to try to talk through that as well as far as like how does [clears throat] that work if things if and when they don't go as planned? [34:38] **Brian Height (Applicant):** I'll take the first part because I know you got the second part very well covered. Um let's see. So, we've talked about multiple potential other options. Should we run into issues for that in the event we have more thorough walkthroughs and engineers look at things and it's going to be an issue, then that would be something we would bring back to discuss and we have thought through some of those things. Um the other piece um I'll let Julian handle because he's done this with some condemned buildings in other cities. [35:10] **Julian Okampo (Applicant):** Yeah. So this is our third time that we would be doing this. Um my first time alone, but I'm not really alone. My wife Emma is here and also my dad made an appearance. He's back there. So Armando. My mom, my dad and I, we've done projects all over. We have Machete in Woodbury. We also own all the Los Ocampo restaurants. Suburban Avenue is the one that was the first project that they did and that was condemned by the city of St. Paul and it was going to be knocked down and my parents went in and they wanted to buy it. He can tell you too. The city called them crazy—"like are you sure you want to buy this?" Like it literally was going to be demolished in a month and so then they bought it. We gutted it, did a lot of our gutting and cleaning ourselves. I know like we still don't know the final details for this parks building but um you know we did it there. Some things came up at Suburban and I don't want to say like we're going to figure it out, but it's a lot of our success kind of has been of when things show up that we weren't expecting, there's other ways that we can get around it. Um but also that's not just we're going to do it and we're not going to keep you guys informed. It's as those come up, like Brian said, it's going to be a lot of communication back and forth. And then we also, in 2019, we bought a building on Lake Street and that was also falling apart and we were able to buy it with a commercial loan with Sunrise Banks and did a lot of the cleaning and gutting ourselves. Stuff that we couldn't do, then that's why we brought contractors in and that's who we have here, too. So that's basically it'd be our third time doing this in this building and I'm not really like worried I guess or concerned. Um we've seen a lot of I think crazier things than what what we've seen here. So that's why I guess I can say thank you. [37:11] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. If nothing else, I'll entertain a motion. If you want to get creative with your language in there, Council Member Dragisich, so we can get this straight, that'd be great. [37:21] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** And if I if I get off track, I have legal to help me. I would say a motion to accept the EDA's committee recommendation and begin negotiations to sell the former fire station and park buildings to the Tap and Ladder and Machete team and to authorize staff to retain additional professional assistance as needed in negotiation process. [37:44] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Second. [37:46] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. All right. So, we have a motion on the floor with a second. Everybody understand the motion? Any discussion? [37:55] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I mean, this process... you might as well sit down. It's going to be [laughter] a long copy. Does anyone have any duct tape? You might want it. So, I mean, this process technically it dates back to when this building was starting to be planned. And the realization was we're going from two firehouses to one. Didn't have an EDA at the time. Now, we do. We have members of the EDA in the room right now. And it has been a very publicly driven process. I'm not going to list all the meetings that went into it, but I do appreciate the public feedback that has happened between the EDA, our planning commission, and also as I recall the survey that was done for downtown when we had the moratorium. This was a part of it to ask—what do we want in the downtown? And I would say in the process of creating rubric for this between EDA and the council and the proposals that came forth, this one does align with what the council was asking for. It aligns with what the community has been saying. I cannot say how many times I have heard—"is the fire station up for sale?" No. Patience is up for sale soon. But the next conversation is usually "God, this is what I want to see there." It's like—and we listen and many many comments. The most common one has been some form of a restaurant, brewery, some type of place where family gathers. I didn't necessarily think as EDA member or council the possibility of two. I never conjured up that possibility and now we have a proposal with two. And I think what we've seen over the last week especially has been very strong feedback from the community saying heck yeah. And so with that said, I do support this. It's local. We have business partners who have experience with this. I will say I lived a block away from your first location. So I lived a block away. I was there like the first week it was opened. I didn't realize it was condemned. That location—and I really—we enjoyed it. We went there often and I like that this proposal combines experience with the family side and it gives me confidence that hopefully, to Council Member Hirn's very good question, is like—we want to make sure as a city that we are protected, that this has a good outcome. So I appreciate that aspect. The reason I asked the question about the possibility with the roof is really the curiosity of—you know we all saw the three final proposals. Is there anything that you wanted to glean from those to say, "God, that's really a great idea." And that's one of them. I think the other one that I would really be curious to see—if you're able to do stuff on the roof, does that allow the creation for some type of that public walkway going west to east? If it doesn't, it doesn't. But that was something that I found from the EDA side was very attractive um to be able to get people going east to west. The other thing I will say is there was another proposal that I thought is very good as well and I hope that city staff and the people who presented that is proposal number two are able to communicate and try to see if there are other solutions and other locations to bring them forth because I think that also was a very impactful and quality offer and proposal that would also benefit the city. But this is the one that the EDA went with. This is the one that the community has shown strong support over the last week and I fully endorse it. [41:12] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** [clears throat] I think a lot of what I'm going to say is very similar. Um, you know, to start out with, I'm happy with where we're at with this. Um, you know, gosh, I guess it was probably two years ago. I work right across from where your guys' building's going to be. And I work with clients every day. And I think I can probably count over a hundred who had business ideas that wanted to do something here. And um you know, okay, it goes from a hundred people telling me their ideas—and I'm sure there were hundreds more—to you know, nine individuals submit a proposal and that's a lot of effort that takes to do that, right? Putting a lot of effort into that and um it takes a lot. I had friends who submitted applications to this and I I know this is something that you as well as every every other individual that applied, you know, had great ideas, um had great intent, wanted to really help the community. We go from nine, we get down to three. You know, we see these three proposals and it kind of gives you goosebumps almost when you read through them. All three of them were fantastic. They really were looking to to make Lake Elmo better. Um, which is it it's really cool to see that. You know, I think it it's easy for somebody to want to come in and develop um and make it about themselves, which it does. It has to be successful for you guys, but this all three of these proposals really were um community-based. And and I thought you guys did a fantastic job, you know, looking through with how you kept on tying in different aspects of how we can make this a community gathering space. We've heard that over and over and over again. With that being said, too, again, all three of those proposals were great, and I echo what Council Member Holtz was saying is I I really liked the others. In my mind, I I do feel like the Lake Elmo Commons as we move a little bit further east as we've kind of talked about when we put together our old village plan just recently, that was where we talked a lot about kind of more of the mixed use where we have the commercial on bottom, residential above. I think that'd be a fantastic transition where we're going more from truly residential into more truly commercial. I think that's a really good pass off a little bit further east like we've kind of talked about in our old village plan. I was talking with Director Stoopa. From the the Can-Can Wonderland, you know as far as with the 77 acres that we’re looking at for sports fields. Again something like that could be a great addition to an area like that. So, I really do echo that these are all great ideas and I hate the thought of of of losing them and all the effort that was put into our community because a lot of effort was put in and very community focused effort. And so I'd really love to see those be able to still move forward as well. But I I understand that for this location, I do feel that this is the right choice. Not an easy choice. I kept on saying I felt like it's like when five people want to go to a restaurant, you got to decide where to go. It's tough because they're all good. So, I I appreciate all the effort. I'm really happy with where we're at. I'm sad that we'll not be able to move forward with the other two. Um but this is the right choice. [44:31] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I won't beat a dead horse on what a great choice it is. I just want to take time to thank you, Director Stoopa, and our EDA committee for all their hard work on this. It was a large undertaking. You did a great analysis and you came back to us with a recommendation that was well-rounded and you know made sense to me and so I just want to extend a thank you as member of the city council for all your hard work. [44:54] **Council Member Nick Kragness:** Thank you. Yeah to second everybody here. I mean, thank you to the EDA—it is a great recommendation and I think it's going to be a great fit for the downtown area. Um, like other people have said as well, we have two other fantastic RFPs that it is a bummer to lose, but again, the Machete and Tap and Ladder are going to be a great addition downtown. Looking forward to some good work down there. [45:19] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** The great thing about going last is I can be brief because most everything's already been said, but um yes, thank you to the people on the EDA, Director Stoopa and his staff for getting this done and really appreciate all the time and effort. I've been on the proposal end of an RFP and it takes a lot of time and effort making sure your eyes are dotted and your tees crossed. So, anybody that was on a team and put something in, I appreciate that time and effort that takes in there and I'm looking forward to—I'll support this motion and it sounds like we have full support. So, I'll be looking forward to trying to make something work moving forward. I will call the question. All those in favor of the motion as presented, please signify by saying I. [46:02] **Council Members:** I. [46:04] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion passes. Thank you. [cough] All right. Number four on our regular agenda this evening is authorize design services for 14 water main improvements. City engineer Nathan Stanley. [46:17] **Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor and council, before you is an item that will authorize plans and specification preparation for water main improvements along CSAH 14 between the north leg of Lake Elmo Avenue and Leighton. Um little background on this item. I don't have a presentation. I apologize. There was a map in the item that was submitted that if you have that up it'd be great if you could follow along. But little background is that this stretch of roadway—it's a county road. There were several water main improvements completed as part of the old village improvements I think between roughly 2015 and 2022. It was kind of desired that this stretch would be a part of those improvements. However, when we go into a county right-of-way, we like to try and coordinate with the county rather than having to pay to restore a county road. So, staff have been working with the county to try and accelerate this section of CSAH 14 to get into their CIP. Unfortunately, it still is not in the CIP and the water main has deteriorated to a state where we are facing—it's reached the end of its natural life or its service life rather. There has been seven breaks in the last six years with five of those coming in the last three. So something needs to be done as again the county has not put this stretch of roadway into their CIP. Looking forward, this approximately 1,900 ft of existing water main staff is looking to upsize from a 6-inch main to a 12-inch main and then work with the county on the kind of the placement of this main within the right-of-way. The existing main runs kind of along the southern edge of the right-of-way. The new main we'd like to push out into the roadway and and maybe actually coordinate some extra depth so that, you know, with any future improvements to the county road, we're able to leave the main in place. We're looking at doing directional drilling to maintain traffic and leave the roadway largely in place and that also will account for any sort of profile change. Looking at the an estimate for the main, it's roughly $850,000. This is based largely on the work that we've received bids for going on up at Hudson Boulevard and Inwood Avenue for our force main project up there as this is roughly the same size pipe that would be directionally drilled. Kind of looking down here... just one other thing to note is that the interruption to the roadway would be just five isolated pits—is kind of what we're anticipating—with the ability to route traffic around those. With that, we are looking at—if council chooses to move forward with this project tonight or authorizes the preparation of plans and specs—a January plan approval and advertisement for bid dates with receiving bids and awarding a contract in February and moving forward this spring with the project. Anticipating the project would be done late summer. With that, I ask council to move forward authorizing Bolton & Menk to prepare plans and specifications in the amount of $77,600 for the CSAH 14 water main improvements from CSAH 17 to Leighton Avenue. [49:43] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Questions. Council Member Holtz. [49:45] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Thank you for that and for bringing this to the attention based upon the number of breaks. This is a very good use of our time. Is there any value gained for it being the new part going past Leighton Ave or is that specifically because obviously that's where there's a line that also goes south? [50:01] **Nate Stanley:** Yes. Thanks for the question. That's where the newer water main comes in. So this is where we're—that's kind of governing the limits of the project, right? [50:09] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And then obviously with the upsizing that will be the right amount of upsizing, say hypothetically when car dealership and school potentially changes use, this upsizing will be able to take into account any future increase in demand that may occur at that site. [50:23] **Nate Stanley:** Yes, Mayor and Council Member. Absolutely. The upsizing of the main is meant to provide additional redundancy and be able to serve the potential redevelopment in the area. [50:33] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Gotcha. Thank you. [50:35] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Is this project in our CIP, Nate? [50:38] **Nate Stanley:** Uh Mayor and Council, no, this project is not in the CIP. Um this project—it was my understanding is that the Public Works Director meant to get this in last cycle kind of similar to how I referenced our force main project up at Hudson Boulevard and Inwood. It was a late ad. This was intended to be put in and was simply left out. [50:58] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So will we be adjusting our CIP then taking some other projects out to keep our spending fairly where we had anticipated? [51:04] **Nate Stanley:** So I can't answer that question. This is—I can tell you that this is intended to be funded simply by the water enterprise fund and that I believe staff has confidence that the fund can support the project but I can't speak to a greater question like that. I'm sorry. [51:24] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Question on the type of construction you're recommending and—I come at this with the full knowledge that I am not a water expert, right—so at first when I saw this I didn't know about the upsizing so I was thinking about lining of pipes and obviously with upsizing you can't really do that. Is the thought or the process of pipe bursting been thought of and what would be the pros or cons of that type of—and obviously that would keep the location at where it's at. And is that really a large negative or or can that be dealt with? [51:56] **Nate Stanley:** Uh Mr. Mayor, the idea of pipe bursting was considered. However, in discussions with the county, we anticipate that there will be significant off-road pedestrian improvements or storm sewer improvements along the roadway. So, the intent here is to actually remove the pipe from that zone where other improvements will be so it can—so we can take care of it now and it won't have to be relocated in the future. If we leave it in the same place as it is now, roughly I don't know how many feet off the right-of-way, but very close to that southern right-of-way boundary, we could face future impacts with the county road project. [52:33] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Does this then lend itself to being a little more—the county being a little more accommodating for this construction piece as far as working with us on what's needed for closure and movements of traffic while it's being done since this will minimize future work on 14? [52:48] **Nate Stanley:** Yep. So, we'll be working—part of the intent here is to work with the county. Um, you know, I think conceptually the county probably has an idea of what sort of road section they're going to have in there. And we'll—just spitballing, initially thinking about this—it's like, well, you put it down the middle, right? Well, that's not great in this situation because then we face road closures or traffic restrictions with the construction with these pits. So the intent is to work with the county to locate it such that we can maintain traffic during construction. [53:23] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. What's typical pit when you get—and you mentioned deeper—how much deeper you talking about? [53:30] **Nate Stanley:** So, you know, typical water main depth is seven and a half foot cover standard. We were thinking like 9 to 10 feet. [53:37] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. So still a manageable depth, still to a—not so deep that say our public works keys can't get on a valve or something like that. [53:46] **Nate Stanley:** You know what I mean? [53:48] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So the pits to get down there then, using—for trying to accommodate size—would be using a box to access. [53:54] **Nate Stanley:** Absolutely. [53:56] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. So the funding is... and Administrator, has Finance Director talked to you about the water fund being used for this? She's not here tonight to talk about that funding. [54:06] **Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** No, I haven't talked to her specifically about this yet. [54:08] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. Yes, Council Member Dragisich. [54:11] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** In our water and sewer fund, the WAC and SAC charges and the connection fees are restricted by council policy for either asset renewal and replacement or payment of debt service. And so my guess is—and I don't remember what we had in that fund, it seems it was like six or seven million of those restricted funds. And I could be wrong. It's been a while since I looked at it, but I did have a discussion with our finance director about the restrictions and how it was restricted. and she sent me the council resolution. So given the construction we've had in the last few years, I would guess that we have restricted funds sufficient to cover $800,000, $850,000. [54:55] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. Thank you for that. We have the 2004 finances are the last thing that we have. We could look at that, but it wouldn't be up to date today. [55:04] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Right. [55:05] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you. Any other questions for city engineer? All right. I'll entertain a motion. [55:10] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Move to authorize Bolton & Menk, Inc. to prepare plans and specifications in the amount of $77,600 for the CSAH 14 water main improvements from CSAH 17 North Leg to Leighton Avenue. [55:24] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Second. [55:25] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion and a second. Discussion. Uh, Council Member Hirn, could you explain that again? Uh, so with the fund, I guess that's my main concern is I understand the fund can support it. My thought is we're trying to grow our funds so for future replacements we don't have to rely as much on debt based off of what we have in the current CIP. So my initial thought was, yeah, obviously if if this is breaking down consistently five times in the last three years, okay, similar to the project going on on Hudson, this needs to be taken care of, but we probably need to look at adjusting the CIP, but maybe I didn't I didn't fully understand your question comment. [56:11] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Oh, well, if you look in our financial statement, when we charge a, you know, like water SAC, WAC, I mean, water access charge and then the connection fee for all the new development, those funds go into the water fund, but they're restricted in their use for capital expenditures or debt service. And so, we have a, as I recall, there's very good balance in there of those restricted funds. Um, and of course this year we had the school and all the connections that went with that as well. So I'm guessing we would have adequate funds, but we'd have to verify this. Just the council restricted those. They're not restricted by statute. They're restricted by city resolution. [56:51] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** And those funds would—would those be—those were funds that we were planning to use for other projects in the CIP. [56:56] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Think they were... some of those were planned to be used, yes. But I don't believe we're planning to drain them completely. [57:01] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay. So, I guess yeah, that would just be my main thing I'd want to understand is, you know, does that impact our work towards the the goal of not having to fund as much of the projects with debt? [57:12] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Well, yeah. This this initially would be paid with capital money that we have in that account for it. Correct. So it would not be servicing—would not be taking on additional debt and would be towards our goal of using cash to pay for— [57:24] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** I guess... but like then for the projects scheduled in the future where we were working to build these funds up... [57:29] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** And that fund will still get enhancements with projects like we had earlier, the M&I lot. [57:33] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Yeah. [57:34] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** You know, they continually get increased in funds. [57:36] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay. Thank you. [57:37] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I guess one thing I'm just—it's a little—and I I've heard about this water main being broken. I'm gonna task public works department and the city engineer to really get together and get a handle on if there are other issues coming up in the city with regards to breaks that happen on a regular basis so that we don't have these coming up on a—you know, it just so happens we've had two this year. Not a big fan of that. So, please communicate and make sure that we can accommodate those in the future and that they're taken care of. That would be my request. This is different. I mean, this one has lived out its life versus the other one. But still, it was a surprise in the sense of it wasn't planned. And I I understand trying to wait for the county on their CIP, but they obviously have limitations and things like that. But if it's not on their five-year and we're getting breaks like that, then I think it's just something we got to take care of. [58:36] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Quick look shows we had four million in cash in the water fund at the end of 2024. [58:41] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. [58:42] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So, anything we collected this year from those major projects would add to that. [58:46] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Add to that. Perfect. Call the question. Move to authorize Bolton & Menk Incorporated to prepare plans and specifications in the amount of 77,600 for the CSAH 14 water main improvements from CSAH 17 North Leg to Leighton Avenue. Please signify by saying I. [59:04] **Council Members:** I. [59:06] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion is approved. Thank you. Moving into council reports. Council Member Dragisich. [59:12] **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** The only report I have, and some of you have heard this before, was I just like to say they had the honor and privilege of being at a reception with the President of Croatia a week ago. My grandparents on my dad's side both immigrated from Croatia, so it's quite an honor and privilege to meet the president of their homeland. [59:30] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** That's great. Hobnobbing with the big wigs. Council Member Holtz. [59:34] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Um, public service announcement. Everyone who has houses built somewhere around 2014 to 2016, please start to change out your fire alarms so you don't have to wake up at 12:30 in the morning and call the fire department because every one of your alarms is going off at the same time because one of them went bad. Turns out that's not fun. Uh, but the fire department does a fantastic job. Came out, figured out which one is bad. We had two sheriff deputies come out as well to say hello. And yeah, it usually—they are expected to last seven to 10 years. Has nothing to do with the batteries. They just go bad. So for those of us who have houses in that area, please start to do that. [01:00:15] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** It's a wonderful PSA. [01:00:17] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Oh, it was great. It was fantastic. [01:00:20] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So I I have I have no comments, you know. Interestingly, [laughter] nice shirt, by the way. [01:00:28] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** After yeah... yeah. Nice shirt. We coordinated. We did the that workout like a firefighter event last year and I replaced my fire alarms like a good student after they told us to and we had ours go off last weekend in the middle of the night and I called the fire department. So, thank you. I think it was literally the night that you posted that, too. [01:00:52] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Oh, yeah. You're welcome. [01:00:54] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** So, with that though, thanks to the fire department, the chief came over and gave me a lecture on appropriately placing smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors. So, I'm I'm set at this point. So, thanks to the fire department. They... but in all serious, it was they're... we are very lucky. They're a great team and um they probably could have laughed at us quite a bit, but it was they did a great job. So, one question: why do they always go out in the middle of the night? [01:01:24] **Council Member Nick Kragness:** I don't know. [01:01:25] **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** It's statistically impossible, but it happens. [01:01:28] **Council Member Matt Hirn:** They ripped out... and then they ripped out like three of our older ones and then the next night it actually happened again. But [laughter] [01:01:36] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right, I figured this is for discussion after the meeting. [01:01:40] **Council Member Nick Kragness:** No report. [01:01:41] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** City staff reports. [01:01:43] **Nicole Miller:** No report. [01:01:44] **Jennifer Doyle:** No report. [01:01:45] **Julie Johnson:** Um, I just want to let everyone know and council may get questions. Um, school district 622, early voting has started. Folks can vote in person at the Washington County Government Center in Stillwater and the service centers in Woodbury and Cottage Grove. The school district has sent out an informational flyer that I think has some folks confused and calling and stopping here to vote. So, I just want to if anyone asks you—help us get the word out, please that those are the places they can vote early and we will have voting in person on November 4th. [01:02:16] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you. [01:02:17] **Clarissa Hadler:** No report. [01:02:18] **Pete Tholen:** No report. [01:02:19] **Adam Swanepoel:** No report. [01:02:20] **Nate Stanley:** No report. Uh just to let council know, but we have extended work hours for Washington County to complete work paving this Thursday and Friday on Manning Avenue from 6:00 to 8:00. [01:02:35] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Right. Yeah, I remember seeing that. [01:02:37] **Chad Isakson:** No report. [01:02:38] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. With that we will adjourn this evening's meeting. Thank you everybody.