I will call to order the January 27th meeting of the Dayton City Council. Please stand for the pledge. >> Oh jeez, I keep thinking this. 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. >> Okay, I need Motion and a second for the agenda. >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. >> Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. Motion carries five to zero. Okay. On consent. Need a motion. A second. I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. Is there a discussion? >> This was just a question for clarity um about the acceptance of pay equity compliance report. There was mentioned that there was more information about what all those things meant. >> Where do I find that? >> Um so that'll be available on the uh Minnesota Department of Oh boy, I think it's deed. >> Um I can send off the resource for you, but basically just Google Minnesota pay equity report. Okay. >> And it will bring you to a resource run by the state. >> Yeah. >> And it'll say how to interpret your results. And then um we are in compliance. >> So that's why I'm fine with passing it. I just was curious. >> However, yeah, I mean there is there's a lot of like there's a lot of math on that stuff >> and weird math. Yep. >> So I just wanted to wonder where I could find that. >> So interpret your results is where it's at and you can certainly click on that and then read what it means. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. >> Anything else? Not for the consent agenda. >> Anybody? >> Um I had one question related to item D, the the zoning zoning ordinance amendment. I'll get through that. Um this was residential district special requirements related to the um change in uh parking. And in the discussion we talk about um two stalls per 2,000 square ft of building. But in the ordinance we say two two stalls per person and we're changing it to three. Do those two automatically equate? Is it 1,000 square feet per person? Is that how you calculate that? >> Yeah, I think that I actually uh completed the two types of calculations in the staff report. Um the basically the change is from um two one spot per two guests at maximum occupancy to one spot per three. Um that's the way that they do that based on how much how many people can an assembly hall or an event center take on at their max capacity. um not necessarily comparable to say um manufacturing is one space per 2,000 square feet. Um so I do I I don't know what if they are um comparable of the two, but I think that uh that was just a a mistype on my end in the staff report. >> Okay, that that's fine. It just kind of seemed like we were switching from feet to meters there or something. >> Yeah. No, not not the intention. And I think I actually did that on the PowerPoint in the uh planning commission meeting as well. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> That was all I >> Nothing else. Anybody else have any? >> Not on consent. >> Okay. Um we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. Motion carries 5 to zero. >> Open forum limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. State your name and address. No council action will be taken. items be referred back to staff. Is there anybody here for open forum? You know, that's really distracting. >> Sorry. >> The TV is here for open forum. >> Um, >> nobody anybody online? >> We do. >> Okay. >> Um, it looks like Ashley, can you please unmute yourself? >> Yep. Can you hear me? >> Yep. And then can you just state your name and address for the record? >> Yep. It's Ashley Winters, 13440 Arowwood Lane North. >> Thank you. Um, I want to bring up two things if I may. Um, the first is encouraging you all in the city of Dayton to look at programs that would give residents grants for what one would call a curbside appeal grant. From my research, quite a few of the cities around us in the suburban areas offer these certain types of grants for their residents to help with what would be considered curbside appeal. Those things could be like a new driveway or help with paying for that pavement, landscaping, other certain items that would give that curbside appeal. These grants would be specific to the age of the home, years of living in the city, um to name a few of what I've seen. Um in most of the cities that I've seen, there really was not an an income requirement for that. I did find it surprising that I haven't really seen anything, especially um for this city considering that there's a lot of long-standing residents that are not in new builds. This could help keep up with the everchanging landscapes of this of this city, especially in Dayton where everywhere you look, there is a new build. Um, and to help bring some life back to the homes that many long-year residents that are not in new builds would benefit from. And the second thing that I wanted to at least just bring up is regarding the proposals for the senior care, memory, and assisted living complexes. I am 100% for those type of businesses to come to this community. I know as a resident, if I had a family member that was in need of care and I could have them pay my own city and backyard, I would jump on that. One thing that I just wanted to raise and make sure is on the radar and that is thought about. There's been a lot of recent articles and stories on these facilities specifically in regards to their policy on what they would call falls of the residents. Um, an overwhelming number of facilities have changed their policies that the staff is unable to assist with the fall and instead they have to call 911. given the current capacity of our fine first responders, it could cause an influx in these type of calls for the department. But I think at least it's something to consider and be made aware of if that hasn't been thought of. Um, thank you. That's all I have. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Um, yeah. So, Mandy, if you can go ahead and unmute yourself, please. >> Yes. Can you hear me? >> Yeah. Can you just state your name and address for me? >> Yep. Mandy Hoffmeister of 18740 Robinson Street. >> Thank you. Hi. Um, so myself and at least 45 other residents of Dayton are petitioning the city to remove all eight flock cameras in Dayton and terminate its relationship to Flock Safety Systems. So, last month a Flock Systems LPR camera was installed directly across the street from my front door. Um, I didn't even know what it was, but when I looked into it, I was very alarmed to learn that these cameras store a detailed record of everyone's movements, associations, and routines, which is a violation of privacy and safety. The important point here, and why it matters is that these aren't just regular cameras, and they're not being used in the way that they're intended or marketed. And Flock isn't disclosing the ways that their technology can be manipulated because, well, why would you if you weren't making a sale? But the reality is the data collected and forever stored in the camera system is easily accessible to outside entities such as hackers, foreign spyware organizations, and other criminals. There's more layers of protection to sign into your own email account than there is to gain access to the infinite personal data stored in these cameras. There's no concrete evidence that they solve crime more quickly, but they are creating criminal activity where there was none, including documented cases of stalking in other cities. And while I shudder even thinking about how the camera outside my door can track the moment I leave for work and when my house is unattended, this isn't just personal to me. All of these cameras, which uh there's eight around the city, um continuously track you, your family, and everyone's movements in and out of Dayton. So unauthorized viewers can see when you're home alone or when you're at work or running errands, which for clarity is private information, even when you're out in public. But if if we don't know who or what is accessing all of this personal information, it leads to innumerable possibilities for threats to our safety and documented instances of misuse misuse, which could also put the city in an unfortunate legal position that I don't want for our leadership. I wanted to be clear that I'm speaking specifically about bad business by a company, Flock Systems, that has no oversight for their products, which is dangerous for consumers. Theoretically, the idea behind the cameras is useful, but put into practice by a kind of scammy company that assures that is assuring users no biological data is recorded when it is and states that images are deleted after 30 days when they aren't, makes a city more at risk and cancels out potential benefits. In fact, studies show that locations with SWAT cameras have a higher rate of vehicle thefts than areas without them. The cameras record and store exact patrol routes of police officers on duty, which I can think of several reasons why that info in the wrong hands would leave our city in a more vulnerable spot than before. There are broader implications of having this underdeveloped technology in our city that I can't fit into three minutes. But as a lifelong resident of Dayton, I know the police department can do their job effectively without the help of flux safety systems who have overstated the benefits of their technology, omitted the risks, and actually taking credit for the outcomes of technology we already use. Um, so that's why myself and other residents are petitioning the city to remove all cameras and terminate its relationship to Flock Safety Systems. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Anybody else? We're open for him. All right, move on. Staff consultant council updates. Second. >> Um, yeah. So, mayor council, I did print off that petition for you. So, you do have a copy of that um for those signatures and stuff. I'm sorry it's so small. I will happy happily send that out to you on an Excel form, but I did want to have you guys see the petition so you know that those 45 signatures are um legitimate. >> Sure. Um my only update tonight is give a question. >> Sorry. >> Could we get a copy of the actual petition? Not that names but what is being asked because we just have names. >> There is a link. So I will forward you that link as well. Um the link just shows what you're petitioning on that actually has you sign up if you wanted to sign up. So that's what those junk forms do. I can't actually see anybody's signatures or anything when you click on those things, but um you can at least see where the um petition is actually at. So I'm happily happy to send that out for you. >> Um no problem. The only update that I have is this Thursday there was supposed to be a Met Council state of the region. I received an email tonight about five o'clock or so that the state of the region for Met Council has been postponed based on the current climate that we're at today. I'm not sure. I did send that out to all the council members. I'm not sure if any of you guys signed up. If you did, I just want to make sure you guys are aware that you it is postponed if you were planning on going there on Thursday. So, that's all I got. >> Thank you. >> I don't have an update tonight. >> Morning. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Just a few things tonight. Um the wellhead treatment plant. Uh we started uh the uh testing the pumps. Um that's started this week. It will be going all this week and through next week. Um the electrical work is nearing completion. Uh SCM SCADA system needs to be installed. That's going to be over the next couple of weeks. Um chem chemical feed lines are being connected to wellhouse 4 tomorrow. Um next week it's going to be more pump and bow tests. Um just evaluating all that stuff. um water trails, LC Stevens uh park launches out for bids at the moment. We have uh 23 contractors who have pulled plan sets for the project. Um the bid opening is on February 6. Um the ice rink um is open and the lights are on. I notice there were people down there tonight skating. Um I want to thank City of Corkran uh for bringing their Zamboni over today to help us flatten the smooth out the surface there. So, that was uh fun to have that out and to watch that working. Um, and just a general comment, uh, full uh we advertised for a full-time public works position. Um, we did offer it to a candidate, but he couldn't accept a position at this time. So, we're going to be readvertising that position uh this week. We've changed a little bit of the wording to uh try and get a more focused um uh pool of uh candidates. That's all I have. Chief. >> Good evening, mayors, members of council. Just an update on um hiring. We started interviews yesterday. I think we have around 14 applicants somewhere in that neighborhood. Um so we'll continue those applica or interviews uh through next week. >> Are they strong applicants? Are they meeting the requirements? >> Yep. We've taken uh there's been two that did not meet the requirements outside of that. That doesn't include I think the 14. Those are above that. >> Okay. Awesome. Chief, >> um I'll just mention based on one of the public comments. So, we do have some state funding for uh affordable housing grants. Uh so, one of our work program or work projects for 2026 is to create a program for um something similar to what the uh resident was talking about, but it is uh based on income. So, these are affordable housing grants that can be used for this quote curb appeal stuff. >> Um, that's one of several different options. So, >> Scott, >> nothing. >> Zero. >> Um, you may have noticed that I chose to take a silent moment of reflection instead of saying the pledge aloud tonight. Um, I had originally hoped to make this request prior to the pledge, but our ordinances around how our meetings run did not allow that. Uh two weeks ago I stood here with my hand on my heart and I declared that I stand for liberty and justice for all. And those words rang so hollow as they have many times before and I could not stand here and declare those words again with everything that has been happening in our state. As I said, I had hoped to ask for this moment of silence to either reflect on those words after our pledge. And I ask that maybe next meeting that after we say the pledge, we have a moment of silence and reflect on those words with liberty and justice for all and ask ourselves what we are doing individually and collectively as a community that we are actually upliving upholding what we say we stand for. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um, I have nothing. >> Uh, nothing for me. >> Okay. Uh, council business item H. Good evening, mayor and members of council. Um, I am here in front of you for approval of resolution 062026 authorizing eminent domain or the use of eminent domain for public purposes and offer of just compensation to owner. Um, a little background on this information. I know that most of you are aware of this situation, but originally approved preliminary plat for this parcel included the roadway that is shown in yellow highlighted um that which matches the area requested for the eminent domain process. Um the final plat was granted based on a lapse of city staff action which was um provided to council as well within 60 days by state statute. So this was brought to the owner's agent agents attention on November 13th, 2025. Developer or the owner's agent stated that he did not want the final plat after been being given it and allowed the final plat to fall off and preliminary plat lapsed due to one year of non-action. So, city staff did send a letter on December 17, 2025, to offer an appraised value on the property, again highlighted in yellow. City staff met with the owner's agent on January 13th, roughly two weeks ago, to discuss options for moving forward and could not come to an agreement on terms of purchase at that time. The meeting overall was very cordial and um we left shaking hands. The property that we're looking at for eminent domain is again in the total area for eminent domain is 49,412 ft just over 1.13 acres. Um some of that is temporary so just needed because we have construction um vehicles that'll be needed to own there to construct the roadway that was originally platted. Um that will cover roughly 18,986 ft and leaves 7 acres that we're looking for permanent rightway or easement. Um we don't technically need all of the.7 acres. If we wanted to give back a little corner, we probably could. It's not needed for purposes of construction and or utility easements, but um didn't feel real great to give back a little tiny portion cuz it doesn't feel like it would be useful to the property owner. Happy to work through that process. If the property owner is saying that they want the little corner back, that's fine with us. We don't need that. We're just looking for the roadway portion, but figured it'd be easier to take the entire corner if that's the case. Emp domain is only used if negotiated terms cannot be reached by conversations and discussion between the city and the property owner. And the property is needed for access to landlocked property owned by the city and also owned by another private party. Future considerations for roadway connections to Maple Grove, connections of water and sewer systems that are currently separated. Connection of a trail corridor and a proposed future city park on Align Lake property amongst other items. I will stand for any questions, but at this moment, city staff is recommending approval of resolution 06, 2026. I will answer as best as I possibly can. Thank you very much. >> Any questions? >> I have very mixed feelings on this. Um, had you asked me two years ago if I would have been okay with eminent domain, I would have said that I could not think of a situation. Um, and I in fact knew of several situations where I thought it was mis misused. Um, but in this case, I feel like we there was a lot of good faith effort between ourselves, the property owner's agent and the other property owner that this road was going to benefit everybody, that the intersection was going to benefit everybody, that the light was going to benefit everybody. And all parties said yes to the road. And so things moved forward because of that. Yes. Um to the point as you said they they came through with a plat like they this wasn't just a verbal agreement there their documents that they submitted with the road there. Um and so then to at the last minute pull it and in effect throw off all of these plans um feels real I'm just going to say it real crappy. Um, and so I find myself in a place I never thought I would be saying I think eminent domain is the right way to go. Um, on the flip side, the laws about eminent domain have changed um, somewhat recently. Correct. Or so um, and it's the case law around it is not as robust as previous case law. the previous law, there were lots of cases we could look to to see, you know, where this fell. And it feels like there's not the depth of case like of other cases to look at. And my concern is that depending on the judge we get that they may interpret the current the current law in a way that's not favorable. Um, and I just don't have like it would I would feel better if I could look at some examples where like yes, this is like this is a slam dunk so to speak. Um, and I just don't feel like we have examples that it is a slam dunk and it is a financial like there is a risk if we lose this eminent domain. There is a financial risk to that. Correct. >> Yes. So if the process goes through um and we were to move forward and we were not able to um fulfill that eminent domain process then the city is on hook for legal costs of ourselves along with the other individual. That's correct >> and that's the part that I have concerns about and again simply because the newer version of the law just has not been tested so to speak as as many times as the previous version of the law and is again I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm totally off base on that. >> I'm not either. Um, but that was my understanding from what I did look from like looking at the League of Minnesota Cities and some other things is that this current version of the law just has not been tested so to speak as as often as the previous version of the law. So that's why I'm kind of I'm on the fence. I think I think it is the right thing to do, but I am I'm worried about the financial liability that the city might be taking on. >> And I don't know what the financial liability might be. It may be $5,000. It might be 50,000. It might be $500,000. And I don't use those numbers just because they're easy math, but >> I technically don't know what the financial >> burden could possibly >> burden could be. I don't know the answer. >> And that's what makes me nervous is that big giant financial question mark. I don't like financial question marks. So that's where I'm standing, which is to say not on either side. I need to be convinced. >> Anybody else want to speak? >> I guess I'll just I won't echo some of what you're saying. and I won't repeat it, but I continue to be really puzzled about why we're in this situation. >> Y >> the um the road was on the on the previous plan that the developer had submitted. It obviously has been on plans for some time because that's where the intersection is. And uh now it's okay. And I don't know, you know, if the developers upset with the city about something unrelated to this, if it's competition between developers, unclear to me. Um but we seem to be at at something of a uh standstill I guess without trying to move ahead is my sincere hope that negotiations continue through this process which is as I understand it is part of it and that we can get to some figure out what the underlying problem is and and get that resolved but I don't know how we make it move forward without doing this. So that's where I'm at today. maybe uh uh some form of a lesson. No, I I think clearly we we trusted that this road was going to be agreed upon, was agreed upon verbally. It sounds like we should have locked it in contractually and we did not. Um and here we are. Uh I'm I'm kind of of the opinion that this is not going to be a fruitful road. Um, >> yeah. So, yeah, with the resolution and I does not mean that we get that that authorizes us to begin the process. Um, I'm happy to provide updates to the council if that makes you feel, you know, better about what the process would be. Authorizing this does not mean we're, you know, all the way down the route, but most certainly gives me direction as staff specifically to say which way are we going. Um, I always prefer to come to council to get direction specifically on items like this that can be volatile depending, but I'm happy to provide updates to the council. I will tell you that I stand here not loving eminent domain either. Um, that it's not my first, second, or probably fifth choice. Um, I'd rather negotiate terms and that's been what we've tried to utilize as the number one option is negotiate terms because it makes everything go so much smoother. Um, again, dollars are dollars, but uh, like I said, I'm happy to provide updates. Uh, I do know this initiates the process. It does not necessarily bind us to the whole process whatsoever, but it does initiate from the city styles perspective of where you want to head. So, that just want to make sure that's clear or any clearer as mud as it can be. Anybody else? I >> I got nothing good to say, so I'm going to say nothing. Okay. Well, we would need a motion to approve. So to clarify, Zach, if we approve this, there will still be another point in time where we So if we approve this and we get more legal advice or find, you know, whatever, perhaps another case goes to a judge in the meantime that makes us feel more comfortable one way or the other. We would still have an opportunity to say yes or no again. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I don't know the official action, but I believe it would be revocation of the resolution. Okay. >> Um, if we were to move forward with this. >> So, again, I'm happy to provide updates to the council. My first, second, and third goal is to get this negotiated and be done with it and or maybe just replant it again. That would that would be the best option. >> Um, so I'll continue to try to work with the developer and the owner's agent as best as I possibly can. But again, this kind of initiates the process for us so that we know what steps we have to do. This does not say we're, you know, 100% that's we're going all the way down the route and it's, you know, all or nothing. Basically, this just starts us down that process so that we have direction as staff of where we're at. So, I would agree with you and then we I will provide updates as best as I can and bring it back to council as soon as I can, obviously with updates, but it's every two weeks. >> Yeah. >> And yeah, the next negotiations would be signed in blood. >> Yeah. Yeah. So what this next step it it it starts the eminent domain process and it also allows me to do a final offer. Okay so that we have the next steps in the eminent domain process again that doesn't go from I think I provided this the council about the steps in the eminent domain process. It's new to me it's probably new to most of the council members >> um and just what the next steps are for a legal basis and this I have to get authorization from the council in order to send a final offer basically to the developer which then is the next step in the steps of the process. that doesn't mean we're going right to eminent domain, but it just means that I'm able to give a final offer on behalf of the council that you feel is, you know, just and whatever else. And the offer that I have offered is the appraisal dollars um related to the property. So, >> remind me on how we got here to >> where would you like me to start? >> Well, here's where I am on this deal. I guess if I was building a building, I would have secured this property first step. So, do you start back in like 2019 or >> Well, there's why we're here. I tell you what, I I don't care if we give the final offer, but there's no way I'm going down in an eminent domain. I mean, I'm not I don't believe in it. I wouldn't stand for it. I'm certainly not going to vote for it. >> Sure. >> If it was my land, it wouldn't end good. Trust me. Sure. >> It's just frustrating because I mean we were >> somebody made a mistake. That's the bottom line. >> Yes. Getting getting absolute approval. But I mean it was clear that both whatever I said that piece. Okay. We need a motion to approve. >> I don't know how we move ahead without this. So I'm going to make the motion. Okay, I need a second. Okay, I'll ask again. I need a second. >> I'll second. Okay, any more discussion? Okay, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. >> No. >> No. Motion fails. two to three. >> All right, >> I believe that's all we can do it from my understanding of Robert's world. We're good. >> Thank you, sir. Yeah, it my >> good evening mayor and council. Um before you tonight, we are looking for some uh guidance on the next phase of the LC Stevens master plan. Uh we did present uh several options before um we did get the master plan approved um by the council um uh without any phasing or pricing attached to those. Um from that meeting we took away um uh the items uh four items that you wanted included which were bathrooms, splash pad, performance stage improvement and additional parking. Those were the four things that we were focused on. Um a budget of 1 million 1.5 million was suggested for those improvements. Um since then the concept plans for f phase three have been reimagined by um MSA and the cost estimated for the project at 2 million25,000. Uh staff is looking for direction from the council to proceed with phase three of the park development. Um we've seen that um so proposed phase three is two areas and the the um the splash pad area which has been downsized considerably um removed the uh playground area added a restroom in that area and some additional parking. Um there's on the other side there's the stage um with a cover um additional seing and some dance floor um uh uh additions there. Um we have some very broad um pricing on this um project at this stage. Um we would need to get this out to bid to get some really hard pricing. But what I need tonight is what areas do we want to pursue? Um in your packet I believe there were some um few examples of different uh structures um for the uh metal canopy over the stage and uh a couple of different versions of what we would look for from the um restroom. Um depends if you want the basic or you know the more ornate one which ties in with what we want the overall park look and feel to be like. Um the uh splash pad is a smaller version of what we had uh initially on there. Um but it's still a good size uh splash pad. Um there's some examples of a similar uh splash pad that MSA have worked on. Um to give you some idea of what it may look like. So the next steps on this will be prepared bid documents approximately. I put a month um after talking with Alanor from uh MSA because there's some permitting and civil engineering is probably going to be more like two months to get that complete and the bid set ready. Um then it' be put out to bid for a month an opening. We'd award the bid, sign the contracts and and get the construction stuff going on. So there's a little bit of time that we need to consider before we get this uh thing rolling. Um, I do have Eleanor here tonight to help answer questions. Um, so that's where we're at. >> So, Marty, what drove the water and sewer? Is this the water park? >> Second. >> What drove the water and sewer? >> The water and sewer for this was the bathroom. >> The bathroom? >> Yeah, the bathroom. We're looking at having uh >> Well, that city sewer and water on the bathroom. >> Can you go back to the bathroom? >> Yeah, sure. Cuz that lower bathroom. >> Oh, >> yeah. Lower right that I don't think has regular sewer. That's what that vent pipe is. >> Some kind of pit toilet. >> That's right. >> Come up. >> Oh, sure. >> That's the forest from Forest Service bathrooms. >> Sure. Still looking. So the the images are just sort of an example of what you would look at for you know if it's a vault toilet if it's not nec not necessarily tied to that but stylistically >> I guess my concern is is that if we're running water and sewer just for the bathrooms and a lot of parks have that bottom style there. Now you don't have running water but they are vented and they have to be pumped periodically. >> Yeah. And just to clarify, the water and sewer would be for the splash pad. Oh, >> needed for the splash pad. >> All right. Sorry. >> Oh, no. Sorry. >> And I kind of suspected that given >> given that one there. >> And if you had water and sewer, then you could go with the top one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Why wouldn't you? If you had >> You wouldn't need the sewer for the splash pad, though. >> The water can't go into the river, though. But you can put it in a pond and then >> Mayor Mayor remembers it called. It depends on which splash pad you go with. So, there's two different designs for splash beds that you can do. You can do recycled water, which would need water and sewer because then the recycled water would then go flush down. They would put new water in or you can do I'm going to call it the St. Michael method. Um just cuz St. Michael's the nearest one that I know that did it is that they don't use a recycled method. They use a storm water pond. So what happens is the water comes off out of the well into the splash pad directly and then the splash pad puts the water from reuse. It puts it right into the storm water pond. The storm water pond is then used for reuse for irrigation on the lawn. Yeah. >> So, the water is in technically reused. So, the um ongoing maintenance costs are much less because there's no pumps to do besides the well and the pumps that pump it obviously into the facility, but there's no sewer um that's just pumped into a storm water pond. Um I in my personal opinion, we most certainly could do that St. Michael method here and then just irrigate the lawn around it with the reuse of the storm water pond because it would be constantly refilled um with the irrigation or the water usage in the um splash pad. It comes down less testing. There's, you know, less pumps. There's less ongoing maintenance typically on those kinds of facilities. >> So, we just um we just put in a sprinkler system. How much of it did we sprinkle? >> Not much. >> All around by the stage area. So, this may be more on that side. >> It would be all on the >> west side of the river of the creek. Sorry, not the river. >> So, okay. And and as far as water volume, what does it take? Would we need? >> Depends on how big your splash pad is. >> Well, this big. >> Um, >> well, this is big. 3,800 ft is a big one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't have those numbers off hand. >> Yeah. I don't know that number. Seagull, for example, if anybody's been to that seagull splash pad, that's 3,000 ft. >> I guess my question is though, >> St. Michaels is 22 2100. >> Yep. Odds is 3,000. So, this one would be bigger than both. >> Can we run this with a local well or do we need to pretty much hook it up to sewer or water? >> That would need to be investigated. Yeah. And I think, you know, just on broad numbers, I mean, I did a little bit of research on what the flow rates might be on on a 1500 square foot pad, they're looking at 30 to 45 gallons per minute on this. So, this would be closer to 190ish. >> Well, yes, it's going to be closer to >> And how big a pump does that take, Mr. Engineer? >> Wish I knew off hand. I would expect you'd be fine with the Well, I mean, that's not a tremendous volume. I I don't know horsepower wise what it would what would be needed but >> okay so like a three horse deep well or something nothing >> yeah an extravagant rate >> and that would be significantly cheaper than 200k >> um I yeah >> okay >> I said depends on which method the council wants to go with for supplying the water to the splash pad if the splash pad is what is desired by the council to put in on in phase Well, to me that this cost kills it because we we said one and a half for a reason, but if we can knock some of these costs down. Well, yeah, definitely the cost can come down. I don't know if anybody else did any. I mean, I'm not real wild about this whole I don't know that a whole lot of effort was put into these numbers. I mean, the the septic system alone, I don't understand why you would put sept sewer water there now. I I I do agree that once there's a main building there, >> Yeah. >> then you would have sewer water. >> Yeah. >> For now, a $15,000 tank and you just pump it a couple times a year. >> Yeah. >> You can get by with that. Or if you put a mound system in and you're talking 30 grand, >> but you're Yeah. You're talking about the bathroom. >> For the bathroom. Yeah. Yes. >> I think the bathroom I don't have a problem with no water. Um because again I've seen those bathrooms um and they're they can be kept pretty clean because they can be very easily rinsed out and uh it's just you don't have running water there. But um it's not I don't think it's that big a deal. It gets you a clean bathroom. But as far as the water park goes it sounds like that's really the issue or at least what type of water park we're talking about and what we do with water. >> Mhm. >> If it goes into a catchment pond and um as far as recycling it, that tells me that it's got to be full of chlorine. What happens when you sprinkle that on the ground? Not much. I don't know. I think there's a a certain amount of time that it has to be so the uh the chlorine dissipates out of the water before it can be discharged anywhere. I mean that would hopefully happen in the in the holding pond there. >> Yeah, but I know sunlight consumes that but I don't know what >> no big deal. >> No, I mean I think even a pool I think I don't know what the halfife is but it's pretty short of the chlorine within the water >> if it's in the sun. That's great. Yeah. >> Would it be chlorinated to a higher level than what comes out of the tap out of our sewer systems? >> I would expect so I want it to be >> Yeah. A re So to clarify a recirculating system where you recycle the water would need to be chlorinated and that does need to go through a longer permitting process. If it's just a flowth through system that goes to a holding pond, that is a shorter process and can utilize um if it were to come off the city water service, I believe that is acceptable. Um if it's coming off of a well, there would be some treatment options there. >> It would be much more minimal though because it's not being reused. So part of it is that it would be used and then done. So then it would be into the storm water pond. So the recycled or reused part of it wouldn't need as much chlorine in the water because it's not being reused and recycled. It's just being one time use and then into the storm water pond to be able to be irrigated into the water. So >> 100 gallons a minute you're talking about a lot of water over a 7 8 hour per >> but if you got a large area to irrigate it doesn't take long if you're irrigating for half an hour a time. I mean water will use up that water is there going to be a risk that the pond like will overflow I guess. I don't know. And I think that another part of this since we're talking about we haven't got any irrigation in this area to reuse that water yet. So if we do go this method, we would have to put that in. >> Yeah. >> So I guess I was confused. So if we're recycling the water then we where would it go into the pond? >> Okay. What was the flow through then? If >> the flow through is the recycled one. >> So there I think there's two things. >> Go ahead. So I think there's two things going on. There's where the water is coming from, how it's operating within the splash pad context. So there's where you have two options. You have the flow through or the recirculating. So that's one aspect of it. And then the second aspect of it is what happens with your water once it's done being used the first time around through the splash pad. So two options there. You can sort of dovetail the re the recirculating option. Feeds it back, treats it, reuses it within the splash pad setting. The second option is like Zach was alluding to using that great water coming off the splash pad to irrigate the the area in that part of the park. >> Well, the recycling, wouldn't you also want to dump that into a pond periodically >> eventually? Yeah. >> Okay. So, you're saying that if we have not the recirculating type, we would have a local well that would feed through the water park and it would go right into the pond. >> Mhm. >> Yes. That seems like a lot of water. >> Yeah, there's a higher operating cost with a with a flow through system um in terms of water cost versus a recirculating system than your cost is in your processing. >> So, so St. Michael does the one-time use storm water pond does the recycling method. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. And just to give you an idea about the volume of water, if we were um doing the 1500 that I got figures for, that was just over a million gallons of water um over the 90-day period that this is expected to be used. >> Um so we would probably be looking at more like 2 million gallons of water over that 90-day period. >> How much pond do we need? Like fed. >> Yeah. Like where does it go? Where where would a pond because that was not in the design at any point was a pond. >> Correct. The master plan level designs are are general. This would be getting the specifics of that and where that pond ends up. >> Um but there was no plan for it. So there it's not like we have a location already earmarked >> sort of open green space and that's sort of the the next evolution. >> And I'm just asking a question on the fly here. Yeah. Um, we do have uh some existing ponding on there. Would we build that into incorporate that into the system? >> Oh, sorry. >> That's probably me. I probably don't speak up. Um, to to answer Marty's question, yes, the we could to take a look at utilizing the existing area out there um and see if there is adequate volume in the the existing ponded area to at least take account some of the some of the storm water. I guess I like I like the idea of reusing the water on site. So the pond um idea, you know, we pushed some developments to do some recycling of of storm water. This would be cleaner water than that essentially. Um and reusing it on site rather than running it into a sanitary sewer makes sense to me. Uh, you know, I wonder at what point we because we know we have city water across the street. Uh, and I know we got to go under a road and all all of that um, stuff, but at what point does it become more expensive to drill a well and treat that water, which we wouldn't have to do if we were using the municipal water that's across the road? So, I I would like to understand that better, but I think that and the fact that it sounds like it would save some cost to not have to do the sewer, I think that would be my preferred option is to to reuse that water for um sprinkling on site. >> Would it be possible to reuse the gray water from the splash pad in the restroom? >> No. for like the toilets >> for the flushing the toilets. >> For the flushing the toilets, um >> that I would have to look in the public. >> Okay. >> Um because I'm I get that it would be cheaper maybe initially to not, but if we're going to long-term pull the sewer, like pull city water and sewer, it feels like let's do that now. It's going to be cheaper now than it will be in the future. And then like I appreciate that in this moment a well may be cheaper, but if our long-term goal is going to be to pull city water anyway, why not just do it now? It'll be cheaper now than it will be then. And we save then the cost. >> And there is a water line on this side of the road just by the um where the tunnel goes underneath the road. There's a hydrant up there. Um and I think there's a a fairly substantial service there from what I report that we could do. But the the part of this, you know, we talked about this um how we run that um border um through there. Should we run it so it incorporates where the the bigger building is rather than just send it to where the splash pad is and stuff like that? Do we want to do a bit of, you know, front end planning to know where that's going to go so we don't have to go back and redirect stuff >> or dig up the parking lot we just spent money to put in and then dig it back up to rerun the pipe. Like that's stupid. That was the point of the master plan, right? Is to know where we want everything in the end and make even though it's a more expensive choice right now, it will save us money in the long run. That was the literally the purpose of this. >> Do uh Matiu and um St. Michael, do they have municipal water in the area? I guess I'm wondering if this was a choice they made because that's again, you know, we talk about this all the time, but >> using drinkable water for some of this stuff just seems dumb. >> Like flushing a toilet. >> Yeah. >> Well, but you you can't do much with that. Um I I watering lawns. >> I believe St. Michael's is near and I think technically is too, but neither one of them I believe and I don't know this for a fact. Only one I know about seagulls is that they use a well watered because of the fact that it doesn't make any sense to put clean treated water >> through a spot that people aren't going to Right. >> So, so I was thinking they they may do it on on purpose. >> Yeah, I believe they're available in both spots. I can't speak to St. Michaels if they put a well in or not, but or they maybe they use city water. I don't know that answer, but >> is that something we can find out? I can find I feel like there's a lot of questions as far as like the splash pad, the water, all of that goes. And you know, I agree with you, Sarah, like thinking ahead, right? And I don't want to make a decision because we're like, "Oh, this is the cheaper option." And then realize in, you know, a couple years that we're like, "What in the heck did we do like if we had just done or done our research?" Not that you have. I'm just I don't I don't think I can make that decision right now. I don't >> the other problem with using municipal water is we're on the edge of de another >> tower over there >> and I would not want to ed >> be the one to push the this to be the thing that pushes it >> because then suddenly it's a big cost up front or it at least is going to add to that. >> So sorry I'm this is like a halfbaked idea. I'm just kind of talking out loud so I apologize. Is it possible now we've asked a lot of questions here about could we do this, could we do that, what is this? Um, is it possible to revisit that splash pad portion? Like again, I can't I don't think I can make a decision without having some of these answers. And I don't know if any of those are really clear for you, Marty, or if you're going to need an email of exactly what we went through with this last 10 minutes. But um I just I don't think that I can make a decision on that without having you know thoroughly thought through all of those things especially with like where does the pond go again it's not on the plan and for me I'm looking at it going I have no idea. >> Um then you might know but I I don't know >> or and like the irrigation system if we're going to have to put in an irrigation system in order to use that water then how much have we actually saved versus you know like >> Yeah. I think there's just a lot of pieces to this part of it in particular that we want to make sure we get right this this go around. Like we want to do it right the first time. >> Um but having said that, is this like an all-encompassing plan of we can't move forward unless we agree to >> all 10 things or whatever. I can't see the number nine things on here. or can we split it in half and look at the other side and say we're going to revisit back to the splash pad and move forward with the other side is my >> I think what we were looking for you know that these were the things that you picked out and there was a budget attached to it and it was going to be pick which ones you want to do within that budget but now it seems that if we're going to be revisiting this that could impact all the rest of this you know because the new irrigation system if we're going to use the water reuse then maybe we want to think about how the storm ponding works and stuff like that so it might you push that out of this phase even. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I I agree. I think that it maybe becomes its own kind of phase, right? Especially if it's going to be um a more in-depth looking at the irrigation or the pond and all of that. >> So, I guess my question is is understanding that we kind of gave you a long wish list of these are all the things and here's the budget kind of like make it work. >> Not meaning to, but it's kind of what we did. Can we still move forward just so we are moving forward with the other portion? >> So what we take it you just do the the stage area. Is that what you're looking at? >> I think I just want to keep trucking along. Um again like splash pad. I'm really excited about that. Um but I want to make sure it's done right, but I want to make sure we're still moving forward and getting something in the ground or >> It seems like the amphitheater is independent of this. >> Yeah, agreed. I guess I was just wondering cuz sometimes we >> it bids and it's like an all or a nothing kind of a thing or you're accepting or we keep it as in a different I don't know what this falls under. >> That would be how we would handle it typically. We do the whole project and bid the whole project out and then a GC would bid on the project and then would have a bunch of subs underneath them that would do you do this, you do this, you do this part. Um, we most certainly can do what you're asking, Customer Henderson, is we could do one portion at a time and just say, "Hey, we want to really focus on the splash pad and parking and restroom buildings in a separate process and separate out the amphitheater. Um, we obviously like to keep that as much as we can um, you know, working together with both of them. Obviously, we don't want to do, you know, amphitheater and not think about anything else to make sure that they're cohesive with each other. That was the idea of the master plan. Um, but we most certainly could do one independent project and then another, you know, call it call it three and then four. Whatever you want to do for phases, doesn't really matter, but we most certainly could do that. That's the council's direction. >> That seemed like something that would be. So, the process would be we would do three this year if we can. If it's just the amphitheater, maybe we can do that project just this year. Yeah. >> And then you would we would just work through the year on splash pad and bathrooms and whatever. get all your information, get all the access information that you guys are looking for, and then get through the design and planning and then do that part next year. >> I think for me, yeah, I think for me that makes sense because there is such a divide between the two areas. Like if they were right next to each other, then I wouldn't want to kind of split them up. >> Um, but I don't know what the rest of the council feels about that. >> I I think that they're >> splitting it makes sense. I'm not yet sure that it means if we don't do it tonight then it's next year. Um, I think that some of this stuff can get answered so we can give some direction. >> Yeah. >> You know, over the next month or so and uh, you know, is that really then too late to get a design and >> I mean it's maybe it's two separate bid packs, but >> um, timing wise, right, to keep the one moving, >> but >> I think >> does it does it automatically mean that this is off for this year? Just >> Well, I mean, we get it done this year if that's what you want to do. I mean there are two different types of contracts anyway. One's you know you know the splash pad is totally different to you know the stage area and the parking lot is you know we haven't got any black top in the other area. So there is a certain amount of difference between them. I think you know that we could do it as two separate things. >> I certainly don't think it's bad splitting them up at all. Um I would definitely want to get some better numbers here. I I don't like these numbers at all. I mean >> to me they're just way off way off board. I mean contingency 15% that's a quarter of a million dollars just for what >> and >> there's nothing there >> as we finalize these we always have a bigger amount of contingency and as you get the plan sets closer to where you are and you got more confidence in the numbers you bring that contingency down and it usually ends up around 7% is what we've been using on parks just recently and that seems to be a good number to cover everything but well there's a lot of unknowns you don't want to you know sell the product you know and and comes in way over the price. So >> the only the only reason I say that and we still have never got there and I maybe we never can. Maybe I just got to accept it. When you get a number for a splash pad, I mean I know I could call aquatics up. I mean I did do some checking on it. I can say I want splash pad 146. >> The price of that splash pad, whatever that price is, that's what you're paying. >> There are no contingencies. That's it. Now, you got to get there is contingencies on on installing it. >> Mhm. >> But to me, if you get some hard numbers and hold everybody to that number, then you know where you are. Um I also don't like the 330 those bathrooms. If any of them bathrooms are over 100 grand, you're you're bending over. >> I was kind of surprised by that, too. But I guess I don't know. >> Pun intended. >> It just seems like >> But I I appreciate where you're coming from, Scott. I I feel like at this stage that 15% contingency is is a a safe number to be using. We we seem to on a lot of these projects cut ourselves short for the unknown conditions that come up. And maybe there's less risks because there isn't much for buildings on this one. But it's not money we're spending. It's just money we're reserving in case >> the inevitable change orders start to appear. >> Um >> well, I'd like to see some hard bid hard bids on some of this stuff. I mean, >> sure. >> I talked to a builder today and he's $330,000 for a bathroom. Jesus, what are you doing? Putting marble in it. >> Well, that'll be the next stage of this. When we start pulling a bid package together and get this out to bit, that's when we're going to get our harder numbers once this is really refined down. These are, you know, just including a lot of things and best guess numbers, educated guess numbers, but >> correct. >> I'm all for getting the uh amphitheater done. I mean, getting something done there, but that hundred you got there, that won't buy the cover. That seems that seemed um well >> unless you're doing canvas >> and we none of us want canvas. >> So it sounds like are are we all in agreement that we need more numbers at least on the on the splash pad? >> Yes. >> Options numbers >> thought through different ways to do it. I do have one other question about those and do we have do we have the population to get to to so this will get some good usage or do we not have a clue what that means in other words I mean Andrews is surrounded by people I don't know about St. Michael, I don't know about but is that not really a question? >> I it is a question I don't know how to >> right. I I think there's there's one aspect of it that came up in the master planning process was this this did come up as a topic that people >> filled in requested >> it was a top second or third item to answer your question mayor I believe we have enough desire of it because it would be the only one in town so if there was multiple in town or something then you may not get as many people to draw to this location and or to this um use but bigger than us yes St. Michael's bigger than us. Yes. Champlain's bigger than us. Yes. But they're not that much bigger than us. I mean, >> y >> um >> I understand draw people from other areas. >> Well, and I think part of the the plan for this was, you know, I don't know if that's changed, but to make this into a destination park as well. So, you know, you'll be bringing in people from outside of the city as well. So, >> um yeah. So, it sounds like as far as the splash guide goes, we just need more information. Um, and I also agree that I think at least the the amphitheater I'm not sure what else we have in here is kind of independent of that. >> The restroom um I didn't where exactly was that that restroom going to be? >> It said by the splash pad this area. >> So we'd incorporate that with the splash pad area. That would be the idea. >> Okay. So then it would just be empathy and specifically what do the council wants to do with that specific area. >> Okay. >> I I personally don't think that it's a rush to get it done this year. >> I mean to me the splash pad that that area could certainly wait until next year. But make make plans for it now. >> Does it need to >> does it? That's my question. >> Does it need to wait if we can get it done this year? Let's get it done this year. >> Oh, ideally. I mean if we get going on it. Yeah. Like for me, the amphitheater, June 1st is the first show. You got to get that done if you're going to do it because otherwise you're not going to get it done this this year period. >> I mean, there's a show there from June until the end of August. >> I hear you, Scott, but I also um agree with David where if we can get the information that we need to make a decision on the splash pad, I would be fine and I would be in favor of moving forward with it. I don't think that we have to say that it will be next year. I don't think we can say that it'll be this year. I think we just need to continue to make progress, >> right? >> Um Yeah. >> And so I again d I just want to like say that I agree with you that it doesn't have to be next year. Um and if we can make a good decision and get going, I would love to see it go in there. I'm sure lots of people would love to use it. >> Okay. So is it really that right now where we're talking about is the um amphitheater, right? That area >> kind of know >> we need to have city staff would like to have good direction of what you like to do. So currently I think the plan was to expand the seating kind of area. >> Yeah. >> And then add a cover. >> Add a cover. And then there's a there was a question about a dance floor there um in front of the stage area to you know make that area a little bigger. Um >> stage cover dance floor and then some additional seating basically was what was included. The question I would have for everybody here >> is, is everybody okay with piecing that thing out so that we can basically subcontract it ourself and not pay some engineer 50 grand to make it to do it? I mean, it's a cover. You get a contractor to put it up. There's a there's a couple concrete guys in town that can do the concrete. I'm sure we can find an electrical outfit that'll do the electric. >> Can I ask a question? Yeah. >> When you say subcontract the pieces out, >> who who project manages that then? Is that Marty? He has to track down >> six different contractors and make sure everybody's on the right timeline >> as opposed sitting on all sorts of free time. >> And this is my question. >> Sarcastic. We know you have all sorts of free time. >> And I guess my question there is >> this one just doesn't seem like rocket science. No, it's not a ton of spaces, but I I am cautious toe in the water of um being like, "Oh, we've done this in the past and it's this project that has 15 different moving parts and then we throw that all on Marty's plate and then he's running around with all of the other things he has to do." I I guess I don't know. Maybe it's not a big of a deal for this project, but >> you have a project manager for a reason. >> This is no bigger than putting a pole bar up. It's it's just not >> I think there's still some planning that needs to be done on here. There'll be some civil engineering stuff and that so and we'd have to get good sets of plans to do that and we would still have to put it out to bid I would say even if it's just for the contractor for the concrete for the separate things so we make sure we get the best price and so there will be getting quotes and that um >> it might not >> it would most likely be a quote process not necessarily bid process. bid process. We need have to come back here, ask for the council to put off for bid, put it off for some amount of time. Um the quote process is anything under 175,000 >> and as long as we can keep it under that, which I think we can, we need to get at least two quotes. We typically get three. Um and that we would continue to try to ask, you know, obviously support local, but also look for the dollars if we can. Um if that's the direction of the council, >> can I ask another question, a very directed question, Marty, and this is not a negative at all to you or your performance. Do you have the capacity to run that project? And it's okay to tell me no. I just I'm trying to best support you and not put more on your plate to be like, hey, we don't normally do it this way. Why don't we just do this? And I guess there's a price to pay for not running our people ragged. There is a price to pay for you have a project manager for a reason. And I'm just wondering if >> we save a couple nickels but >> burnoutre correct or we leave it up to and not that you're not great Martin is not what I'm saying but mistakes happen >> when people are overworked >> when people are Thank you. I I'm glad you're on the same page. >> As someone who has overworked quite a lot and looking back and being like, "Yeah, I messed that up because I was utterly exhausted and I was being asked to do 5,000 things and I only had the capacity to do a thousand things, >> right?" >> So, >> and again, it's not a stab at anybody. >> No, it's just how life works. >> It just it just is. And so I guess I'm asking and maybe you don't want to answer that. >> General contractors. >> There there's 100% a reason why you have a project manager or a general contractor or you I don't want to say solve it with paying someone to do it, but there are things that aren't worth the headache. Like putting up drywall not worth the headache. >> I'm just saying like I don't know. Maybe that's a decision for us. Maybe don't answer that Marty. Um u maybe that's a decision for us to decide like is that juice worth the squeeze? >> Sorry. >> I think that's a fair question. I guess my question is um I feel strongly that we still need construction drawings. I mean that whole whole effort >> um regardless of who's doing the work. Would they be the bid pack be structured differently if we were going to in some capacity act as our own general contractor um bidding it out? I mean I know that the you know the documents are split up by division >> uh trade division and so on but would they be would you do them differently if if it was one path versus the other? I my gut feeling is you probably wouldn't. I think you probably have them the same. Um you just end up splitting them up and as a general contract that's what they would do. So we would just get the bids for the individual skills, you know, the concrete guy, the construction guy for the the uh amphitheater, that stuff. I think Yeah, I think that's basically how it would work. Just got a feeling it >> we would and then we would come back to the culture just like we do anything else and say prove the quote for this. >> Yeah. which like we do with everything else that would be >> yeah you know for cleaning or whatever else >> exactly the same if I was buying a pickup is three bids for this pickup you know this is the cheapest one you know and get your approval to go ahead with it be just breaking it down to that level >> the biggest part of it is not getting the quotes it's managing the project >> so getting the quotes from Marty is not going to be a problem I can guarantee Marty can do that process he's I more than capable of doing it and I No problem with that. It's the managing the project once it's going on when you have a concrete guy doing this and you got somebody putting up the amphitheater doing that and >> you also and then coordinating that also he's handling things over on the other side of town and then handling his parks guys doing this and whatever and >> then a wellhead goes out and you got to go do there's just so many >> I mean a wellhead projects like a project manager is there on site and managing all the people at one time. Marty wouldn't be able to be on site every day to do that. So that's the only process that I'm concerned about for Marty >> is a lot of the dayto-day and lining people up and then when somebody doesn't turn up or you know they've got you know staff out sick how that impacts the rest of the project and stuff and keeping it moving forward. That's where you find the problems. Um and there's a few other things that need you know we have to arrange concrete testing and stuff all those things as well that need to be done. It's not to say it can't be done but it's just a lot of moving parts. Just to clarify, I fully believe that you could do it all. Just gonna throw that out there. It's >> I guess my point is there is a general contractor and we are paying one. It's just whether or not we are paying a separate individual or whether we're paying by having Marty take some work that he would otherwise be doing and either not doing it like that's someone is still doing that work and the city is still paying that cost, right? >> And to pretend that we're not is delusional quite frankly. Um it's not like one of us is going to do that, right? Um, we are paying someone to do it >> for 10 bucks. >> You'll do Okay. Well, Scott will do it for 10 bucks. >> You'll be our general contractor. I don't know if there are some laws there about whether or not you can be our general contractor. >> That's not going to work. >> Um, >> but my point is that like we are still paying a general contractor like that that cost it just becomes hidden instead of explicit, right? >> Um, and so that I just think that's unfair to act like we are saving this money when we aren't actually saving. that's necessarily looking to save money because you're right. It's going to somebody has to do the work. >> Yeah. >> But can you get a general contractor to do this task? >> That I don't know. >> To do what task? >> The amphitheater and the and the >> and the stuff up front. Are they going to waste their time on it or are they going to >> If we can get a general contract, >> I bet you for bet you in five minutes with one phone call I can get a guy that'll handle the whole project. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, >> I I I agree that we're we're spending the money whether it's here or there. And I just worry about coordination piece of it because that's the boots on the ground part, right? So the >> the parking lot guy doesn't come before the plumbing's done and you know on and on. >> This is I'm just making examples here. >> All right. So how do we coordinate? >> Well, number one, you got to figure out what number one going to have to get some what what kind of cover. >> What what cover do you want? I mean, what cover do we want? Does anybody want? >> I don't want an amphitheater. I'm just going to say that >> just I've been kind I don't think this is a good location for this. I recognize that there's already one there. But like Maple Grove has an amazing performance space and I feel like this location it could be better utilized and more special there. But I think I'm the only one who feels that way. So I must get my mouth shut on that. >> That's a good spot on this whole park for this thing. >> I sure I just don't think we need it at this park. My point is this park could be better used in other ways because if I'm going to go to a concert, usually I want to go out to eat beforehand. There's no restaurants around here. Usually I don't like when I think about the No, this all residential. When you think about the theater space at Maple Grove or the stage space at Maple Grove, it is surrounded by parking first off. It is surrounded by um restaurants and bars. like it is a place you go to go out for a date and you go to dinner and then you go to the show and then you go to the bar afterwards. >> But what you're doing is you're talking about a whole different park then >> and you're >> But I'm just saying I'm just saying I don't think the amphitheater is important or a priority on this park. I think the splash pad is the priority. That's what the residents want. That's what's unique. That's not what we have anywhere else to me. I would put the energy there. >> We could do both at at the same time. >> Okay. >> Right. But if budget's a question, I would just cut the amphitheater and focus on the splash pad. That's where that's where my point is is if if we're really concerned about budget, cut the amphitheater, focus on the splash pad. >> I don't think the budget's a problem. >> Yeah, I think >> I mean that number to me that number is >> 15% too high. >> So then just move forward with this and we just want better. We just want some clarity about what those water options are. Like what are our choices for where the water come? >> We got the splash pad stuff. We need direction on the amphitheater at this point. Um, so I did MOSHes on the 100 grand. Was that including the concrete and >> No way. Not a chance. >> Yeah, I was going to say that seems kind of low, but >> Right. That's that's making an assumption for a very basic cover stage. If there's a if there's something that council has already identified, >> we can certainly update those numbers. >> I think it was the one in the bottom I think Council I think it was the one on the bottom left of this screen. That's not the one. But that's >> I wouldn't I don't I don't like that one. >> Right. Our place we had placeholdered a number like this not knowing if council had identified something. >> Yeah. You guys all know what the wave looks like. We've all seen it. The only reason I don't like this one is you got pillars right in front of the the production area. I mean that >> Oh yeah, the pillars could be but generally the idea design >> bottom left was something that we could feel like we could get that was metal. I think the one that you had suggested to us had some wood underneath it and stuff. Yes. And so that adds costs. This is a fully fabricated metal piece. So it would be metal. Again, doesn't mean that that's the right thing, but metal would be loud. >> When you got an amphitheater versus something that you had suggested earlier, customer salonic with the wave situation, which was more like a shingled with a wood underneath. I think >> it's treated wood. >> Yep. >> That is that that particular unit was 120 just for the unit. >> Mhm. >> Okay. I mean, >> the pre the pre-fabricated metal one would be significantly cheaper because it would be metal and, you know, one piece and done. But that's what that's what the numbers based off of is the bottom left. Look, >> the numbers based on that. >> That's 100 grand right there. >> Top top left. >> Top left. >> Yeah, top left. >> Oh, top left. Yeah, that thing will blow away in the wind, >> right? The top left is the not knowing if council had identified a preferred structure. We place holdered in a number >> and because we were trying to work within a budget number that you given us, that was one of the options that would make the thing come in closer to your budget. >> Correct. >> I think the amphitheater is going to be about 250 to 300. >> All done. >> Okay. >> So, just for clarity >> Mhm. You're looking for from us the style of the amphitheater that what I like very clearcut boundaries, Marty. >> Okay. >> Can you tell me exactly what the direction is you're looking for from us? I know you want direction on that area. >> I would like to know >> what kind of structure you want over the stage. >> I would like to know what you want, but if you want additional seating, I want to know if you want the dance floor in there as well. if you want all three of those things. Um, and then we'll work on that as as a budget item. >> The last one I want to know is do you want Marty running it as GC or do you want us to bid it out as a full package and have a GC do it? So that's two different ways of doing it. >> Can we start at the Oh, sorry. >> So that would be the reason number four is that is because either Marty's got to get all the quotes and then handle all the stuff and manage everybody or we send out as a bid. It's two different processes and we have to do a bid process and we have to get a GC involved and they just get all the subs underneath it. So four questions. Can we start at the top? >> Sure. >> Looking at you because you've done all this research. What kind of amplified cover, band cover, whatever you want to call it, do you want? What is the best one, the best option? >> Preferably, I would go with that wooden wave that we had. But like I say, that that band shell is going to cost 250 for the whole for all the concrete, the electric, everything. I just want to know what the cover >> there's a thousand cubic yard thousand cubic square feet of concrete that needs to go in there. >> Yep. >> By by my calculations. >> Now I'm not a concrete guy, but I did the math and had a concrete calculator do it. And >> the morning I looked at it and I preferably I think the thing needs a a dance some some area out front for >> it does >> for dancing. I agree with you 100%. So the whole concrete thing to me is is not good. That's there now. Now more seating. I don't know that you necessarily need that because people are going to bring a lunch here. >> Yeah. >> I mean, preferably. >> Uh those limestone rocks could have been grass, but they're there now, so we got to deal with them. >> Let's just hope people are dancing and they don't need to set. >> Well, they'll bring it. People are going to bring There was 600 people there last fall and it worked. >> Okay, perfect. So, what we're hearing is dance floor, no additional seating, right? >> That's what I So far, that's what I've heard. >> Sorry, I'm just like trying to like I like I like the order here. >> Um the wood added concrete, woodwave, >> and um >> Does anybody else have an opinion on that? I don't know anything about what the best amplified is. I I don't think I can make an educated >> So, the picture that you did have up on there, Scott, you were concerned about the poles, but >> Well, yeah, you're not using that sim. That's a side shot. >> The front of it is open >> is on this side. >> Yep. Yeah. >> So, what is the difference between I guess for the band itself or being able to hear the band between the metal and the wood? The metal is going to be louder. Is there is it really going to be like how what is the what is the preferred like what other I don't >> I guess I've seen them both ways >> and it doesn't really make a difference. >> The poles aren't going to do diddly. No, >> the the roof structure might >> I think I mean the tin would obviously the steel would obviously reflect harder than the wood. Wood would absorb some of the sound so it would project it out of there a little bit. >> It's got the one you had showed us. So this is tin steel. >> Yes. >> This one the top left >> bottom left bottom right. I think it's got a wooden liner on it. Um, it's a Polygon is a manufacturer that we we reference their projects because they have easily accessible online information regarding construction. >> And how much was that one? >> Do you know Do you know that? >> I do not know off the top of my head. So, I don't want to give you the wrong number. >> I mean, that's not terrible. I don't mind it, right? >> But >> I don't mind it either. That's why I was asking like, is there a difference between >> I think I think we can get a quote on that particular one and a quote on the wave and whatever. I think where we're at at the moment, if we can find a style that we we want to go with, then we can get several quotes from different things and see which one's the best quote and what what the real number is. >> Okay. Well, I'm fine with the wave, whatever the material is. >> Okay. Yeah, I like it. >> Awesome. Okay. So, that's the three. What was the fourth was the general contract? >> You want Marty to be GC and then we quote everything out. Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack >> or we bid it out as one big project and >> you're talking about just this. >> I'm talking about just the amphitheater portion cuz it's going to be rough. You said 250 to 300 which means that means it's over the 175 number which means we now we have to bend it out. >> But you separate you separate that out and and you take it into pieces. >> So that's Marty doing GC work. >> Yeah, >> that's that's my question. >> Does that feel like we're trying to dodge the >> I'll just I would check with an attorney before you did that. I I don't know. >> That sounds like you're dodging it. >> If you can break the project up to keep it under 175. If it is intentional, that's probably going to be flagged. >> I can't say for sure. You might be able to general contract that, but I would recommend checking with >> What I would say is if you're going to do that, we would then we would GC it out, which we are able to do, and then we would do the project and we would general contract it out. We could not do what I think what Jason's referencing is we couldn't p like um purposefully keep the projects underneath 175 just so we can get quotes to have a GC run the project. We couldn't do that. That's not legal >> to me. This is such a simple project. You just take the three pieces or two pieces cuz you're talking about a cover and concrete. That's basically what >> I guess some you've removed the seating so that is one part. So then it would just be dance floor and amphitheater. You're talking concrete and >> cover electricity >> because you got to have light. You got to have lights in the roof of that thing. >> You'd have to have 88 accessor too. >> Yeah, >> I was going to ask. >> So, there's more that goes into it when you >> which we already have already. I think >> use a general contractor financially. You would have to do like the IC134s, right? >> We wouldn't have to do that if we quoted everything else. >> Responsible contractor acting obligations. a lot more that goes into it than just the work itself >> and it it goes up. >> I don't know. My feeling is that we we bid this out as a as the package if it's this amphitheater area that we're slicing out that it gets bid. We're talking about something under a half a million >> for this whole thing. I mean that's a house. I mean, you know, how many residential, it's not residential builders, but guys who do this kind of park work, they do that kind of coordination all the time. I don't know that there's a big premium on it to to have a guy, I mean, hire a company and then, but they don't self-perform, they bid out themselves and and bring it back. I get nervous about us doing all of that coordination. um that coordination. I guess it's not a huge project no matter how you look at it, but I I just think we're better off on this size project is just doing a single bid and let them bring in their >> The only downfall you got there is then if just say you get four contractors, you're going to have four different covers. >> Well, I think I think we want to spec that. I don't think we want to leave that to to the contractor to decide. I think working with the architects that we say we want this one and so they bid it. >> Four guys call the same manufacturer of the cover. >> Sure. >> You know, >> hopefully they all get the same price >> and sure they're going to step on it just like every everything else. They're going to, you know, they're going to have something in their in their bid for coordination and, you know, and we pay that. But it's like Sarah and Stephanie were saying, it's, you know, do we want to see the cost or do we want to to, >> you know, hide it in the in work that Marty didn't get done while he was doing this? And I think for this size project, we're better off keeping it as a package. But that that's just me. Yeah, >> I agree. >> That tells me that's going to get a premium. I I >> I know if I was going to invest a quarter of a million bucks, you're going to pay me 50,000 bucks for doing that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Well, I mean, if we get all these bids and they're way too high and they're out of budget, then we just >> reject them and >> reject them and >> and you go back. >> Yeah. And then we don't get built, you know. >> Well, then we just kick it in the ass. We'll figure it out. >> Yeah. >> Did we answer all of the questions? I heard bid. That's what I've got out of content. >> That sounds good. >> Wooden wave. >> Yep. >> Uh concrete dance floor >> dance floor. No additional seating. >> Yep. >> And then we want to get some more information about the uh splash pad. >> Specifically the water, how it comes in, what our options are, and how it goes out. What our options are. >> Yeah. All of those extra things with the project. >> Okay. >> Do we need to like is this like a motion to pass or is this direction? Like >> just direction. direction. He knows where >> Yep. All right. >> Thank you so much. >> Thanks for the direction. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Item J. >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Tonight, you're asked to review uh and consider resolution 07-2026 uh site plan review at 18270 Territorial Road. It's the Adessa and newly um Carvana location here within uh Dayton. So overall the site's 35 12 acres roughly. Um there are two smaller parcels that are associated with this use as well that were parcled off in uh recent years within the last 5 years um related to connection to sewer and water. Um originally the site was approved in 1996 for a conditional use permit for an auto auction site. Since then, auto auctions have been changed to an interim use. Uh the conditional use permit still runs with the land. There is no time limit for as long as they continue operations um throughout the applicants. I've also just submitted, this is kind of a two-parter because originally they had submitted a a plan for multiple um building constructions or one was a building addition on an existing building. Uh for a car wash edition would have been a privately uh a privately used car wash not open to the public. Um there were some setback issues during the review process and since then they have submitted a revised plan that just incorporated the car wash edition into the new uh building overall. Um, so the site the building is uh proposed to be used for inspection and reconditioning, minor repair, minor auto repair, and some that is described in the code as major repair such as a paint booth that they have in installed there. There's no transmission work or anything like that proposed at this site. Um, and the repair services are currently operating on site as is. Um, they're just looking for a new space. Um, so here's just a layout of the current site here. Um, in your packet, there was an overlay showing the approximate location of where the building was going to go on the property. Um, in review of setbacks for the I1 district, everything is being met. Here's an overall uh um plan for the building inside. Um you can see here where the addition of the car wash um was proposed. So this is new uh from their original submitt um that they've submitted within the last month. So the 68,000 ft² building is essentially going to also include some car storage um that is going to replace that outdoor vehicle storage that is currently on site just for reference as well. um design elements. The in the I1 district, there are specific requirements that the applicants will have to meet and that will be reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit. Um I think I've reiterated a couple of times within the report and also in this pre uh presentation here that uh they have to satisfy all of the requirements of the um zoning ordinance for um development of the property or at least uh construction of the building before we are able to issue a permit. So this stuff whether it's uh fluid or still being worked out uh in the end it will be finalized prior to us uh issuing a building permit. So um an example here is their metal um architectural metal that they have described. Um this is a a good example of what I uh describe as architectural metal is insulated Santa Fe wall panels. Um does not look like your standard pole building um with uh exposed fasteners and such. And uh also recently, I don't believe that this was in your packet, but just wanted to show you that this was the uh updated uh design that they are working on to further meet those requirements uh that were on that last slide. Um so efforts are continuingly being made to meet those requirements as we uh move along through the process. So at the planning commission meeting, we discussed this uh project. One of the questions that brought up was a wondering why the conditional use permit was not uh being requested to be amended. Um it was staff's determination along with review of the with the uh city attorney that because this is strictly for reconditioning minor major auto repair that are permitted outright within the um I1 district and is not associated with the specific auto auction um on the property. And actually um that's why our determination was that a conditional use permit amendment was unnecessary. Um the auto auction originally in 1996 when it was approved was approved in a much larger capacity where there was on-site auctions occurring um on a weekly basis. That does not happen uh anymore. Um so all of their auctioning uh is online and as well as the Carvana process would be um storing the vehicle there. Once it gets p purchased after the reconditioning and such um then obviously the vehicle will leave the premises to go and get dropped off at the new owner's um residence or whatever location they describe. Um so all in all the reason for that was that they had recommended some conditions and I had just reminded them that because this is a site plan review the city is not allowed to um require conditions above and beyond what the code currently allows. Um so the one thing that was encouraged by the planning commission as a group as well as the EDA was some um additional landscape screening along the uh railroad corridor and highway 81. um in your packet I've uh showed some areas uh on County Road 81 that kind of describe what the vegetation looks like. Now, obviously that changes as the railroad comes in and um cuts that down from time to time. The other issue that the staff had considered but didn't uh discuss this with the applicant because there is a large gas line easement that is on that north property line that is not owned by the city or the property owner. is a new star gas line easement that goes through um a large portion of this area within the city. Um so they do not have ownership over that, it would have to take some coordination for them to be able to install some landscaping on that area. So while obviously staff does still encourage uh and uh echoes the planning commission and EDA's requests, it is ultimately up to the applicant at that point. Um but all in all the planning commission recommended approval of the site plan 4 to one. Um, I had that note in there about the building permit requirements and uh staff does recommend approval of this. Um, and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> I had a couple and maybe you already addressed this because it um it seems a little bit off to me that the CUP was for an auto auction and this really is just online car sales now. So I don't there's not really an auction component to it. They set their prices, you agree to pay, they deliver the car. And so is in terms of your discussion with the city attorney and so on that that still falls within the description of the the use that was approved. >> Yes. Only because the identified areas for parking spaces was tied to that approval of the conditional use permit at that time. So, they're still utilizing the space for that and still utilizing that storage for the same capacity of the auto auction. There just isn't any um traffic that comes to the site anymore is essentially what is the only change. Um creating a less intense of a use for that auto auction um that uh does not exceed anymore what the conditional use permit was allowed in the first place. So, it is still there. Um, though not in the same level, not at the same level as previously approved. >> Okay. Yeah. I It just seemed like a little bit of a disconnect there for me. But I I don't have a problem with this use. And like you said, it's less intense rather than, you know, 400 cars coming and going all in this, you know, in the same day or the same week. This is more of a one-off thing. Um, the other thing that I wanted to address or ask for is that in the resolution, um, it talks about prior to the installation of the fuel storage equipment, the applicants shall submit a permit to be reviewed and approved by the fire department and building department. Uh, that that's that certainly makes sense. But because the tanks I assume this is a 6,000galon above ground tank. Yes, it is a >> that involves the state and the MPC a for registration and and uh permitting as well. And there's quite a number of u uh paint booth or paint bays in within the building itself. And so I I would assume um that they have some kind of hazardous waste license at this point for with the work they're already doing. But um I would ask that that license be reviewed um either by the uh the fire chief or the fire department to make sure that they do in fact have the approp appropriate license. I don't know what I don't know how much waste they're generating, but you know this could tip them into a different level of hazardous waste license than they currently than they currently have. And and uh this has come up a few times for us. I'm not I'm not sure that we're assuring that they actually have those things as part of the process and I would like to have that built into the resolution. >> Sure. Yeah, absolutely. And um I did have a conversation with Metro West uh about the the paint booth as well and uh from the storage tanks. From my understanding, the uh drawings and the designs are essentially reviewed from by MPCA as well to make sure that they are compliant with the rules and regulations that they um are um I guess charged with forcing with enforcing. Um, and so that will that will certainly be a part of that. Then we'll um I can I'm thinking it'd be more of a a building inspector question related to some of those requirements with the paint booth related to not only waste but also uh proper exhaust and such. >> Yeah. I just would like to have that the city have the assurance that those those things have been t those steps have been taken. They've they've dealt with the MPCA around registering the tank. they've dealt with Henipin County as far as a hazardous waste license because we don't regulate any of that or monitor on kind of any ongoing basis. That's their job, but I just want to make sure that they have them. Certainly, just for reference, I do not believe and I clarified with the applicant that there isn't uh currently any painting going on on the site at current. All right. Any other questions? >> Um, not a question. I just wanted to thank you uh for the way the packet was laid out for the actions to be considered that you gave us all three. Um, in the past that's been an issue where residents see that the only action is to approve and they feel like it's a foregone conclusion. So, I just wanted to thank you for making that that adjustment. I really appreciate that. So, but for the actual thing, I don't have any strong feelings. Is there a way we can work with the easement owner for that 50 feet to get some better vegetation there or is that not anything we've been interested in? Um, you know, I think the c the city could certainly uh uh I don't know if the city would be the one to go out and uh request that from the easement holder, but uh we would encourage the the property owner to reach out and uh it could certainly be uh a similar circumstance as to what the city does with their easements that you can put a fence in your ement area, you can put landscaping in your easement area, but if at any time the city has to come in and do the work within that area for whatever reason, that fence is going to come down at that point the landscaping would come down if in that case too. So um we we'll definitely uh communicate that. >> Okay. >> All right. I need a motion and a second. >> Make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Any more discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> Those question. All right. Passes five to zero. On to item K. >> Thank you. Thank Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, this past spring, um, seems like a long time ago, the city reviewed a concept plan for a project in the A3 district where, uh, the number of lots were based on, um, in 10 acre increments. So, if you had 10 acres, you get a house. If you have less than 10 acres, you don't get a house. Um so in this project we had uh the project area was 117 12 acres. There was a question of could that be rounded up to 120 uh for the purposes of determining density. Uh the council provide direction to staff to look into it. Um so kind of at the the question is is at what time at what point do you round numbers to the next whole number? Um and kind of the answer is it depends on what we're talking about. So um in surveying it it's uh it's to the right nearest um was it tenth of a number you round it up. So you have you know 0 or 0 is the the smallest number. Um so kind of getting to the point here is at what point do you want to round it up? Um our staff's opinion is you just the number is what it is. Um there's too many complications. If we try to fix it for one thing, it it may affect something elsewhere. >> Any questions for staff? >> I I have one and I understand what you were saying with the you know, looking at the larger number. It's >> the 117 acres. We're talking about 2 and a half acres >> um you know of difference. on the, you know, in the residential side, it's a much bigger percentage of the actual property if you're rounding from 1.5 to two. My question is why why it couldn't be a percentage >> to have a 10% or 5% whatever number makes sense to people, but then it's proportional to the actual size of the ass, right? >> So, you're not going from 1.5 to two, you're going from 1.5 to 1.6 six and a half or something. >> So, like if you're within 95% of where you're supposed to be, that's close enough, >> right? Because we've got these odd numbers all over the city where, you know, the land got cut because somebody said put the fence there and so this side is, you know, short at a half an acre and the other side is over by a half an acre. It it just seems to me like that's the kind of leeway that people are asking for is and wouldn't it be better served by doing it as a percentage of the the overall property versus math kind of stuff where you round up when it gets to, >> you know, above five and and so on. >> Okay. >> Sarah can say that better. Um, I do think it's I I I appreciated that you pointed out that rounding up to the nearest whole number when you're talking about acres is substantially different than rounding up to the nearest whole number when you're talking about square feet, right? Like rounding up a half a square foot is not the same as running up half a square acre. Like those are wildly different amounts. Um, and so like I'm all for rounding square feet numbers to the nearest whole number, but I don't like half an acre is a lot of space. Um, and so I do not think so I would be more of the I am fine with rounding feet square feet to the nearest whole square foot. I am not okay with rounding acres more than the tenth of an acre is the minimum in my mind. Um, so if it's a half acre, it's a half acre. Particularly because like our lots are less than like lot, you know, most residential lots are not even a full acre. So like they're automatically like So, um, I appreciate that. Just one little thing for like anyone just cuz my students mess this up. Rounding is not a chain process. 1.49 does not round to two. 1.49 rounds to one because 1.49 49 is closer to one than it is to two. Like um but people feel like you can chain round and that that's not how rounding works. Um so I just wanted to clarify that just for any student, anyone ever looking at this. I don't want anyone to say that the city of Dayton thinks that rounding works that way. Um because it does not work that way. Um but no, I would I would be down with going, you know, anything measured in square feet can be rounded to the nearest whole foot. anything down anything measured in acres is to the nearest tenth of an acre. Um I think that I'd be okay with that or or I'm also okay with just the numbers are what the numbers are. >> I'd say the numbers are >> I'm fine with that. I agree with that >> why we're talking about this. I do agree though that >> particular person >> I I think >> I think we can deal with something that was close >> um with I think a better interpretation of the variance rules especially given I think have they recently gone through some changes at the state variance requirements. I thought there was something >> I know that commissioner Sergeant had referenced something like that when this was going through concept. I'll have to look into that because I haven't seen any official changes or anything. >> My hang-up is is is and let's make the the 120 acres really ridiculous and say you're 2 feet short. >> To me that has variance written all over it. Um because at at I know you're not supposed to look at dollars, but at some point it does become a burdensome um level to hit. So I it it seems like we can deal with this in on the varian side. On the flip side, if you're talking about acres, two like two feet would if you're going 210 of an acre at least be more than covered. >> Mhm. Uh, sure. But I mean, if you're at to me if even if you're at 119.4 or 0.9 then point8 you want to round it to 0.1. It's still to me that is so close to not look at a variance there. to me is is a little punitive. But >> but we can look at a variance. Correct. >> I I think we can look at it. I think it'd be it might be nice if we had a much better understanding what those rules really meant. Um I just think it opens up a can of worms if you start rounding things. Um because units matter. >> Can I quote you in class? You know, I Yeah, I Yeah, even if you switch to meters versus acres, you know, whatever unit you use is is uh is is going to change what that real number is. >> Mayor, members of council, I could try to just try to keep us moving here. I think we're at the same spot where we're okay. Um, so from my understanding is that we would >> then if they're looking to not make any changes, there would be no approvals of this. It would be a recommendation for denial >> or just no approval of it. >> No approval. >> That's correct. >> Do do we have a motion? >> Yeah. I'll make a motion that we don't approve it. >> We can't do that. >> Okay. So, do we have recommendation for denial then? >> Yeah. >> No, you just rules of order is silence killing me. That's good. It >> hurt. I'll ask one more time. Do we have a motion to approve? >> All right. That was three. Okay. Thank you. Uh, I don't know. >> Sorry. Just try to keep us moving. >> Yep. >> Appreciate that. >> Zach, do you just want to hit the slide? >> Love to. >> Um, just, uh, you guys are familiar with this that last month. Um, the, uh, city council and the planning commission reviewed concept plans for assisted living facilities. Um, there was general support for assisted living in the GMU4 Balsam Lane district. Um and the really the question came down to whether the city would be interested in allowing this outright as a permitted use um versus a conditional use. After review of the planning commission uh staff originally uh recommended approval of this as a permitted use within that district just to maintain consistency with the multif family that is currently allowed there outright. Um and uh through discussion with the planning commission, they also recommended that it be a permitted use, but have recommended that the conditional use permit requirement related to building height be changed from anything over two stories to anything over one story. Um as there was concern of uh one of the vacant parcels was adjacent to a single family residential facil or neighborhood. Um so that was kind of the what they're were interested in doing. So that is the ordinance that is in front of you tonight. to limit it to one story. >> Anything anything beyond would require a conditional use permit. The way that it's currently written is two anything over two stories. >> Yeah. >> Is that for anything or just the nursing homes? >> That is for anything. >> But like a regular two-story house doesn't need a cup. >> Correct. Uh single family homes are not allowed within the Balsam Lane district. So this I guess I didn't maybe I didn't say that quite but uh this is only specific to the GMU4 mixeduse district >> and that's the only place we have for GMU4. >> Correct. Yep. That is the only area and the only area we will ever have. >> That is correct. >> So this is really those two properties. >> Yes. In any reuse or redevelopment and it's not saying they can't. It's just it would have to come through as a cup if they wanted to go higher. >> Correct. Okay. That's fine. >> Any more questions? >> Yeah. I have one. Sorry. Um well my concern is in the in the definition you were saying that this would allow u assisted living facilities but the two concept plans that we saw both had memory care as a component of it which would not fit this definition. >> Correct. However, the existing language for the nursing home definition does include that memory care as a capacity of the nursing home. Um, and that is also as part of the amendment to include not only assisted living but nursing home as well. Am I I'm not reading it that way. Am I missing missing it somehow? >> I could I I could uh I could pull it up certainly if there was uh if there was interest in the city council for including uh memory care in that uh allowable uses. Um, you could certainly make that amendment to the ordinance amendment just for clarity to kind of cover all of those. >> I'd be okay with that. >> I mean, do we have any pulled up here? >> Um, cultural fashion, what's your what's the like are you looking to not have them allowed? Are you looking to have them allowed? I guess what is your >> Well, we're changing the ordinance I think in part based on the fact that we had two concept plans come in front of us and neither of these would fit under the ordinance as I read it without allowing the memory care component because that is a higher level of care >> and I would agree >> and that's not again if I read it wrong I apologize but it looks to me like it only allows assisted living not the higher levels of care. So what um what senior planner Stengard is saying that if you guys want to add that as a specific item to the ordinance and adjust it say including memory care as well >> just to cover it >> just to cover it you most certainly could do that and amend the ordinance as it sits in front of you tonight. >> So I would make that motion to amend it um to include um a memory care component as allowed. Are there any uh I guess you'd have to call it liabilities to adding that to the to Medicare versus just >> well it it certainly adds a layer of complexity complexity >> because these are then for sure patients that are not capable of self-rescue and I don't know if that you know the building code comes into play differently if they have to you know I I only know hospitals so I can tell you what would happen there but I can't I guess I'm asking this some side effect we >> we're neglecting. I I I don't think so. >> Go ahead. >> Um Mr. Mayor, members of the council, uh is the is the question why um nursing home definition wasn't included in the ordinance amendment. is that cuz we already have a definition for nursing home and when I reviewed that my determination was that nursing home that definition covered uh that of a memory care function. Uh if you allow me to read that I can certainly do that at this point. Um but it wasn't in the ordinance amendment because it's already an adopted definition. Um but it states a residential complex containing multif family dwellings designed for and principally occupied by senior citizens and licensed by the state department of human services public or private uh which for gain or otherwise regularly provides one or more persons with 24-hour substitute care, food, lodging, training, education, supervision, habilitation, but which for any reason cannot be furnished in the person's home. And is that is that in here someplace that that's >> it's already in >> yeah it's already an adopted definition in the zoning code currently. >> So we don't need to add that. >> The reason that I had the assisted living facility definition added is because there is not currently a definition for assisted living facilities within the zoning ordinance. >> Okay. So within the exist I'm sorry to be this dumb. No, no, that's okay. I I appreciate that. >> The So, in the existing ordinance, there's already a definition for a nursing nursing home kind of care, which would include memory care. >> Yes, that's correct. So, the what we're looking at for this is just the amendment to add the assisted living component >> to add the assisted living definition in the ordinance, but then at the same time allow it as a permitted use, both assisted living and nursing homes in that specific district. So that's why those two sections of the ordinance amendment are separated out is because those are different um sections of the ordinance that we would be amending. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry for the confusion. >> Yeah, no worries. >> And I have a question. So you put a motion on the table. Does that include the restriction on the height or No, >> I I did address that. That's >> is that already there. Just making sure that that doesn't override what we're here as is including >> if you'd like to amend your story. >> If you'd like to amend your motion, you most certainly can. If that nursing home definition abides by what you guys feel, then you can amend your motion. >> Well, it sounds like it's unnecessary. So, I'll withdraw it. >> You can Yeah, you can withdraw it or you can amend it as stated. >> I think it's cleaner to withdraw it and then we'll just I will uh motion to accept this amendment >> as written. Need a second. >> Second. Any more questions? All those in favor say I. >> I. Those post say no. Okay. Carries 5 to zero. On to item M. Okay. So, this was a a question that was brought up at a council meeting and it has been uh discussed a couple of times now within the last few months at the planning commission meeting. um considering requiring um homesteading for any property that is interested in utilizing uh the city's home extended business interim use permit program. Um the planning commission essentially reviewed this and uh their thoughts were more so the stateisssued ID and utility bill uh could be considered sufficient and the homesteading requirement would otherwise limit potentially renters from being able to utilize the program um while at the same time even if they can meet the the ordinance requirements as currently written. Um so after discussion and the uh the planning commission didn't necessarily change their um tone on this. They just uh provided a motion to recommend denial of the drafted ordinance in front of you. Um so with that and I know that this was a little bit of a discussion point that was wanted to be had. Um so um but we also held a public hearing for it to have the discussion and then bring the amendment forward in case um there was interest by the city council to adopt this tonight. I have a question. >> Go ahead. >> How many home extended businesses do we have right now where the person is a renter? >> I can only think of one. >> I can think of one more Henderson. I think one of my concerns is how broad like a home extended business is me making cookies in my kitchen and selling them and is also storing like 30 RVs and they're all in one pocket. You know what I mean? Like they're all in one pool. And that to me is where I have a little bit of a disconnect because the person making and selling cookies from their home, do they need to own the home? I would say no. That's a rent. Like I'm fine with that. But I would be very concerned about a renter who is renting a larger property deciding that they're going to go ahead and start a storage business. Um that that feels different to me. And so I think one of my issues is that we all put them into one bucket and act like they're the same. >> Yeah. If I could just uh clarify because I think you went through this process with us recently through the administrative home occupation. Yeah. And I'm uh proud to say that we've had uh >> two now this year so far that have uh been approved for administrative home occupations. That is separate and otherwise would not uh require homesteading at this point. So this is specific to that interim use permit that you would see at planning commission and city council would not be a requirement for something like you had had described. >> Oh, excellent. Okay. Thank you. That clarifies that. So then for the two renters are those are these those are special ones the renters. They're not the uh you said that there's two people who are currently renting that have this they would be people who are the the I don't want to call more complicated version that has to come through. So they have those. Okay. >> That is correct. >> Okay. And then just I mean I don't want to put you on the spot. Maybe you can't answer this. Are those two ones that we've had some issues with complaints from neighbors or things like that? Because that's my other concern with these is that if you are a renter, you might not be as concerned about alienating your neighbors as you are if you are the homeowner. Um, so I feel like these these more extensive extended home businesses, one of the big things that I think we need to acknowledge is the impact they have on their neighbors. And I'm not like a the person who owns the land owns this property may be more considerate of their neighbors than a renter is. >> So maybe not. >> I guess I'll just know I'll just say that uh at least one of them uh has been one that I have uh spent a little more time on than normal um in terms of gaining compliance to the property. Um, at the same time, I will say that this is not a retroactive ordinance amendment where um, if this was approved, this wouldn't go into place on those interim use permits until they were one either revoked or to uh, the permit had expired and they at that point they wouldn't have the opportunity to reapply. >> Okay. Is there a workaround? Like is there a way to have your cake and eat it too? um like cuz I I understand um needing that homestead designation like that makes sense to me like it's a home extended business like you need to live there and we've had a couple that we wonder strongly if you really do live on your property or this property or not. And so I'm just wondering like is there a way that we can give an option for renters or is this an all or nothing? That would be a whole another ordinance. Correct. But like if that really is the concern that people may be renting and there's lots of people that rent for all kinds of reasons and they may want to have some sort of a business and that's okay with their landlord like is there a way around another option? Can we create another option where you show your rental agreement whatever have like is there a way to do that where we're not excluding anybody but also >> protecting >> protecting you know what this is supposed to be. Does that make sense? You know, I I I would say that uh if a renter at this point were to come in and ask for an intermuse permit for a home extended business, I think that uh maybe accessing a copy of a uh a rental agreement um from the property owner or the tenant in order to suffice that requirement that the person resides there. That'd be um something that we would certainly do. Um, I'd have to think about that a little bit more about what other options there may be to uh maybe limit this in this certain capacity, but also at the same time uh allow some latitude for renters within the city. Um I don't know if I can give you a definitive answer at this point. Um, but I would say that if that question ever comes up, especially um throughout the approval process, um, I guess my my encouragement would be to utilize that in um the determination of whether this would be an allowed interim use permit or not. >> So, we could make that decision like if they came forward and said, "Hey, this is what we want to do. This is all of this." And could we then say, >> "You're good to go." >> Yeah. Okay. We want to give you this. Can we do that? I guess is the question. >> The way or >> is it sticky? >> The way that the home extended business language is written is that um at the very the very last provision is the basically a catch-all for uh the city council that can ignore you can you can certainly approve an interim use permit for home extended business above and beyond the standard requirements which this would be one of them. So, if that was a circumstance where um you were interested in allowing a renter and it it was clearly incidental and not uh um overexpansive of the residential property in nature. Um you could certainly >> and they prove that they live there, which is ultimately what we care about. >> Correct. >> And we could tell them, hey, prove it. And >> how would they prove it? >> Well, the rental >> rental agreement. >> Rental agreement does mean they live there. >> And that's that's the other thing, too, is that there's some nuance to that. There's some nuance to that as well. >> On the flip side, renter the renters doing this are 50% 50% of them are >> are problematic versus well 1% of the homeowners who are up to the guy. >> I don't know. It feels like we're trying to legislate bad neighbors out of the equation. And I don't think this will do it. So then I'm not sure what what problem we're trying to solve. I think the I think it's really more um understanding what the what the proposed use is at that time and kind of deciding at that point is this is this specific request for whatever it may be clearly incidental to um the the principal use of the property which is single family home in nature. Um, yes, there are uh renters that are um somewhat uh pro problematic sites for um compliance and such, but uh really that would come at the at the time of approval at that point. >> We've seen owners that are problematic, too. So, >> well, I guess for me, I'm just trying to give the renter the ability to >> they have it. >> They have it now, >> right? But I think that you should have to prove that you live on the property that you are having a home extended business on because I can tell you at least too that I am highly skeptical that they even live there >> and we have issues and we continue to have issues and I know you don't live on that property or I'm I don't know that's a overstep. If >> if I could just add I would say this didn't happen the original time when this um project went through. Um, and I want to keep away from kind of pigeon holeing this into uh one project that we're discussing, but it could be a contingency. Think about these um conditions of approval for the intermuse permit resolution. Say that we requested an ID that didn't currently have their updated address on it. That could certainly, I would say, be a a requirement that if you are claiming that you live on the property, but you don't have an updated ID that shows an address, updating that identification to prove that uh could be a condition of approval. Um, obviously pending legal, but I'd be um I don't think that that would be out of the out of the ordinary in terms of a request. And >> how do you know they stayed there? >> Let's say they get the permit. >> You wouldn't know. >> You wouldn't know. Aside from Yeah, >> it is it is a it it does come down to a little bit of a of a trust um thing too and that it kind of at that point it just is what it is and >> for lack of a better answer. >> Any more questions? >> I I have one more question from staff's perspective. Would having this be a requirement make your lives easier or harder? you know, to be completely honest with you, I don't know if it would change anything with the with the requirements that we currently have. Um, so >> yeah, just so you know, we we don't do proactive enforcement and we have very few zoning viol zoning complaints, you know, so it's just when there is it's, you know, neighbor versus neighbor and it's probably been going on for years until they contacted the city. So, um, you know, it it could go either way. Um, you know, requiring it to be homesteaded is going to restrict a lot of businesses. Um, in the end, I don't I don't know if it makes a huge difference or not. It will to those individuals. Okay. I need a motion, a second. >> I'll make a motion to approve. And if everyone else wants to not, that's fine. But >> need a second. >> I'll second. Okay. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All those oppos say no. >> No. No. Okay. That fails. Two to three. Item N. >> Okay. Uh, Zach, if you go to the next slide. >> Sure. Okay. So, this is in in relation to site plan review. So, um in a few months ago, we had a site plan. I should back up. What is a site plan review? So, we went through one of these uh tonight with um Carvana Rodessor Carvana. A site plan review is required for any new construction that's not a single family. So, if someone's building a you know a commercial building, it requires site view or site plan. and it goes through plan commission and council and so on. Um it adds about a four to six week process um to the permit um issuing the permit. Uh a few months ago we did a site plan review for uh the the Spaniard project that was a small I think it was about a 700 square foot addition on a building. The question came up with um was because this is such a small project why are we requiring a site plan review? Well because the ordinance requires it. Um if you can go to the next slide, Zack. Uh so this kind of brought up the question of is there a certain threshold that the council would be comfortable with where it's just approved administratively? So the suggestion that we had was if it's a if it's below 1,000 square ft um and is a 10 or in a 10% addition onto a building that was previously approved as a site plan, it could be approved administratively. Uh the PL plan commission recommended approval as long as the the original site plan had been approved within the previous five years. No questions from the council. Yeah, >> on the screen mayor council on the screen is the what what happens in other communities around us just as a general idea so that you have >> so my my personal feeling is our city is in such flux right now and so many things are zoned one way now and are planned to be zoned differently in the future and we've got like we're just everywhere. So, I still think everything should come through just because um because we're in flux. Like if we were 100% built out and like we knew this was always going to stay with the use it currently has, then yeah, you know, add 10% to your building, no big deal. But this could be, you know, this could be a big deal. Um it could mess up where we want to put roads. It could mess up where we want to put utilities. It could mess up where we want to put trails. like and there's just too many things that are too unknown at this point. So, at this point in our city, I think everything should still come through the site plan review. Um, if we wanted to go one way, I would go with a square foot limit, not a percent limit because if you're talking about like the cubes, 10% change to the cubes could like is huge. Um, versus, you know, like so I would go with a a limited square foot. If you're going to be less than 1,000 square ft, I could I could get behind that. Like that's, you know, 30. Well, it's not 30 by 30, but like that's a fairly small footprint. So, if we're going to do this, I would be the if it's less than 1,000 square feet, sure, go ahead. Um, but my personal opinion is we're too too many things are changing um in too many places in too many ways. I think it all has to still get reviewed. Even though I appreciate that it's kind of annoying sometimes. and 1,000 square feet would be a 32 well 31.6 by 31.6. Um, so if you're just curious, >> can you talk about why the the um the five years within five years of an approved site plan, why that's important to us. >> Um, the year amount is kind of an arbitrary number. I I guess the thought is that it it's five years is recent and and I I don't know if I can give you a good explanation other than that than that. Um during the plan commission's discussion, it was brought up that, you know, if if you're going to expand your business, it's probably going to be more than 5 years from the original building or the original addition. >> And so then they would that would then require >> go back and do a site plan review. Yeah, I don't The five-year thing just struck me as odd. Um, I'm sure when this ordinance was adopted, there was reasoning, but I I don't know what that was at that time. What if we did I mean I I kind of like serious idea if we did go that route what kind of impact do you see that making? I mean um so the one of the examples given let's say Carbon had built their new building and then decided after the fact that they want to add a car wash. um you probably wouldn't see the car wash. That would just be approved administratively. >> Um that's probably not, you know, in Carbana's difference or situation is probably not going to make a difference in anyone. If you have a house that's next door, it it would >> and that's where I'm at. Like our city is so like right now you could be in a space where you don't have any residents right next to you, but two years from now you are. Um, and so that's why I think we do need to like be cognizant of that and we can't really be like this district you well we could I guess technically be this district you can and this district you can't but like >> so that's why I'm a no of this or if everyone's yes I would I would say the thousand square feet would be my >> and remove the percentage correct >> I would just remove the percentage period it has to be less than a th00and square feet Okay. Just want to make sure it's clear what what >> cuz that would I mean the Spaniard one which we which triggered this whole conversation would fall under that because it's a tiny little addition and that was the whole point like that's very minor. I wouldn't >> it seems like that's a >> a safer mode move >> to just limit it to the motion, right? >> I didn't make a motion. I'm just not yet. >> Well, because my my motion is I would like I my vote is no. I'm just if you're going to all go that way, that would be my recommendation. Well, I I think some of these are really petty and to make them wait a month seems kind of silly on some of them, but it does seem like having a thousand square foot limit is I'd go there. I' I'd be okay with that. >> I I would as well. I think it buys some grease so people aren't making waiting months to add a lean to the to park the lawn tractor on. >> Okay, I'll make a motion to make it 1,000 square ft period. >> I'll second it. >> And just for clarity, are you keeping the five-year thing or dropping the fiveyear thing? >> I would drop the fiveyear thing. >> What? I don't like the fiveyear thing. >> Yeah, I don't. >> Okay, >> we'll drop that, too. Does that make sense? >> So the 10% and the five years are not >> or no 10% just the one >> those both Oh, you're >> dropping dropping. >> Okay. So we got a motion by Scott and second by >> David >> St. >> Oh, you I missed it. Any more discussion? And is that is that clear what >> any more discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. All those oppos say no. No motion carries 4 to one. On to item O. Thank you. So, uh this one staff is requesting uh approval to go out for an RFP to do a park facility needs analysis. Uh there's two parts to this. One is to do an inventory of facilities that are are used by Dayton youth. So this whether that be in Dayton or outside of Dayton. The second part of this is for the consultant to recommend um essentially a needs assuming that the city has a population of 30,000. So essentially you know how many sport fields are needed and what is the threshold where the next one is needed. So the idea if you think of like a baseball or softball wheel that's built in, you know, four or five fields, um, do you need to build four fields when you only need one? Uh so the map at the left uh there's red dots that represent sports facilities or sport fields that are open for open to Dayton residents um based on the 15 different athletic associations um that are open for Dayton residents to use. So generally I think most of us think of um just as the CDA or chap Dayton Athletic Associations there's a lot more than that. Um, you know, the CDA covers uh Dayton and Champlain, but if you, for example, if you live within the Maple Grove School District, you're probably using Maple Grove uh sports associations. Um, the graph at the right represents uh participation numbers from CDA since between 2011 2025. Um for uh the blue number is Champlain residents, the orange is Dayton, and the green is um non-residents. So for the most part, those are probably going to be Brooklyn Park kids that live within the um Champlain Park attendance area. Um so again you know for the first part of doing the inventory a lot of this is more labor intensive of contact the consultant contacting the 15 sports athletic youth sports athletic associations in inventorying what fields they use where and for what purpose. And again, the second part is figuring out, okay, what now we that we know um what the exact needs are, how does this where does that fit with within date. I'm fine with this study. I think this is in my mind, I think this is valuable because I think it's silly to build what to duplicate what our neighboring communities have already built. I like this idea of like what are the needs that are not being met nearby and like what are the holes that we can plug. Um so I really appreciate that part of it. I also like that it is acknowledging that it that we have residents who are not just part of the CDA like that there's Maple Grove and Rogers are also here. Um so I'm fine with this and I think it feeds directly into our 2050 comprehensive plan. So, like it I feel like it's work we need to do anyway and it's just feeding into that and um so I think I like I liked this and I thought it was a good idea. >> When's the last time one was done? >> I don't think it's ever been done. I was going to say we've never So that's that's why I'm kind of wondering where this came from because it it just seems like we we kind of know that we or we kind of have an idea we need something at some point. I don't I don't know what this is going to get us that we don't know that we don't >> Well, this tells us what do we need? Do we need baseball, soccer, football? You >> want me to tell you what it's going to say? >> And we're going to spend 30 grand to do it. That's That's my concern. >> A waste of 30 grand in my opinion, but whatever. >> Is it one of our strategic >> objectives? You're not going to use it for 15 20 years. >> Oh boy. >> I think it is. >> You're going to have to give me more. I can check. But >> it's >> I think it is one of our Here I >> You just had it up on the slide. >> What do you mean? >> Yeah, >> it go back a previous slide or forward one. >> It's in the packet. >> It's in the packet. I know. I was like I literally just >> in relationship to council goals. We have it in our goals. >> Yeah, it's right there. >> We're fulfilling a goal and getting valuable information. >> Not that I'm looking at your screen, Dennis, but it's highlighted in yellow and so it caught my eye. >> But this just says what we already know. >> Oh, there it is. >> Acquire land for a community park of 40 plus acres. >> But I think to my >> Well, depending on what you put there will tell you how many acres you need. >> Yes. because it might be one single 40 acre parcel or it could be a 20acre parcel here and a 20 acre parcel there which might be actually more practical and more affordable. >> I was going to say that also. >> Um and so that to me that's what this helps us identify like do we need a single big giant location? >> You know what maybe I'm studied burned out cuz I've seen too many studies come back and they we just blew money. So >> and I I and I haven't cuz I'm you know this is only year two. >> Yeah, I did. Um, but to me I feel like we're at this point of and just also I I don't know how often all you go to Rogers, but I see their big ginormous like covered field all the time. Like we don't need to build another one of those. >> They got more money than we do. >> I understand that. And that's my point is all these rich communities around us have already built stuff. Let's identify what they've already built and not rebuild it. >> Um, >> kind of a side issue, but they had that pay for Yeah, >> it was not taxpayer money. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, anyways, but it's still ugly. Sorry, Shannon. >> Very large. >> How much of this um of this study is actually needed for the the next comp plan? >> Um number two on here is, you know, recommend what facilities are needed based on our population. So, I mean, kind of if we just do number two, there's a chance that we could overbuild or underbuild, too. So, if we we build a bunch of soccer fields and then find out that, you know, the neighboring city has a bunch of soccer fields, um, then we we built an excess, but we built the wrong thing. >> And also, this says depending on what we find, if we go for a more regional thing, there's other monies we can access to build a regional thing. >> Yes. So, a regional facility has the potential of getting state funding. Now, where the state is, they're they're not giving out money right now. So, that's something to consider, you know, several years from now. I guess >> what what describes regional? I mean, is it two cities? Is it five? I mean, in short, if you're a tourist destination, so if you're bringing in um tournaments and you're attracting teams from out of town, you know, not just in the north metro, but across the state. >> So, those people with their traveling basketball teams, they're coming here. >> Um yes. >> Or the traveling soccer teams or the traveling >> So, you know, um the uh sports center would be kind of an extreme example of that. And is anybody going to tell me this is beneficial to do this now because you're not going to do anything for 15 or 20 years? >> I think so because a we're doing the plan in the first place. That's the whole point of plans and b and I think the bigger part is if we do find that we need to buy a larger like chunk of a 40 plus acre parcel, there are less and less and less of them every year and the cost of that land is going up and up and up and up. And even if we're not going to build it for 10 years, if we don't buy that land in the next year or two, we might never be able to buy that land ever. >> I think we've already know decided that we are looking for 40. I mean, we've we've discussed this in the past. >> Yeah, you're you're park. >> Yeah, I know. I had many conversations with your previous mayor about that. >> Okay, >> I'm with you, Sarah. I I think it's a good idea >> cuz I'm pro >> pro- studies. >> Well, I'm in the park. Like I mean I have >> I just want to make an informed decision. >> I know. I agree. I feel like we're spinning our wheels and if we say everything is 15 to 20 years, god damn it, in 15 to 20 years we're going to everything's coming to fruition cuz everything I'm sorry Scott to call you out, but everything is not 15 to 20 years. >> The rest of us aren't. >> My kids won't be. I don't know. I'm here for it. >> Motion a second. >> I have a motion to approve. I'll second. >> No more discussion. Hold on here. Okay. Uh, no discussion. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. >> No. No. Okay. On to item P. Can beat it to death some more if you want. >> Oh, we will next year. Next. >> In six months or three months. Item P, payment of claims. >> M. council. Uh, do we stand for any questions you may have about payment of claims? >> I have a question on page that can't be right. >> No. Okay, hold up. I wrote the wrong page number down. I got to find my page number. Someone else asked Dave, you you had to have a question. >> I don't have any issues here. So, I got a man. >> I did have a number of questions, but I emailed about them and I got all my questions answered. >> Oh, come on, D. Well, uh, >> there was one where it was the same thing three times and it specifically has the same order number. Uh, Adobe. It was Adobe. Where is it? >> What was the amount? >> Um, 6,880. No, wait, that wasn't it. Where is it? Dang it. >> Say this. >> So, there was there's a couple of them I could think of. If you can keep looking, I'll try I'm looking I'll I'll fill the time. So, may council, there's three two of them that I can think of. One of them would have been related to Microsoft Office 365. Um that's from guidance point. So we paid $621 three times. The reason for that is October, November, December cuz they forgot to bill us for three straight months. So that's three payments right in a row and it's an annual we pay monthly but it's an annual charge on monthly basis. So um it's the same amount. It just happens to be three times. >> That may have been the other one I could think of otherwise is Adobe. So, this happened to be the year that the League of Minnesota League LMC decided that they weren't going to host Adobe for us anymore. Okay. >> So, we had to find somebody else to host it for us. We found CDW to host it for us to be able to give us a larger bulk rate on Adobe. >> Um, we cut a check to Adobe before the council meeting had a council approval of it. Then we gave it to CW. They processed a check. They still wouldn't give us Adobe. We had no access to Adobe. They said that they needed a 14-day waiting cooling period for the check to go through. And we said, "No, we need Adobe now. I don't have time to wait to not have a PDF." And they said, "Well, you have to wait 14 days for the cooling period." And I said, "Well, that's not possible. I can't do that. I can't stop for 14 days and not work." So then I used my credit card to pay for it because it was done immediately. We can get it'll be the following day. And then we had to get a refund back for the check that we already gave. It was a mess. So, those are the two things I can think of that maybe that was about six grand or so. >> Well, yes, I think that was my other one. Um, but this is I found the page. It's 226. I had 206. So, that's where my mistake was. And it is Adobe Acrobat and it's ordered and it's like I said, it's the same order PRDJ102 and it's there three separate times. Yep. >> And it does it totals out to about $4,000 off. >> And the reason for is cuz it was on my credit card in December and the credit card in December is paid in January. And then that's why it's on this council meeting is to approve it even though technically paid for it back then. We did get the refund back already. >> Okay. >> Oh boy, middle of January, early January, something like that. So >> this is there a reason why >> we don't have a credit card? >> What do you mean we do have a credit card? >> Why didn't you use that then? >> I did. So we were informed when we first got CW that there would be a charge on that. So right now we get a we use the credit card. We have a called the PE card and there's a percentage back that we get by using it. So if we utilize it and we spend over I think the number is a million dollars in the card which are normal processes anyways we get a 1% refund back on that just for using the card basically similar to what you have for rewards program that you have on any personal card and then that check would go back to the city as interest. That's all that's all it works >> and it's less than you know if you don't spend that much then it's less percentages. >> Um so we do have that. However, we don't want to save 1% on a card and pay 3 and 12% charge on anything. So, anything that we get charged the number for, we've elected to not pay with the card cuz that makes no sense. >> Um, but that was what CDW had told us and then when I asked them to pay with the card, they said, "Oh, yeah, there's no charge for that." >> So, then >> that would have solved the problem they would have told us to be with. So, >> all right. >> And I did find the other one. This is on page 228. And I just it's program supplies $6,880. They're just curious what program that was. That's all. >> They haven't bought that yet. >> It just and pause. >> Okay. >> Got to figure out what it is. >> What is the code that it's coded to? >> Uh the 101. >> What's the rest of the code? >> 4191050210. >> So that' be something with activity center. >> Okay. Oh, that's okay. I need to get better about looking up those codes. >> Do you know what that that one is? >> The only thing I could think of is something number. >> It's for how much? Uh >> $6,000. >> Uh maybe I read the maybe Wait, did I my finger moved 10141910? >> That is for our Yeah, I got it. So, I was on my credit card. That is related to the um year end recap meeting that we had. Okay. um which is the you know thing at Sundance. >> That makes it >> that's the amount for the food and all the things and stuff. So >> Okay. Um and then the other one was just I what's cat and company? >> Um yep mayor members of council that is our app program. Oh >> um and it we decided to do a lower rate. So we paid for 3 years in advance and then we got a lower rate for annual usages. We also learned that we have help with that app, which we didn't know we had when we first originally got it, which means we don't have to post everything on there. We just send them stuff and they will post it for us. >> Nice. >> So, as part of that $12,000, we got 3 years of them hosting it, and then on top of it, they also help us with things. So, we'll just send them stuff from our website or social media, whatever, and then they post it for us automatically. >> Um, which is extremely helpful that we didn't realize we had. So, >> awesome. Thank you. Thanks. I have one question and that's for um Chief Hendrickson. Um Engine 21. I feel like we've been having a lot of issues with there's come up a lot in the last 12 months in uh >> what we got going on there. >> A lot of it's due to age. Um but so this was a pneumatic valve if you're uh referring to the 6228 cost. >> Um yeah. >> Yeah. Um so was a pneumatic valve. The valve itself is almost 3,200 bucks. And then um fuel incillary things. The biggest thing is trying to get at it cuz it's in the back of the truck almost to the middle of the truck. So that's where we have $1,700ish with uh labor. So yeah, unfortunately I thought rebuilding a valve normally is about 3,000 um because they can just physically rebuild it and put it back in. But this one had to buy a whole new one because this is the pneumatic one. So, as we continue to spec trucks as we move forward, um engine 12 currently has quite a bit of electric valves and those are expensive to replace. Um so, when we go to spec the truck, um in July with Pierce, the idea is to find as many ways that we can use manual valves as possible because we spent a ridiculous amount of money on having to rebuild and replace some of these um just to make it convenient by pressing a button. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Any other comments? Any a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. >> Any more discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. Those oppos say no. That carries 5 to zero. Item Q. Mayor, members of council, um this is an approval to approve Leander Gillan and Miller as the city attorney and cancel the contract with Campbell Kudson. Um we had uh myself um assistant city administrator Benting, Mayor Fischer, and Vice Mayor um Fetchant on a interviews last week on Thursday. They both went very well. um we feel like either one of the um selections that we would make would be, you know, um an improvement from where we're at currently um from the relationship with the attorney. And so, uh the interview committee for the attorneys suggested leave Andrew Gillan and Miller as the city attorney moving forward. Um the panel will stand for any questions if you have any. Uh, was it unanimous like yay or was it a little >> Mostly unanimous? >> You know what? Both were good. >> Okay. >> Both of them I think we've been in good shape with. >> Okay. >> It was just >> a slight preference. >> My feeling is well um that I would say that lean toward um this one um but either of them could certainly do the job. Um, for my own feeling, I thought, you know, some of this is around personalities that we're working with, and I would feel comfortable working with either firm and the specific attorney that they were talking about being our representative. Uh, I felt like the other um group was a lot stronger on the prosecuting side than kind of on the municipal side. Uh, this is what these guys really specialize in was the municipal side. and that that sort of swayed me to lean toward them. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> So, this is both an approval of Evander and also an approval of cancing the contract clean, which is a 30-day contract cancellation. Just an FYI. >> Need a second. >> Oh, I'll second it. >> I think Sarah, you >> I think Sarah was on there. It's been a long night and I was like, did I say that out loud or only in my head? >> Okay. Uh, any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. All those oppos say no. >> That carries 5 to zero. >> Okay. If there are no >> objections. Objection. said if there are no objections we'll be journal