All right, we're going to call the meeting to order. Everyone, please rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the stands nation for all. Any changes to the agenda? Yes. Uh, Mr. Mayor, the council's been provided with a revised agenda. Um, first item is that item M under the consent agenda has been moved down to item C under general business at the request of the mayor. Um, also uh need to note for the council that a revised um set of claims was provided uh to the council. One item was removed from the claims list and then the third item. Is that it, Linda? Okay, I'll make a motion to adopt the agenda. Sorry, my computer died. Second by Josh. All in favor? I I agenda is adopted. We have no presentations, proclamations, or acknowledgements tonight. So, we'll go to public comment. Does anyone in the audience care to speak under on anything that's not on tonight's agenda? Once, twice. Scouts guy, if you want to give a speech or anything, you're good. All right. All right. We'll close public comment, move on to consent. As Tom mentioned, I did have one item to be moved and that's been moved. So, does anyone else have anything Motion to approve consent as amended. Motion by Amanda. Second. Second by Gina. All in favor? I I was passed. So we'll go into no public hearings tonight. So we'll go into general business. Who's uh who's taking this one? First item is conceptual assessments. Oops. Okay. Um related to this agenda item, um I'm going to provide a little background on a concept development plan that uh city staff has been working uh with um property owner and a developer on. Property is um owned by Victory Fields LLC. It's 50.44 gross acres. Uh we've been working with Tamarak Land Development. Uh concept plan um that had been labeled concept plan D had been submitted to the uh city staff and presented to the parks commission and planning commission for review at their October meetings. Um based on some feedback uh feedback from staff and the planning commission um a concept plan E has now been submitted. Um that plan corrected a number of issues that have been identified by staff and the planning commission and that is what is being presented to the city council for feedback tonight. Uh this particular property is located in the far northwest um area of the city. It's located within the municipal city limits. Um you can see here on the concept plan the or on the map on the screen the location of the property north and northwest of the Eagle View Elementary School. Um, just to review some of the surrounding property conditions, to the south of the proposed development is approximately 75 acres, um, which contains one single family home and and agricultural use. Um, and also the Eagle Eagle View Elementary School. To the east of the proposed development is a 30 acre parcel that has been uh, purchased by an investor. The city did planning commission did review a concept plan on that 30 acre which is really part of a larger 80acre parcel in 2021. Uh to the north of the proposed development is an agricultural parcel uh about approximately 39 acres in size also owned by Victory Fields and large lot rural residential properties. Um each of those large lot real residential properties are approximately five acres in size and have existing homes um on those parcels. The and to the west of the development is primarily agricultural property. The land is guided by the city's comprehensive plan to low density residential. Uh typical uses in that land use designation would would include single family detached dwellings and other dwellings uh designs by PUD planned unit development. The required density uh based on our comprehensive plan is 2.5 to five units per net acre. Uh the concept plan that has been submitted uh contains 152 single family lots on the 50 acres equates to three units per net acre. uh residential detached single family homes uh which is the proposed use of the property meets the intent of the comprehensive plan. The property is currently zoned um PUD. The two the current PUD reflects a development that had been proposed on the property in 2005 referred to as Eagle View Estates. Um that 2005 PUD agreement stated the underlying zoning was R1. Um because that PUD agreement is uh actually predates the merger of Elco New Market and is nearly 20 years old, the property should be entirely reszoned um to a zoning district that is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan prior to development. Uh based on guidance guidance in the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, the uh property is eligible to be reszoned to either R1 or R2. The R1 has a little larger lot standards, 12,000 square ft and the R2 district has a minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet. The developer is um requesting uh the property or suggesting the property be reszoned to a new PUD for the entire property. Um and the uh with a slight deviation for lot width. All other criteria are proposed to be met. Uh there's a five foot uh deviation in the lot width requirement. Um, however, they're uh proposing to uh create additional lot depth to still maintain the 8,400 square foot minimum lot size. Um, they're also proposing or their lot standard would be a 7 and 1/2t side setback uh where the city only uh requires a 7 foot side setback. Um the zoning ordinance contains um uh criter or the intent states the intent of PUD zoning as shown here on this slide. In the case of this proposed development, the purpose would be to uh provide for variations to the strict application of land use regul regulations in order to improve site design while incorporating design elements that exceed city standards and to promote a more creative and efficient uh approach to land use while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the city. So, in addition to criteria that must be met um for a PUD, there's just basic criteria that need to be met for reszoning property. Um number one, it has to be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Um has to be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. Um uh the proposed development has to uh conform with per performance standards in the city's ordinance and can be accommodated by uh public services will not overburden the city's service capacity and traffic generation from the proposed uses within the capabilities of the streets that will serve the property. Um, and staff does believe that the request to reszone the property to PUB and and reszone the property in general meet the criteria for resoning. Um, this is uh the proposed um PUD, the proposed layout. I'll continue to refer to this layout throughout the presentation here. And Okay, Tamarack has provided a narrative with their initial application that identify some public benefits um for the PUB including uh affordability and diversity of housing styles within the community. Um creation of more ponding and open space in the lower area of the site. Uh that statement indicated to me that maybe more open space was going to be proposed than required. Um, this concept plan also, uh, unlike the original concept plan, um, included the addition of a trail that runs through the ponding area, uh, on the outlot. Um, staff still suggests that additional information be provided to determine if the open space being proposed exceeds the minimum required for the ponding area. um if construction of the trail is feasible. We haven't gotten to the detail details of a grading plan um and more information regarding the proposed diversity and housing styles within the development. And in recent meetings, they said um house designs and plan uh house designs would be provided with the official application. And this is just a overview of the deviations from our ordinance like from 70 to 65 feet um exceeding the setback requirement. Uh possible tra the trail construction would be beyond what would be minimally required by ordinance and potentially open space would be in excess. Uh miscellaneous comment. Um for all our ordinance requires for all newly created lots um single family homes shall provide for the location of a three-stall attached garage whether or not construction is intended. Uh the developer is aware of that requirement. City's ordinance contains tree preservation requirements. Uh tree inventory must be um completed. The vast majority of this property is agricultural. Our ordinances also contain screening and landscaping requirements where lots but abut uh collector and arterial roadways. Uh this particular site does abut a number of u these types of roadways. Texas Avenue, 255th street and the future Nevada, they're all uh would fall into that class. So, lots of budding. Those roadways would require extra depth 20 feet, which has been incorporated into uh concept E. And then a screening plan will need to be submitted, which could include um landscaping, birming, fencing um meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance. And then in addition to developer obligations to provide screening around those uh roadway classifications, builders must plant um two trees on each lot at the time of building permit. Um easements uh have not yet been depicted but are standard uh need to be dedicated during the final platting process. 5T on interior lot lines, 10 feet on perimeter and adjacent to undeveloped property. Um, additional easements may be required to cover larger drainage swells or public infrastructure. Sanitary sewer is available on the southeast uh side of the corner of the property along Nevada Avenue. Um, there is a force main that has been stubbed out right uh near the intersection of 255th in Nevada. A sanitary sewer lift station is needed to serve this development. It's um it has been depicted. They have incorporated a a location there at the corner of that inter intersection just as a conceptual location. Um we'll continue if the project continues to move forward. We'll evaluate the best location for that, but it will be somewhere on that east uh to northeast side of the property based on the city's adopted sanitary sewer plan. Um, this lift station will serve a larger area than just the proposed development. It's considered a system lift station. Um, and finally, the the sewer plan will ultimately need to be um approved by the city engineer. Water service is also available at that same location at the corner of Nevada and 255th. And the city's water plan depicts a 12-in trunk water line running east and west through the property. Um, the developer will be required to stub uh uh well to implement the 12-in trunk water line somehow through the development and stub water to adjacent undeveloped properties. Um the concept plan uh does show two general locations for storm water treatment areas. Uh the one is centrally located uh in the property as you can see on the lower um drawing showing uh ponding and infiltration areas. And then there's a second one that has been incorporated uh more towards the westerly area of the property. uh staff just notes that um we will need access to that. The current concept plan is not showing city access for maintenance to that um basin. Um vegetative buffers are required around all storm water ponds and there are setback requirements as well. Um we know that there is um just for the developers information there's a 36 in storm sewer line that exists along the east property line. It runs north and south. It runs all the way up to 255th or 250th Street which is in the township under the road and discharges to the surface into a creek in that area. Uh the property is within the Scott uh wershed management area. And there are some a portion of the property shown in the black hatch on this drainage map uh has discharge rates that are more stringent than existing rates uh runoff rates in the city. Uh these extra restrictions were a commitment by the city to the township as part of storm water improvements associated with the school development and they're meant to protect downstream properties from erosion and flooding. Um city engineers offices should be consulted regarding those extra restrictions. Um, city staff are aware that there is an existing drain tile system, uh, agricultural drain tile system throughout the property which provides egg drainage, uh, drainage patterns, uh, must be verified by the developer and perpetuated. Um, a wetland delineation and minram report has not yet been submitted. We've kind of missed the cut off date just seasonally for being able to perform any field uh inspections on wetland delineations. Um wetland if any wetlands are identified buffers are required al uh along wetlands as well as sign markers. Um any wetlands or storm water ponds have to be contained to the city in an outlot. There are no flood planes, FEMA designated flood planes or DNR protected waters on the property. Um transportation, the proposed development, uh as mentioned earlier, does border on three existing public streets. Um Nevada Avenue on the east side, which really is only a stub, um of a street. It's the majority of Nevada is non-existent. 255th Street on the south and then Texas on the west. Um, and those are identified as arterial roadways for Conro 27 and and city major collector streets for the uh Nevada and 255th um public regarding there's no access currently proposed to Texas Avenue. Um, all accesses proposed on 255th in Nevada. Uh, public street connections to major collector street should be spaced at least 660 ft apart. The concept plan shows uh two per two connections to 255th and one connection to the non-existent Nevada Avenue. It should be um I I guess I'll get a little more into Nevada here on the next slide. Um, again, the city's transportation plan shows a northerly extension of Nevada Avenue from the current 255th Street north to the northerly property line of this property and then and beyond. Um, the current right of there is a current rightway that was platted with the new market uh school edition plat. Um there's 35 ft of rightway that was dedicated and the previous plan contemplated that Nevada Avenue would be centered on the property line between this Victory Fields property and the property to the east which is owned by Joe Sullivan. Um the concept plan submitted by uh the Tamarak uh depicts an additional 15 feet of right way dedication uh for 50 feet on this side and then contemplating that the additional 50 ft would be um dedicated when the Sullivan property to the east develops. So the improved um section of Demanda Avenue uh located adjacent to the prop um you know near the school is 40t wide um with insurmountable curving uh 255th street on the south side. Um, only real comment here is that there is an existing trail along the north side of 255th for only a portion about twothirds of the way. Um, based on the city's uh ordinances, the developer would need to extend um the trail on the north side over to Texas, north side of 255th. Um, Texas Avenue is under the jurisdiction of Scott County. Uh, their standard rightaway width for a minor arterial is 150 ft or 75 ft from the center line. Um, we don't anticipate the county is going to request any additional rightway along Texas. Um, no street connections proposed. And again, our subdivision ordinance requires a trail be installed along both sides of arterial roadways unless the city engineer determines um in certain areas that an alternative design could be installed instead. So um more detailed grading information needs to be um submitted before the city engineer can make any recommendation regarding that. But the standard would be to also include a trail along the east side of Texas Avenue adjacent to the plat. There are also several local streets depicted within the plan. Our local street standard is a 28 foot wide street with um insurmountable curving within a 60-oot rideway. Sidewalks are required on one side of all local streets. Um, in instances where a uh tempor a street is terminated pending a future extension, a temporary culde-sac is required. There's one street that would in this proposed plan that would require a temporary culde-sac on the far west side and that is has been depicted on the concept plan. There are we can get more into this, but there are two existing homes um located in the northwest to the northwest corner of the property. And the concept plan provides for public street access to these properties which would allow future redevelopment and ultimate closure of Texas Avenue access points which um is always in uh the city always plans for removals when possible. um kind of touched on this earlier, but based on city requirements, um sidewalks would be required adjacent to all local streets on one side, a trail, a 10-ft trail required on the north side of 255th and on the east side of Texas Avenue. The city subdivision ordinance requires 8% of land within a development be dedicated for parks, playgrounds, public open spaces, trails, or the developer shall make a cash contribution to the city's park fund. Um, roughly related to the effect on the city's park system. If no land dedication is required, the park fee has been established by city fee schedule at 8% of the fair market value of the land. The city's park and trail plan does not identify any parkked search areas on this subject property. Um, and based on the city on that adopted plan, uh, staff had recommended cash contribution versus land for this property. Um the parks commission uh reviewed the uh concept plan again it was a the previous concept plan D at their October meeting and on a 3 to2 vote recommended that the pre u park land dedication be required for the development. So parks commission recommendation is then forwarded to the planning commission and the planning commission recommendation is forward to the city council. So there was a different um opinion by the parks planning commission. They recommended cash in lie of land um there. So the just backing up a step the parks commission recommendation was based on the idea that once the property is platted um you can't I mean you can't go back. there's no opportunity to get land within that development again and uh not knowing when that adjacent property so there is a big park search area neighborhood park search area on property located to the east centrally located where about 160 acres um in the middle of 160 acres. So, uh, if if the city took the land dedication on all those properties, we'd be looking at about a 12 acre park, um, which would be about a quarter mile away from this proposed development. Of course, you, you know, the uh complicating factor is you don't know, you can't predict the timing. It could be next year, it could be 10 years from now, uh, when that property develops. So um the planning commission uh again I started to say has recommended uh that the city accept cash in lie of land based on the adopted park and trail plan. Um it is generally recommended that neighbor uh that all neighborhoods all residential neighborhoods in the city be serviced by a neighborhood park. Uh we have different classifications in park of parks within our comprehensive plan. And uh a neighborhood park is defined as a park that is generally within a half a mile um or serves people within a half mile of of the park, not interrupted by major roadways or physical barriers. So, the closest public parks uh to the property uh today are Wagner Park and which is a community park and then Whispering Creek Park, which is a mini park off of the east end of James Parkway, and then the Eagle View Elementary School, um which has limited access at certain times of the day. Other miscellaneous items to note is that there is a unusual um piece of property along sliver of land along the north side of um 255th Street which is owned by a third party on-site marketing company. They were the developer that was originally um going to be involved in developing this property in 2005 to 7. And um somehow they uh retained that piece all the all this time and staff recommends if if the property can't be acquired by Tamarak and incorporated into the development uh one of the street connections won't be feasible because there'll be a gap owned by um so that has been conveyed to Tamarack. Um staff had requested that the developer show con conceptual development of properties to the north uh which has been submitted. This depiction does not indicate approval or city support but rather shows the potential for future development um of adjacent properties based on the roadway alignments being proposed within the development. Uh staff has also suggested or recommended that uh the developer hold a neighborhood meeting with some of the immediately adjacent land owners um prior to the formal public hearing to educate the land owners about the proposed development and uh answer any questions I might have. How many neighbors are there? There's probably a dozen maybe. It's really the there's a bunch of five acre parcels just to the north. Um and then the Sullivan property to the east, the Charlie Wagner property to the south, and I don't large land owners on the west side. I'm not sure who they are. Uh we have presented this concept plan to the normal the city engineer public works director and fire department police department. We uh most com comments that we've received have been incorporated into our report. Um, finally, I'm going to review uh in detail the recommendations um of staff and the planning commission. So, I'm going to read them out loud. Uh, the proposed land use as uh single family residential is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Staff and the planning commission are supportive of the de development as depicted on concept C noting the following items. Uh the developer will need to enter into a development contract with the city of Elun Market at the time of final plat approval. Um number two, development of the property uh meets the comprehensive plan. um development of the property as single family residential is compatible considered to be compatible with adjacent land uses. Um more information must be submitted regarding the proposed mix of housing styles within the development improved site design or design elements that exceed city standards to meet the purpose and intent of the PUD. Um, number five, a tree inventory must be completed which identify any uh all significant trees on the property. Um, number six, additional lot depth must be provided for double frontage lots uh that back up to the collector streets. Um number seven, a comprehensive screening and landscaping plan uh meeting city code requirements must be provided for lots of but major collector or arterial roadways. Um drainage and utility easements must be uh required during uh the platting process. Um, number nine, in order to develop the property, a sanitary sewer lift station must be installed at a low point along the east side of the property and sewer force main will need to be extended from its current location at the north end of Nevada Avenue to that future lift station. Um, a gravity system would then need to be in uh constructed within the development and connected to the lift station and the city engineer will provide recommendations on location and design. Uh, number 10, a 12-in trunk water line must be installed running east west through the development consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Number 11, uh 10 foot wide buffers are required from high water level of storm water ponds. Uh this should be clearly identified on any plan submitts. Storm water pond um ponds and their buffers should be dedicated to the city and outlots and structure setbacks are 35 ft from the high water level. Um access must be provided to the westerly infiltration basin. Um just noting a drain tile system exists on the property. Number 14, a wetland delineation must be completed before preliminary plat. Uh wetland buffer signs are required at buffer locations if any exist. Public street connections to major collectors uh should be spaced at 660 ft apart. A temporary culde-sac would be required um where properties exce uh where streets exceed 150 ft in length. Um number 17, acquisition of the on-site marketing property is recommended and if that property is not acquired, a redesign of the concept will u be required to remove a street connection currently shown on their property. Number 18, additional 15 ft of rideaway dedication will be required along Nevada uh which has been shown. Number 19, trails must be constructed along 255th and Texas sidewalks constructed within uh on all local streets. Number 20, staff recommends uh cash in lie of land for park dedication. However, the parks commission has recommended park land dedication for the development planning commission recommendation was cash. Seeking final uh recommendation from city council on that. And uh the last one number 21 is the neighbor a neighborhood meeting is encouraged uh prior to formal plat application. Um, city council is being asked to provide feedback regard regarding the concept plan. Um, again, this is the concept plan. Here's a couple street views of the property. This is uh from the corner of Texas and 255th looking northeast. And this is from the corner of Nevada and 255th looking northwest. This basically agricultural property. That's all that I have. Thank you. Well, council with regards to the concept plan, what do we think? I can just start too. I'll just do that. Um, I will agree with just about everything on the recommendation except for I would like to see a park in there. Um, was it about 140 units? How many? 152 was it? You know, there's gonna be so many kids in that development. Um, and dogs. And I think it needs a park. I think it needs a park. Plus park is what I wrote down. Plus park. Okay. A park. Yeah, it should almost be like mandatory. So, I ask what are the expectations related to that park? Are we thinking a mini park that has like a playground and some open space? Tom, I think we're whether we want to park or cash in. Yeah. Right. Um third option would be accommodation. Yeah. I I still think we need a park of some sort and the details of the park itself. I mean obviously needs to be applicable to the neighborhood. Um but you know I don't want to get into the mincing of the details of the park itself but I do think it's something that's needed. Um, that's really the only thing I have on this. Otherwise, I'm on board with everything else. What do you Gosh, Gina, I agree with that. I mean, I don't like the way density like is trending in general. Um, but that's a bigger issue. So, yeah, aside from the park, it's fine. I think it's awesome. And I park 100%. I don't. So, Any other things you guys want to chat about on it or are we kind of all in lock step on this? Can we stock the bonds with some or something 23 or something? That would probably be city expense. Some goldfish. Um um okay, a representative of the development company is here. We do have another item on the agenda after this also related to this, but um Reed Schulz with Tamarak is here. have anything that you want to add? You've been waiting a while. Wouldn't you get here like after six or something? I don't drive too far. I'm in Lake. So, um I did want to just take the the moment here to introduce myself to you guys. Um uh Reed Schultz with Tamarak Land Development. Um and also want to take a moment to thank Renee and her team as well as city engineer. They've been phenomenal to work with um through this process. Um I've been in the development business for a couple decades. Um, and I don't know a city that uh goes through as much detail of the concept plan as the city of Elco New Market. So, um, from a developer standpoint, it's great. We love to have everything flushed out early on so we know going into Plat what the expectations are. Um, so do appreciate that. Um, you know, we are excited to, um, you know, be presenting this at least conceptually to you guys at this point. We are excited about uh the opportunity to bring such a wonderful community neighborhood um to Elco New Market. Um we are working closely with the National Home Builder uh that is very excited to come down here um and and so you know hopefully uh we can get to the finish line here um and get through this and and be be you know building you know here relatively soon. Um, you know, after this will be a discussion on the assessment. We've been working with the Wagner um in partnership uh to make this happen. Um, there's a lot of moving parts to this. There's a lot of financial components associated with that. Um, I do appreciate you guys' comments related to the park. We will have to evaluate that. Um, dedicating land uh to the park that wasn't part of the comprehensive plan. It wasn't assumed in any of the financials of this project. Um just uh for some baseline understanding from a developer standpoint uh when we do look at development opportunities in cities throughout um our first go-to is your guys's future comprehensive plan that you guys have all vetted through. I understand you guys know that um I think it's just worth noting that's how we start off when we start talking with land sellers um and we start talking dollars is and and that and parks are a big component as much as we um love parks. I think it adds an amenity to the future homeowners. It is a very difficult conversation to also have with them as to why the lot prices and their lot costs are home, you know, essentially their home costs are much greater. Um, especially in these times like this. So, appreciate your feedback. We'll go back to the the the table with that. Um, but I'll I'll be here to stand for any questions you guys have um as we move forward, but look forward to the opportunity uh to receive some feedback and move to the next steps of plinary plan. So thank you. Thank you. Are we good to go on move on to the next topic? Okay. Next item on the discussion LLC. We did review most of this information. review everything in September at the request of the property owner. Um in multiple projects were being proposed in market back in 2005 in particular related to this assessment. Um the city was the school district was proposing a new school. Um onsite marketing was proposing development of this property estates and general properties was processing acres. Public improvements were needed for developments to occur on these properties. And through assessment agreements with various property owners and developers, the city construed a public assessing property owners. Streets and utilities were extended from Dakota Avenue to Texas. Um joint a joint special assessment agreement was reached between the city school district and onite marketing as the proposed developer field property. The final assessment on that property after the project was complete in 2007 was $689,000 689797. Uh interest rate was established at 5.42% and that was tied to the city's actual bond rate. um assessments were levied as deferred assessments against the property uh with lumpsum payments um expected to be paid as phases of the development occurred. And of course due to the recession and the housing market crash, the development at that time was abandoned and assessments have remained uh levied as deferred assessments and not paid. Um again the city bonded for this project in 2007. Um the city could not afford the debt on the debt structure uh debt service due to the structure of the initial bond uh because assessments were not being paid as expected. Uh the debt was refinanced in 2012. Uh the city has had to levy general property taxes to pay outstanding debt related to this particular improvement project. Um the city has increased tax levies in the years 2018 through 2024 to cover the deficit. Again, the principal assessment amount was 689,000. Um based on the terms of the 2007 special assessment agreement, the amount due on this property would be just over a million dollars. Million69,000. uh the debt service for Victory Fields. Um the city's actual debt service because we refinanced the debt and what the city's actually incurred on on the property is to to date or through 2024 is 829,000. Um debt service on the property through the retirement of the bond would be 938,000. So at this point the number today is 829, right? Okay. Correct. Um Tamreck Land Development is uh proposing to develop the property as you just reviewed um with 152ish lots or maybe less if there's park dedication. um based on the performer the project it would not be financially feasible with the existing assessment balance in any of those fashions. Um Tamarak uh land and victory fields are seeking a reduction in the deferred assessment amount and are seeking council approval of a reduction um to an amount of 200,000. And there was a um letter submitted today for your review which uh shows the u acquisition and development costs and the special assessments and how this would um play into the finished lot price. The finished lot price together with the acquisition development cost really lead to what is um what they can incur and uh pay on those assessments. Um in our September presentation, we did outline some benefits to the city for developing the property. Um based on um again, these will need to be tweaked again if park dedication is received. But um these estimates that I'm presenting here based on 152 lots on 50 acres. Immediate developer fees, just developer trunk fees to the city would be uh in the area of $793,000. The city the city portion of the building permit fees would be $784,000 based on a $400,000 um value home. and the city would receive to its general fund levy an average of $300,000 a year in taxes once the development is built out. Um there is also a sunset on special assessments based on state statute. Um deferred assessments automatically expire after 30 years. These assessments were adopted in 2007. So they will not be able to be collected by the city um if the property um doesn't are or after 20 2037. And then uh the life of an an improvement life expectancy of a street is approximately 40 years in total with a mill overlay around 20 years. Um life expectancy of utilities is approximately 50 years. The infrastructure uh which would serve victory fields and which they have been assessed for is approximately 18 years old. The city council is being asked to provide uh feedback regarding the Tamarak land development contribution of 200,000 uh and direction regarding relief on the deferred assessments that relate to the Victory Fields property. Was that the Okay, thank you. council, what do y'all think? I'm wondering if this would be an option for the average homeowner to get any relief on any special assessments or would their property just be taken? Their property would be taken. I mean, it would go into forefeerture if they don't pay their taxes on it, right? So, I'm not against this, but I've heard and seen so many people lose their properties or go into debt over assessments, and I'm just wondering why some people get um benefits like this. Any other comments? Unrelated to that question maybe for Rich uh with the road um the life expectancy is like 50 years 20 years mil and overlay but this road is not used probably to a normal traffic has an impact so if there's less traffic there's less wear and tear but I think this is programmed for an overlay in 2027 so if we don't do anything this doesn't develop at all it's still going to need some work still wears out yeah it's sitting there baking in the sun freezing and thawing getting some traffic Well, I mean, I I to not do something. I mean, I I totally understand that we want to collect as much as we can for assessments that, you know, have been deferred. However, the longer we sit on this, the longer we don't collect on it is also a detriment to the community and the tax base and everything else. Um, I am fully supportive of moving forward with this. The way it's written, way it's proposed, heck, if you were to twist my arm and I'm not negotiating against myself, you know, I would even say if there was needed to be additional wiggle room to make sure that that park is able to get in there, I'd be open to wiggle room uh related to this as well. So, This seems a fun conversation. Yeah. See, Gina, she never mind. I'm just gonna be quiet. Amanda didn't want to say anything. Well, I'll I'll talk. I um 689 797 is what we put into it. I would want to try and recoup that as much as possible. Um the reality is, and this kind of goes to your point, Gina, why are we why would we consider this because it's because our job is to do what's in the best interest for the city. Sometimes it sucks to do it, but the argument to do it in this case is we're currently gathering basically nothing on tax revenue. We're not growing our population. We're not doing anything to financially benefit the city. Yeah, we eat a little bit of a loss here, but that's going to create more revenue downstream, and it's going to create a better city overall in the long term. That that's the case for it. And you're right. I mean, there's a lot of people that really don't get this advantage. Oh, it's a lot less of an assessment, but that's, you know, the ugly part of kind of how, you know, business works. It's we do what's in the best interest financially for the city and for the residents. And I think taking a haircut on what we have outstanding is probably the right way to do it. I I think we could have a discussion on the amounts, but I think we need to first come come to the come to some common ground. And I we had already expressed previous, you know, uh not desire, that's the wrong word, but uh willingness to be flexible with these. Um which is why everyone's here tonight because we kind of already expressed that desire to some degree. So I think a we need to reaffirm that and b we need to kind of come to some decision on what the amount is if that is still the way we feel. So, in the interest of what's in the best long-term health of the city, are we okay? Are we okay reaffirming that that we're going to work with them? Yes. Yeah. What's the dollar amount? What's that magic number? I'm not a magician. I think it's higher than 200,000. Yeah. Yeah. I think it can be too. And I wholeheartedly disagree based on $1.5 million in fees that we're going to collect up front and ongoing of annual taxes in a tax base that we would not otherwise had. I don't believe we would get to 2037 before it develops. So I don't think we'd ever be in that position where we'd get nothing uh potentially. But I just we're finally out on the northwest side, the west side of town to start to close in on things. I mean I think it's just a beautiful place to be. you see that whole other part of that area coming in and closing in. I mean, this helps the school district uh who badly needs more kiddos in school. Um I I I just from a bigger standpoint, I I think it's it's an absolute must that we move forward with it and we figure out a way to work with them uh to make it happen. So, you don't have a minimum number. You're okay? I'm happy to not get zero. I mean, I'm happy to, you know, like I even be flexible on this to make sure we get a park. Yeah. I still think it's better than nothing. Um and we're going to have that ongoing tax revenue and the initial fees up front. Um we're going to be fixing the road regardless if anything goes in there in three yearsish. Um so there's going to be a additional cost coming from nowhere right now. Um the burden on our taxpayer is going to be a lot higher if we don't do what you're saying. Yeah, I would agree with you. And you don't think this property would develop without um this discount or eliminating this fee? I don't think it will. I don't think it will. And this is kind of one of those things that it's awkward to be in our shoes with the developer right there. But I look at the 20% margin. I think that is there room in there? Um I don't know what the typical margin is on a development. From what I've seen, just from a financing standpoint, it's much smaller number than than 20%. Um, so in my mind, I mean, I I have a minimum number that I would want to see to support it, which is my minimum is 500. And I'm not like trying to negotiate. That's just the floor I would support it at. Um, Josh, you're kind of good with whatever. It's great right now. I feel like I'm in the middle. So, whatever that. All right. I'm 100% with you. Okay. So, I should say I'm in the middle and I'm willing to go lower with park a park happening. Well, I I say it's I'm not trying to negotiate because it's not I'm not trying to come in from this is like, well, I really want 500, so I'm going to say 800 negotiate. Now 500's just I won't support anything if it's less than 500. We have to think of that's my deal breaker for me for the city. Well, like picture and long term best for the city if we do nothing or if we're going to, you know, accept nothing less than the full amount where it's highly unlikely that someone's going to come in and develop this property. And if I were them, I'd sit and wait it out till 2037 and give nothing to what I would Yeah. But I do think there's some there's room to bridge that gap a little bit further. Um Well, I mean, this is the first number we've seen. So, yeah. Right. So, I'm not willing to go below five. You're not willing to go below five either. Okay. We're going to be split. We're going to be split again on this. Can we call? That's okay. This isn't But this isn't a final decision. This is just where we're starting the discussion. We're going to go from there because we're not passing anything. We're not approving anything tonight. Um we're just we're drilling down a little bit more what we need to see in order to make this happen and what we'd be willing to do. So yeah, if we don't come together at a firm number, I don't think it's the end of the world as long as we're giving some direction to the developers and the property owners what we do need to be okay with. Well, I guess my question would be or I would challenge it a little bit is, you know, drawing that line in the sand. It really I mean it's it's an all or nothing you're saying is what I'm hearing. It's 500,000 or nothing. So then they can take that back or is it a come back with a second offer kind of what Amanda's suggesting. So we are negotiating. I mean so I mean that that's just the reality of it. How much value did the assessment I won't do anything below five. So why was it assessed? How much value did that give the property? I mean assessed at 689797 for to extend utilities right so that gave the property value right correct so so what is the actual value of the property itself is kind of what you're asking so without that the value of the property would not be as much I mean I think with a short of an appraisal we would have to assume the property value is 11 million $25,000 which is what they have on the land includes improvements that's includes improvements That's not right. Oh, so then what is the land purchase value? Well, disclosing their negotiations in a public setting is not going to happen. Yep. No, fair point. I mean, we can we can probably play around with numbers all day, but I think what you're saying is fair, your number, because it did give value to the property. Yeah. Was that based off of a percentage or you just It was a haircut based off the the 697 cost. I don't remember what number I used to play around with it, but I was playing around with it last night. That's kind of what I came up with. So, we're okay with eating more and paying out the original or the the left 108,000, paying for improvements on this road in a couple years that are going to have to be done without development and pushing off ongoing consistent into perpetuity tax base. It's not that black and white. overlay probably the only option. You're so dramatic. Josh, just to be clear, the overlay probably wouldn't result in any direct assessments because it's a major collector. There's nobody. It'd be like a Xerxes where it's So, we're going to pay for it anyway. You'll pay for it. There'd be more there'd be more lots to help pay, but but not a direct assessment. If I was a developer and if I was coming to a city council meeting and this was part of the conversation I was having, I would ask for the lowest number I possibly would get. Obviously, right? That's what I'm saying. And that's probably what's happened. So, you know, by I don't think it's as black and white as saying no, it's okay not collecting anything ever. That's my point. With all due respect, it's a national developer. I feel like we're not I mean, it's reasonable. I think we just kind of have to say where our comfort level is and where we're going beyond it. And we've kind of done that. So, when we get to the point of having that discussion and really figuring out final dollar amount. We can go from there. You want to say something? Yeah. I just want to add some context to this. Um I first of all the the 20% margin um understand that that does not include business expenses. We not only have our own business to run which is out of that 20%. Um there's also fees that we pay the letter of credit fees um that we pay that comes out of that. We have all of our entitlement fees. um you know, a bunch of those fees that are that are part of that 20%. Um we were asked um by staff to provide just some highlevel dollars, which is what we provided. Um we didn't want to get into the nitty-gritty details of how we operate as a business, but I think it's misleading if you were just to assume that we're pocketing 20% of that. Uh the other side of it, development is a risky business. Um as you guys know, um you know, 2008 was was hit hard with developments. In fact, I I was an engineer on uh two of your developments here in Alco New Market during that time. Um we installed um believe some hydrants are still sticking out of the ground in one of them. Um it's a tough time for developers. It's a risk. Um we have our own risks associated with that. Um so as businesses may not be able to operate at a 10% profit, unfortunately developers um are not. Um we have a lot of dollars mixed in with that. Um, you have guys have indicated your ask of a park. Um, the park is going to come with a a a hit. We're going to lose lots out of this development. Um, I think it's fair to say um that we came in with an honest offer. The the $200,000 wasn't an honest offer. Um, I think any developer that was here trying to get the the the biggest bang for the buck or the cheapest lot for the future home builder would ask for zero. Um, I thought the Wagner and Tamarak did a fair offer of $200,000. And I will say that number wasn't just pulled out of midair. Um, as my memo that was before you today, you know, indicated, we we have a national home builder um that wants to come down here um but is is a little shy about coming down here. It's why you guys don't have a lot of national builders. Um if this was uh closer to the metro where it's a little bit more proven ground um I think one the lot price would would indicate as such um but also the the willingness to negotiate that end all lot price would be a lot easier to have. Um I'll stand up here before you right now nervous that this project may not go forward. And I'll be blankly honest with you. Um, we're asking for a park that's going to lose a few lots out of it. And now an assessment. Um, that's that's over double what we're asking for. Somebody's going to need to take a haircut. I don't know where that haircut's coming from. Um, but um, I I do just want to just say that um, I thought that $200,000 was a was a fair offer. Um, I didn't think it was right to come in here and ask for zero. Um, because there is some value to it. Um but if you run the numbers of what that assessment is weighted to actually what the land value is here in Alco New Market, uh that's a substantial impact on that lot. Um you know that the acquisition price of that. Um I certainly have discussions offline with you guys about numbers and whatnot. Um, but what I will say is is the fixed fees or the fixed costs of hardcape improvements, the utilities, the streets, whether it's built in Alcoa New Market, unfortunately, is the same price as it would be if you were to build this, you know, in in areas like Prior Lake or Lakeville or something like that. The concrete costs the same as it does down here as it does up there. Utility installs are the same. Unfortunately, it is. What doesn't equate out is the actual value of the land. What you can sell a house for down here, what a home builder is willing to pay a lot is, uh, for a lot is is different than it is in in in Lakeville. So, um, the price that was before you in the memo was prices that we've talked about from home builders. This is what they're willing to pay for a lot down here. We work our numbers backwards, work with the the seller on their land, and we come up with a $200,000 honest figure that we could offer to the city for that assessment. And and those are honest numbers. So, have you ran into this in any other city? Is this a common issue? Um I will say um developers and home builders, especially national homebuilders, um have been broadening. they're starting to kind of go outside of of the ring of the Twin Cities, per se. Um because there's areas that are filling up. Um but they're they're a little hesitant as you as you guys know, Lenar is recently down here. They're taking a smaller chunk of lots um just because I think builders want to just test the waters, per se, if that makes some sense. Um, I will say, um, a lot of cities have strong appetite for growing their city and and getting development. Um, being that they're the first, we're the first ones in this area. Um once the homes are established from the national home builder, the next phases just tend to to build on top of that and prices start to be elevated because they know that there's not only competition, but they have an established market of interested home builders or you home buyers coming down here for for home builds. Um, you know, if the utilities were were extended, um, oftentimes, you know, developers start, they develop, and then the next property that gets to develop gets to hook onto those utilities that were installed at a cost by somebody else. That's the reality of development. Um and in this case, um you know, the roadways and the infrastructure were built as part of the project to get the elementary school there. Um you know, is it fair that the assessments were added on to the property at such a high value? That's not for me to discuss with you. Um but but when you work out the dollars, um it is a huge burden on that on that property. I think the density increased. I feel like there's a lot more density than there used to be on average. So, you get more lots, right? So, the Met Council um you know, their their goal is three units per acre. We're proposing a three unit per acre development in single family. It's actually from a density standpoint um actually a pretty good for single family. um we usually don't see density in that three units per acre without smaller lot sizes um or you know town homes or twin homes or or something like that. So it fits right in there. Your um land use comprehensive plan indicates 2.5 to five. We're in the three. So it's actually probably on the lower end of of what your comprehensive plan would suggest for density. So a 65 foot wide lot where we came up with that um that is your standard national home builders lot. You can go look at the pies lenars, the Hortons, um all of those guys. You'll find a single family lot is 65 ft is is their standard and that's where that 65 ft comes from. Maximizing the efficiency of the streets and the improvements are one way to drive the cost down um while still meeting standard setbacks and easements um in a standard traditional single family neighborhood if that makes sense. Thank you. Not related to the assessment but I I would like to take the opportunity to say that Tamarack has been really fantastic to work with. um staff has given them comments and four days later they've submitted a revised plan that addresses all the comments and that speaks to an experienced uh reputed developer in my opinion. Um you know a lot of times uh less experience they want to go back and forth and it takes many many plan revisions to get to a point where we got to in four days. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah, I'm I'm very glad you guys are here at the table. We're having this discussion. We're moving this forward. Um, you know, regarding a haircut, we're already looking at an 829,000 amount that's owed out there. So, we're already looking at taking a pretty good haircut on that. So, I feel good with where I'm with my minimum position on that. Um, I'd be willing to talk about smaller lot sizes. I'd be willing to talk about a number of other things, but um our taxpayers have paid a lot and I think there's there's got to be some more room to compromise. And that's what we need to remember that it's our taxpayers in the city that are basically socialism for for this project, which I'm not saying it's bad or wrong, but um you have to think about taxpayers. I mean, that's this is where I'm at. Gina's clear on where she's at. You're clear on where you're at. Um, so are we kind of within is a number between 200 to 500 kind of the number that we need to we need to zero in in that range for what we'd be comfortable with? Does that sound like a fair? That's where I'm at. Okay. I mean, that gives us something. Um, yeah, I I I don't know that there's a lot further to go with it in this conversation here. Um, if you're looking for an approval or something, I don't know that it's going to be gotten. So, what would staff like to walk away with? So there is no formal action but in order to proceed um the developer and the seller have to understand the numbers and they have to be workable for them. So I we can ask them but I would say it's probably likely and fair that they really can't move forward until this issue is resolved so that they know where they where they're at. Um just pointing out there is a council member who's not here tonight. Is this something you want to continue to the next meeting for further discussion to have the benefit of additional thought or see if there's a majority? I think we're going to have to. I just want to make sure that we can get you as far as we need we can get tonight for staff direction. I think a huge piece with just the design issues related to it. I think part related to the number and we've all pointed it out is that a park is going to have a financial impact. you're still building all the same infrastructure, but you don't you still have the same cost, but you have fewer lots to sell to make the numbers work. So, I think the addition of a park, if the council's looking for that, um, is going to have an impact on that number as well. And I think it would be fair to allow the developer and the property owner to given the feedback, have some time to process it and decide where they're at. I think that would be fair, too. I I will uh piggyback on what Josh said. I would be willing to I mean if it's a thing where it's either the park or the assessments, I'd be willing to look at the park again and sacrifice somewhere if needed. Yeah. So, so there's a number of different scenarios out there. You kind of know where we're at. Okay. Thank you. So, I want to I do want to continue this to the next meeting and we can keep drilling that number down and get to a point where we're all on the same page with it. Next meeting is scheduled for December 5th, everyone. Okay, moving forward. Yep. All right. Okay. Next item on general business. Um council Yep. Council's being asked to adopt resolution 2487 canvasing the returns of the votes from the city of Elcon market general election. So moved. Motion by Amanda. Second. Second by Josh. All in favor? I passes. Uh the last thing on general business I had asked Tom to pull it. Um I don't know. I I just didn't see the reason for it necessarily. There's a Yes, there's a It It helps from an efficiency standpoint. Staff being able to to do things by bypassing the comments of the planning commission. I don't like the idea of bypassing the planning commission on anything. So, I'm just I'm not going to support that. We want them to weigh in. So, we let them weigh in. Council, I agree. Josh Amanda, I wasn't strongly positioned on this one. Can staff advocate for the recommendation? Yeah. Well, I'm open to hearing your information. So, go ahead. So, it it is for efficiencies purposes. Under state statute, it requires that the planning agency doesn't say planning commission. planning agency is required to review the transaction of property um with the city whether it's sale or purchase for compliance with the comprehensive plan. In most cases, it's kind of a no-brainer straightforward relative action. I'm actually surprised it's in state statute, but I'm not here to debate that. um somebody felt it was important but when right now because we haven't defined staff to do it as the planning agency it defaults to the planning commission as it should. That's how the statute would be interpreted. But that means that if we for example are making a a relatively simple sale or acquisition of property, we may have up to 60 days of process depending on the timing of planning commission meetings for the planning commission. And Renee can correct me if I'm wrong for the planning commission to go uh yeah, it's generally a rubber stamp type of of action of a non-controversial nature. It also wouldn't preclude the council from deferring the item to the planning commission if they so chose if they felt it was necessary to get feedback from them as part of the process. So the recommendation was basically based on the idea of removing unnecessary bureaucratic action um which we are allowed to do under state statute by by appointing staff as the as the uh planning agency based on our past experience with past land acquisitions that we've done as a city. Okay. Any further thoughts on this? I'll jog my memory now. Thanks for the I was able to go back there and look at I mean I I do think that some of the times where we've had to I mean we can always pull special meetings or whatever and coordinate stuff. Um I mean I I like the efficiency and getting out of the way of doing what we need to do. I don't think um I just Yeah, I I'm totally okay with the the the change um to make it more efficient in these things. We don't have them all that often and when we do, we want to be uh able to negotiate well. Um and timing is obviously important with that. So, um yeah, I mean, I guess I'd go with the staff recommendation on this one. I don't think it's as good for trust and transparency, but I'm more indifferent than strongly any. Any thoughts, Amanda? I was over here smirking sounds like we're going to be split again. I'm not that strong on it. So if you guys think it's I mean if someone makes a motion and second and it's fine. I mean I'll be a no vote. But that's one vote. Maybe I'll be a no vote. I like knowing that we can defer back, but also at the same time knowing that staff can take action to get things moving even if we might delay it later. Is that a thing? You know, like get the ball rolling and then it may be deferred back, but we're still in the game essentially. It's in the event that you were going to buy a piece of property or sell a piece of property. My staff report to you would say this acquisition and intended use is consistent with the comp plan or not. It's as simple as that. That's what I do with the planning. That's what I do with the planning. Yeah, you go to the planning commission with that. And it's typically probably minimal discussion and well, it's happened maybe four times since I worked here and it's been a 30 second item. Well, and I would argue that we're kind of solving a problem that doesn't exist yet. Yeah. It's a 30sec discussion that could be 45 days away. Yeah. Right. Um unless we are able to schedule a special which four times a recorded discussion like on record just if anyone wanted I'm just council that same discussion. Does anyone want to make a motion? I make a motion to adopt ordinance number 314. It's a motion by Josh. Second. Second by Amanda. All in favor? I. All opposed? Nay. Nay. Motion fails. All right. Reports. I hope Kate watches this back. Administration. Um I don't have anything. Okay. Public works had a report included. Police did too, but did you have anything to add? Yeah, I just want to say I don't know if you guys have seen but um that spirit pump partnership with um the BP here in town has been rolled out. Yeah, if you guys have seen the pump yet looks great. We've already gotten a donation from them. So, just wanted to make sure to kind of get the word out on otherwise we're good. Engineering, nothing for you. Community development. Uh, Parks had their report concluded. Missing CC, any updates? Do you have a count on the Halloween party? No. Sorry. Let me just throw this at you. I did. I think it was 237 approximately. It's about 237. I think it was. I think we were down 12. Approximately. Yeah. Yeah. So, I thought everything went very well at the Halloween party. Um, yeah, it was a good I thought it was a good turnout. Um, we had a lot of sponsors in the doors, which was exciting to see. The next meeting is next week. I was going to ask Kate if she could be there. I will be out of state for a conference. So, I'll touch base with Kate. Otherwise, we'll have somebody there. Okay. uh scale I can I resend my I just had one report that um I got this morning I wanted to pass along. Uh so Scott County um public works are uh Scott County as a whole meets quarterly with MIDOT and they met last week and they used their quarterly meeting uh to ask Mandot to step up to the plate on our interchange. So that's just nice. It was passed on to me that that was the most of their meeting. So, we'll see. Uh, with regards to scale, I was not at the last meeting. Um, unfortunately, Tom, you did a presentation. You did great. Sorry, I missed it. Um, I don't know if there's anything else to report on unless you have something service delivery related. I think probably the most notable item on that same point is obviously it was the pres the presentation on the legislative platform to the legislators and it should be noted that um there seemed to be support from the other legislators related to the interchange. In fact, Senator Pratt, who were not in his district, openly and proactively indicated that he was going to be throwing a support behind um Senator Duckworth to work towards getting funding for the interchange. Uh anything for I35? We had a meeting this morning uh on the topic of the interchange. Uh it was brought up again there. Uh Mary Liz from Dakota County was a big strong advocate for the interchange along with County Road 50 and it came up because we're talking there was the proposal to have a consultant come in that we're going to pay 25 30 $40,000 to review priorities and whatever and Mary Liz is like well we have two huge priorities left on 35 why would we expand our scope of this group and the two are ours and in the county 50 interchange so Um, she pushed back phenomenally on Commissioner Wolf was to her right. They he chatted in. I didn't have to say a whole lot. We had the Bloomington guy trying to push back a little bit because he doesn't see a need for us down here even though we do everything on 35 and 494 for them. Um, but uh overall no continued support uh continued discussion. It's there front and center. So was cool. And so they'll be they're going to re-engage or restart up their tech committee, their technical advisory committee or whatever with all the engineers um to start vetting and going through the priorities again and bring some of that back. So and Lisa from Scott County will be representing there. So we don't have an an engineer who normally attends on behalf. I have at points in the past served on that. Was there any discussion about and last time I don't think we got tapped? Okay. I mean, and so I didn't I didn't volunteer for it because I'm too dumb to do that, but you know, with Lisa potentially going and then it was the guy from Burnsville sitting to my left. Uh somebody, but they're going to start to coordinate and organize and there was several engineers that weren't able to make it. So, if we want to I can we can ball back up and make sure that we have somebody representing there besides Lisa. But I think I mean she would do a fantastic job. I think too she would. It's just sometimes in those groups numbers influence decisions. So they're going to start over the next few weeks starting to coordinate and schedule. They didn't know if they'd get it done before the end of the year or if it'd be early in January. So if you if you could circle back with Rene and I on that. Okay. Any discussion by council or motions to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Motion by Amanda, second by Gina. All in favor? I mean thank you everybody.