Because the downtown one I order from I don't know much about it from like tell me something to try and it was it was fine again I don't really know >> that one's own by car res and um they have this like strawberry flavored milk that's really good and then when you go there and you're waiting they always have free like a Thai or a chai tea >> okay >> a tai chi Tai should just stand there. >> It's real fun. It's such a mindfulness. >> There we go. >> That one's good. >> Good way to make everyone a little more patient for their >> But I like that one, too. It's almost like a >> Which one? The one of my >> The one down. >> Yeah. I just picked up to go that one time. Again. I don't know. I can't compare it to anything cuz I'm not familiar with it, but I was like, "This is fine." >> Yeah. Yeah. It's going to be here. >> That's what I said. 5 months. >> Well, 5 months a week. >> Yeah. >> You don't have to. Yeah. >> It seems like when it will start getting shorter. >> I know. >> My kid my kids start summer. >> That's crazy. That's only Wednesday. My planning my stop basically York >> from New York City That was every year. >> Yes, we did. But that was months ago now. >> I had to get the whole basically my speaker. >> All right, guys. I'm going to call this session to order. It's 5:30, so we're going to get started. Damn. >> That was a really good story. Um, okay. Um, let's see. Brent just uh pointed out to me, and I told Dean this already, but he added this, and I didn't notice this until just now, but um there's a little bit of an explanation for folks who are watching at home. A work session is designed to inform, review, and facilitate discussion on upcoming business items of the city of Carver. No business action is taken. No community comment is received by the city council during a work session. All community members wishing to address the city council on specific topics related to business of the city of Carver may do so during the meeting at 7 o'clock under community comment. So, kind of what I've always said is this is our kitchen table conversation where we're discussing issues. So, um we discuss issues and then we also grill new staff members. So, with that, Sergeant, >> my radio just noticed. >> Big emergency. Welcome. >> Thank you for having me here. I'm excited to be here. Um, I'm excited for some of our changes in the sheriff's office specific to the city of Carver and the regional contract covering Carver and Victoria. Um, obviously there was some discussion that we should change the liaison role to a sergeant. That would be me. Um, which was an additional spot. So, I think both Carver and Victoria have grown big enough that probably suits these this spot well to have uh to have me here. And that and I don't mean that like patting myself on the back. That would be any of our sergeants in this spot. So, uh, real quick about me, I've been with the sheriff's office just shy of 20 years and I started in law enforcement going on 30 years ago. So, I've been around, I've seen some things. Um, not perfect. Uh, but, um, I think I'm pretty wellrounded when it comes to uh, law enforcement. Now, did I understand correctly? I got to come up with two truths and a lie about myself. >> So, that's legit. >> Um, do you want us to do introductions before? >> Sure. I would love would love that. I mean, I know a lot of you already, but >> Sure. Courtney Johnson, mayor. Uh, Christy Conrad, city council. >> Greg Bchman, city council. >> Lorie Ser, city council. >> Kayla Pasco, city council. >> Todd Elmer, uh, Boltman, engineer. >> Harm, city engineer. You know me >> on a professional level. >> We got to talk. >> All right. Dan L engineer. Yeah. >> All right. Well, again, it's nice. I nice to meet everybody. I look forward to continuing to working with everybody. Um I can certainly offline provide my direct contact information or Brent's got it uh if anybody needs my direct email or phone number. So, um, I work primarily Monday through Friday, 9 to5 or some close derivative of those hours is my typical typical shift that I'm on. >> Great. All right. Two truths and a lie. Are you ready? >> I am ready. >> Okay. So, you say all three of them and then we're going to hold up what finger we think is the lie. We started this during co when we were all virtual. I like it. >> It's a good way to meet folks and to hear some fun facts about them. >> All right. I grew up in Florida. I've been married 30 plus years and I played professional college football in the Rose Bowl. >> I would feel really bad if that's not true. >> Well, that's the thing. It's a little bit >> Okay, there's a good variety. >> Can you repeat number three? I played professional collegiate football in the Rose Bowl. >> Okay. Which one's the lie? >> I don't know. You tell me. >> Three. Number three. >> So, who So, it's whoever fingers you're holding up, that's the one you think I'm lying. Okay. For those of you with three, you won. Do not play professional collegiate football. >> I might look like it. No, I did play football in school, but not not uh anything that would have ever gotten me to >> a championship. >> All right. >> Well, you've already let me down. Sorry. >> The other two were >> All right. Um well, thank you, Josh. You are welcome to stay. We've got kind of a packed agenda. Otherwise, you can use this as an opportunity to bug out and >> All right. I will do that. >> Welcome home to your >> my empty house. My wife travels a lot for >> Okay. You just said you were >> That's how it's lasted. So worship. All right. >> But again, if anybody thinks of anything you think I need to be aware of, please reach out to me. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Take care. >> Um Okay. Up next, we have the Southwest Infrastructure Project update. Mr. Lis, welcome back. >> All right. Well, thank you. Uh I know you all >> looking forward to this for a while. So I'm going to let you have it here an update on the county road. So we are going to talk a little bit about uh the highway survey the southwest area here. So we're going to touch on background uh schedule of the effort uh some findings from the study and some uh key next steps that I know you'll be all very interested in here. uh the uh prior corridor studies touched on this area. So, if you've been, you know, watching the council meetings or some of you were here for them, we had corridor studies done by the county, uh going back a number of years here that that came up with some ideas on this this area. Um then Somerfield came and that's the that's the thing with studies is is you get ideas and then the actual projects hit and you have to define them and that's where we we had to get to the this recent uh joint study that we just put together between the city and the county. So I'm really talking about the study from the perspective of both the city and the county right now but the city but the county is the lead agency as it was set up uh in in that particular plan. But the the the idea of that study was to really further take uh this concept and bring it to you know some project planning. Uh and you know it's it's it's certainly a large a large effort here. So it's it's fairly significant uh by the you know tune of millions of dollars how how this plan would would come together. And so it was pretty important to actually get to a level of detail that we could think about what would a joint powers agreement look like if this were to proceed and everyone decided it was necessary. So, where we are right now is is we're in the tail end of that study and uh we're going to give you an update on, you know, what the uh what it might look like and uh how we're going to navigate to the next next few steps here. So, uh we we marched through the study process pretty much according to the overall plan. We're trying to get to the point where we would have some concept of of rough cost scoping by this time. And this is all timed out to the development planning and timing associated with the southwest area. So the the number one thing that we'll be talking about here is next steps are cost participation and and joint powers agreement. So when you're looking at the layouts that we developed, think you know this is this is getting into partnership mode at this point here. So we developed these concepts to to ask answer the question is this what we would want to build and is this what we want uh for serving the southwest area and the city for the next 20 years. And so uh we are we're going to be talking uh the a very key commitment at this point moving forward and uh we'll we'll show you what this this corridor looks like in a second. Dan, before you move to that, so go back one slide. >> Y >> it's it's probably not self-evident, but can you share with the council the strategies that are being talked about for resident engagement both in the city and the township because that's being coordinated as well within the confines of this. Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. That that is uh you know at this point we have to inform the township of of the direction. We've got to uh inform the the residents. There's, you know, open house elements of this. I mean, we're to the point where we're relying on prior studies that have have been public. The AU has been public. Folks know about all the things that are happening in the southwest area from a lot of these various studies. Uh we are to the point where we have a layout that we would be bringing forward to the public. We have not brought this layout forward. That's probably the key key takeaway right now is what I'm showing you is is not necessarily out there through open houses. We've relied on prior studies to say this is going to expand to four lanes. Now we're getting into the access details in which we would start to share these these topics to the public. That is not necessarily where we're at right now. So we so we wanted to give you the kind of the first look and then there'll be some some additional detail shared. Um and so there'll be a series of engagement opportunities for those folks. And in some cases there are alternate alternate designs based on the feedback or their uh situation. If they live close to a certain intersection, there might be a variety of kind of scenarios that the engineering team might walk uh through with them. >> So as we're looking at this timeline, where are those opportunities? Is it before preliminary design, after? I would say right now uh it would it would be before the preliminary design really takes off after this meeting and after probably the JPA. The JPA with the county is pretty important because that's what defines yes there is a project that's going to move forward. Until we get to the point where we're agreeing that a project should proceed, I would I would say we we may not do ourselves any favor by laying this out to the public. >> Okay. And then is there a formal open house for folks to >> Yeah, there there will be there will we put one on the calendar probably post joint powers agreement because we're going to have to get to the point where we're leading this and we're explaining how it's going to proceed. So that's the order I would have right now. But again, we're here to talk about this. So that's what we're doing. >> Okay. I just did you I think you just said that the public feedback portion would be before preliminary design and before the JPA >> and then you said everything else would be after the JPA right >> did I flip it? Uh yeah, I just want to make sure corre correction my intent was before preliminary design post JPA right now is where I would I would go because that's immediate. That's this month. We have to work through a JPA to suggest the project will proceed. >> Okay. >> March like sometime this summer. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That would be the answer. Yeah, for sure. So yeah, I uh I got to that in a very roundabout way, but Thank you for asking pointedly. Um, so here's the bigger picture here. So what we're trying to do is line this up with the development. I mean, it's it's safe to say that we probably wouldn't be talking about Connor Road 11 South 6th Street unless the Somefield was was going to be happening and it it was a very large multi-phase project. Chances are uh the county road would sit there for quite some time uh and it would it would not be developed into into a big expansion plan. Right now we are really talking about uh what is necessary for timing. I mean this is all about uh urgency and that's part of what we're trying to solve here uh is is timing pressures and uh when when we really do need something to happen. So from the development perspective, this is just how things would would play out. Your phase one, we're probably talking about fall of 2027 when permits are going to start happening. So that would be when the connection to the county road is in place. So we're going to talk a little bit about how significant it would be to have this roadway in place in 2728 or started in 27 for 28 completion. Um, I think the county would would take a, you know, approach where 28 29 would be fine. That's something to talk about. Um, I would say generally speaking, the developer would rather see some of these improvements happen closer to when the the uh development is going to be opening up. That roundabout intersection would would uh be a uh important uh intersection for a fully developed phase one also. Um, so I'll I'll uh walk through that, but this is the overall schedule and I'll let you come back to questions on that if you'd like. Our our goal for the study was to really find traffic uh further detail out the layout so we could get to a cost and phasing and implementation recommendation stage and then really talk about what should we build now versus what's future because it's a big corridor. We wouldn't build it all right away. uh you know obviously that's you know that's all based on the needs we we discovered here and here's the key findings um this is the nutshell uh today there's 6,900 trips uh fully built out uh we're talking about 2700 trips there's no question that's a fourlane facility uh that's that's well in excess of two lane so we're talking about an expansion is going to be needed at some point and so now it's all about when um the uh intersection of 11 and Somefield uh is going to require an intersection improvement. Again, it's all a timing discussion. You can open a development with two homes without a round vote, but at some point in time, that's going to become a safety issue at that location with higher volumes. And eventually here would would uh certainly warrant a roundabout or some form of intersection control. And there's other access points if you look at the long term that have to be restricted uh to uh mitigate the safety risks of a 20,000 ADT corridor or average daily traffic is what that means and then a trail system was necessary. So these are the key findings in a nutshell for really what we are trying to move towards. Um implementation timing uh in summary which can >> I'm going to ask a question. You go back to the previous >> Yep. >> Well, this is about the roundabout, and I brought this up uh before, but I come off of Carver Blast Parkway on the 40. >> Mhm. >> And there are mornings where you'll have 10 cars stacked up with the traffic coming down the road. Part of the problem is if a car is coming from 40 out of East Union, they already have enough speed that by the time you see them coming out of the neighborhood, they're going too fast for you to try to get out. You've got to wait for those cars to go by. The cars that are coming off County Road 11, they've had to stop and turn right. So, you might get a chance to get out if that car is stopped and turning right. If there's a roundabout there, the concern is they're preserving enough speed going around that roundabout. There might be not be enough time to exit out of Carver Bluffs Parkway because they didn't have to stop. They're just continuing on. That may or may that may just be my perception, but having lived through mornings where people are going so fast, how dare I have the audacity to leave the neighborhood, you're stuck there. Um, I want to be sure that a signal to traffic control isn't the right thing for that many people. So, that's just a thought and an observation from someone that deals with that. >> Sure. >> Daily. >> Can I give you a flip side then, Erin? >> Yeah. >> So, up by um I would say the school up on 41 where they change from the stoplight there >> to the roundabout. >> Um because there I mean there's traffic coming in all four directions. So s you're getting at times these whatever wherever you enter from because that development's going to be now in place. So that development is going to have cars coming out. >> I'm imagining that it would slow down some of those because people coming from East Union are now going to have to wait there because people are coming out of a development, right? Because it will be from all four sides at that >> point at some >> at some point. So like I when I go above 41 I don't to me I actually prefer it to the stoplight because yes you keep going but I don't generally come up to that and immediately get to go depending on the time of day obviously. So I'm I'm usually stopped there at least a car or two. Well another one comes through and then you can get into the system. >> Yeah. I can't I can only speak to the experience in line of sight. By the time you can see them it's almost too late to leave. So, some of the traffic is coming out of East Union. Not not nearly as much as County Road 11. >> So, you're worried about the right hand turn? >> I'm worried about the right hand you because they're not going to have to stop. They're going to preserve that speed. Um, and it you'll do a study on this, I'm sure, before you build anything. I'll talk you through a lot of it right now. >> Yeah, >> but it's um it's a problem and I you know I of course I get the feedback from other people that live in the neighborhood. >> Are you talking about 40 and 11 or Carverless Parkway and 11? >> Uh Carver Bluff's Parkway and 11. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> Sorry. I didn't mean to say 40. Yes. >> Okay. So you're you're suggesting that maybe we need a light at this where we have a roundabout indicated in these images so that there will be timing such that people can exit Carver Blast Parkway. Is that what you're saying? >> I think we're getting a little bit ahead of ourselves. Let's let Dan >> have more just so that we can get to that point and then we'll resume that conversation. >> Uh the sounds good. I I'll I'll hit on that as we go through the >> We'll have thoughts. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, you came loaded. So, that's great. That's what we're here for. Uh implementation, uh, you know, things to confirm uh that are, you know, foundational. This is we believe the intersection of 11 and Somerfield 40 is is very near-term. So, that that is, you know, worthy of project scoping. Um, now, uh, based on the the phase phase one development, uh, to the north, uh, is is also the near-term. So everything to the north of the main development access up to sixth street or really fourth street we would consider to be phase one near-term project scoping. So that would be what we would be focused on as far as uh any type of a joint powers uh agreement with the county. Hollyy Avenue uh you know could potentially be a near-term for other reasons. You know some city interests the county would not be touching that uh unless there was a city desire to improve that in any manner. Uh and that would be associated with um the >> phasing of the development. >> Yeah, phasing of the development. And then areas to the south would be mid to long term. Uh and that could be 10, 20, uh 30 plus years out depending on development to the south. So now we can get into the the weeds a little bit here. what what you're looking at here is the uh the evolution of of that concept to answer a lot of the the key key questions and and address the issues associated with what would we build uh if if we if we were are building something uh in the near term and how would we cost this out. So we looked at uh signals uh we looked at the roundabout we looked at doing nothing as we always do at uh at 11. Um this is going to warrant something for sure. it's going to warrant an improvement. And uh a roundabout was was uh more um uh fitting in this situation for a few reasons. It was it was speed control coming in uh to the to the city. So they they do a roundabout do a nice job of slowing people down, bringing bringing rural high speed to a lower lower speed environment. Uh number two, it uh it offers a turnaround. So with that with the access points to the north, there's going to going to be reductions is is is a key issue. So if you look at like Overlook Drive, for example, um that that does not have another outlet. And so this this is not well set up for for a uh a left in left out um at this point. This would be uh more geared towards a a reduction for this access point without any of the alternatives. The roundabout offers a nice turnaround so you effectively maintain a left in uh scenario. So they would not have they would not have that left out which would be one of those comments uh you know related to the public. >> Um >> and how far do they have to go to then? Oh, they they have to they have to go up to to uh either Carver Bluffs if that's left open for a U-turn or they have to go all the way up to old old >> Main Street West Main Street West as it's called now. >> That's okay. Then now they're going to be stopping. If we're talking about those traffic levels being 20, whatever it was, >> 27,000 >> and now you have people in the left-hand lane who are going to be whipping U-turns into fourlane or into another two-lane traffic. I don't that concerns me a little bit when they take that right out. That's what you're saying. Cuz they have to go down to the PL Parkway to now hit a Uturn. excuse me, to come right back. >> Yeah. Yeah. We're not a big fan of of of this to be honest with you. We we would like Overlook to to have another outlet. Uh it's just we we can't plan on that immediately. So, that would be a long-term solution for Overlook. Um for the time being, we would be looking at the restrictions necessary and it would it would be specifically a safety safety reduction. Um, and we we'd talk about whether or not we have to do this day one or whether or not this would be a reduction that we would we would do uh you know in in you know a certain amount of time based on accidents. But the problem with some of this is is you hate to have a fatality be your trigger for for doing some of these things. So we have to look at it pretty proactively too if we think there's a real risk. Now a roundabout might offer some flexibility. This was a signal. I would say this would get closed off almost definitely. >> What would get closed off? >> This this overlook drive. If you're going to maintain 55 mph speeds in here, this is going to be a reduced access and they're going to have to deal with the turnaround because of the the safety issues associated with that. >> There was a signal. Oh, so like >> the roundabout slows traffic down. So I I'm saying there's there's some implementation things that we can consider as far as timing of of of parts of this. But um so that was the rationale behind behind the roundabout today. It offered a turnaround. >> I have a qu I have a couple questions on this Dan. So if we're setting people down, we want to talk about accidents and things. If we're going to expect 27,000 people traveling now, we have now granted this isn't a huge part of the development here, but there's a number of houses there. They're going to be sitting there. Now, how long are they going to have to sit there to wait for traffic? Because this isn't controlled down here. You have people going 50 miles an hour, and now you're going to be sitting waiting, waiting, waiting. It's not a true J turn. It's just a It's just a sit and wait till U-turn. So, that scares me to have it look like that. >> Is there any way that I can read between the lines? So, we've got Tommy Dum's spot on the corner here. I don't know who owns the next parcels that we could someday have overlook come out to the left here. >> Yeah, we we want to continue pursuing another outlet for Outlook for for Overlook Drive. That's absolutely part of the plan right now. It's it's the the ability to actually time it out in in the time frame that that we would need this. So, and I could take five years. It could they could say no. Uh it's because it's US Fish and Wildlife and we could tap it into Carver Bluffs Parkway as another outlet. >> The parcel below Tommy Details. >> This is US Fish and Wildlife. And if we could tap it in this way, that would be another another uh option for us. But those would be those would be part of a longer term plan here with um with this being tied to the ultimate condition that we're really trying to build towards. >> And who owns those lots if we were to bring it towards the culde-sac that is a Hans Hagen outlet outlet, I think. >> Um yeah, >> but I don't know what the topography is. >> Hansen outlet. Yeah. >> And the big one, >> the big one's private. >> It's private. Okay. Oh, that one house is in there. Yep. Okay. >> Right. This is private. We looked at we looked at this connection. >> Well, I can say that would be to me coming through that to hitting that culde-sac would be ideal. Then you're bringing people at least out to the parkway rather than sending them down to do a U-turn in the middle of a 50 mph zone. >> We we agree. We agree. And that that's really what we're bringing up here. This is one of the more challenging areas right here. >> And so we like the roundabout for at least getting them a full in, >> a left in. the out. You know, we're not a super big fan of the the worst case scenario for them is this is not a good left and they would have to go up to Main Street and take a roundabout at the next slide. There's another slide on here as far as what their other options would be. So, this is where they would continue to go if they did not like this movement, which I I am not a a fan of. They would they would actually come all the way up here and take that U-turn here if they're going to go left. Now the reason why we consider this to be a viable scenario is they have almost no lefts. There's very few lefts that come out of that development. Almost it's like 95 plus percent are going north. So the people that are going south, they would have a longer trip. It's just very few. >> When we're talking about 15 to 20,000 daily trips or 273, what's an example of that? Is that 41 through downtown Chaza comparable off the top of your head? >> Yeah, you're talking um Yeah, you're talking like around 41. So that's that's just a reasonable example downtown Chaz area. >> Okay, thank you. Yeah. So as as we come to the north uh Carvlass has a scenario which would that that would in fact get you know reduced to a left uh left in only uh 3/4 we call it. Um at this point these are on these are both on the table. This would all be uh volume and timing specific. you'd reduce it to a 3/4 if there was an accident and and safety risk. Uh when this opens, remember traffic's not going to be at 27,000. It's going to be at 6700 and then 7,000 and then 7500. So this is one that we could phase in, but this this is very likely an ultimate plan here uh as far as as far as you know what's going to drive safety in here is 15,000 cars a day. Those lefts are going to get very very difficult. And so they have an alternate um is the idea here. Um >> site distance was another one that we really looked at closely. Um the council per council member Pchman's point intersection site distance was a big one that we wanted to review there >> part of that. >> Yep. And so the park access 3/4 uh with the idea that they can have a they can have their left in left out is managed at this roundabout in the same way. So that's one of the advantages the roundabouts gave us was to build the ability to manage these uh access points along the corridor that eventually will get to be very challenging if they're left full. Uh and so there there's a safety element to to these locations and then of course the the mining trucks. >> Yeah. And would you mind going back to the previous slided walking through the mo caramel >> uh option and alternate? >> Yeah, this one would also u be a reduction in time as opposed to a full left in and uh left out. So the idea here would be to start to plan this into the development uh such that this was closed off and then they would have an out through the development. Um I think I think there's various reasons why that would be supported by both the residents uh and possibly the developer. So um we are looking at this as a reduction which will probably drive an outcome of culde-sac here. Uh and that's that's again implementation plan. >> Why would we take that into a culdeac if you can't turn left because there's a median in there anyways? Why wouldn't we still have them taking a right turn to get them out and release some of relieve some of the traffic that'll be in the development down the road? Because that road's already there. >> Some some residents along that stretch have asked for that as a option because they don't they prefer not to see new development traffic go down that road. >> Oh, they'll you're they're afraid they're going to come in and then travel to get to there. Okay. >> Huh. Okay. >> Yeah. So, if we had if we had support from this on both sides of it, the development, the residents, closing an access is clearly the ideal uh when you're talking this this cars driving through here. So, um and then of course we've got a trail system east side of the road uh or south side of the east side and then and underpass uh just north of the roundabout is thinking right now. So, uh, this would be the the the basis for some cost split discussions. Uh, that doesn't mean things can't change. It's what we needed to start costing this out and deciding how much this project would cost if we were to do it. So remember from the countyy's perspective, they're going to put money towards an improvement and it's more efficient for them to build that improvement the way it's going to be for the next 20 years than them to do little spot improvements on this. So they're they're going to look at this as a corridor improvement that has to happen now even if it it's really only driven by an intersection improvement at Summerfield. >> I have another weird question for you. So, because I don't have the overlay of what site is going to look like, but why um why does why is Mount Mon Mount Carmel up there have to even connect into that development? >> Um >> because I can't picture unfortunately. >> It's on the is it? >> Can you go back? >> Oh, yeah. That's it. >> I'm not sure. >> Yeah. >> Is that right here? Okay. I was just curious why do we does it have to why does it have to connect in? >> Well, it doesn't have to. If we leave it open, you can if you leave it as a right in right out. They will perhaps complain about that it's not not ideal, you know, turnarounds in order to maintain their left movements. >> Oh, they have to go to the roundabout anyway. >> Yeah, they got they have some longer turnarounds. And then I think the the big issue is I believe that would be a very attractive way in to the development. Um and so we would have to specifically try and prevent you know that from being we'd have to it's got to be closed off on one one end of the other. So >> I'm just that's why I'm asking because if is there a reason that some has to even connect into Mount Carmel? >> Well, one of their roads will cross Mount Carmel. So then you'd have to >> they have to go. Yep. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, so we we have plenty plenty to still talk about on this, but we had to get to the point of how much would this all cost? And so in order to get there, you got you got to lay in trails and and really think through what what this thing would look like. So I I would say this was more of a step in the preliminary design direction uh to try and get a cost. And so we are now to the point where we have to decide is there going to be a project. And as far as the county is concerned, this is going to absolutely justify a corridor improvement. The city has has got arrangements with the developer where they've got to contribute to the intersections. We we are going to be soon talking about what's this going to cost and who's going to pay for what. So, um you know, I can I can keep walking through the the layout and we can talk as long as you'd like on >> before we have the money conversation. Can we I don't I feel like I cut off the cover blows a parkway conversation. So I want to make sure Eric and Kayla you guys were I want to make sure you guys are heard any more comments on that. >> Well I understand the the value that that roundabout brings but I don't know how that changes the concern about speed. It it would slow down people coming from East Union. You're right. a roundabout would do that, but it would speed up traffic coming from County Road um from you know that Jordan traffic. Um so >> can I ask that clarifying question? Yeah. >> Cuz like right now if you come from Jordan they come to a tea and they have a stop sign. >> They have to stop. >> So now they have to stop and then take a right versus with this proposal >> it keeps their speed going. It's a ch, like I said, it's a challenge when people are coming from East Union to be able to turn right. >> So when you say north, >> correct? >> Yeah. So they're coming north and they're high speed. >> Yeah. >> So >> So you have to wait for those people. >> What you're going to see here is once it splits up into two lanes, you're going to have more of an opportunity to to hit a gap here. The fast traffic might be in the left lane. Um and you might have the right lane open. Um, number two, uh, the people are going to probably pick their intersection. I mean, you could come up to Main Street as as well if if that if it was, uh, difficult traffic conditions. And that is an that is an ultimate >> Yeah. And that happens. >> That is an ultimate likelihood here in which there's an alternative to this intersection, such as where the 3/4 would come into play. If it gets to the point where that left is just simply not safe anymore, it's going to be at the roundabout that that left is going to occur one way. >> Yeah, I'm not so worried about the left. I agree. That's small percentage of the traffic. >> Yeah. >> It's it's being able to time it so you could take the take a ride and out of the neighborhood. >> So, is it just one like one lane going through that roundabout or is it doubled? Because I'm I see what you're saying. So it is two >> two two throughs. >> Okay. Because I was thinking once you said that like the two lanes now you have a little bit more >> space but >> it only looks like one in this. >> I know that's why I was asking because in the image it looks like it narrows down to one. >> It is it is two through north and south. >> It's intended to be two. >> Yes. Yeah. >> So to your points, one of your neighbors reached out to me um and asked I'm just going to read this word for word. I respectfully ask the city and county consider the following as design decisions are made. Number one, focused a focused safety analysis of the Carver Bluffs Parkway and County Road 11 intersection including turning mo movements, sight lines, speed environment, queuing and heavy truck impacts. Um evaluation of whether additional traffic control, geometric improvements or access modifications are needed to make neighborhood ingress and ingress and egress safer. Uh number three, consideration of uh current and future truck traffic associated with nearby industrial activity and regional connectivity, not just standard passenger vehicle volumes. And then number four, clear communication with the Carver Bluff residents about how access and safety concerns will be addressed during the preliminary and final design. >> Courtney, I'm sorry, the third one is that >> were they talking about the truck traffic? I think it was the third one. They they wanted to make sure we consider the truck traffic or there I'm curious like >> not just passenger vehicles I think is what we're saying. So pit traffic >> for the roundabout or just making sure that every >> specifically at the intersection of Jonathan cars. >> Yeah, we uh um we agree with the comment all all that was was analyzed in this this process. So it's a good good thoughtful comment. Um, that being said, I think the the challenges at this point is we are now to the point of of of laying out plans that the county and the city are really going to have to agree that yeah, I think we're going to advance on on on something here subject to some amount of change that we could have here. Like I said, we still have we have to pick intersection types here >> which would impact the response of those residents, right? So, that's where we're at right now is we just are trying not to get too far ahead before we've decided. Yeah, I I do think we're going to have to proceed with something here. >> Um, the other thing that I don't think you went through, it says park entrance closure concept. Tell me more about that. >> Uh, we had, let's see, we we had an access point coming off a main street in which the park access was fully closed. >> Okay. So all that is is is a discussion of if we were to close this fully, get rid of this, how much savings is there, and could we put money towards a connection on Main Street? Is it worth it? Is it financially preferable? Um >> could we the county put money towards a Main Street? >> Could entrance or could we the city? It would end up being both there if there's there some county savings uh to close this access in which they could put that towards an alternate access and then is there a city cost for sure >> to get across that creek that >> and so that's how that works. I want to be mindful of the safety concerns there. And that park is literally six months old and we worked really closely with the county in determining that access based on some of the challenges of uh entrance on Main Street West. >> So, it's a little like let's figure out, but I don't know that we want to pay twice for entrance to that park. That's why I think the 3/4 is the leading option for us. We think it works just fine. >> Okay. >> And it's >> and that would be day one three/arters. >> Yeah, >> it's a full access as far as I'm concerned because your left is just up the street. >> Okay. But Carver Bluffs Parkway would not be a day one. >> No. >> Three quarters. >> I don't see that happening. Uh because they would day one they would have an alternative to go over to Main Street and they could they could decide whether or not they want to Okay. you know, to go up to the intersection and wait it out. Again, this is not opening at 20,000 cars a day. So, you can still continue your typical patterns for now. >> Okay. >> Uh but again, topics to be refined. So, uh that's that's how we've got it right now. So, uh to to wrap this up here, we are we are now to the point of of no master planning to the south. This is longterm what we think is going to happen to the south. But if we were really to get into the details of the next steps, I would say this month and May, we really need to talk about cost shares. There's some pretty dramatic variations in cost sharing that that would happen based on interpretations of well or determinations of whether that development driven or uh whether this is a quarter improvement city, county, there's some big differences in in the numbers and so that has to be worked out. uh this this is uh $15 million project. It's it's a big job. And so that's where we're at right now. >> Thinking of this kind of as phase two of JCP for the city of Carver. We did phase one in 2021. >> Y >> I feel like you're alluding to a different cost match than what we had 5 years ago. >> Yeah. Well, I'd hope so. That was pretty high. I mean, you you had a lot of money into that north north one and so I don't I don't believe you'd have as much in this one. You had a lot of utility re there's a lot of stuff in that one. I'm hoping this would be a little bit more uh favorable, but I >> Okay, so I hear you promising. Again, there there's there's a lot of there's a lot of swing in this depending on how the how the um cost participation rolls out and the developer develop developerdriven is is a big shift in and how this would be looked at. >> And you're zooming in on just one phase of this project because you have already talked about extending utilities down to this section. So that's the southwest infrastructure extension. So that's you know I think we're estimating like 5 million And then two, you're extending utilities to the public services uh land. >> And then within this, the confines of this, the roundabout is a developer driven cost. So all the city's costs will go into that. But the corridor north of uh the road to Jordan, if you will to fourth street is a corridor cost just like the city had with the north part of Jonathan Carver Parkway. And that's where the cashier policy that the county has will drive that. So fundamentally it should be the same. It's just as you get into project details there could be some teeth nashing over certain elements of that cost share policy and how they apply to this situation. Okay. >> But fundamentally >> the methodology is the same. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> I have a question. You keep mentioning developerdriven was the first improvements for Jonathan Carver Parkway. >> No. >> What like what was that considered just because the new elementary school >> the CIA project capital improvement project >> for the city? >> The county. >> Oh, for the county. >> Yeah. that that's where we are at this point is if the county had it planned and we entered into a a project development process with the plans county project that would be a different number than if they determined that they have to build the county road because of the developer. >> Okay. Versus that was part of their CIP they were going to be doing it and now this is >> exactly >> we might need this sooner. It it's more like if there's a spot spot uh you know a trigger that they're just reacting to that they they they can say developer driven and then they they look at a different cost participation scenario >> and so um there's there's still discussions to be had on this. That's why I'm not laying out the here's the numbers because they swing a lot. Uh they swing a fair amount and seven figure type differences. Um, and so that's where we're at. And it's not probably the update you're looking for, which is how much it's going to cost. I can tell you this is you're you're into the millions of dollars for planning. It's just again, h how many is subject to a lot of those calls that have to be had with the with the county. And you know, Brent Brent knows that's that's ahead. And I'd be open to answering any questions on next steps. But I would say action items is do we agree that there's a project to be had uh and a need to plan for and are we really uh given the thumbs up to to sort out what this cost participation would look like? >> Does anybody feel that we don't have a project here? >> I feel we have a package. >> So um yeah, I think we all feel that we have a project. >> Head knots. Okay. Um, so I'm sorry. Holly is included. A roundabout at Holly is included in this phase. >> It it could be. I would say that's definitely more locally driven. Holly would not be a county county effort at this point unless there's >> So that would be developer driven potentially. Okay. >> Yeah. Summer gate would be on the hub for their share of that. >> The city. >> Okay. Um, >> I'm also hearing maybe for the engineering team some some more analysis and detail on the fiber parkway intersection. >> For sure. Yeah, we we know that's going to be a big topic especially with all their neighbors. I mean, it's it's understood >> and we're at this like we really felt strongly we wanted to get this in front of the council, but it's also conceptual enough that you haven't drilled down on any one detail like this is what it's going to be. So there there's going to be a gap between now and resident engagement because we don't want to take a halfbaked plan to them without feeling confident in the data and the analysis that went into a recommendation. >> Yeah. So question one was do we have a plan? Do we see a project here? We said yes. What was question number two? >> Um a thumbs up to to really enter into the JPA discussions with the county is really what it comes down to. Okay. >> So, >> and you have all this conceptually planned within your long-term financial plan. Like there are numbers uh baked into that plan for funding the elements that the city would have to pick up. >> Do you have what you need from us? >> Yeah. No, that's great. And thanks. I know there's a lot to to get into here. This not going to be your last chance. >> Okay. >> So, thank you. You uh answered the key questions and hopefully you feel much more informed here. Okay, great. >> That's it. >> Thanks, John. Um, okay. Up next, uh, certified levy project update. Mr. Schmidt. >> Yes. Thank you very much. I'm going to get this loaded up here. Um, as I'm doing that, maybe Dan's going to do a little, um, quick intro here. >> Oh. And then I'll I'll get this pulled up. So, >> sorry the transitions are >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I mean, we we prepared this specifically with the understand that there's a lot of folks that that probably have uh questions about numbers and understand that there's been some surprises as far as what what a city obligation might be. I mean, this is going to be a solutions discussion, but you know, again, we we certainly would want to offer our apologies for any surprises that you felt or anxieties about the cost of the effort. You know, sometimes we have the advantage of lots of information in our head and lots of plans. we know how things can work out over time. And so in this particular case, we we know that, you know, the numbers might might seem like they're they're far more than than you would have a plan for, but we are going to offer a few few uh alternatives and and bring this back to where where it ultimately should be and where where we know it is, which is there's there's a little fork, but there's all kinds of alternatives that that are in front of us that will, you know, offer you plenty of alternatives and uh decisions to make that'll bring us back to where it should be. So, um, you know, that that's that's all I wanted to offer is, you know, again, our goal is no surprises. So, if if we missed that, uh, you know, our apologies, but that's that's about it here. We have all kinds of good stuff to talk about here. And if there's any questions on that or concerns, feel free to throw it out. >> So, okay. >> All right. Okay. >> Thank you. >> All righty. So, we're going to go ahead and uh give you an update on where things are at here. here. I think Todd, you're going to do the the bulk of the presentation here tonight and then we'll I'll assist here as needed. But go ahead and jump in. >> Sure. I'll talk a little bit about some of the background and status and where we're at today. Uh I'll get you a funding and budget update. uh some concepts for value engineering and consideration and also how to fill some of the the gaps in the the project uh funding and then the delivery schedule and the work plan as to where we're at today and where we're headed. So just by way of background uh the levy was uh previously removed from the Army Corps of Engineers voluntary levy program which means that the city of Carver cannot receive assistance from the core should there be damage to the levy in a flood event. So in that program, it's I believe it's an 8020 program. If the lobby is damaged in a flood event, then the car cork would come in and pay 80% of the restoration and the city would pay 20. Currently, you're on the hook for 100% of any damages because you're not qualified for that program. because of the lack of freeboard clear zone, steep slopes, and seepage through the the levy, we are also not eligible for um a conditional or a letter of revision, which would allow the city to remove those areas in blue that are overlapping housing and uh businesses to be removed from the flood plane. When we're done with the project, all those properties will be eligible to be removed from the flood plane. So where we're at 2021, um we before that I want to think we started this man it had to be 2016 I think was our first conversation back um to begin the the levy discussion. Uh in 2021, we received 250,000 from the DNR to start to put some pieces together on the levy uh come up with some preliminary concepts uh in association with uh some help from the lower Minnesota River Wershed District as well. We did some public engagement and concept design and cost some geotech work over 21 and 22. received 2 and a.5 million in federal funding in 2022 and began the federal EA process. That's a very lengthy process, especially when we're in a highly historic um area. Um so we've been working through that and received our federal approvals on the project uh in 2025. In 2023, we received an additional 6 million from the DNR from the state bonding bill. And in 2025, we looked at property uh easement locations, construction limits, uh started the process of defining that and working through all the title work. Uh and now this spring, we've been working on easement acquisition, and we also received another $4 million from the federal uh funding. So, we're at 60% design. Our permitting is progressing. Uh cost estimates were prepared. easement offers are out and we'll get into more details about that later today. I won't spend a lot of time here schedule and phasing conversations and currently we're identifying about a $3 million gap and funding. So to give you a little bit of history in 2023 we anticipated the project at about 12.1 uh updated in 2024 at 12.7 and 2026 we're at 15.75 and I would say um that's based on an actual construction plan. It's the first time we've had plans and and quantities. Uh and we did learn a few things that changed from our previous estimates to the final estimate on the types of design that we have as well from the third street bridge. So there's there's a number of things that have happened to escalate that cost. Um looking at our our funding summary. So there's our our talk our summary of funding. DNR 150,000 100,000 from lower men federal grant of two and a half uh DNR flood mitigation grant of six and another four from the feds for a total of 1275 and our project cost estimate at this point is 15750 and a potential funding gap of about 3 million. So a couple ways to look at how we can address that 3 million. Um, one, the uh DNR flood hazard mitigation program uh can continue to be applied to and we can recover that the state of Minnesota has not fully funded uh not how I want to say that they have fully funded every one of these projects that they've started and initiated. It has not they have not stopped funding the projects once they're underway. So there's a really strong chance about that they will continue to fund this. We feel they currently have about a half a million dollars in cash in their account today that could be Carver eligible and then additional funding would have to come in future years. Now with our current political situation, we don't have uh any assurances that you know bonding bills and those types are going to be moving forward. Um so the exact timing on when that money might come through is uncertain. >> Todd, when you say $500,000 from flood mitigation, >> Yep. Does that mean that's what the pot is for all the projects or that's >> that's what they could carve out for carbon right now. Okay. >> Yeah. They have I think $9 million sitting in there that they're working with from the past process and so they have 500,000 still hanging around that's unallocated that could be allocated to Carver. >> Okay. >> Um we've already identified we're working on value engineering. So, we're trying to walk back through now and see where we can save some cost. And we've already identified $300,000 uh in value engineering. Some of that's coming from some sheep pile we had south of Main Street. Uh there might be another hundred,000 that we've identified at the Gosh do property uh in exchanging purchasing those garages instead of putting temporary sheeting to protect them, those little storage sheds that he has. Um after we did a value cost for that, there's about 100,000 there that we can save. we'd just rather pay for those sheds and we could still save $100,000. So, that's one of the deals we're we're working on right now. Scope reductions up to a million dollars. Uh city bonding is another option. And then we can um we have a request in for 3.35 for bonding. Uh this session is currently unlikely. Um but that request is still in front of the legislature for their consideration. And then some uh other notes there. uh additional state funding result in increased local match. So the state is redoing some of their matching allocations. So if we requested the 3 million and additional funding from the DNR, we might have to come with a 50/50 match or we still may be able to use some of that additional federal funding for that too. There's also the 3% um of your total of your average value income of properties in Carver that would max out. So right now our previous calculation was at 3.5 million and we maxed that out on our match. So they would calculate a new number under that scenario and get back to us on what that would be and see where we we land. I'm still working on trying to get those numbers. Matt hasn't called me back from the DR. I was hoping to have those for you this evening, but we'll get those out to you as soon as we get them. Um, looking at some of this is where some of that value engineering is coming in. The Spring Creek uh flood wall finishings. We'll talk about that. Retaining wall reductions, some temporary shoring reductions, uh, source. So, one of the things that we have is we're we're bringing in a large quantity of fill to build the new levy. And we think we can get that cost down if we can identify a source of that clay borrow that they can grab that material from. Uh and then also working on the flexibility of the contract and how the contractor does it. Um there's a number of ways to do this. Um one is we, you know, you typically see with street projects a defined completion date and then you work around if you have like a series of bad weather um delays. There's could be some contract extras and those types of things here. We do have a very risky project and that risk is introduced by the Minnesota River. We don't know how long it's going to flood. We don't know how frequently it's going to flood during construction. So, we want to be able to give the contractor ample opportunity to extend those construction dates without penalties. So, we'll have a long enough construction timeline that we believe they can construct them. We've met with uh two contractors already on how we can reduce construction risk. Um the biggest risk is the construction of the Spring Creek segment because if the river comes up while they're in there building that we've taken out the old levy. How do we protect the downtown during that flood scenario and we've come up some ways to build a temporary levey at the other side of the pedestrian bridge and then we would pump the water from Spring Creek over the top. That way, if the Minnesota River came up and down, we can still be working in the dry essentially on Spring Creek temporarily. Uh, while we're while that's happening, and that will help reduce some of our assumptions on cost, we still have a we also want to reduce our contingency. We currently have a million in contingency. We want to get that down to a half a million if we can for construction. That'll also lower our gap. Todd, just so I'm clear, when you're talking about city sourced clay, that means literally from a property that we own and digging it and >> trucking it, hauling it, and bringing it down here. >> You own or if the county has a project where they're going to generate fill material. Um, we're going to look at at projects that are nearby that we can possibly source that material from. >> Okay. And we would be doing whomever a favor by taking it off their hands and putting it. >> Just trying to make it cheaper to build, but go ahead. Do we have to do though like um soil studies on it and do we have to make sure it's worthy to be moved? >> We have a minimum specification for it. So, we'll we'll test that material for it. Yeah, it it's a pretty simple test. Um and the material that we have to bring in for the levy isn't isn't something that is specialized. Um it it's a common material that's available in the county. I don't mean to sidetrack it, but that the million-dollar contingency statement is very important. Uh because when you look at planning a job, they're still carrying a million dollars in there in uncertainty. So if you look at a $3 million gap under a bid scenario, as you get into like the we have to see how this bids out. That's very key because that three is actually legitimately in our brains two. >> So >> So we have to still plan for three because we don't know how bids are going to play out. So, I mean that's that's a real So, we're actually within two. Can we get it down to one and a half with value engineering? Can we get it down to another uh one with with uh scoping elements? You're we still have to report as three just responsibly. But that's sort of a key topic here as you go through this. Before we get into stripping out finishings that the city had planned on, I'd like a little bit of discussion of the $3 million delta and how we got there. Is that all right if we >> Yep. >> talk about that. So, uh, you know, there was a 5% increase in cost from 23 to 24. I imagine that to be just a general overall cost increase. Things go up in price. Then it's a 19% jump for the next two years. And you said it's because we didn't really engineer this all the way through. But I think we thought this had really been engineered all the way through and that's how we had a target to go to. That's that's the numbers we used to ask for the money. Is that not correct? >> No, I I would say that's not correct. We didn't have engineer plans at at any point until now. That was our best guess on retaining walls. And I can tell you where the the 3 million came out is when we did Third Street Bridge, a couple of things came evident with the soils there. We had some vibration issues and concerns and we were looking at doing pile driven uh supported flood walls on each side of the channel. >> I remember that. >> As we started getting into that, we realized that's probably not going to work and protect the historic structures adjacent to it and it's going to create all kinds of construction issues related problems. So, what we've done is instead of having two separate walls, one on each side of Spring Creek, we now essentially have a U-shape. It looks like a bathtub. We're call the tub concept. >> And that is has a lot more concrete in it than the other option, but it has a lot of other positive benefits. Um, from the standpoint of, if you remember the the flood that we had in 2024, we had a considerable amount of seepage that came across the ice cream and behind um several of these stores like um they had some pumps in the basement. We were pumping them out. We were trying to get that seepage water out. That tug wall will eliminate a lot of that seepage so we can we can have less seepage than that. Constructibility will be easier because the soils will support it. we don't have to dig down as deep, so we don't have to get as close to the structures either. That's added about somewhere between $800 and $900,000. >> So, let me stop there for a second. So, we knew that we were going to You knew we were going to have to change course and how this levy was constructed from what we learned in that, but we that came out a while ago. It seems like if we might have had a alert to say, "Hey, this is going to cost more when we were asking for the money." because you understand the position we're in. >> We're not really going to be able to go back and say, "Oops, we didn't really engineer this through to know how much we should have asked for." >> Well, I would say it's a timing issue that we didn't actually design it until last over last winter where we actually got in and started designing the steel and the section and working with the geoteex and what the footing foundations and that are look like. And this is the first time that we have actually gone through with the with a design because we haven't had one and did all of the takeoffs on the quantity of concrete, the quantity of materials that we're going to need for the construction of the project. Um, a couple other things that that have happened is the um we've had sheet pile added in in the to protect the um the mason's staples over there. um Masonic lodge stables. Uh and then also in several of the rear yard areas, we brought back in as we started working on easement negotiations and talking with individuals that the easements were croping creaturing up creeping in pretty close to their properties and making it difficult to maintain. So we added some retaining walls to have some flat areas that we can one maintain and two the easements wouldn't go directly up to their house permanently. So those types of design features were finally just brought into the whole system and costed out. This is the first time we've had an itemized cost for the entire project. We were working on square foot costs based on assumed cross-sections up until this point. >> So for go ahead. Well, I mean, and to I mean, in our world, to put it bluntly, you know, sometimes we miss we miss low on what we're thinking it's going to cost and we find out and we have to come back and reassess our plan. And so, I mean, that that is a reality that we have to acknowledge is it was it's more than we were expecting because of things that that came our way that we're reacting to. So, we we probably could have had a 30% contingency in there for unknowns and and and and we didn't and we're going to work through a plan to solve it. >> So, I have an adjacent question. >> Had we known that we were going to need this more expensive engineering from the beginning, would we have had a different estimate from the beginning? >> Yeah, we would have. If we would have known we would have had that, we would have had a different >> So then I think Eric's concern is that well shouldn't we have updated that plan a year and a half ago when we realized that we were going to need this more expensive engineering >> and that's when we started the design for this. So we didn't know the actual cost of that redesigned engineering until now. So it's a it's a timing issue. Um, so we had to walk through all the design steps to get that and get all of the quantities put into a plan set so we could estimate it. >> I have some feedback I'd like to share if unless I didn't um >> like when you're saying design like now you've gone back and done the design for me when you say design I think oh how it looks the aesthetics. So when I approved of it initially, it's based on the slides. I don't know what's going on underground. I don't have the expertise to like know the size of piping and and what needs to be there for XYZ regulation. That's what we trust you guys for. And if you have to, you know, you get as more information comes in, you have to make adjustments. So it is, it's disappointing that it wasn't brought to us sooner. So, for future things, I want to know if the design is just above ground what I see um or get that line item to one. Not that I'm going to know what it all means, but um I'm accountable to make sure plan for that. >> Absolutely. And I like I I said, this is as quick as we could go from when we had that information and and had to go back to the drawing board a bit and bring that back and get a really good estimate down of all the elements. >> And that was the timing perspective that that perhaps didn't work out. >> At what point did you suspect that this was going to be that there was going to be a cost overrun? >> It was probably January. >> Okay. And to be clear, we're going to be college on vacation was our first indication that we were going to be over. >> We're going to be part of the solution here. I mean, this this is more expensive than we were thinking. Put plain and simple. I I don't know of another way to throw it out there. This is just more expensive than we would have would have seen coming based on a lot of these factors and we're going to be, you know, looking at here's here's how to solve it. Now remember I mean I think some of the things that we we know we can bid this in a phase plan such that you don't have to bond for a large amount of money. We just have some gap left that has to be done later and over multiple years you can finish it. That's a plan. There's different ways that this can be be done. But at the bottom line is this is this is more expensive than we would have planned. >> Carry through the rest of the presentation that walks through some of the process and how we can can walk through this and get >> well and I I don't want to kind of bury the lead. We are here because of like the budget. So this is for me about >> like I think of like I'm not thinking of this in terms of like blame but the reality of it is >> is that uh we were misaligned on what the budget meant and uh the budget concerns really came to light shortly after we found out we got the 4 million. And so opportunities were missed. And so I think people need to be held accountable for that. And I think this is part of that. And we have to talk about solutions because we probably would have asked for more than 4 million if we knew that. And so I think that's the genesis of >> separation. My term on city council has been filled of going to the capital and asking for money and reminding folks we need money and having a clear target of how much money we needed. So we could whittle that down and go back and say this is what we need to get to the finish line. But now that finish line is 19% more than what we thought it was. So Prince's right. That's that's the discussion and I I know we're going to go into a discussion here how we pair this back and uh take the finishings out of it to to save a million dollars and we'll get into that. But um I was looking for uh the accountability statements uh and I will be looking into how we make physical changes to this to reduce costs. But, uh, you know, I'll be looking to you, too. What What concessions does your organization make to help us get there? I'm sure you'll share that with us. We'll keep going. >> Before we do that, I've been quiet on this, but that's only because Todd and Aaron and Dan have heard from me and they know that I'm disappointed and they've heard me remind them that every year before the legislative session, I've said, "We still good at 13? Are we still good? Do we have any updates?" It's like we've been through this, so I don't need to say that again. Um I when we got the $4 million from the feds earlier this winter, I was ready to have my mission accomplished moment. You guys know how this project what this project means to me. And I am so excited to eventually get to the part of this project where our funding partner search is done and we move on to shoveling the ground and kind of looking forward to the construction phase of it. So, I was ready to write a press release. I was ready to tell everybody who we had letters um of support from that I had gathered years and years and years ago, thank you. We're here like because of your help. And so, it was more than a bummer to see the finish line be moved 19% further away. So, You guys haven't necessarily heard that from me, but these guys. >> So, I just want to share that with the group and because of open meeting law reasons, I can only share with one of you at a time. So, um here we are. But like >> I think the clear on where I sit >> onward and upward, gentlemen. >> All right. So talking a little bit about some of the finishing conversations. So concept A is the one that we've shown uh previously. We have uh ADA pedestrian access and public service maintenance access routes behind the walls via hard surface improvements. These concepts have also been through permitting with uh the historic preservation council and the state historic preservation office and through the uh uh HUD and the feds. Um, concept B that we'll we'll show is a concept that eliminates the hard surfaces. Um, it it has a 10- foot wide gravel base behind that covered with top soil and grass. Um, there's a potential cost savings of approximately a million dollars. Um, it this concept has not been approved by HPC and it has not been approved by Shipo and it may require us to go back and open up the federal review process. Uh and then also the concrete walls, the obstructions that they are will be three feet higher without the railings. So it'll be uh look more like a a mass wall as opposed to an area that you can view. Next one. So today we have our previous concept A is the flood wall finishings looking north on Main Street here. Having the hard surfaces uh so that we can get uh heavy vehicles back there. We know people are going to p walk back there anyway like they do today when we're done. Um so having these viewing areas uh and and hard surfaces so that we can get up there and do the the work as well. So concept B from Main Street looking north is the concept where we have um the grass areas and then the wall and that wall ranges from eight I think it's 8t at Main Street to 6 feet at third. This is the concept looking uh third street north um with the railings. Concept B uh without the railings. I believe it's about 6 ft here. Um and then >> sorry, which one was this again? >> Third Street. >> Third Street. >> Oh, the ice cream shop. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Can you flip back to the eight? >> Okay. Thank you. And then the other concept is third street looking south concept A and concept B. So one of the things that let's say to the next >> this one. >> No, go back. >> Oh, >> go forward. >> This one. >> There we go. >> Can I just I haven't asked this before you guys. Can you go back to the last two sets? So there. Can you go back to A for that one? So, that one's pretty. There are gardens. There are plantings there at a later date if we so chose. Not that I remember you saying this during the Jonathan Carver Parkway project that we'll never choose to do more landscaping at a later time, but we could beautify it, >> putting in those rock and benches and plantings if we so chose. There was nothing that there's no slope there that we couldn't build into. Right. No, I mean you're you're fine there. I mean you can do whatever you need. The one thing I would say is if you go back to >> this one, you can see on the left side here, and that doesn't really show up on the the concept B, but you see that railing and that wall on the left side. So that's the area behind the ice cream shop and behind Jack Russell's where it's all depressed down. We'll still need to build a wall on that side and put railing on it under both options. I don't know if that showed up in concept B on this one. >> Okay. So, I have a question. When I'm looking at this this without the railing on the top, I mean, I can get by that some of these things, these aesthetic things can could be done later. This is terrible. I just it looks I feel like it's a prison yard. And part of the reason that people enjoy downtown Carver and Carver itself is our wild and our natural areas and our views. I mean, half of us at US Fish and Wildlife and Parks and and this now we knew that it was going to section off right with this, but I can't I I look at this and I I can't even I couldn't I couldn't put a yes on this. I can't look at that and say that's what we can do here. That's going to be for the next hundred years. What everyone who comes to our town is going to look at is walls just walled off carver from everything. It's terrible. And so, is there a way that we can have some of the things but not all of the things and then have it set that we can maybe have all the things later? Granted, we know that later may never come, but at least it could. So, can I just I appreciate your passion. My goodness, I love your passion. Um, this is what a million dollars in cost savings look like. And it's going to be stamped concrete. So, as I'm looking out and seeing like that's brick on city hall, but as I'm looking at it, I think the idea is to give it the look >> of brick with that stamped concrete. Um, it's also the levy along Spring Creek where right now nobody's walking. There's nothing to see back there. >> Okay. So, that was Yep. As we get >> Don't take that as like just something to think about. >> Yeah. as we get farther down even but I even think so and I'm just going to use myself right I'm out walking my dog I come up to the third street bridge I still look back you can see the water from the side you you know what I mean >> you're having ice cream back there >> it doesn't feel like you're just boxed off from everything so did do we know what it would cost now again when we look at some of these the really pretty ones where we've got all the steps and all the things and you know the steps that are coming out. Can we do something where we have the railings where the railings are included? Because if we're adding 3 ft of concrete, that's a lot different to be able to look through 3 ft, right? Even if we can't get there quite yet, even if if you're not we don't have the the big walkway up to it or whatever, I just think that would be so much better to look at. So is it it's the railings that obviously cost more, but functionally it functions the same with or without the railing there, right? But what would it cost to have just the railings, but not the rest of the pretty things? >> There's an alternatives process ahead. I think at this point, >> I think let's continue the conver there there's there's a solution in the mi middle. Right now we're kind of going to the extreme of all right, let's just go back to just a pure levy and nothing but a levy. >> Yeah. And and that's the baseline. There's there's >> so that extreme still has a 1.7 tag. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I just think although yes, you know, the levy behind here, but you're still getting view sheds when you're walking or when you're driving that are better than looking at >> straight brick walls. I >> I know you're taking me as advocating for one way or the other. However, like that's what a million dollars looks like. >> Okay. there. >> Um, so gentlemen, we generally end our work sessions 10 minutes too. I don't want to rush you. We can absolutely talk about this during the the meeting itself, but >> um, are we at a point where we want to put a pin on in it? Does anybody have 60 seconds worth of comment? Let's hold this over to the meeting and we'll put this first on the agenda for the regular meeting if that's okay. >> I'll be here. >> I'll be here. >> Okay, sounds good. All right. Um, with that, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make a motion to >> second by council. Second by councilman. All those in favor say I. >> Oppose same sign. What kind of city on the capital day? >> Yeah. The day before