Right. I'm call to order the regular meeting of the Dayton City Council for Tuesday, April 22nd, 2022. Stand for the pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Okay, I need a motion and a second for the agenda. Make a motion to approve. Scott, Dave, any changes? Um, I do need to add resolution 28205 to item O. Um I just missed uh listing it as a resolution that needed to be passed along with it. Oh, okay. Any other changes? Okay. Um all those with that with that amendment, all those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. Agenda carries 5 to zero. Move on to consent. Need a motion and a second. I'll make the motion to approve. Second. Okay. Discussion. Um I just have a question for clarification on the um payment of claims on page 30. Um there's a couple things that just have the credit card listed, but they don't have it listed out. So there CC and CCWS. I was just wondering what those stood for. Um it'll be city council work session. So those are likely for minutes. Okay. Paying for a minutes time taking. Um I think it's city council work session, city council meeting. That'll be a planning commission meeting or a parks commission meeting. Now they make now the abbreviations make sense. So thank you. I appreciate that. No problem. I've got a question on towing. Three three squads. Were you are we using a St. Cloud tower or were the cars happen to be up there at the time? Typically, typically we're using burdas out of Rogers to tow the squads. I can't speak specifically to the situations in which they were towed. I know we had one go down that went up to Cornerstone, but I'm not sure the other two. The uh towing company is out of St. Cloud. I think it says St. Cloud towing on it. I don't understand why we would we'd be using a St. Cloud towing company, though. I believe Bura was bought by a company that's based out of St. Cloud now. So, it's all part of that company. Okay, that makes sense. Is that it? That's all I got. Anybody else? Any on item D, the the um territorial growth final plant development agreement? There's a typo on page 4 toward the top. What? I'm sorry, which page was that? Page 47 of our packet. Okay. with it says which vibe. So maybe it was supposed to say maybe right up here at the top. Okay, that same typo showed up somewhere else. I think there must be a copy paste. Yeah, I thought I that wrong a bell, but it didn't ring a bell in that area. I have it on page 105. That same error. So my guess is there's a copy paste error somewhere that is making its rounds. And then I need to talk about the template that's used. You have more, Dave? No. Uh, do you have any, Stephanie? No, I'm good. Okay. Um, I have something on E, but I was hoping somebody had something so I could delay a little bit. Um, E is the tree uh public trees ordinance section 53.07A. 07A. You know what page it is of the document of the sorry of the packet? Okay. No, should be around 102. See if I can get to 53. I guess my question is is and maybe this is an obvious thing. There's a list of things that let the city go in and and fix things. And one of that list is threatens public health, safety, and welfare. And I'm just kind of wondering what exactly that means when it comes to trees. So that's basically if um there's some uh trees over sidewalk where the branches may come down and hit a pedestrian on the sidewalk. I think that's pretty much what that is aimed at. Okay, it had that listed too. That's why it does seem kind of it's kind of a superfluous thing. So, okay. Um, that same area 5307B, it says that property owners quote have the duty to remove them. What does that mean in the context of our legal system? Does that mean they must they do? Yes, that is that what that is what that means. Mayor, it means that the it gives the the the city the authority to um to enforce the code for a failure to remove a disease tree by declaring it a nuisance. And that then the city the city's authority to go in and mitigate the nuisance or abate the nuisance comes into play. Okay, based on that, I have an issue with I was going to say I was just I don't believe anybody in the city of Dayton is going to tell Three Rivers Park what to do with all the emerald ashbor out in that park. Right. And I probably have 50 of them in my woods, too. And there ain't nobody going to tell me that I got to cut all 50 of them trees down. I I I Yeah, I'm not sure. I personally I'd like to see B just struck. I'm guessing that's where you're at, Scott. 100%. We got no business being We got no business being on anybody's property to tell them to cut a tree down. I don't um I just think that um this is just for the private property owner. It's not the city going in there and taking the trees out. And I I think that you know that is the purpose of that that the homeowner shouldn't expect the city to come and take the trees down. it's the the public uh the private property owner whose responsibility that is. My issue with it though is if they don't then it sounds like we can cite that. That's right. Under this under this language you could. Yep. Okay. Well, that's three of us. Um so it sounds like do we want to make a change to be or just strike it? Um, is there a way to encourage without um making it a legal requirement? Well, then then it's a basically a foregone conclusion. I mean, I just I there is something to be said. If I had a neighbor with a diseased tree right on the property line next to my currently healthy trees, you would do I would be like, "Deal with that before before you do before you infect my trees, which are right next door, but you have three rivers right across the street." Yeah, I know. Luckily, I have no trees right now and but I plan to change that so I would have a problem with that. Okay. Um Yeah. I I guess I just I don't I don't know that we can have an ordinance beformational. Um is there something like on the property line? Like if it's like in Scott's case, it's the center whatever. But like if it was right on the border, I'd be more concerned about a tree right on the edge of my property line than I don't know how you put that. I don't think I don't think it matters as far as Emerald Ashport. It took the whole city. Yeah. So it wouldn't matter if it was 10 ft away or right. So I guess I will make a motion to strike to go ahead and approve this with the with a 5307B struck just to bury this thing. Um now these this is on consent. So we can't really amend things. So mayor and members council, I was going to recommend maybe we remove that out of consent agenda and then separately approve that one since there is going to be an amendment to it. Typically you can't make amendments to individual items on a consent agenda. It's considered regular in nature or normal in nature. So yeah, that will be my recommendation to the council would be to move them off consent or that item off of consent agenda. All right. Well, then uh I will make a motion to to pull E out of consent. I'll second that. Unless Scott already you already did, right? Yeah. Okay. So now he is out. Now any more discussion on the rest of consent? All right. So with that change um all in favor say I. I. I. All oppose say no. Okay consent has passed. Um back to E. So um so yeah I I now you can make your motion mayor if you wanted to make your motion. Well, I will I will then make a motion to pull 5307B from the from the ordinance uh and approve it as as as is. I'll second. Any more discussion on that? All those in favor say I. I. I. All those say no. Motion carries five to zero. All right, on to open forum. Is anybody here for open forum? Open forum limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. State your name and address. No console action will be taken and items will be referred back to staff. I need to go up there. Come up here. You fill one of those pieces of paper there too. want your director. Hi, Zach. Good to see you. Hi, Emily. Name and address and have it. Great. Um, I am Emily. Do you want this filled out first? No. Can you go in front of the mic though, Emily? I'm sorry. Thank you very much. I'm Emily Assen. I live at 15291 Fair Meadows Lane in obviously Dayton. Um, I am actually here regarding the Sundance Woods Park. It was to our surprise to find a porta potty there this weekend. Um, Sundance Woods Park was originally created as a neighborhood park. There are no street parking. Um, everybody coming to and fro from the park are for the most part neighbors and or sometimes people coming in from the community. Um, it has been there for a few days and has proven to be nothing but a nuisance so far. Zach, you can attest because you have received a gajillion phone calls probably from neighbors. Um, we've seen groups of anywhere from 4 to 12 young kids that are unsupervised screwing around with it. Um, locking one another in, screaming bloody murder for help getting out. Um, and we also built this neighborhood built in the neighborhood because we signed an architectural review agreement and now we have a portaotti essentially in our backyard. We open our bedroom windows. Guess what? We look at a porta potty. We sit on our deck and eat dinner. We look at a porta potty as well as about 20 other houses that now have to look at it. We nobody was notified. We found out because we thought that you guys were going to be doing some construction and fixing it up and that's what we thought the portaotti was there for. So our ask is in an effort to one continue to keep the community safe. Um mitigate risk of more animals, rodents that are obviously going to be attracted to it and the likely stench that will come from it. And it is also on uneven ground for tipping over from our friendly youth that live here um to remove it. Thank you. Great. Thanks. Philly deliver it to you. Anybody else? All right, we will close out open forum. Uh staff consultant council update. Well, um, mayor and council, I have, um, a similar update because I was going to get some direction from council what you'd like to do because, um, we've had quite a few calls from residents in, um, specifically the Sundance, um, Woods neighborhood, but also from other neighborhoods as well, um, complaining about the new portaotties being delivered, um, related to, um, most of them are visual, but also just um, children playing in them and and whatnot. Um there are se several residents that are strongly opposed to this being located in that park. Um what would the council like to do? So there are some options that staff and um went through today. Um it's only been installed for two days and I've gotten five phone calls. So I that ratio is not great. So I prefer not to continue that. Um so there are options. We can remove the portaotti so it's no longer there. Um we can also put a screen around the um portaotty. We can relocate the portaotty to a different location. Um, I think, um, Marty and myself would both agree that the location that they chose at Sundance Woods is not the greatest location. Um, again, it was dropped off by the Porta Body Company, not by us. So, the location could probably be moved, but we could also put an enclosure around it to make it look more visually appealing. Now, that covers three of the four sides, but not the fourth side. You can't do anything about the four side. And the kids can get in there and do whatever else they want. And the kids can do whatever else they like to do. So, I need some direction from council. what you like to do since this was a council directed item to add them to all the neighborhood parks this year. So, and that was because we were we did get requests for Yep, that is correct. That is correct. I have questions. Yes. Where is it located cuz I was at this park like a week or two ago. Yep. It was delivered yesterday. Um and it is it was not there cuz I turned around with four. It is between the playground and the baseball field. It's along the trail from what I understand. I have a picture like if you guys want it. I have a picture. I would like to I'd like to bring it up on the screen, but it's I'm not real conducive to So, let me let me It'll make it way easier. Then everyone at home can see what I'm talking about, too. And play along. Yeah, play along. And we can't just ban kids, right? Well, right. And I guess my question was is if we have a better place to put it like does there were definitely residents that wanted Yes, there was a request from residents. It's something I heard quite a bit. Well, and like I said um I was talking very fast under my breath, but I was at this park um for a birthday party um like a week ago and I had to turn around halfway through the park to take small children potty before we got there knowing there was no bathroom. So Mayor Council, the portaotty's located here. Um, don't switch located here roughly from what I understand. Yeah, that's kind of what it So, where would you advise that it go if it's not there? If that's not the optimal spot, where if you could pick a perfect spot, where would you put it, Marty? Over in that patch of trees. Perfect spot. But we can move it away from that area and put it closer to the road up by behind maybe the baseball field there behind home plate over here. Yeah. Where the trail comes together. We can put the three-sided screen around it and have the the door facing into the park so it doesn't look like a port from the street, only from the park. Um, that's one suggestion. I think the guy I think the guy put it there because he wanted he wasn't sure where to put it and we didn't give him great direction. He wanted to be close to where the kids are playing. You know these uh porta potties have got uh changing stations in as well. That was one of the big requests that we had. So um that's kind of where he put it. I mean we're on the other end of it. We could put it there or we could put it by the wetland as well. There's several options as long as a guy can get in there to to do his cleaning. Um he can drive on the trail without damaging it. Yeah, you we could also make the enclosure slightly bigger so it would enclose on three sides, but that third side would then be extended and then moved over to the in front of it. So you could swing the door open still and then you wouldn't see it from the front. You'd only see if you looked into it only see the wood um as kind of like a walk-in area if that makes sense to the council. It'd be slightly more expensive. It's not crazy expensive though. We went through cost Marty night today just to kind of figure out a cost because if we do it to one park we're going to have to do to them all. So it's not going to be you know a one park fix but and these are not fixed in place. That is not fix means doesn't mean that if we put an enclosure on it we couldn't then keep it more in place. But yeah, if you have a fence around it, that's going to keep it from tipping over completely sideways. Correct. So, yeah, I said I'm looking for council direction on what to do. We are able to do an enclosure if that's what's desired. Um, but we'd rather have the council direction since it's council direction. Well, it sounds like the the enclosure will help keep it upright in case somebody tries to not make it upright, but it is going to be another to get y mischief. I don't know. I mean, you're going to have a bad apple here and there, right? Like no matter what you do. And I guess that's why again going back to like a lot of our parks don't have potties and when small children you're at the park or you get there and then you got to pack everybody up and drive home and go to the bathroom or wherever like find a good tree. Yeah. I mean I wasn't going to say that but 100% that's happened more often than not. I think we'd rather have a porta potty than have my kids squatting in your woods. Yep. Sorry that's a really in like not an eloquent way of saying that. I apologize. But it it is it's the reality of having like you know particular if you have multiple kids and like you know you're trying to convince one to go and the other ones are like but I don't have so if the council wants to let me know after the meeting that's fine too. I don't need direction exactly at this moment but well it definitely makes sense to move it then it sounds like and you wouldn't have put it there anyways right you you you'd like it behind the diamond. Yeah. It wasn't the ideal place, but like I said, we didn't give the guy great direction and he put it where he thought it made most sense. And I think that's what he's done with a couple of others that uh Hayden Hills looks like it's got the same idea. He's just dumped it there. Um but we can move it to a more appropriate spot. What happens the the uh blue that must be a basketball course. What happens if that person walking there to the right? What happens if you tuck it back in there? That's a patch of trees right there. Right. Docking over here. Oh, no. No. Go. No. By the half court right here. Go up. Up here or further up. There you go. Right by that. This is This is wetland. Yeah, this is wetland, isn't it? It's not the idea. I'm sure our neighbors otherwise have on a four-way intersection. That's a It's further away from the houses then. Yeah, it is further away over here. So yeah, did you ballpark an enclosure dollar-wise? I think we'd ballpark today somewhere around $150, $200, something like that. We got some labor obviously involved with it, but public works make, you know, we fabricate. We can put something together, make some get some privacy fence and three walls together. I have another question. So you had indicated that it wasn't just this park. Was there another park in particular? Was it the same issue of where it was placed or Hayden Hills was the other one? Hayden Hills was the other one. Just making sure that we're not forgetting anybody. Yep. No paid nose is the other. And it was placement was the issue. Placement. Yeah. And where was that? And that's something we could remedy. We can move the placement of it. No problem. Like ASAP, like you know, a timeline on that. The guys are going to do it tomorrow. Okay. Just making sure that we're completing the circle here. We will be able to build an enclosure by No, no, but at least moving it to a more optimal location. Um, I would like an enclosure. I think that the portaotties are a great thing to have in the park. Yeah, not everybody loves them, but I think they'd be well used. And you have a bad apple here and there and I understand that. It's also a new shiny thing and so people see new shiny things and they the problem that we have here is you're going to make some people happy and you're going to make some people unhappy. I'm happy. I think you can't please them all. So yeah, so maybe Marty and I will go out tomorrow or sometime we can pick a location for that closure and kind of pick the best spot we think from residents and perspectives and can reach out to Emily and chat. Are we good? Sounds great. Did you have anything more? Yep. Sorry. Get back to the PowerPoint. I have one other thing just let you know that the council that I will be out next week um Wednesday, Thursday, Friday at a conference. So that's all I got. Thank you. Maybe I don't have an update tonight. I've got a few things here, some good, some not so good. Um, water well for rehab. Um, we're hoping to get the pump back in uh next week. Um, we have lost some production out of that well. Um, due to uh the two seams that we grouted up to stop the sand coming in, we're also providing water coming in as well. So, sealing them off has taken up water out of our production capacity. So, it's going to be around 800 to 850 gallons per minute is what it's going to be knocked down to. Are we at like 1200? I think it was 1,200 was what it was at before. But yeah, so and we up that pump too to handle I know. I know. Going on the information we had at the time, that seemed like the best way to go. So, so based on our usage, are we going to be able to not use pump two? Uh, one. Yeah. Um, which one was it? Yeah, we were, especially when well five comes on. I mean, we were not running that well four capacity last year and u and we kept up with usage. So, I don't think it's going to be an immediate impact on that. Um, so we weren't running at 1,200 gallons a minute last year. We were running around 800 and keeping up with everything that way. So it shouldn't impact us in the in the short term. Well, five coming on board was is really going to help that out. Um, so it's unfortunate, but you know, it's better than not having the well won't be treated, right? So we don't want to use it unless we absolutely have to. Well, two. Well, two. Yeah. Well, too. Yeah. Um, well, five is currently scheduled for startup on May 5th. So, that's good news. That'll be up and uh ready to go when the wellhead treatment plant comes online. Um, the majoring work is coming along. I've got a a meeting with Magny and the contractors this week to see what the timeline is looking like. Um, but they're making good progress on the the masonry. Back up a little bit. That well five is coming online in May. May 5th. No, it's going to be started up. We're going to start it up in May to make sure everything's ready to go and it will come online when the wellhead treatment plant is complete. Okay, that's I thought somehow you found a way to bypass. I wish I could. Um parks um bridge construction at LC Stevens. The bridge is on site and that should be in place this week. Um they're hoping to be out off site and complete this week. Um we'll see where how that goes. But uh they all the concrete work is set. The um just waiting to put the bridge in place. So that should be good. Um irrigation of parks met with the irrigation installers today. They are gearing up to get started in 2 weeks. Um we're waiting on electric companies to uh commit to a date to get the power to uh the new wells and the irrigation controllers. Um we keep chasing on that. Uh we will probably start with the Sundance uh Woods extension and then the LC Stevens uh park um project as the first two um Elsie Stevens canoe kayak launch um bidding process has been paused um due to um the EAW process. We're not as far as long as we were hoping to be. So, we paused it for um until June 6th, which probably won't it shouldn't impact the uh uh project uh getting completed this year. Um is still that's still our goal. Um Elsie Stevens master plan, we had a kickoff meeting today with MSA. Um we're looking at uh getting a steering committee together. Um and we're going to be uh looking for a volunteer from the council. Um uh this will be for three meetings. Um there'll be initial meeting you to gain ideas and insights for what people want for that. That's going to be in midmay. Uh concepts meeting in July and a master plan review in October. So you commit to three meetings. Uh will comprise of uh one volunteer from each of the three commissions, a council member and two city staff members currently. So I'm looking for a volunteer from you guys. Wonder who that will be. Oh, I've got one question before we get there. Okay. And I don't remember. I don't The numbers aren't in my head. When we did that bridge project, that was just a straight bid, correct? I don't remember. No, that went out. Did we have Did we No, I know that it went out for bids. I did that. But was the bridge broke out? Do we know what I don't know if I recall what the bridge actually cost? Uh, I can't remember. But the bridge was broke out as a bid item in the bid uh package. I think it must have been the welded assembly. The the bridge bridge. Yeah, I seen it yesterday. Yeah. So the bridge was part of the Huh? What? Yeah. Council member Sonic, it was a separate item that was on the bid project. Um we decided not to use it as an alternate when we were going through um the bid process for phase two with LC Stevens and said we would do that one separately. And we did that as a separate project, a standalone project of just the bridge itself. And that was due to cost related to when the alternate came in. It was significantly higher than we thought it would needed to be. Well, it didn't look like much for what it just didn't I it won't shock me if it was 50 60 grand. Yeah. And I don't see it going north of that. Oh, it was more than that. Yeah. Yeah, it was. Anyway, yeah. I'm not a welder, but a good welder could have made it. I so um All right. So, are you done? If you're not, I'm Go ahead. Huh? Are you going to be the Well, yeah. I I' I'd enjoy the heck out of that, but maybe Dave wants to be part of it, too, because I think both of us want to get that part going. I think you'll do great, Scott. Yep. I'm Scott. Are we good? Who's volunteering it? Scott's volunteering. Okay, that's all I have. A smile. That's good. Good luck to you guys. When you walk out the door, it's all over. We start new. Anything else, Marty? No, that's so old for me. Thank you, Chief. That wasn't bad. Good evening, mayors, members of council. Just want to get an update on applications for the fire department. Um, usually we see about 16. Um unfortunately so far this year we've seen two um we had two from last year. So currently right now we have total of four. So if anyone's watching or anyone's interested in applying for the position um that's open. Um another thing for May 13th be staff requests will be coming uh to you for uh advertising for full-time firefighters. Um, I would ask if you have any questions as it relates to that, if you're requesting data or anything of that nature, if you could get those questions to Zach, so I can have that prepared for you for that council meeting instead of having to go back and get it later on. So, if you have any questions, please let me know. And this is regards to which I didn't catch all of it. Um, so I'm bringing up the uh advertisement for the full-time firefighters mayor um the next council meeting. So, um the reason for that too, just a little bit of background is it has to do with the relief association too. There's some significant costs to the relief association um in dissolving and I just want to make sure that you guys are reaffirming your commitment to the process that we've gone through so far to hire them on move to a duty crew and pay $30 an hour and so forth. Okay. I forgot to mention one thing. Um, I just wanted to remind people that cleanup day is on May the 3rd from 9 to 1:00. Could you repeat that? I was distracted. Cleanup day is on Saturday, May 3rd from uh 9 till 1:00. It's the worst day to have it. It's Kentucky every day. Like the best day to have it. I thought I was going to have a horse in there, but you didn't get enough points. Yeah, the prices on everything. Did we put that in the communicator or where is that? I think it went in the communicator and I think it's on the website. It's on the website. That's correct. Oh, it is. Okay. It's on the website. Nothing on behalf of PD tonight. Nothing. No report for me. That we'll get there. I'm good. Sarah, um I just have two things to maybe think about. Um, at one point I know I've talked uh to Zach a couple times about um we have some residents who seem to think that uh ignoring the city and paying fines is just part of they're doing what they want to do. Um but I don't necessarily want to raise fines so much to like make them take notice in a way that would like destroy everybody else when it's only a few people. Um, so a thought that went through my head was um whether or not we wanted to think about progressive finding for repeat offenders. So like if we have someone who is constantly violating our ordinances like again and again and again and we slap them with the fine and they're just like, "Yeah, here's your whatever. I'm going to keep on doing it." Um, some sort of progressive finding for for specifically for that scenario. Um, again, just something to think about. No decision by any means. Um, another thing that kind of popped into my head after some feedback, um, is if we would, if there's any any thought about increasing minimum setbacks and maybe or maybe having an absolute minimum that like you can't go below no matter what, like even though the PUD even through like like an apps like there's the the minimum we'd like and then the absolute like no, there is no there's no PUD that makes us willing to go lower than this number. Um, I'm not like I don't have an answer right now. just these are things that have been going in my head and I would be happy to think more about them and talk more to Zach about them if other people are even remotely interested. But if if no one is even remotely interested, then I will move on to my like other 5,000 things in my to-do list. But these are the two that popped to for me this week. We we did have uh when was that Scott? Three three years ago, three years ago discussions on setbacks. Um, I I I'd be okay with rehashing that to some extent. We got beat up pretty bad. We got beat up. I mean, it's not going to get to where I'd like to see it, but I mean, whatever. Do you want to have Does anybody else want to have that? I think we're beating a dead horse, but that would be fine. I know. I haven't gotten to do it yet. So, all right. Um, so maybe and not I don't feel like it's an emergency. If the next if the next agenda is packed, we can move. It can wait till we've got a lighter agenda. But Council Van, I think it'd be a great time for have a work session if we're going to do something like that. Okay. I'll like take a look and see if we have an available work session time. Take a look at and see. Perfect. Um, and what is progressive finding even an option for us or is that again something we would want to talk about? You can add any type of item like I'd be okay with talking about it. progressifying for repeat offenders who just ignore us and are like, I didn't know it was a problem, but I don't think I wouldn't hear about it unless staff brought it up. Yeah, it was it was it kind of came about in a in a different conversation than it came up and it was like, well, there's there's a few key people who just basically ignore the city because they have enough money to just pay our fines and not actually make any changes, but it's not everybody and it's not even the majority. Um, so, okay, I will talk more with Zach about that. And thank you, that was it for me. Um, I would like to have a discussion at some point on our on call volume and ways to reduce it in reference to make sure I'm on the same page. The the uh the fire calls. Fire calls. Okay. Sorry. That's it. I don't have Does anybody else want to Sorry, I want to make sure that there's more than one direction for that one. Is there more than one person that's willing to look at that? Yes, it' be an interesting conversation. Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure more than one resolution. I know nothing about it, so I would like to learn more. Dave, if you had nothing. No, Stephanie, I have more of a question. Okay. So last council meeting we removed um the trees from some of the park. We got that there was an alternative. Oh yeah. How cuz again I'm new and fresh to this. I don't want it to fall off. So how do we go about bringing that conversation back up? And because the trees need to be there, right? Like we need to plant them, we need to put them in. But the question, and correct me if I'm wrong, Scott, I think you brought up that, you know, wanting to look more of like a local Yep. option. Um, so how do we do that? Is that a whole another bidding process? It should come up. I mean, Marty should be in contact with the individual. I mean, yep. We um we'll certainly talk about an item, J, council members and mayor. Um but council member um Henderson, the answer would be that we would have city staff Marty um reach out to the local vendor and get a price and essentially use the same exact what do you want to call it? Um sheet of items of what we needed to do that same product and then get a dollar amount back to the council. Um if we have it and it ends up being over 25,000 then we are required by state statute to go find another vendor to get the best quote. Um but if it's not over 175 um then we don't have to worry about that. But correct me if I'm wrong. It wasn't over. We have to do a public bid process. I apologize. So it wasn't just Elsie Stevens that we It was not It was So that's kind of why I'm asking is Elsie Stevens is in the up and I see that with Jay. There are others that we also were they kind of going on the chopping block. So my question maybe that's another Marty question. Marty, have you contacted Have you contacted her yet? Because she did reach out to me and she needs to ding them trees shortly. Yeah, I I've got the tree list. I haven't reached out to her yet. It's on my list list of things to do. I'll try and get to it tomorrow. Um, just so we're aware, um, normally we have a warranty period on those trees when we put them out to bid. Um, it's usually a 2-year warranty period. Um, that means that the person who plants them has to go out and water them and maintain them for 2 years. Um, so that they're healthy trees at the end of it. So, what I'm going to do is get a cost for just the trees. I'm going to get a cost for the uh the trees and planting and I'm going to get a cost for trees planting and warranty. So, there'll be three prices so you can have a good comparison. But I haven't reached out to her yet. Um but I will do that. Try and get that done tomorrow. Thank you, Marty. Um I think that was my only question. Just making sure we didn't drop it off the Yep. the list. Okay. on to uh business public hearing H. Thank you. You have to click on the screen. There you go. There we go. Okay. Uh item H. So, this is a public hearing uh ordinance 25 2025-11 adopting a moratorium on development around 113th in the East French Lake Road area. Um it's probably easiest to to just tell a story of of how we got here. So, um, in March, the council and the planning commission reviewed a concept plan for oped in for a 200,000 foot, uh, speculation warehouse and distribution center off of Dayton Parkway in 113. Um, after this conversation took place, the plan commission had a an additional conversation of what is the future land use um, east of this project. So generally speaking, uh this is the project that was reviewed as a concept plan and then the question is is what is the highest and best use east of this project and how is that area going to be served by local streets? Um during the April plan commission meeting, uh the commission reviewed what I'm referring to as a bubble diagram that shows um industrial or it shows 113th Avenue being extended from its current uh culde-sac out to East French Lake Road with industrial to the north of this road and then residential to the south. Um and then that was compared to a plan in the comprehensive plan that shows a future road being extended along the south edge of the Oppedin project to East French Lake Road. So the kind the question is is that was posed to the commission or and also to the council is do you want to follow the map that's in the comprehensive plan or do you want to relook at doing something else? Um the commission did not have a consensus and so the recommendation from the plan commission was to adopt a moratorium to study this further. Uh the moratorium area would affect um kind of a generally it's going I'm just going to refer to this as the 113th Avenue area and East French Lake Road. So from County Road 81 to 117th. Um this does not affect I think uh currently uh the city is working with the property owner to extend a road um from 113 extend right away from 113th to Dayton Parkway. That property or that project is excluded from the moratorum. It does include several properties that are um where we've had a development proposed. So, if a moratorum is adopted, uh, as it's written in the resolution, uh, or in the ordinance, it would be a six-month prohibition on development that would allow the city to conduct a study. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to take all six months. Um, if the council wants to go the route of a moratorum, the next question for the study is what level of detail does the council want? is if do you want a bubble diagram which be can be done very quickly and cheaply but it includes um a small level of detail or we can do it a full-fledged site plan which does cost more money um and does take more time but provides more information. John are we uh will this moratorum hinder the offen? Yes, it will. Here's my feeling on that. I know there was a while back now it's a totally different council and I know some of us asked to study this area long before we did the uh I forget what you call it. The other one. The other one. No no the master plan. Master plan. Uh, got it. Got it. For uh, we were studying an area that isn't going to happen for 20 or 30 years probably. Uh, in any rate. Okay. And here we are now. We're going to hold somebody up because we were dragging our feet. I can sugarcoat it, I guess, because we didn't take the time to, but I just I have an issue with it. Now, all of a sudden, we have somebody that wants to uh do something and we're going to say, "Oh, well, we forgot to look at something." So that's where I am. Well, had we had we looked at this and had we done what we might be doing, they they couldn't do what they wanted to do. I I this you're right. This should have been looked at historic previously, but we still have time to correct the problem. The problem is all that eastern property and whether or not it has good access through 113th. That that's really the the question, right? Is does the 113th access is it good enough? So there should be I'm going to say an east west corridor. And the question is should it be 113th or should it be a new street that follows um this line? So, I don't which line I really don't think it's going to take us six months to figure that out. Well, I don't think we should have a street going from industrial to residential myself, but because that would block them off somehow. To me, the residential would would be on the east side or you know, they'd be apartment buildings or something to to to stop the industrial from going there. Well, the problem is right now it's not guided that way. That's never been a problem. Yeah, there's the current guidance. So, it's kind of I think the light purple is residential. Light purple is industrial through here. So, right now, none of it's guided residential. I thought some of uh the yellow and orange, but low density, right? That's to the south. Okay. I I just think we we need to make sure that what we are about to do is is is good. I I'm okay with the mortorium. I really don't think it's going to take six months and opinion is aware of the moratorum. Uh they're they're aware of this discussion of the discussion and they were didn't get a call. I did not. Yeah, they're aware. And can they live with two, three, four months? Um, they could live with a few months. Probably not six. But I agree with the mayor. I don't think it's going to take us six months. It's just it's just a couple, maybe one or two just to to sit and have some time. I guess then that leads to the question, if we do the more um if we do the bubble, it won't take us any time at all. We could have it done within like a month probably. But if it is the more intensive review, how long will it take to get that back? And I guess who is that? Is that something you do or is that something that we'd have the stand? We'd have Stantech do. So I guess if if we go the bubble route, I mean this is it practically done. Yeah, I was going to ask with the conversation. Can you say more about the differences? Like Sure. High level. These are the what you're getting. Bing bing bing. The bubble diagram is very high level. So that's just saying, you know, within this purple line, it's going to be industrial. We have no idea how any buildings are going to get laid out or anything that's fits. Um, Oppedin's goal is is to fit a 200,000 foot building. We don't know how that fits within the bubble diagram. If we go through it, um, a detailed concept plan, that's going to show um, building sizes and street layouts and lot layouts. It's much much more detailed. So where where exactly is the proposed moratorium? Is it the gray area? Uh oh. Well, anything from 81 to 117. Okay. Yeah. So generally it follows uh this property line through here and then east to French Lake Road. And are we looking at just zoning or is it also road? Um, we we we need to look at both land use and road alignment. I'm fine with the bubble deal. Yeah, I think the mayor and cult need to decide what kind of plan they want to do cuz not saying it's not going to take six months is a great option, but if you end up with a concept plan, it might take you 6 months to get exactly what you want in a certain area. So, I think we need to make sure we are fine with whatever you want to do. um related to if you want to do a bubble diagram or a concept plan, but a concept plan is going to take a significant amount more effort. Um it's going to be much more detailed, which may take you six months to do because it will depend on where you want buildings and where do you want exact roadways and so so on and so forth. But if you'd like a bubble diagram, this is going to be it. Yeah. Yeah. Or very similar. And it's going to be similar to what you have the land use. It's essentially just colors and and I think this is this would work just fine for for discussion until we land on what what we think is right. But don't we ultimately need the um the more serious drawings? It it all depends on what you're comfortable with in making a decision or what information you need to make a a comfortable decision. M if we're making zoning changes, doesn't that ultimately have to be um submitted as a comp plan update? Um it so one of the I think the short answer is yes, but it depends on the project. One of the challenges that we have, you know, this is the comprehensive plan map, which refers to the the X road alignment, which we're not following. Um, so there's not a whole lot of guidance once you get into there the 117th corridor. My personal opinion is I would rather have the better um plan. Why my brain just dropped that word. Um, not the bubble diagram. The better one. even if it would take longer simply because one of the big conversations that came of planning commission and for myself was the orientation of that building kind of depends on what's happening north of it and the commercial and like what is happening there and will they need another road access like my am my okay or not with the open with that with the project is what's going to happen with the rest of it and so that makes me feel like we need to have a solid plan and yes should it have happened sooner absolutely but it didn't and I don't like be well you made a mistake once so therefore you just have to roll with it like we have an opportunity to put a pause before more gets done and to hopefully fix it so that this doesn't keep happening the other thing with the orientation they're building is is if we do continue across with the road that also totally changes the building. Yeah. Mhm. So, it makes the project not feasible as written. They'd have to do a new project, which they could do that. Like, it's not I mean, I'm I'm learning quickly that they will always tell you, "No, we can't possibly make any changes. The whole project will die." And yet somehow they're able to make the changes and come back with a new option. Like, yeah, they'll deal with what's put in front of them. It's just a matter of whether they're happy or not. But well and yeah I we have to do the best for this whole area not just the person who happens to have a plan in front of us. And so my vote is to take the time and do it right. I'm still I'm still so that my hinge on what you asked is we still eventually have to have something right that's not just a bubble thing. It seems like it well the bubble is going to tell you what to do with that whole area right um as not or yes yes I mean but it's not going to have details of how it's going to work or whether or not it's going to work. So if if the concern is how do you fit you know and let's say the road the decision is to extend the road um across oppedance project and then move oppedance building we don't know how that's going to fit in the bubble diagram. Uh if you do the more detailed concept plan it's going to show okay you've got a three 200,000t building here and a 100,000t building there and it's more detailed. Well, you're not going to know that. That's their business. I mean, you're not going to know what how big their building if they can't build the 200,000 square foot. Maybe they can't they maybe they can't flip it and they may not want to do 100,000 foot building. Yeah. So it may so essentially what in going through the concept plan process the the council is playing developer you know hypothetically of how do you fit different land uses and how do you maximize the site for for development you are essentially setting the plan of this is what we want make it work that's what essentially what you're saying now there could probably be a middle ground here I don't think it has to be all one or all the other but concept plan is you're playing developer this is exactly what you want to see no matter what. Uh the other bubble diagram is just we like to, you know, here's the colors, here's what we want to see in this general area. And like I said, I'm sure there's a middle ground you can find in between the two. But if I use the adage you just used, you got six months to get whatever plan you want done done or three months. Um yeah, we would prove a that in front of you as a mumm for six months. Doesn't mean you can't end it early. You just can't extend it without having another public hearing. I I I think Council Henderson has a question. She just doesn't want to ask. Sorry. No, I do. I just didn't want to interrupt anybody. Um the one thing we haven't talked about is the price difference like in it would be most likely staff level and some stand tech between the two. Yeah. For sure. All of the different things checking off. It'll be the difference between 30,000 and 100,000. Don't have a number for you. You have anything? I don't have anything. So, Stantech is estimating the cost of doing the the more detailed concept planning is going to be somewhere between 10 and 15,000. I thought I said 15,000 in there. Yeah. It's not a big deal anyways. I mean, it's for as far as these things go. So, then I guess maybe playing a little devil's advocate probably not the best way to put that. But um if the price is 10 to 15,000 and it's not a I mean I don't say substantial cuz it is but you know time is the bigger issue right and so if getting the more granular view of this area isn't a substantial amount more money or a larger amount of money than for me it's worth cuz I feel like the bubble doesn't really give as much as what we're looking for. And I think we're going to find ourselves kind of to your point, David, in the same position of eventually we're going to need more than the bubble, right? And I hear you wrong. I don't want to mischaracterize what you said. It seems to me yes. Trust me, they're not going to work that long for 15,000 bucks. So So I I guess I'm in favor of the more granular view, not doing the bubble and getting a better idea of what's actually happening in this area. And again, for that amount of money, I think that we could spend it and we'd get the value back out of it. Particularly since this is a unique area where we're having residential bump up against like other areas are all industrial or they're all residential, but this is a weird where we're doing the switchover. And I feel like we need to be a little bit more intentional about how we put those buffers in, how we control traffic. Like it it's it is a complex little spot. And it's also right by the highway. It is also we're going to get more people like I to me this is where if we're going to splurge a little bit so to speak this is the spot to do it in. I agree with you Sarah and we might learn a lot of lessons from this that we can then apply in other places without necessarily having like there's a probably a lot we could learn here we could use in other areas without necessarily having to go through a whole concept plan but we'll be like hey I remember this and yeah I agree with you apply it elsewhere I'll make a motion to approve a 90-day moratorum we're not going to get much for for 15 grand that there's no way it's going to take 16 for six months but would you rather have the extra time because you can end it, right? We can end it if it is 90 days. That's awesome. And then we can say we didn't need six months, but I want to give that's the direction to get it done. Otherwise, it'll just take five. Why Why do I need to work on it next week? I've got 52 more weeks or 26 26 more weeks. The number is okay. My vote is six month with the contract plan. Says Scott did make a motion. Okay. Do I have a second? My concern with with the three-month timeline is that between us and the planning commission were usually the biggest delay in the whole process. And so, not us. Well, maybe not you. Um, and so 3 months feels real tight to me. Can we ask for an update before the six months? like is there a way that we can say we'd like that's what I mean the council will be involved you'll be driving the whole process so I guess maybe that will take care of the you know people sitting on their hands would be I guess what you think you're thinking Scott if we're part of the process then we're kind of driving the bus of we want to see this and then we have that next meeting right I like nice timelines and give me this at this point and I think we'll have that so I the speed of government I want six months. That's why I Okay. Sorry. So 90 days dies. 90 days dies. So I make a motion for the uh mortorium for 6 months with the concept plan. I'll second it. Any more discussion? Mr. Mayor, you need to hold the public hearing. Oh. Oh. before you act on the This is why the attorney I will open up the public hearing at 7:34. Does anybody want to come speak to this? Anybody on the Oh, I guess I'm a naive or something. I don't quite understand that we have name and address. You can fill that out after me. Name is Selma Stern. I live on 17100 Territorial Road. As you will see, it is on the east side of the group. It's down on Territorial Road where the construction is or the all the town houses are. Yeah. I'm wondering if your mon moratorum is going to affect the whole area or just the piece on is it 113th north. Is this mortorium going to cover the whole section or why are we punished for their concern? I mean we've got land and that three corner piece. Yep. Do you remember why we swung it there? I'm wondering why we have to be had the moratorum the whole thing. I don't understand that. Why aren't you just putting the mortorium on the section that you want? Sure. To be discussed. So the the moratorum is intended to to include undeveloped land that could be developed within say the next year or so or Why are you I don't understand. Why are you putting moratorium on our section the south side? It it's to try to figure out the road alignment before your land is developed and and I I don't know your wishes for development. I I have no idea. I have no wishes to move. Okay. Unless they carry me out. Um but then you'll have to fight with my sons. Um certainly not in the next six months, right? Not in the six months. So it'll be over before it even affects you. But why? I just don't understand. Why do you have to do the mortorium for the whole fence section? Well, yeah. What was the Why can't you just do the mortorium for the section you're talking about one? Well, we we are including your property also because it it could be developed and and I understand your wishes is for it to not be developed, but we're including any land that's that could be developed between I'll say the industrial area and East French Lake Road. But is there is there I mean really what we're talking about is is from 113 up, right? in and well also these are areas that are south of 113. Yeah. The the properties that could be served by 113th but where she's at and those lower properties. I guess I was kind of wondering that at planning commission I didn't ask but put a morator on ours right we have right now knows the idea of selling it but Ron might the next party and we do have a three quarter piece there that we would like to add to some of them. But I'm saying why do we have to do the whole thing much more? Um I haven't gotten a good answer yet. Essentially to have a better idea of the road layout. So we we would what road layout? Uh the road layout through the whole moratorum area. So that would include your property if if your property were to be developed. So this plan would develop would uh create a concept plan. Aren't you more concerned about the the development on uh 113 along 113 and then but your your south? Sure. If your property were to be developed, it would could be connected to these roads. Well, we've got different opinions. Sure. Well, I mean, that was the original road plan was that that road does go through. Well, really the light like light blue one that right there that was one of the in the in the master plan or what uh not master plan the comprehensive plan that there is a road through there and so for changing the road might go away from your land like right now in the plan there is a road that goes through your land and this plan may completely change that. So that would probably be valuable to know. Road doesn't go through my land. No, but it's the plan to like on in the 2040 comprehensive plan, there is a road shown going through your land and if we change everything, that road may go away and then there isn't a road planned to go through your land. So like I in my mind I'm lost. Which is the the line on the map is an it's an idea. It doesn't mean it's happening. Yeah. But the whole point is there are lots of ideas here and some of them have clearly ma been made impossible and will never happen and some are still a possibility and some are questions. And in my mind part of this concept plan is to go back to this and say what was originally putting down on paper for 2040 is not going to happen. So what is the new plan? And um so to me it makes sense cuz one of the other things is territorial road as you mentioned. We've heard from people around you that that's really hard to get on to 81. Right. Like that's I know that. Exactly. But like part of this plan would be looking at is there a better way to route that traffic onto 81 than right there at that intersection. And part of this planning this concept planning is looking at that and that's your house, right? I mean, it's your intersection. So, that's in my mind why your land was included in this. Not because anyone is saying that you have to build anything here or not, but since we're looking at the roadways and one of the big problem intersections feeding this area is literally right in front of your house, that hopefully will be looked at and maybe addressed and maybe we can get a better option for that intersection. So, that's in my mind why your land was included. So, I don't know if that I wasn't the person who made the drawing, but in my mind it made sense from that reason, from that perspective is those roads have got to be looked at and some of them go through in the 2040 plan are shown to go through your property. So, if that's going to change, we got to like look at that property. Am I misunderstanding? No, I'm just a little concerned that that kind of expands the scope that I thought we were at. But I I know there's a situation on territory roller in 81. It has been for how many years? Yeah. And it's only going to get worse, not better. Which is why we know that. Yeah. Which is why I think we should like take time now and see if we can fix it instead of just letting it keep getting worse. And I'm not saying there is a fix, but this is our chance, I guess, in my mind. And maybe we can't fix it, but if we don't do anything, then we're not going to be able to. I know it's like at least a piece of it will slide over. So, okay. And at the end of the day, it's 6 months and nothing may change for you. I mean, if you weren't planning to this particular land, okay, well, we live on, but there's a three corner piece that I'm sure we'd like to get rid of. But, um, in the next six months, anytime you want to pay for it, okay, I am not made of money, so I will not be buying it, but that's just my situation. I Yeah, and I totally I I get it. But that was my thought process when I saw why I wasn't concerned. I was like, "Oh, yeah, no, we got to figure out that road." Well, I think it's going to take more than six months to figure that road out. It's been happening for how many years? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. Uh John, a question. The uh the budget impact, is that your number? Is that the standax number? Uh the 10 to 15,000 that that is Stantex. Oh, cool. So, we do have money budgeted for studies like this. No, I don't. I just don't want to be a change order and the the study is all of a sudden 30 grand. Yeah. So the the if the council passes the moratorum and directs the more detailed study, Stantech would propose a a scope of services and that would have the the more detailed budget in in it. Okay. Does anybody else want to come forward and speak to this issue? You said you had somebody go. Uh, so we do have two different people, but Marca, if you wanted to speak, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yep. Oh, great. Um, hi, Marcia Grover, 1132L Farm Bank. I just wanted to mention that I agree with both Sarah and Stephanie that you should go for the sixmonth moratorum. It doesn't mean you have to use the whole six months. You can only use three months if you can get by with that. But six months is the way to do it right because you only get one chance to do this road right. And when they start developing over there, the roads are going to be there no matter what. So they have to be in the right spot. So take your time and do it right. Thanks. Hey Marca, I thought we were going to miss you tonight. Thanks for showing up. Thank you. Sorry, I muted her. Um, and then Anna, if you want to ask your question, I just need your name and address. Hello. Can you hear me? Yep. Yep. It's Anna and Andrew Babcock here. We are at 16124 116th Avenue North. We are in the Brayburn Trails neighborhood and our backyard looks at the five parcels that are east of East French Lake Road. And we I know we've emailed council and the mayor before this um about this before. So my clarifying question tonight is during this process, can those five parcels be reszoned or is that only something that can happen during a comprehensive master plan change? Um so the the uh the moratorum is specific to prohibiting subdivisions. Uh typically subdivisions um would also include reszonings. I have a feeling she meant guided use. Oh, did you mean what the plan is for the property? Well, like currently um those five parcels you can see it goes from red to orange to yellow. And behind all of those properties is a wetland area with um a lot of wildlife and um nature that call that area their home. So, you know, if during this process those can be looked at to be reszoned to lowdensity residential as it is single family homes currently on those properties and looking at those properties. Um, that was just something I wanted the the council to consider. Yanna means reuided for land use and that would be land use. So, it would not be done during this thing, right? Oh, well, no. land use and essentially we're looking at land use and road alignment. So that would include uh the homes that are on the the uh east side of East French Lake Road. The council would look at us possibly looking at reland using those properties as well. On the east side, that's correct. Can you show me the moratorum area again? Uh sure. As you can see, it's just to the east of East French Lake Road and it crosses right at the corner. Yep. Okay. So, this is a Okay. So, it sounds like we would be looking at that land use. Um, and when we concluded it, it would go for an amendment or would it just get stashed for? Depends on what the council comes up with. We could do it at the end of the study. Yeah, we could also use it as an addendum possibly to the comp plan as an addendum process and we submit that too. Does that answer your question? Sorry, I muted her. I think that does. Okay. Uh, anybody else? I just have a question. Come on forward. Name and address. Naomi BRZ 16770 112th Avenue North. Can you repeat can you repeat that one more time just because it's in the in front of the mic? 16770 112th Avenue. Your name? Naomi Brett. I live in Territorial Trail where sort of where the Sterns live. When can our neighborhood or can we if the road does go through their property near us 81 to territorial when can we come and say we don't want that? Will that be open to us to say that that's not a road we want to go through or is that not up to us as a community? It's always up to Yeah. When I mean when would be we be notified of that? I I guess I'm not sure what the process is yet for what we would be doing. No, we'll have to figure that out. So the the initial I I would say you're going to want to pay attention to this process of what um what comes out of the concept plan. Um, so it'd be up to the council on how much input you want from the the public. Um, but still like this the end result is going to be the city's plan of what they would like to see. A developer might come in and say we they can't do what the city's plan is. They have to do something differently um through the development process. That's a public hearing. That would be your opportunity to to voice concerns on the street access. But you know as the previous um one of the land owners said they have no interest in developing right. So it you know whether it's a year from now or 100 years from now but we know how things happen. So we just want to make sure that we're prepared and we know what's going on. So yeah, so there there's an official process, but I guess what I would advise you to do is watch the agenda items for both the planning commission and work sessions and us and when you see something on that interest you because we got a mailing so we won't get a mailing again. We just now need to be aware of what's going on. That is correct. Okay. So yeah, just keep your eye open and let people know. Let the commissions know and us. Okay, sounds good. Do I have to call Mr. Mayor? Yeah, you probably should. If I could, um, people who are interested in receiving notices can sign up. Um, even if there's not an official notice process going out, there is a way for, um, interested residents to notify the city that they want to be notified and then as part of the process, the city is obligated to notify them that through email or phone calls, my guess or correct. Do we keep like a list or something or how? We have never had that before. So, if that's the process, then yes. That's true. We would have to make a list. We typically just have people request to be on the council packet um distribution list for emails and then they look at the agenda or I mean we can do a completely separate one as well. We just don't have a list started. Anybody else want to speak to this issue? Okay, I will close the public hearing. Um, all right. So, we were there was a motion in a second before the public hearing was opened. Yes. Do we need to redo that? I don't believe so. No, I think we're good. So, yeah. Sarah had a motion. Six months with the concept plan. Six months with the concept plan. Stephanie seconded it. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Go ahead. I'll say I Thanks. get it done. All those opposed say no. Passes 5 to zero. All right. Thank you. We are on to item I new business. That was the main thing. Um mayor and council, um before you tonight is the Arbor Day proclamation. This is part of an initiative uh that the park commission identified to become a national uh nationally recognized and environmentally aware city as part of the tree city USA um program. Uh this was subsequently discussed at the joint uh meeting between the park commission and the city council. Um we are currently we currently have three of the four um core standards in place. Uh we have a a tree board um or department as we have an arborist now. Um we did the tree ordinance this evening. Um uh we started the uh we got the budget thing under control because we spend more than that uh the $2 ahead um on equipment and um labor. And then the last part is this uh proclamation and uh we're required. Um, so the recommendation is to issue the Arbor Day proclamation. Um, I'm not sure what that all entails, mayor. If you need to read it. I I'm guessing they need to read it. Like you're doing a proclamation. Read it like you mean it. Yeah. There's a reason why we usually don't allow these. Do we need it edited after you get done? I'm going to find it. Oh no, I got to read the whole thing. Oh, we really want to hear your voice. Yeah. Yes. Oh boy. This is where Santa Claus meeting. All right. Well, first off, before I read this thing, are are we approving this? Oh, yeah. Okay. Yes. It's just a technicality. All right. Whereas, we're going to have plenty of those. Whereas in 1872, the Nebraska Board of Agriculture set aside a special day for the planting of trees. And whereas this holiday called Arbor Day was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska. And whereas Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world. And whereas trees can reduce the erosion of our precious top soil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling cost, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce lifegiving oxygen, and provide habitat for wildlife. And whereas trees are a renewable resource, giving us paper wood for our homes, fuel for our fires, countless other wood products. Whereas trees in the community increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community. And whereas trees wherever they are planted are a source of joy and spiritual renewal. Um I have to read the rest. Oh jeez. Now therefore I Dennis Fisher, mayor of the city of Dayton, do hereby proclaim April 25th, 2025 as Arbor Day in the city of Dayton. And I urge all residents to celebrate Arbor Day and to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands. And further, I urge all citizens to plant trees to gladden the heart and promote the well-being of this and future generations dated 22nd day of April 2025. Thank you. So now we'll revert to our role of not doing these. Okay. Uh, we still have to vote this in, right? Or is it? Okay. Well, Scott made a motion. You already proclaimed it. Yeah. Well, that's over then. Scott motion. I'll second. Okay, that's fine. Any discussion? Your discussion was good. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. All right, we are proclaimed. Okay, now on to item J, Elsie Stevens Amphitheater Park dis construction discussion. Yep. Uh, good evening, mayor, members of council. Um, this has been some conversation back and forth. I just want to provide a little bit of information. The PowerPoint provides just a snapshot of information is what happened. The amphitheater portion of LC Stevens Park has been a topic of discussion over the last few months and the council has options of what they'd like to do with that amphitheater portion. They can bid out the amphitheater structure which is shown to the right. Doesn't mean that's the exact structure. That's just a a general example. Um which includes all installation, prep work, and concrete work needed. They can quote out each individual item needed for prep for work, which includes the structure, installation, the prep work, and the concrete. They keep what is there and wait till the master plan is completed by MSA before moving forward or a combination of the above. Um, it should be noted just to make sure that the council's aware that this needs to be done through the DNR as well because that structure um is essentially in a floodway and you can't impede flood waters in a flood way. So um I'm assuming that this type of structure will be sufficient for the DNR, but I am not for sure because I am not a DNR rep. So I just want to make sure the council's aware of this. So what I need to know is direction on what the council would like to do with this amphitheater item within LC Stevens Park. That's part one. So I feel like two weeks ago we said everything in LC Stevens was on hold until the master plan was done. So what I don't understand why this is here. The I think the reason this guy you can chime in last year um this was on the plan. It wasn't looking like this. It was looking like a bunch of sales. Um literally sales. Um, this I don't think I I can't imagine it's going to be affected by any changes to the plan because it's over the the concrete pad we have out there. Uh, but I mean part of the master plan is there's a design aspect to it that it looks like a complete park with a like there's going to be it's not just physical things. It's how they look together and it's a cohesive hole that looks pretty and attractive. Particularly if this is going to be like one of if we're going to have the water trail here and this is going to be like a destination park for people outside of the city to come to. I want it to be gorgeous. I want it to be a showstopper and I want it to look like a cohesive hole and not like we bit and p like we put together little bits and pieces as we could afford it. Um, that's not to me a showstopper park that we spent how much money on getting a master plan to do. I just those two, this one or the first one or the Well, I mean, Elsie Stevens in general, like my if we if we're dropping the cash to have people do a really solid plan that's going to give us a showstopper park that people will come to our city to use, then why on earth would we do this? It just does not make sense to me. I'm going to go first, second, third, whatever it is. Uh, part of the deal is is to me, we were looking at a plan two weeks ago that staff was all in favor of doing. They recommended to go ahead and approve it. And now all of a sudden, first off with that plan at that time, I don't know that the park commission knew that MSA was going to put a uh 24 by 34 picnic shelter included in their plan and they were improving another picnic shelter. Secondly, the there really wasn't to me there wasn't a lot of value in that plan. It was 400 grand for a picnic shelter and a parking lot that nobody could tell me how big was. He couldn't tell me how many stalls or how many square feet of concrete were there. It was not in any information that we were given. And I asked the question, how big is the parking lot? And he couldn't answer it. So to me, that $400,000 there was zero value to the whole thing. I personally don't like the to me the whole plan was bad. I don't like the parking lot in the middle of the park. To me, it should be along the roadway uh kind of right where that barn is. I mean, you can have a nice size parking lot almost as big as this one out in Center Park, Central Park in that location. The other deal that I I struggle with is we need something over It was probably a year ago and I mean obviously you weren't here and you didn't hear it. Paul, the guy that has been doing all the work on that park, definitely said, "This is the picture perfect location for an an amphitheater cuz you're out looking over the river." I mean, and realistically, it is the perfect location. We spent probably I think it's 4 or 500 grand on that particular what we have there right now. So, and two weeks ago, MSA was going to be instructed, if we'd approved that plan, two two weeks ago, MSA was going to be instructed to build their plan around that plan. So, all we have to do is tell MSA, this is where the amphitheater is going to be and then they can design the rest of the park. Now, I have some other ideas also. Not that I'm a parks guy, but um I mean we've been beating this thing to death for 2 years and we're still nowhere. And now to me, this particular whatever structure we build, the one that's in your package is 4 months out. In other words, if we ordered it today, we won't get it until like October. Now, that means we could technically have it up sometime October, November, so that it would be ready next year. Because if we don't do anything now in 2025, we won't have this in 2026 either. It just takes that long. You're concerned the look and feel of it. Yeah. I mean, why I want a cohesive park and if we build this and we insist MSA build around it. Well, now we've just hamstrung their design process. They like it just does not make sense to me. It would be like if I built my barn before I built my house and then my barn dictated everything I had to do with my house. Like it feels backwards to me. Um I appreci and I again I wasn't here so I have not been watching this clock tick down and I haven't been feeling the frustration that nothing is moving but coming in as an outsider it feels like you're doing it just for the sake of doing it and that to me doesn't make any sense. I'm not doing it for the sake of doing it. We need some sort of a cover over that entertainment center because the four or five events that are going to happen this year, one of them is going to get rained out probably. Not to say that anybody would come and watch it in the rain anyway. So, just to make sure I'm understanding it correctly, so correct me if I'm wrong. What I'm hearing you say is that you're not concerned that MSA would put the amphitheater this or a structure somewhere else. that this is the spot that's going to be there no matter what. It they're gonna have maybe a different aesthetic, but that it's going to be there no matter what the plan go that in your opinion whenever the plan comes out, it's going to be there. We didn't spend a half a million bucks to put what we have there now to move it. Correct. But what I'm Okay, so I'm I'm hearing you correctly. And then and and if staff was going to direct MSA to work around what Paul had designed, you just simply say you guys build around this. This is our this is our deal. You build the rest of it around it. Right. And I think that maybe that's where I get a little stuck. It gets a little sticky for me because if we're having them do a master plan and we've said here's the park, you plan it. And then we're coming in after and saying put this here and we like and understand it's only one thing like understanding that but if we're coming in after and saying plan around this we've already given them like their direction and now we're coming in and changing it. But I guess I'm like well we just spent 400 or 200 grand on a bridge that wasn't in anybody's plan and they're going to plan around that. I think as far as the the where this is at, I don't know that we're that we would even necessarily have to say plan around this. They're going to see what's there. They're going to look at it and I would be extremely surprised if they looked at and said this amplitude is in the wrong spot. That that's kind of where what I'm getting at is that Yeah, I think I'm torn, right? Because I see Sarah's point of like the look the look in one cohesive design, right? I don't like the here's the puzzle. Well, I've already put a piece in the center and then you got to figure it out around it. But if it's already going to be there no matter what, are we really talking more about the structure, what the structure looks like itself? Is that the issue? Because if it's going to be there no matter what, they'll plan the park around all of it. It's like I'm I'm circling the drain here and I I apologize. I feel like Okay. I think the concern might be the look. It's the look. I mean, you're going to put something that's going to look a certain way and you're going to either have a Frankenstein looking park or you're going to basically hamstring MSA's design process. Well, we can't have sides sides on it. We already know that. Well, but even material choices, right? Like all the choices. You can choose something that's maybe this is a drastic example, but something that's more like industrial feeling or you can choose something that has more natural. And so like it may not fit in with what MSA has and their vision of what materials or how that would all come together. You just said the other one that was in there was all sales and you hated it. So like clearly you guys care about the design and what it looks like. It was a tarp. It was a tarp for the road. My Yeah. My hatred for it was simply it doesn't do anything. Okay. It wasn't a design aesthetic. It was the It was It was not It was there. It was the material. I understand what you're saying. What is the challenge is that you know nobody's getting a clean sheet of paper on this thing and MSA is not right and so they're picking up a design you know kind of in the middle and let's say we were unsatisfied at least for sure with the pace but I think also kind of the overall concept of the master plan that's in play now or was in play and so where do you where do you kind of draw that I don't I'm not a designer. I think we want an amphitheater there. I think, you know, the the river location looks good to my eyes, but that's not what I do for a living. And so I it's harder for me to weigh in on the kind of the design elements piece of it. But I certainly share the frustration that we've gone two years with no progress on this park. and it uh you know what can we do to move this along? The probably the bigger concern for me was in in the packet and about how we go about approving this when we took it out of another bid pack and and the the legal aspects of um well just the nuances of it because if we would have accepted the package as a whole it would have been a different contractor. We took pieces out that kind of flipped the numbers and so we chose this contractor. It would be, you know, I think at least unethical to then say, "Oh, well, now you can have all this stuff back and and you're we can pull this up." Yeah. I So I think it has to then maybe we're not to that point yet, but if we're going to do it, then I think we have to follow a clean process to get it built as far as bid it out again and all that. Well, I don't know what's required, but I I know what I read in the packet raises some significant cautions about just um us just handing work out. Well, depending on how you do it. I mean, I think now correct me if I'm wrong, the kit, we don't have to go out for a bid for the kit. I mean, that unit, this unit, and I'm not saying it has to be this one, it could be that one. This one is 100 to 125,000 bucks shipped right to Stevens Park. So, yeah. So, yeah. So that's that's why I was giving the options to the council there. So if you break it all out Yeah. So cult fashion to your point that's the second part of the conversation. So you're one slide ahead of me for your comments about the legality and that ethical process and stuff. So you're one step ahead of me. This amphitheater was not part of any of the alternates or anything like that. So it's a totally standalone project. I've heard a lot of comments about the amphitheater. That's why I want to figure out if it's something we want to do as a standalone project this year or is it something we want to wait for. That's why that's kind of the main comments from from my level at staff. And if you want to do the amphitheater this year, that's fine. We just need to know how to do it. So there's two different processes. We can either group them all together and say it's one giant bid. You go out and you find a contractor who can order that exact kit who can then put all the concrete together, do all the prep work, and do all the installation. And it's one kit. Our gas at staff level is going to be it's going to be more than 175, which is why we say you could bid it as one giant project similar to what you do in the parks. You could do the other option where you say we're going to quote it out. So essentially, if it's over $25,000 worth of work, you have to get more than one quote. That would be clued if you wanted to do that one item. You still have to get another quote from another contractor of provide me this. You just give them the plan. I want this. And they have to give you a number for it. If they can come in lower, fantastic. That's wonderful. But then you piece it out. You go, okay, I want to do the um this structure from this company. I want to have this company do the concrete work. I want to have this company. So you essentially you end up and the city ends up being that general contractor. and we end up getting bids for each individual item. So you quote it out. That's so there's two different processes you can do to get it in if you'd like to put it in this year. Or the other option is wait till the MSA master plan is done. You can then do it as a standalone project at that point too if you'd like or you can do it as part of one big bid package similar to what you saw in an alternates. Customer fashion your points are related to can we add other things that we already had alternates before at other meetings at previous meetings that you already approved. That's the second half of the question of just letting you guys know that we can't do um likely what the contractor is asking us to do because it's going to change the bidder. It's going to change who who the contractor is. We're now we're now giving artificial numbers because now the contractor knows what other contractor numbers are. So that's not a fair process anymore. Now we've taken the bid process out of it. So that's the second half of the the of the comments. But this amphitheater was not in any of the bids at all. So um it's kind of a standalone project I would say at this moment. Yeah. To me, we could we would go out individually bid each item. The building, we have a local guy that can put it up. We have a local guy that does cement. I'm sure there's an electrician somewhere in this city that we could have hook up the lights and the power to the the shel. To me, we just go out and get all of those bids and each one of them is a separate item. Can I ask one question, please? Um, when we were looking at this, Scott earlier, the part of the idea was that we were going to expand the the performance area as well. Is that still going to be part of this project? So, you you had a bigger area for the band to perform. Make the stage bigger. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I would. I mean, I personally I would. And my measurements, and I'm not a concrete guy, but I think I'm pretty close because you can Google everything. Mhm. You would add 50 yards of concrete to this whole thing. to me, you'd put a little a dance thing out in front of what we have out there now. Mhm. Now, the topography of the ground is not real favorable because it's all sloping towards the river. Um, if I was doing it, if it if it was I would raise the stage maybe a foot and that allows you to get a flat probably 12 by 30 dance area in little area in front. Mhm. uh and then extend the back of it because there is some room between the the uh the back of the stage now and the uh path that the the trail that's back there. Now you are going to have right now there's about a twoft drop on the back of the stage and I don't know if that's solid concrete the whole thing. I'm not sure right was but you could build a you could build a retaining wall and not pour otherwise you're going to be pouring a 30 foot by 10 foot block of concrete. So, what I'm hearing here, Scott, is there's a lot more to just pouring concrete. I think that we'd have to get some engineering done, and there's probably going to be some civil engineering with the additional concrete down there by the huh. You can't just pour concrete and be like, it's going to be fine. It's just not how it works. It's I mean, it's no different than what we have there now. Well, it's it's additional impervious area. That's the problem. Okay. When is the MSA study supposed to be done? The plan. Sorry, what was that? I think it's I think it's roughly planned for the end of the year. MSA study supposed I think that it's in December. I think it's December. Yeah, I think so. I guess what I'm I'm wondering is so this whatever this is, this work's not going to get done this year anyways. Mhm. You wouldn't do I mean the soonest you could get it done be October because you're not going to have the unit until then, right? But then it would be ready. The issue that the main problem you have is if you wait till next spring, you better have the unit in stock by then or have it have it shipped to you by then because otherwise it's going to cut into your June. I mean, I think staff is trying to get a music in the park thing going this year. Yeah, I know. So, all of a sudden, if you're going to build this next May, well, so you're screwing up uh June and July for any events going on. So you're saying this, if we go with this specific thing, it's got a four monthly done. Correct. So we could still wait until MSA did their work. Yeah. And but you got to order the unit. But you might not be this unit because this might not fit with the aesthetic that the whole park is. We don't just get the cheapest thing because it's the cheapest thing. We want the best thing for the park. Well, I'm not saying that this that's not cheap. So I have another Oh, I'm sorry. And if you wait then you're four months from whenever you decide. Yes. So MSA is working on this today. We've commissioned them to do this work. Can't we ask them to focus on this piece first and pull that I mean ultimately carve that out of the the master plan. I think yeah that's definitely what we could do. I mean the ideas part that you know you're going to be sitting on Scott in middle of May is one of the one of the opportunities to focus on what is the important things for this for this group. Um there is going to be a lot of um public um input into this as well um which I think is pretty important as is such a big part for the city and so we will be directed by those guys. Um but that's not to you know if that's what everybody wants and we can definitely focus on this. Um the idea would be to have bid documentation for everything ready for February, March next year to get it out to bid. Um so whatever the process brings us to then that's what we will certainly do. I'm not a fan of of putting it out for a bid because it's going to cost you 20 30% more. I mean this can be something that can be done on our own but this could be part of a lot more projects going on in the Exactly. That's so a million. Part of the problem I have with that process is as I see it, it limits who we get bid on these on this work because the only people that can bid on these things is somebody that can do everything. Pavement, concrete, buildings, the general contractor just subcontracts that out. And I know that uh I know they they they use a lot of local companies as well. I know um the company that we uh uh put out uh for the trees, they got a bid from a local company to do those. So, it does come to local people here, you know, who put in a bid for it. The the thing is they just got to put the bid in. I mean, I guess I just I I Yeah, I just have a problem because let's say this costs us 200 to put up the It's not this No, it's going to be 300 from the contract. Yeah, I I hear you there, but doesn't it walk a fine line of like if you're having Okay, how do I say this? the concrete work, the dirt work, the amphitheater, like the actual structure, it's all one project, one thing. Yes. So, I guess where I But if you lump it into the rest, it's not agreed with you. So, like those like smaller little projects make sense that you would kind of break them out like this. this is one project. But where I think I get it feels a little sticky is when you start saying things like, "Oh, and then we'll say this local concrete guy is gonna do this because it's underneath a certain dollar amount and we don't have to go out for bid for it." And then this is underneath a certain dollar amount. So it feels sticky to me to then characterize it that way where it shows like you're doing favors. Well, yeah, in some sense. Yes. And it feels sticky where it's like the amphitheater this maybe geographic area is one project and then it would kind of eliminate some of what you're saying Dennis of the jack up of the price because only the larger companies can do those things. But I just caution how granular we get with that because if we're ordering an amphitheater and then having, you know, somebody come and do this concrete, they're doing these pieces. It just I think puts the city in a I don't know, sticky compromise. Yeah. And in a position where I don't know that we want to be. Well, and I think the other thing is someone is going to be the general contractor and the city is going to pay that. When you get a bid, it's clear what that costs. When you do these onesie twoosy things, you're making the city and by the city, it's not us. You're making the staff be the general contractor, which is taking their time away from their other jobs. So, and it's harder to put a dollar amount on that, but that work still has to get done by somebody. And now what you're doing is you're putting all that work onto staff and then they can't do their other things that we are paying them and would like them to do. Um, so I think it's I don't think it is appropriate to pretend that all of that padding for the general contractor is nothing but padding when there is like the city is still paying it. We're going to be paying it to Marty instead by having him have to do this and not other work that will either get delayed or postponed or put into other people. But I I think that is not it's not you doing it, Scott. It's the staff and they get paid for it. When you say padding, here's a padding situation right here. On the last thing, the last deal that we just approved, I was specifically told that we could not take picnic tables, benches, grills, trash cans out of the bid. One way or another, I ended up calling the talking to the contractor. He actually called me and he has no problem taking them up. Why would you not want to? He says, "You're going to save 650 60%." On a trash can that in the bid was $3,500, cost $729 bucks. That's padding, but it's on the wrong way. Now, if it's okay, if you have no issue with the public spending couple thousand more, I do. I I treat it like it's my money. Most of the time, we don't treat it like it's our money because we just shape the tree to give more. Well, I think sometimes though you can, you know, jump over the dollar to get to the dime. Like my point is there is it is still the city's money. It's just it's it's less visible, but the city is still paying that cost. It is just not a line item on a bid. It is in other less tangible ways. I understand what you're saying. I'm I think my bigger concern is is that when we put these into these these huge mega packages, you only get a handful of bids because and they all know it. And that's fair. That's fair. So that that's my issue. if we could break these things up. And I'm not talking about hiding the costs or having you know Marty suddenly have a you know 40 hours a week extra to do some of these things. Um it's I I think there there for for some of the numbers I've seen I think we could almost hire a contractor for this and just say go do this. Um but I mean assuming the bidding process is followed but yeah I still don't am not quite following because I I agree when we get to the here's the master plan we need we need bits on this and then we only get I don't know if they're bigger players but people that you know have the resources to to pull together all of the elements of of the construction you what what we did a lot on bigger projects was to bust things out into bid packs. You know, you you put out a bid pack early for the dirt work, right? And then you put out another bid pack. And these are going to different people. They're not all going to the same right group. I mean, in the public, anybody that wants to bid can bid, but that was my point earlier, Marty Marty, is could they, you know, they have to have some concept of what the overall is going to look like enough to say this is where the amphitheater is going to go. either it's going where it is or it's or it's got to move. But I think that's an early decision for them and they could focus on the design for that and it could be released as a part of this overall package. But it's, you know, as a separate bit pack and not the whole thing and that might draw the the local contestants into the mix because it's a limited scope of work. Y and that I guess that's what I I think we ought to try to go for. I I think that that is perfectly doable. I don't think it's a problem with that kind of thing with one-off structures like this. Um where you're doing maybe parking lots and stuff, there may be an economy of scale with running parking lots with trails and stuff like that. So I think you know the one-off thing like this is certainly doable. We can break it off in that way. So yeah, I have no problem if you get two or three guys that are going to bid the concrete. that dumbbug. I have no problem with it. I would like to try to use local if we can if we can. But Yep. So, you're in this you're in this group. You can push them to get this part figured out early ASAP and get a pack. Yep. So, my questions for the mayor and the council is that at this point we're going to go with option. I'm going to go with the third bullet point which is keep what is there for now, wait until the master plan has some process move forward. That's what I'm hearing. And not saying that we can't stop at that point, go, "Hey, this is what we want." And we can then pull the amphitheater out as item A and we could do a bid pack for that process. Whether that's the city running the bid pack or that's um we bid it out in total, that'll be up to the council at that time. But that's what I'm hearing right now. I just want to make sure I have clear direction from the council. I like that. I agree. Two. So what you're saying is we can start and have them have them get going on this. I can wait two or three or four weeks. We've been waiting for two years. Yeah. So in summary was that um use option item three currently just to keep what's there for now. Let it sit. Wait till the master plan process has been started by MSA. Have them work and focus on the amphitheater portion first as part of their overall design requirements and what they're looking at and doing. They can then once they've say, "Yep, we're good to go with that part." I'm going to say, "Bless it." They will then bring that to council and say, "This is going to be part of the greater design, but this is something you can do right now as a one-off project." Whether that's ordering parts, whether that's getting stuff installed, I don't know what they're going to come back with the design. They might have instead of metal, they might have concrete beams, they might come back and say, "No, it should be a giant wood oak tree." I don't know. I'm just using general things here, but that would be the idea from what I'm hearing from council. And then we then we could still bid that out this year, whether that's with quotes, as in individual items, or we could do it as one big bid package. So, have they done anything yet? You guys talked to them today. Um, I think we talked to this. I mean, they're starting the process. I mean, they started the process. They they've uh been doing site reviews. They've got uh all the plans and stuff on GIS. So, they're starting to pull all that background stuff together now. Yep. So, it'll be in May when I mean it'll be early. Like I said, the idea would be to try to get this thing the idea would be to hopefully have something by June to council. Here's some general direction we're getting from that. But again, it's going to take some a little bit of time to make sure that everyone's on the same page of what they want. With the steering committee, it's going to take a little bit. But you good? Yeah, I'll speed them along. Yep. Okay. What else? Second half of the conversation was related to what customer fashion had kind of alluded to, which is how do we get to the spot we're at? We can't renegotiate or add things to the contract related to LC Stevens Park because we've already set a pro or set a bid already aside. we can adjust that bid. So if we want to take out things related to PI um park improvement project 2024 related to um PSA 21 or um I gardens Cypress Cove um park that we both approved on. We can then work with the contractor if that's something the council would like to do in order to open the contract with trash cans, benches, what have you with those two parks. We just cannot add anything to that already approved bid because that would go against bid rules and it also um I would say would be an unethical process for the city because now we have um uh what do I say? Um yeah it's a president is a low bid get it and then and then we can add a bunch of stuff afterwards to the process. So we can adjust things on those two parks if the council would like to do but we can't add anything to LC Stevens. If you'd like to do LC Stevens this year and you think that the contractor would like to do that, we can most certainly re go out for bid again if we'd like to do that as a total thing, but then we just take out the things that you don't want to do, garbage cans, benches, whatever. But again, we have to go through a whole another bid process to do that to be able to select the contractor. Now, it might end up being the same contractor, but then it needs to go through the same process. Does that make sense? Yeah. I don't want to revisit the uh I I personally didn't like the plan that was there for Hilly because we don't want nothing to do with that plan. Well, now is your chance to change it because you're going to be on the group. Yeah. Yep. Okay. So, does anybody does anyone on the council want to adjust anything on the bid that we approved a meeting ago, which would be like taking out garbage cans and benches and whatever related to the two parks that we approved, which would be I own Garden, Cypress Cove, and then the PSA 21 Brave Trails Sundance Greens Park. My deal is all just the equipment part, picnic tables, all of that. We can do that on our own. And like I said, if if Marty can't set them down, I'll get some residents that'll volunteer. Got one. What specific items? I heard picnic tables and garbage cans. Well, it's just all you I don't know what you're calling. What do you call them? Huh? What do you say? Garbage cans, picnic tables, the grills. Yeah. Um, I don't know if it was benches. I don't know if those are There was a couple of benches in there. Yeah. All of those things are Well, the park furniture. Park furniture. That's whatever you call it. I mean, I know for a fact we can save about 15 grand by doing it oursel. And And um I forgot his name. Jeff. It was Jeff, right? Yep. Jeff has no problem with it with using a different product or us supplying them. We go online and buy them. I mean, it's a park the park supply place that sells them. All you got to do is Google park supplies. It's simple. So can can this be changed uh in this context to be that for that specific kind of equipment owner supplied and contractor installed? I don't know if that would work. I mean I mean it's a change but it's not that's not I'm not in depends on what the country So any sort of renegotiation we can do and that's item number three on the list there. We can go back and renegotiate the contract, say, "Hey, we're going to provide these for you. You install them." And that's fine to do. The contractor doesn't technically have to accept that process. They could say, "No, I'm not doing that." Or they could say, "Yep, now that you have reass now the contract, now the contract opened back up. I'm going to increase this price by 10 grand for something else cuz I got a new bid for electrical work that I didn't know before." So, right now, we have a set contract. This is what it is, and that's what we can do. Um, if you start opening the contract of we take this whole thing out, now we have opened the whole contract, whether that's one item or, you know, 50 items, you now open the contract back up that they can then renegotiate the price with us. The 15 you save on one area, he can come back and say, "This is going to cost more money." Yep. Yeah. You know, you save $15,000 on park furniture, but now I just got a new quote from my concrete guy. Concrete went up since the last time I talked to him. Now we're open by 10 grand. That's got to go up by 10 grand in order to offset the cost. But he's not going to do that on these on these park equipment supplies. He already told me he wouldn't. And why would we have him set them down? You mean I just Well, so to pull these out, we still It's still an open It opens the whole contract when you pull one item contract. Yeah, it will. Yep. I mean, you're going to have a conversation with this Jeff. I mean, staff is going to obviously and just going to say, "Hey, we can take these out." You told the councilman that you already said you would. You'd be okay with it? Yep. That's the only piece I'm looking at. I mean it the only piece I'm looking at getting out of there. But if we pull So what was the total thing? 9 951 951 something that's 951. If we pull the 15 grand out it's 20 but I mean we're going to spend 2300 to buy it oursel. Yep. Okay. So right it's 15. But he could Yeah request at that point. He's not going to. I mean it's just come just phone call. Just do it. Yep. Like I said, as soon as I ask him to do that and he says, "Yes, that sounds good. Now the contract is now open again." Now we can say, "Yep, but then this has to be added on this side." So then all of a sudden, he's going to say, "Well, just leave it. We'll eat it." Lesson learned. I mean, my my adage on the deal is those simple things like that, they should never be in that bid to begin with. See, I I could maybe buy into that. I'm a little bit hesitant. In the future, we can most certainly do that. That's something the council could do. In the future, I'm good with that. But if you open the contract up and any sort of negotiation, then we have to then go with the process and I have to come to a renegotiation again. So I could say, "Yes, we're going to take all that park furniture out." And then he says, "No, I'm going to raise my concrete 10 grand." And I say, "Oh, no, just put the furniture back in." And he's going to go, "No, my concrete just went up 10 grand. Thank you very much." So now we're paying 90 961 because the contract is now open. You have to come to a new agreement again. Because we already came to an agreement at one point. So I'm not saying he would do that. I'm just saying that he has now has the ability. Can I ask a question? It's a hypothetical question. If that did happen, but then his bid was higher than he might lose the whole contract. One of the other bids, is is that true? He knows what it's he knows he knows how much, but he knows how much the other ones are. So, he could be like, "It's a dollar less and it's still him." You got it. Not saying that he would, but again, not like trying to say anything about like this particular company or person, but that could happen, right? Yep. You know how I'd handle that? I'd call the other guy and John, you have to be $10 cheaper than this guy. That's how I would handle it's business. You can't have a forever bid process open, right? Like, you have to pull the trigger on something. And with that process, Scott, as a government entity, we cannot do that. That is not a legal bidding process. We cannot do that, right? As a as a person like you and I as a resident or individual. Yeah, you can do that all day long. You can take this guy's quote to go to this guy's quote. Oh yeah, for sure. But as a government entity, we don't we cannot do that. Yeah. We have rules and laws and state statutes. We can't we cannot legally do that. And I would have guessed that you would have testified this for us. Lesson learned. Yes. But I don't know that I want to reopen this contract only because I don't know this guy. You might trust this guy. I trust it. I I think it just sets a bad precedent and I don't think that's something that we should get in the habit of doing. I think lesson learned in the future, no park furniture in the bids. We'll do that ourselves. We learned the lesson and let's remember it. But I don't I don't like the precedent of giving a bid and then going back in and try to like massaging it after the fact. That I don't I I'm not comfortable with that. Remember, he has the same information we do. So, he knows exactly what the other bid was and exactly what their amount of dollars was. So, that's one process with the public bid process that once you have it open, everyone knows what the other one person bid. So, yeah, they knew all the numbers before they bid it. Well, it seems like it's advertised. Oh, it's a I have no reason to to suspect this contractor of any funny business, but I think we we sort of shot ourselves in the foot, you know, by not having this conversation a bit earlier. I think that this kind of stuff because it's it comes up in every park, right, that we're overpaying for a lot of this kind of stuff. We should be specking what we want in the parks. Have everybody put it in their bed, right? and not just just pick something out of the catalog and say the these are nice or I don't know how these things are are getting you know bid or how they're it's the designer that's choosing the these pieces or or so typically it's the yeah the landscape architect that's choosing the things you so they're they're bidding what we tell them we want and we should get a well I guess we got to be better at telling them what we want that you know that there are things um where we feel we can save money on and trash cans comes up every time we talk about a park. So that'd be one of them. You know, we find the trash can that Marty's happy with and looks nice and light in the design. That's what we tell them they got to buy. And when you know when the designers come up with something that's goldplated, then we got to tell them to knock it off. I think we could handle it the same way that we do with our detail plates for engineering. We'll have the spec of the piece of, you know, equipment that we we want and that's what they they provide or something, you know, equal equivalent. Yeah. So, I got one one yes to reopen it. I got two nos and I need No, I don't want to reopen it. No. Okay, that's all I got. Moving on. Thank you very much. Thank you, Marty. You know, please tell me that we're just going to agree to this thing because I I run through it and I don't I I guess why are we doing this? Who's coming up that we're doing this for? Um members of the council, I have Jason Arswald here from Ellers able to give us information down the road that we're doing this for. Um a current one. Yep. So that's why we're doing this. So I'll invite Jason. I'd love to speak neighborhood. Um I don't know any details so give it to Jason. Uh good evening, mayor, members of the council. So, uh the reason why we're here briefly is because a request did come in from a project that wants to access some conduit debt that cities can issue on their behalf. Uh and uh the reason that they want to do that is to really help uh their project be more affordable ultimately. I'll talk a little bit about that. I'll go through this quick. Uh what I've learned, we didn't know initially what the project was. Um they just said there's an interested party. Uh, and so, you know, when Zach and I talked, we said, "Well, there's no real policy that you have in place about this. Don't even if the council's interested in even undertaking something like this." So, we thought, well, we better have this conversation. So, since learned that it's a project that actually isn't in Dayton, and that's okay. That happens all the time. Uh, but, uh, you you would be issuing for a project that actually isn't located in the community. I think it's in Andover, and it's a school, and I think that the tiein is that it has, um, potentially students in Dayton that attend the school. So, so it's very common that cities will reach out on this for these reasons and we'll talk a little bit about that. Just real quickly, what are these? Why do cities do this? What are the common practices around this? What are your risks? And then there is a proposed policy if you so choose to undertake this. So, what are conduit bonds? These are bonds issued by the city, but that benefit a private entity. Uh, and usually it's a nonprofit housing or industrial type uses. So, you've heard of like industrial revenue bonds or things like that. uh aren't as common anymore, but usually this is like a like a housing project would would want to access this type of thing. Uh that's what we see most often. Uh there are hospitals and um uh uh schools, uh facilities like that, nonprofit nursing facilities that access this type of financing. Uh these proceeds then are loaned to that private entity and they pay for project costs. They build buildings, they do things like that. The reason it benefits them is because they can access tax exempt rates. So their borrowing is cheaper, makes the project more affordable. Um and uh the they are then um obligated to repay the bonds. The city isn't obligated to do that. And the city's not at risk for repayment. And your credit risk is your credit is not at risk for repayment. These are these are they're you're the conduit. That's that's the definition of the bonds. These are um held in a separate trust and then paid by the project and then bond holders are paid that way. You're completely out of the loop on that. Um, so why do it? Uh, usually, uh, it's done to support a local economic development project, a regional economic development project. Like I mentioned, um, you know, uh, you'll see it sometimes tax credit apartment housing projects like, uh, uh, you know, years ago, the Dominion project that was proposed here, that that would have been a project financed like this. You would have ultimately been asked, had it gone forward, to do something just like this for that project. Uh, and the other reason cities do it is you can charge a fee. So, uh, that is one of the other, uh, reasons that cities, uh, do this. It's also the reason why cities that, uh, have projects that aren't in their cities do this because they can collect that fee and there's no risk. So, that's those are the two reasons. And, um, you know, you can decide how you want to handle that. But, if you do decide you want to actually participate in financings like this, it's a good idea to have some kind of a policy in place that indicates to those that want to apply what your fee ultimately is going to be. Uh and uh generally speaking, what we see is that these fees uh can range uh from from 1/8 of 1% all the way up to 1% of the par amount of the bonds. Often times they're charged up front. So you take the money right up front. Uh sometimes uh there are uh fee types that charge annually as the bonds are outstanding. Uh it's a little more complicated to administer that and there are some disadvantages to that. So we don't generally recommend that. It's probably just easier to do it up front. Uh and then you some cities actually charge like an application fee to review this all as well. Uh so what happens is that there's an application made. Your city bond attorney actually helps you with these things. These aren't bonds that municipal advisors like Ellers actually get involved with. We don't we don't help you with this at all. We don't benefit from this. We don't take a fee for any of this. We're not even involved. Uh so uh we're just working with Zach to kind of work through what these policies would look like if you so choose to do something like this. So just a quick comparison. And we had done a quick comparison of some of the fees that are out there. As I mentioned, they range from 1/8 of 1% to 1%. That's the middle box that's highlighted there. And then show what that translates to on a bond issue of approximately $6 million. Chose that because that's what they initially told us approximately those project costs might be for this particular request. Uh it might be a little less than that, but you can see there a 1% fee would yield a $60,000 um you know fee to the city. Those are dollars that you can then choose to direct in any way you wish for for city um for city needs. Uh generally it's to offset the cost of administration. Uh administration is generally fairly minimal on this. We'll talk a little bit about that. Uh as I mentioned the the risks and costs. So there's no risk of repayment or credit in the event of default. Uh if the if the project defaults for whatever reason, there's no repayment. The bond holders are on the hook for that. Uh it does not affect the city in any way. the borrower takes on all this risk. One thing that can happen is that it can affect your annual $10 million bank qualification limit. So, this gets into the weeds a little bit, but you do have a what's called a $10 million annual bank qualification limit. And that does apply to the bonds that you would issue for other general city projects. What that means is if you issue uh under $10 million per year, the bonds can be designated bank qualified. All that means is that the bonds can be purchased by banks. And so it broadens the market for who can actually purchase your bonds and it can lead to lower interest costs. So if you can you like to preserve your bank qualification limit. And the reason why uh this project as I understand it is coming to Dayton is because this the city that it's in has or will exceed its $10 million bank qualification limit for this count for this calendar year. So when that happens, they generally then tend to shop it around to other cities that might be interested in issuing the debt. So I believe that's what's happening here. uh you can mitigate that by doing just what I believe andover is doing which is to say that they're not going to issue for that because it will um uh impact their bank qualification limit and then they have those projects look elsewhere uh in other communities. The work as I mentioned is is is minimal. The um the staff does need to coordinate with bond council the attorney that's working on the project and uh there is a a public hearing and a resolution that needs to be held. So, there's some administrative work regarding that, some work for you all to actually consider that item at a meeting. Uh, but that's about it. Uh, the payments and everything else are handled, as I said, through a trustee and and that's all taken care of. There's no ongoing city administration that way. Um, and then the uh project pays for the bond attorney cost, so you're not paying for those either. Uh, and then you take your fee that goes along with that. So, what you have if you decide you have, I think, a couple choices here. You can just say, "Look, we just shouldn't even doing this." That's totally fine. uh or we're willing to consider it, but if so, we're going to pass this policy that indicates what our fee is going to be. And so, what you have actually there in front of you is a is a policy. It's very simple. Uh if you do choose to do this, it just says, you know, we're willing to consider conduit transactions. We're going to set the fee at 1% and it's upfront. Uh it does also indicate that the fee can be an alternative amount through negotiation. Uh I can already tell you that a lot of is you saw the list there some of your neighboring communities are up at 1% some are much lower than that and some of these projects will tend to shop around for that fee just FYI and in fact they've already expressed concern about a 1% fee but just in conversations with Zach we felt that that was probably what if you all were going to do this was most appropriate. So that's what's in there. You can obviously change that. But if there are circumstances that you know you come across one of these that's for a project that you think it's important to support and it can't support the fee. Obviously this gives you the flexibility to charge whatever you want. Uh and then it just lays out what that process looks like so that it's you know clear to folks. You need to apply you need to submit the information. We need to evaluate it. Uh and you need to pay the fee and it's as simple as that. So uh again the question really is you know um you know is this something you want to do? And if so, does that policy seem acceptable? And and then if so, then you could approve that. In which case, then there may or may not be a future request that comes before you from this latest inquiry. Um they've already indicated, you know, well, if it's 1%, we may have to look at other cities. And they might do that, which is fine. Um but then if there's you're ready then if another future request comes in like this, which you know can happen. They happen from time to time. Some cities this happens fairly regularly. Some cities it happens once every five, six, seven, eight years. But in this case, you at least have a policy in place in the event that this does happen again. So I'll stop and I'm happy to answer any questions or go into any more detail about that. Other than the bank qualification, is there any single downside to this? No, there's really no risk. I mean, there is some time that the staff has to spend on doing this. Um, so I mean that that's really what what it is. Yeah. Here's the down time. There's the down time. If you can get 60,000 bucks, we're going to end up needing another staff person to watch it that we're going to pay and a quarter to. There's the downside. Well, it's not that it's not that much work. I was going to say it. Not even close. If it was that much work, Council Arc, I would be nowhere near this policy. I would be saying no way. Can Can you go back to the costs that are running communities? Oh yeah. Uh the chart. Yeah. Yeah. So 1% would put us at at the top end, right? That's the highest. Correct. And were you just thinking that just because it's a starting point or Yeah. I mean that's kind of the idea. And then we um worked through the policy and said there can be negotiation if we feel like it's very you know it's appropriate that you know it's in Dayton or something that maybe we negotiate and say hey it's it's only a core or an eighth a percent or something like that. But that also assumes that they know that we'll negotiate, right? If they just see the 1%, are they likely to look elsewhere before they even talk to us? It's written in the policy that says other fee has negotiated, but you know, and the kind if there if you're concerned that the fee is too high, then I would say reduce it in the policy. Um otherwise, you know, if Zach gets these inquiries and there's concern about it and they push back on it, he always knows that the policy has some flexibility. Um, so they have to go through you to find out the 1%. Well, no, they they'll reach out to likely through Ellers because that's who came through before. They didn't reach out to me. They reached out to a lot of times the bond attorneys just call us and ask what what the city has going on for other debt, you know, to speak to that bank qualification issue. So that's that's how this came in and then you got right and you would tell them 1% but it's negotiable. Correct. I guess if that's what the policy if if you pass the policy as written. Yes, that's what that's what we would say. Okay. So, I had I had an initial reaction which was um my initial reaction was here are more rich people trying to tax like dodge taxes because it was the tax exempt, you know, and I have a problem with that. But when you mention, you know, it's for nonprofits for schools. And then I was like, okay, now actually I'm willing to have this conversation. Um so, does every single one have to come through and get approved? Yes. Yes. So, we could, you know, because then I feel better like, like I said, a nonprofit or building a school or building a hospital, I feel a little better about then I'm a developer who wants to put in multi-million dollar homes and I would like to avoid some taxes on this. Um, like that I have a problem with, but we want to build a school and we need that that I'm I feel better about, right? So, if it's something where we get to approve every single one, then I'm okay with it. Um, and I would set the fee at 1% because our neighbors are at 1%, like Maple Grove is at 1%. Um, Rogers is at 1%. Particularly if we have the negotiable part in there because then if it is like a school in Dayton, we have the right to be like, oh, no, like that's that's a different story. We're willing to do that. So, I'd be okay with it with with those things. My initial thought was though wasn't no, but I've come around. This does seem like a loophole that it does. Somebody should It's not It's not new though. It's This has been around a long time. Yeah. Very Yeah, very much. It's always in the 20 years ago we we the hospital issued bonds through the city of Edina. Same same kind of thing. It's been around. How is this different from the PO um bonds that we've done with TIFF? So those Well, the PGO and bonds are two different things. Uh mayor, members of the council. So the the bonds that well the pay as you go notes that you've issued are pieces of paper that say that you'll pay a developer money from a tax increment district not not a bond at all. Um and then the bonds you've issued supported by tax increment are general obligation bonds of the city. So you're obligated to pay those regardless of what tax increment comes in from those districts. Uh this is different in the sense that all you're acting as is the conduit here. you're not responsible for repayment of these bonds in any way. Um there's the the tax code allows these private entities to leverage your tax exemption status to issue these bonds and keep you out of the loop on the risk piece of it. Can I ask how much tax they're avoiding if we charge 1%. Well, uh at the moment uh uh well that's an upfront onetime fee. Yeah. So the interest is every year, right? um there it's approximately um 1 and a.5% is the spread taxable tax exempt. Their private financing that's on like a go type bond their private financing would probably be much higher than that. So you know they might be able to access um you know money at let's just call it 4%. Where privately they might be even higher might be six six and a half 7%. So it's it's a big savings for them. Yeah because I don't I I'm happy to take money away from banks. I have absolutely zero problem with that. I would love to do that. What I don't want to do is help people dodge taxes. That I don't want to do. But um as long as they're not actually as as long as it's reasonable and I would like to make sure we don't go past our 10 million city or bank like the city's limit of them that they would know that. Yeah. And yeah, mayor members of council, you would know that if we're saying, "Hey, this year we're going to plan on issuing a debt for XYZ item. We got to pay for it." So just so you know, we get any of these. This is the first one I've received since I've worked here. So, this isn't like it it's common. Otherwise, I would have brought this policy to you well before this, but it's been almost five years. I'm curious more generally, what makes this attractive to banks? I mean, they're they're issuing these bonds at a lower purchasing these bonds at a lower uh interest rate. What what mitigate or reduces the risk to them that makes them want to offer a lower rate? I mean, the city's putting its name on it, but we're not obligating ourselves to anything. So, it I don't understand how that's better collateral or why, you know, why they would want to offer a better rate for this kind of thing. Yeah. The the simple answer is that the uh interest earned by the bond holders is exempt from federal taxation. So, they don't pay taxes on that interest. And so therefore they will agree to offer a lower rate that because of that offset just like any any bond that's purchased even just generally that the city would issue. It's the same reason why you know your go tax exempt bonds are a favorable rate because the folks that buy them they'll pay tax on the interest that they receive from you on those bonds. So, so they do the math on, okay, if I have a taxable, you know, rate on this bond and I earn this much interest and then I pay taxes, I only have this much left over, but if I buy this bond, I and I pay, you know, this much interest, which is lower, but I have no taxes, do I come out ahead? So, they kind of do the math on that and figure out where they where they end up. Does that make sense? the simplest way I can explain it. Yeah, there's a reason why the tax code is that doesn't really come into play on whether we do this or not. Yeah. And I think you your fair share. Well, I think you kind of talked about where the 1% came from. I was curious about that about that piece also. Um, I have one other Are we going to also ask for an application fee? That's what's in the proposed policy. Uh, I don't think we have an application fee in there. I thought there was a $25 that that is uh a host approval fee. And so maybe I'll just talk about that for a minute. There are times like in this instance where um you know if it is Andover that's that's the where the project is located. They still have to um pass a host approval um uh resolution essentially uh allowing you to issue bonds for a project in their city. And you may someday be asked to do the same thing. Maybe there's a project you're you're over your bank qualification limit. Uh but there's a project that wants uh tax exempt financing and a neighboring city is willing to be the issuer. You would still have to process some paperwork. And for that you could take that $2,500 fee because there's still some work you need to do. And so uh we did include that $2,500 host approval fee. And you'll see that um well on the right side of the chart there, there are cities that have that in there as well. Some expressly state, some don't. Um but yeah, so there there is that as well, which would not be the case in this current situation cuz No, because you're the actual issuer in this case. We're the actual issuer. We're not the host. So it would just be the one%. Yes. Right. Would you recommend an application fee? Most of the Well, maybe half of the cities have an application fee. Uh most of them that have the fee have a lower percentage. Okay. Uh and so kind of in coming at the higher percentage, we thought, well, that's probably enough to cover all of it except Maple Grove. Yeah, except Maple Grove, right? Yeah. Yeah. It's always except Maple Grove. Except Maple Grove. It's always how it works. And Bloomington is right up there with them. So, and so you can see some cities have started the par amount, the the size of these bond issues has gotten very large because, you know, just prices and costs and everything else. Some cities have decided to sort of bifurcate that. Um Woodbury is one example at the bottom there. They um once they get over 10 million, they reduce it and then they also reduce it to promote if they have an affordable housing project that is accessing these, they reduce it down to the 1/8 of 1%. Um for that type of thing and for certain schools as well. So there's different ways to slice it. We started at the 1% and then of course it's your prerogative wherever you want to set that. Zack, from a staff perspective, would do you think an application fee on top of the 1% or you think 1%'s fine? No, I think 1%'s fine. So, Yep. I don't think it's going to it's not going to cost me another person and it probably will only cost me a few days worth of work in total for the whole year if that. And I don't know if it'll be that much and likely I'll probably have hard come to do it anyway. So, I'm cool with it. Okay. 1% and then with the negotiate with the little caveat that we will negotiate if I'm cool with it motion. So we needed was there a number with this or just that a policy? Just a policy. Okay. Motion second. I'll make a motion. I'll second it. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed say no. No. Okay. Tax motion carries four to one. Thank you. Item eight. No free ride for nobody. If you can't make it, I treat you like mother nature. You die. Looks like a perfect time to go. You want to recess? You want to go ahead. I can take I won't mention Oh, you won't? I can take. All right. You know what? Let's Let's uh Five minute recess. Five minute recess. Five minute recess. Okay. We are back. Great, John. Okay. Thank you. Uh so this is uh preliminary plan approval for Legacy Woods uh in as well as a zoning map amendment from A1 agricultural to A3 agricultural. Uh the I don't have a large area map. So this project is located off of uh North Diamond Lake Road um north of Lake Laura. The closest cross streets would be um North Diamond Lake Road and Zanthis Lane. Zanthas Lane is down here. Uh the total project area is 107 acres. The development is proposed to be subdivided into 10 lots. So, uh, lot sizes are generally want to say it was around between 3 acres and 25 acres, I believe. Um, and the lot averaging is uh, two units per 20 gross acres. So, that's consistent with the A3 district. Going backwards here. Yeah. Okay. Um, I think my slides are out of order, so we'll see where we go with this. Uh, with the preliminary plan, uh, again, this is, uh, well, I'm going to call it a conservation PD on this slide. So, uh, within the 2040 comprehensive plan, there's an area there's areas that are are identified as greenway overlay. And so, any property that touches a greenway overlay is required to be a conservation QD. And so the question becomes is what is it about this property is that that is unique that's worth preserving. Um in this case the plan commission's recommendation is to pres is to require a conservation um easement that preserves a connection between uh this I'm going to say the south wetland complex and the north wetland complex. Um the easement or the conservation easement would be inclusive of wetlands as well as the wetland buffer. Um but the only the main diff and those are areas that are already protected by code. The main difference as a conservation PUB is this segment from the south wetland to the north wetland. Uh this corridor is roughly would be 25 ft wide and John what was the what was the point of that? Um so the comprehensive plan does require um a conservation PUD and the question is what does that mean? So in this case it's preserve a continuous corridor that connects natural areas. So the continuous corridor um would be a 25 foot wide corridor connecting the two wetland areas. you why 25 feet is because uh for wet line buffers, we require an average buffer of 25 ft and a minimum of 10. Uh when this was first presented to the planning commission, there's a discussion of including a wider area and the commission's recommendation is that if if someone's buying this lot, they should have the ability to use the lower area however they want. um but still complying with the the intent of conservation. PUD is having continuing a buffer area along the u the western property line. when I'm looking at the wetland um like the NRCS wetland um I think it's the NRCS national wetlands inventory um they don't have that full north well kind of that central yeah they don't have all of that listed as a wetland so why is that like that where your where your cursor is now yes but to the right of where your cursor is is not indicated that part is not indicated as wetland so why was that included this High lane. So, I'm going to say if if you wanted to take it, leave it in or out, it's up to the council. Um, so this circle area is a I'll just refer to as as an island of highland within a wetland. Yeah, I I would think we would want to take it out. I would I mean I like whoever owns that should have the right to use it. Like the wetlands I want to save. Um, there's not enough wetlands and it's messing many things up. But I think they should have that little circle of wetland or highland. Okay. There's a It looks like there's a couple of them in that area. But that's the biggest. Yep. And then that's not Oh, no. That is there. That got carved. Is that little? Yep. That got carved out. Yeah. But that that my question to John and the mayor and the council is would you like to do it based on the wetland delineation that's done? because we're waiting on that still. We don't have that finalized yet. So I mean that yes I I guess with the addition of the 25 ft along is that something the council would be like to do is just have a again we don't have a wetland delineation done on this prop part which is why you don't have a final plat in front of you because we don't have those all finalized out yet but that's something the council like to do just do a wetland delineation and follow that as the conservation PUD. Does that seem reasonable with the 25 foot buffer that connects on the Yes. Yes. I'd be fine with that. Okay. Well, except the that connection piece that except that that is not necessarily wetland, correct? Correct. It's just to preserve that connection from wetland. That's the definition of a conservation PUD. We have to have it contiguous. But what is the So, so I thought you had mentioned it has to be anywhere from 10 to 25 ft wide. Why did we go with 25 average? So, it it can be less or more, but um it's consistent. The idea of the 25 is it comes from the wet line buffer. So the wet line buffer is a minimum of 10 feet and an average of 25. But there's no wet line there, right? So the using the average of 25 is because at points you can have it be 10 feet minimum or you can have it be 50 feet, but on average in a parcel it has to be 25 ft averaging. So within x number of feet like you have to So the 10 to 25 isn't a range. No, it's a 10 minimum and then 25. So then at one point it has to be 50. So we could make it a line, but it seems easier to make it just even than in 25. I get it. Just because it's on it's all on one parcel. It happens to be on one parcel. And so because of that, you have oil and buffers that have averaging 25 to keep track of. Yeah. Any other questions? I'll kind of go by these one by one maybe. So any other questions on the conservation PV? Um I had a question about why we added that to so along like Laura Y. Um why if there's already a a federal law and or state laws? Why would we add a conservation easement onto that? Um, and well, the the really the reason here I'm asking is because if somebody wants to open up a beach area and put a deck in there, conservation easement does let them do that, right? Depends on how what's written in the conservation easement. So, you can modify it. Well, there's lots of there's lots of options, but I guess I would just say whatever your intent is with the conservation easement, you should be clear on that. So, if you want to allow a beach, uh, for instance, you know, allow some exceptions with it. I'd rather yank it. What's the benefit? Not even have it in there, right? That's what I'm wondering. Why would Why would we even have it there? We don't even have to have it, right? Uh, it it's up to the council. So, it's because it's a conservation PUD. If you want to take that the lakes shore out, you can. I I absolutely I would. I would only because it seems like then it's an additional a restriction to the property. So we got so we got two I guess I don't I don't see the need for it either. The So the area north of that bay or I mean north and east of that bay trying to follow the contour line. So that's all high ground. That's not wet land. High ground. Yep. All high ground. Yeah. Yeah. None. None of that needs to be there. No, I don't see all the way around the lake. Doesn't have to be there. Well, that's already pulled out. All of this like that's already pulled out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They still have to follow DNR rules. We're not removing anything from any other agency. I think that's the nearest point is there's already all of these other rules in place protecting the shoreline. Why would we add a fifth? Yep. Yep. That's exactly it. So, the direction is remove the lakeshore I would out of the conservation from a majority of the council is what I'm hearing. So, okay. And again, I'm fine with it because there's already other rules in place and I wouldn't be fine with no rules. I don't want to be adding rip wrap rules to our but there's already rules. Y there are enough. Other questions on the conservation piece? Let's see if I can Okay, I know what I'm doing. Um zoning. So, uh the intention of the A3 district is to include Northwest Dayton. Um the qualifying parcels again are parcels that are 20 no over 20 acres or more that could be divided into a density of two homes per 20 acres. Uh the project is uh this area in red. So this is just demonstrating it's within the A3 district. Um also the hatched area represents the uh con greenway overlay area. So this does have a large wetland complex. Um that's why it's in the overlay. Um with A3 district the minimum lot size is one and a half acres of high ground. Uh this project is the smallest lot is three acres or 3.1 acres of high ground. Um and it it more than meets the minimum lot with requirement of 140 ft. Uh with the A3 district, it does require uh the option of I'm just going to summarize it is f five different asurances that the project can be reubdivided in the future once sewer is available. Um in this case uh the developer has provided a ghost plat uh to R1 district standards showing how uh once sewer and water becomes available how the project could be resubdivided into more uh smaller lots. Uh the project does have a lot of topography. So uh the area this isn't the best map for it but probably don't have one. Um there there is a lot of topography. The area that is somewhat shaded and might be better on on your screens or in the packet as yellow indicates slopes that are greater than 12%. So the assumption is is that slopes that steep are not buildable. Um the uh kind of the assump oh let's see uh on this map it overlays the general um idea of where sewer and water would be extended in the comp plan. Um this ha had this map has no indication of where streets are. This is just kind of a refer to as a fat line on the map of how do you get sewer and water from point A to point B. Uh what it does indicate is um the western part of the development would serve it would be served by sewer uh from one location. Uh the eastern portion would be provide sewer from a different sewer line. So, um it's important that this be ghost platted the eastern portion. There's many options of how that could be resubdivided in the future. Um also, uh related to the shoreline, we have shoreline district rules. So, the shoreline district rules come in play within,000 ft of DNR protected lakes. Um, this is a natural environment lake which has uh other restrictions as far as the minimum lot size and impous surface area goes. So, if you can kind of see um the shoreline district is the area that's shaded in blue and these lots are slightly bigger than the lots that are outside district. Um the connection from I'm going to refer to this as thicket lane to North Diamond Lake Road uh does not is not consistent with the access Penin County access spacing. So as the council's aware, North Diamond Lake Road is a county road. Um the the intent is that this is a temporary intersection. when uh the lots that are to the east are developed at some point in the future, the intent is that this intersection would be closed and Thicket Lane would be rerouted to Zanthis. Um as one of the uh requirements of the preliminary plan approval is to show how this connection would could work in the ghost flat. Um the thought al also staff's thought is there's um likely going to be some land here that probably doesn't have much value that that we're uh asking to be planted as an outlaw and just whether it's dedicated as right away or it's has some other use. Um it's separate from this lot here. and we talked about the conservation PUD. That is all uh questions um about the road. There's the there's that little strip um which you can't see on this particular map, but so there's the 100 plus acres, right? Um and then there's that chunk of land the right next door and then there's this little rectangle that no one owns. I'm assuming there's an there. Yeah, future rightway is what it's was intended for. Um, we staff looked at that. You can see it on the map there now. Yes, that one. Um, city staff looked at that as an ability to access this property when we first looked at it because that would line up exactly with Zanthis. Yes. However, based on the spacing that's there from what we understand is that it's not able to make it work. Okay. Within that spacing, the future rightway is not able to use that. Um, we said, "Okay, well, if it can't be used now, maybe we can use it somehow in the future and or be able to um vacate it in the future." Um, it was I don't remember when it was done, but at some point it was recorded in the county um as a future right away. Okay. But it's not going to work. It will not work. We looked at that as a possibility. Okay. Um, we worked with the developer back and forth. We said maybe we could use this. Um, the problem is it doesn't set back real well. It's not there's a lot of topography. There's a lot of topography here, too. So it'd be more practical to wrap the road around the wetland. Okay. I was just curious about that because I'm fairly certain that at the time when we got that we didn't look at any topography or anything. We just said, "Yeah, pick this spot. This looks like a good spot for future right away." That's my sounds about right. That's my presump. Hence why we need a good concept plan that aren't just fat lines on a map, but actually look at things like topography. It's the plan. Thank you. Any other questions? There was a um in the our information that the planning commission had uh asked for that consideration be given to include drainage and utility easements along the rear of lots um to accommodate future sanitary sewer and water and um you know I guess what was the logic behind that I didn't um really follow it when I watched the meeting. You would make you would need to take more thought. So I think the idea is um you'd extend sewer and water in between the wetlands and the back of the lots, you know, along the wetland or the wetland buffer line. Um the other alternative is to put install sewer and water in the street. Um you know, the advantage of putting it in the street is it it's there. You're not disturbing like private property. The disadvantage is you're going to have to tear up the street. Uh, so the general thought is at some point the street is going to have to be replaced by penny and that's when you put in through the water. Yeah. This big he's been through everybody's backyard, right? Yeah. No, it's likely never going to happen anyway. Well, and if it does happen when it happens or if it happens rather than carving it out. Okay, that was my question. I understand. Any more questions? We have any questions for the developer? We good? Okay. Um I need motion and a second motion to approve. Give that to Dave. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed say no. Motion carries five to zero. All right. On to item M. Um, who's handling M? Mayor, members of council, myself and Amy Schmidt will handle item M. I don't have a whole lot for you. I was able to have Hayden, the um, planner two here, put together some information based on what he's learned. didn't I'll kind of share that. I did share these obviously slides last week on Friday, but just wanted to give some background information. This public roadways drainage utility easement was established in May of 2005 to come to the construction of a single family home at 14661 Londale Lane. The easement has served as an access to that single family home for nearly 20 years. While the adjacent property to the north is a party to the easement, the ement area is not currently utilized by that north parcel. In the recent months, a building permit application has been submitted for construction of another single family home on a landlock parcel directly west of this easement area. Being that this is a public easement, the application for the permit has established an access agreement that extends from the end of the public roadway easement through the parcel to the east or west and then um through the north part parcel to the existing easement providing that access to the public street can be provided to the landlock parcel. part of the building permit being issued. The landlock parcel staff is looking for final direction on how to proceed on the existence of this easement. And I am going to make a motion that we table this bas just so that because it it sounds like we still need more information on what some details are. Um, yeah. Can I ask a question? My name is Randy Duke. I own the property. Um, if we table this I I if you t if you table it, then you would be able to have it at a future meeting. Yeah. If not, then it's up to you. Mayor, one question. Come on up. Name and address. Randy Duke. Wait until you get in front of the mic here. Okay. Go ahead. Randy Duke, 14651 Londale Lane. I was the one who signed the agreement back 20 years ago. And I was under the assumption by the city council at that time that this easement would be used when sewer and water came in. And that's when it would be used. Also, if an easement is granted for the property behind, is it a public road then the same as you're saying mine is? That's I think that's some of the some of the questions we would have to get answered. So, that's why I would like to table it or that's one of many reasons. And there was 60ft easement. The easement that's asking to be to be used is a 30-foot easement only on my sons and my property. That's two questions. Sorry. All right. Thank you. Thank you. We need a second if we're going to table this. I'll second it. Any discussion on tableabling? Do you have a list of what information we still need or um and will we all be given the same information up here? Yeah, when we get it, we would we would all get it. Okay. Okay. Yep. Any other questions or discussion? Dave, did you second that? Um clarification on currently there's a 60 foot I just heard a 60oot easement currently. Correct. That's correct. And we're asking for just the 30 the south 30 ft of the easement. No. Is that what we're asking for? We aren't asking for anything. The easement covers 60 feet. Right. the C the the the easement um that was executed in 2005 is is is a total of 60 feet. It has 30 feet um across the two parcels owned by Mr. Duke and his son and then another 30 feet across the parcel to the north that's currently owned by um the Jacobsons. The Jacobsons I always say Petersons and staff laughs at me because sorry the Jacobsons and the current roadway that's there is on all 60 ft no or is it on just the south 30? It's on just the south 30. Okay. And my question would be, does the current landlock piece have the option to put their driveway on the north 30 ft? I think the answer is yes, but I don't think there's an obligation. Do you mean a separate driveway or a single driveway across the full 60 ft within the full 60 ft? Either or. The easement is the way that it's written isn't clear about what the rights are between the two underlying owners. Um the easement as it's written contemplated a 12 foot batuminous surface with two feet on either side for drainage and that it would be built in the in the southerntherly 30 ft and that's what was constructed. Yeah. So a little more clear and I don't know how how far we want to go into it. I mean, I I personally don't care if we talk about it in two weeks or whatever, but I think I think we want clarification and uh to end this thing at some point. Yep. Uh is the landlock piece restricted to only getting the use of the south 30 ft or can it use the north 30 ft? It needs all 60 ft. It needs all six or that's that's actually that's one of the things I think we need to can the city direct them to use the north 30. No, I don't. Well, I don't know. I mean, the easement is the easement. It's a 60 foot easement. Whether or not they can use that, I think is again, it's not clear within the easement document what the rights are between the two owners. it was the underlying owners of the of of the of the land that the easement lays across so to speak. It talks about how the the the the rights that were given to the city by the by the by the owners at the time. And so it's it's the the easement is not entirely clear. So how do we get that clarity? Yeah. What what I'm after is is can can the north 30 ft be used to access the back 20 acres in theory? Yes, it is being used right now. So why don't we just make like why can't we say that's that's what's going to happen that they will that the that landlocked piece will use the north 30. I'm not sure that that's that there's been an application submitted for that. Um I don't I I guess I'm question what just transpired here. There may be some limitations on the number of of curb cuts that can be made onto Lawndale Lane. There's that's also unknown to me at this point. And I think that's maybe the best reason for tableling it because based on what we've had in front of us, there seems to be some legal jeopardy with four of the five options. and the the one option to do nothing, you know, has has the least risk, but it's it's not a good answer. It's not an answer. We can't do that. Well, it it may be our only answer. We could, but we shouldn't. So, I think we need a little time to see are there are there some other solutions to this that that we have the right to enforce. I just want to know what's our timeline to get this done. Is there timeline? Well, like we can't have this going on in perpetuity. At a certain point, decisions have to get made. And I'm fine with tableling it if we know like we're going to have these questions the like we we obviously don't know the answers, but these are the questions we're going to ask and we will come back with an answer in in two weeks and four weeks and six weeks. Well, I was under the assumption that we had to make this decision and had to use the south 30 ft to access the back 20 acres, but apparently that's not true. I don't know. I mean, because to me, if if there's an option to use the the north 30 acres to access the back 20 30 ft, that's that's the solution. The north 30 ft. Yeah. You have two roads in one ement. It's one easement, so it either is usable or not. I I don't understand this conversation is splitting the baby in half. I don't get that. You mean because this is a current driveway on one side, correct? Well, because the actual driveway doesn't take up 60 ft. Understand that. Well, and and to be more precise, it's not technically a driveway. It's a roadway because it was a roadway easement that was granted. We have a lot of questions really. So I guess my question when when do we get to ask them and in what form do we get to ask them if it's not now? Well, if you'll ask them now now would be good. Um and then we can have answers next time. Oh yeah. My biggest thing is this does you guys don't want the the south 30 ft you if you want them to come up we can yeah it would say all right come on up mayor I have a question for you at this point is it is this tabled or is this not I don't know um there's still a motion on the on the there's a motion and a second on the floor and then there was discussion and ensued and that's why I'm asking the question seems like we're still in that discussion about whether so I just want I just want I just want to confirm I just want to make sure I understand where the discussion was supposed to be on table. I'm not sure what tableing is going to do for it. I mean, we can vote against you clearly have questions that you want to ask before we have the full out discussion, right? Like there are things that need to be there's there's a few. Yes. So, well, for one, I want to know if it's if it's possible for us to have a closed meeting on this because there could be legal ramifications of these decisions, but I don't know what that answer is. And I don't think we can just spontaneously have an answer here. Okay, that's right. Okay. Okay. So, then I'm okay tableling it. I wanted to know why we were tableling. Yeah. and maybe not all the details. There are probably 20 other questions too that we that we probably have. But I mean, as far as splitting the easement in half, I that one I hadn't heard yet. So, well, and well, the only reason I would say that is because I was told there is no access to the back 20 without allowing the road to go into the to use the easement that's there. But maybe there is if the neighboring property has a 30ft easement. I I know for a fact that that goes right back to the 20 acre piece or there's access to the 20 acre piece. Why wouldn't they not use that 30 ft if if it if it helps the there's a private easement that So the the parcel that's owned by the Jacobson is is rather L-shaped, right? And so it wraps around the north and the west of the two parcel of of the the parcel owned by Jason Duke. And so across that par the the Jacobson's parcel is a 60-foot easement that was granted to con that it perfectly aligns with the 60-foot easement that was that goes back 20 years. And so that easement on the private the private easement that connects to the public easement was created to give access to that 20 acre parcel. And from my conversation with the the the attorney for Mr. Quilling, it was my my understanding from him was that that and from correspondence from him that went to the the to John That easement on the Jacobson's parcel was there as a requirement of the financing that he obtained during to to to acquire the 20 acre parcel because the 20 acre parcel is landlocked but for that the p the the access to the public easement. So by piecing the by using that that private easement on the Jacobson's parcel as for lack of a better word a bridge a connection to the public easement. He Mr. Quilling was able to have street access road access from the landlocked parcel and became unlandlocked so to speak. I'm even more confused now. How wide does the road have to be? That was mind posture. Oh easement, right? How far How wide for the to be a road for it to be a road. How wide is a road? Like a minimum roadside rout size. So right away is 60 ft. That's where the 60t road size is 28. Yep. I say minimum road says we have curb to curb is 28 ft. My question is are you guys after the roadway on your 30 ft? Can you say that on the south 30 ft of the easement? Do we want the access going back to that 20 acre parcel? But are you okay if the access to that 20 acre parcel is on the north 30 ft? Where's that coming from? Where's the 30 ft coming from? So it's one easement. It's one ement. It's one ement. I think you're saying parallel roads, right? like they're well two parties agreed for this. They each gave up 30 ft. That is correct. Y that is correct. But it is now it's no longer individual 30 fts. It's one 60 ft easement period. Um the current the current driveway that's been utilized for the last 20 years happens to be on the south 30 ft, but there is still a 60ft easement in total. It just happens to be on the 30 feet on the south side. Are we tableabling this or we continuing discuss? I know I have more questions than what I had before. I Yeah, I I would like to get it tabled and then we can maybe get some answers some to us. Okay. As to what what we're really looking at here, what what our options are. Yeah. Should we email Amy our questions? Not the legal questions. Yeah. Yeah. But like Yep. Because I guess that's my my concern in tableabling it is if we haven't actually asked our questions until then. We're still not necessarily going to have the answers then. Like at a certain point the questions have to be asked so they can be answered. And I I think a lot of this boils down to the language in the easement. what is uh what I guess what a lot of the information the legal information is in in these that we have to at some point I'm surprised all that information hasn't been looked at already I mean we knew it was coming it it has been looked at but I I I'll tell you every just about every time I have a conversation or look into this I learn a new piece of information tonight the statement from Mr. Duke that the easement was to be only used when the sewer and water came in. That's news to me. So, every single conversation I have about this changes. But is that is that in the easement? Is that statement? It is not. It is. But then it's immaterial. But if we were to if if the council were to be in a situation where the the easement is to be interpreted by a court, some of that information could be relevant. Um, so it's just it's it's it's um it's a very challenging legal situation. Note to self, we will write better easements in the future. Correct. Amen. I do have all the paperwork and copies and I think you guys probably still do. I didn't have time to gather them all together because this was a two-year process for me to get that into If you're if you're willing to share that, I'll happily accept it. Yeah. Yeah. Um Okay. So, where are we at? We have a motion to ask for a roll. And we have a motion and a second to table. Any more discussion on tableabling? All right. All those in favor of tableabling this say I. I. All those opposed say no. All right. So it is tabled. You guys sat here for three hours for nothing. Three and a half. Actually got to experience the city hard at work. Trying like this. Thank you. Unbelievable. I don't believe it changes anything but whatever. Thank you again information. Yep. [Applause] Item Parkway Neighborhood phase two. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um May is a I think step count your steps. Yeah. Okay. Doing good. Um, okay. So, this is a preliminary preliminary plan approval and site plan approval for uh Parkway Neighborhood Phase 2. Uh, so just to explain the whole story again, uh, this project is off I'm going to call it the south intersection of Interstate 94 and 94 in Dayton Parkway. Um, the overall project has three phases. Phase one is a 180 unit apartment building which was approved I believe it was March. Yes, if I remember right. Uh phase two is um I'm going to refer to this as lowrise apartment buildings and town houses and then phase three is 150 unit apartment building that the council hasn't seen yet. So again phase one has been approved. Phase two is tonight. I'll add it. It's uh very possible that phase two will be built before phase one. Um okay, so phase two consists of uh 14 acres and two 273 units. Um I'll just add that we do have a revised plan um that's slightly different than the one that's in the packet. Um the intention is or I guess my recommendation is the council to approve this project. If the developer would like to amend this project later on, we can go through that process. But tonight it's the plan that you have before you is being recommended for approval. Um and again it's slight changes with it but if you approve it then it would be amended. You have to amend it. Um so generally speaking with a preliminary plat you have you have a project and the there's going to be minor changes that are done to it before final plat approval. Yeah. Uh the question is is it insignificant changes. So if it's significant then it would be an amendment. If it's insignificant then it would just go through. We would note that in the staff report at final plan to note to know for the council there is no definition for insignificant or significance. So right and it's this is a large project and so the the changes uh the developer is reducing the number of units by I believe it's six and then adding more parking um so there are changes we we don't know what the effect is on the grading plan or or storm water ponding reducing the number of oh so maybe we should wait I'll say which units are the reduction way or I'd have to have the developer sorry clarify that jump okay so I'm going refer to just the plan that's in the packet. So, um the zoning, the property is zoned for, uh GMU5 or general mixeduse district 5. Uh this is intended for mixed use of commercial and residential. Uh this project is entirely residential. Um deviations from the code and again this is the code that the plan that's in the packet. Uh there's a a deviation for uh 34 surface parking stalls and 32 garage stalls as well as a reduced setbacks from 20 ft to 3 ft for the clubhouse and 5t for some of the apartment buildings. Um there are many apartment buildings and the the setbacks do vary quite a bit. Uh with the POD there needs to be a public benefit. So there's kind of a give and take with it. In this case, the public benefit is the concentration of open space in the greenway. Um, as we kind of discussed in the previous project, this property is also within the greenway corridor area which requires a conservation PUD. Um, this was discussed more in depth at the uh preliminary PL preliminary plan approval for the first edition. So um the corridor generally you know there is an expansive wetland area uh the conservation area is more intended to be focused around this wetland complex the flood plane area and then this wetland complex not so much with phase two um emergency access. So, a question for the council with the first edition. Uh, well, I should say th this is a long deadend road. Um, it it's possible that the road could extend into Maple Grove, but it's never going to connect to any other streets. Um, with the first edition, there was a requirement that whoever builds first on the south side of Dayton Parkway, whether it be this project or the neighboring project, would be required to build the a um emergency access road uh between this culde-sac and Brockton Lane. Uh we've had indication from this developer that they uh may not build any, you know, in the immediate future. So the question I have for the council is would you still like to require it this to be built if this is the first project uh constructed? How would that help anything? Um so there are alternative access points. So there there are three alternative access points. One is the existing farm access road which this is private property. Uh second is along a proposed uh three rivers park regional trail. um that that has not been constructed but will be in the future. The third access point is off of this culde-sac. These two points are within the flood plane. And so the idea is if the emergency is because it's flooded, um this access isn't going to work. Um it's going to work probably the majority of the time. It's not there's a a um culvert that goes over this creek that is not able to support fire trucks. Um, it can support a light duty vehicle. So, an ambulance or police car would be fine, but not a firet truck. Um, this if uh the developer is required to build this, this is a considerate or a significant cost to the project. And to answer your question, mayor, the reason why that is being required is based on the fact that if that intersection was blocked, we'd have to have another way to access into there. If there was some sort of emergency, typically looking at like a tornado, some sort of um weather event, that access would then not have to be in the flood plane and would then be able to support a fire truck. But when development happens on that side, where is the access on this side? Yeah. Uh through through the same access point, but the red dotted line is just an emergency access point. it. I get that, but I'm confused. So, if the intersection was blocked, Yep. that would be an access point. But when the development happens on the west side, that access point there, that mercy access goes away. Nope. It would stay. It would move. Well, they they have to build around it. Yes. It It might move, but it's still going to connect. What's the cost of that? I I don't know. Can I Oh, I have a question. Just so that I make sure I understand this emergency access point like the road you called it a road question mark. Is it not an access? Yeah, it would be blockaded or what do you want to call breakaways would be accessed on the other side so that you could drive through it with a fire truck or a police vehicle, but it would not be able to be utilized. about a 10 foot wide piece of pavement or we talking about it would have paved be I'd have to have the chief chief on that one. I don't know how wide would it be. I don't know that answer. Okay. Enough to get a truck across. Yeah, the emergency access chief. Would that be 15 foot wide, 8 foot wide? I don't know what it is. the one to the south um just needs to accommodate um a pickup or a rescue or something like that primarily um just so we have that availability or ambulance to get into the that location. Um the discussion has been is looked at this holistically of how could we get there if we did have that emergency because there's some catastrophic event on the main road to come in. Um, so we're trying to come up with something that's amanable to both public safety and to the developer. But how the the the emergency access on the north there, are we talking about a a 10- foot wide piece of pavement or what what are we talking about that one there? I don't recall. Do we I mean generally I think the code requires 20. I guess the question would be is could it be 10 with a pull out every so often? Yeah. To get in there that that's an impediment on the other developer if you will um because it's in their property. But if we're to build there or to have an access road, I guess the preference is again the preference would be to actually be able to get a fire truck down that one because otherwise they have no means to get a fire truck down there. Right. So, is that 10 feet? Um, no. The minimum for that is going to be probably a standard. I mean, a ladder truck or regular fire trucks are 8 ft wide. Um, so you're probably going to need at least probably 20 20 foot road 5 ton probably or y not tracking something. So, if if the truck needs 8 ft and or 10 feet, why would why would we require a 20 foot wide road? If we have two-way access be primarily one means if there's two ways going in and out or two vehicles. Um but this is in an emergency situation where that intersection's not accessible. I mean that's right. I I see what you're saying mayor without a doubt. It's just an ability to you know we can make it 10 feet 15t I guess to make it adequate. So this wasn't decided already before. Um well, so the requirement in the first phase was to build this. Yep. And I guess my question is it's was this the assumption is that this culde-sac would be built um this year and that's not going to happen. So the question is if the developer is required to build this section, it's really from this point over. It's twice the length. So to answer your question, we've not designed this at all. It's just been a high level idea. We need to have some sort of secondary access into this parcel. You want to come up and talk? Okay. All right. Great. Hi everybody. You want to start with this? Yeah. So, uh, Ben Doitch with, uh, Cas Wilson Architects, 1301 American Boulevard in Bloomington, Minnesota. Um so first regarding the secondary access point the kickin for that with uh multif family apartments is 200 units. So from a timing perspective we wouldn't have 200 units um up and planned for in for maybe what we say 2 3 years. Um so I think that buys time for that second means of egress to actually be required from a code standpoint. Regarding the code standpoint, kind of like a room that needs two means of egress, they have to have a required separation distance, one half the diagonal distance of the site. So really, the secondary egress on the south is that secondary means to meet code. code does not specify what the consistency of that means of egress is, but from our standpoint, that south means of egress in which we've talked to the fire chief about getting secondary emergency vehicles down is how we're complying with when we get over 200 units. That's the one that goes north and south. Um, uh, east west, sorry, uh, on the bottom there. Okay. which is the existing farm road and it's currently, you know, most of the year could be driven upon. Um, it just is, I think, maybe a foot or two low in certain spots on the property from where it needs to be on the flood plane, which is 2 ft below that marker. So the secondary access on the north um would be I guess more of a preference from the city standpoint in the event that that intersection was closed. But from a access standpoint, we are relying on that south road as the emergency second means of egress. So if something happened, that's the one that has the covert that can't support the fire truck. So if something was going on at the inter that main entrance, we would not be able to take a fire truck, the ladder truck or Council Henderson, that that's correct. We wouldn't be able to the the Culver does will not sustain the weight of um we believe it won't sustain the weight of a firet truck to get back there. Could Sorry. Yeah. Is there an option or a way for them to, this is a really roundabout, fix the covert to be able to handle to use that as an access or is that just a nogo? I'm going to defer to the developer because I know we've had and I don't recall, Mike, is is this part of your property or no? I I that's what I thought it was. a private property guy that owns it. But I want to suggest to you that the culvert that's there right now very likely does support what's already in place. The truth is we have to call SANS, you know, an engineering firm to figure it out, but like it's the covert is built really really strong and they've been running very heavy trucks over it. I don't know if they're quite as heavy as chief, but even in the event when I was having the road looked at and pricing, we also had kind of a just a simple ad option removed and put in a brand new culvert that met I think chief telling me 80,000 ft. 80,000. Yeah. So, I have a price that in the event the one that's there doesn't work, wipe it and be replaced and no problems. Okay. And you have an agreement with that landowner to do that? No. No. Or not? No, I just got the price and so on and so forth. I mean, I've spoke to him. He was actually mayor c it's not quite that simple. I know that Jason would be commenting about related to um DNR wetland storm water thing. It's not it's not quite as simple as pick up and drop but I'm not going to put any words in Jason's mouth. I just want to make sure that the culvert can be replaced and then and then the other stuff is that the road as a whole is in is in the flood plane and all this kind of a thing. So, you know, it isn't the most perfect, which is why I think Zach and Deo have come up with this idea up on the north. But the truth is they they've been using that road for 50 years, uh, very regularly with large, you know, large equipment and large trucks. Um, it's just not, you know, quote pretty, right? And this is a farm road. It's not paved. It's correct. It's dirt. It's not a public road either. Correct. My next question for Gary is the tanker frequently gets stuck in swampy conditions. We've had it towed multiple times this year. So my question then is is from a fire standpoint is that obviously we don't want to play like the worst case scenario, but we kind of have to in this service, right? So worst case scenario, we're going to a fire, the tanker sinks in the mud on that farm road and you can't get water in there. So I guess I'm just wondering like is the preference of the fire department would be to use the other. Well, yeah. I mean, what one Councilman Henderson, mayor's mayor, members council, the the reality is I'd love to have that paved, but it's private road. Yeah. Um the developer doesn't own it. Um we've been looking at this for quite some time trying to figure out a means to you know figure out how we could you know make it amanable to everyone. Um but you are correct we have had the tanker and or engine um stuck on nothing but just wet ground where we've had to have birders come and tow it out. Um so we do have those challenges without a doubt. Um, so trying to make it, you know, again, we always plan for the worse and often it's not needed, but I'd rather stay off the news and be prepared in that capacity, but also try to work with the developers the best that we can. Correct. I just again just wanted to highlight the fact that um, you know, you do plan for the worst in this profession and unfortunately you're showing up at the worst of times to help with the worst of situations. So, I guess for me, um, it weighs in my decision knowing that it's not a paved road and that it would potentially make it harder to get access in. Yep. I I completely agree. It definitely would without a doubt. So, my big question is the land that that land owner doesn't even have to allow you to use it. Yeah. You would do a lease. You would get an official lease, but we haven't done that yet, right? We we've had Well, I'm not sure. We've had we've had we've had conversations with him. He's he's okay with it. Okay. Okay. We We've had the conversations. Why are we talking now if we haven't even talked to the guy? We've learned and at least since we have been kind of we submitted phase one first and we had the same discussion about a a fire access around the building as well. And at least at the time, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think you mentioned you would take a truck off the in in the actuality take a truck off the 94. Go to the other side thing previous. So if this exit ramp, here's the here's where they coming in. So this is all blocked off and we're talking about here versus here. A fourth one is actually coming in right from here. So this is the entrance ramp heading south. So chief, you're cutting it off saying you're closed for a minute. Now you guys see the Dayton taking over this part and there's just nothing but a fence and boom, you're right into the heart of this parking lot that can come down and come in. So I wouldn't rule out I don't know all the different rules but at minimum that's at least another access point. I guess in an emergency mayor members of council and my guess is that's going to probably be a mindot issue. I'm guessing because I don't get to say yay or nay on that that that you know potentially could work. Councilman Henderson. Yeah. I was in in addition to that, and again, I'm not trying to beat you up, so please don't take it that way. Um, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Chief, but the amount of time that it would take to block to block that road to or the offramp to be able to get there. Like, we don't have enough personnel on a truck to and enough trucks. Again, worst case scenario, but to stop that, to block the road, to have it be safe for the truck to access that point. I have a feeling if if that intersection was blocked, something big and bad happened. Oh, 100%. But if something big and bad happened, you need traffic control up there. You need people getting in. So, I'm just saying like we may not have enough on staff as a volunteer fire department to make that actually possible. So, again, I'm not trying to beat you up, but get it. I don't from the stand from my standpoint and my lens I really feel like that and again I know it's substantial but the addition of that paved roadway to me makes the most sense. Mayor, members of council, I I'm not going to speak on behalf of mindot but we have hard enough time with Henipin County try to get access. Yeah, they've already they've already denied it. Yeah. Okay. This is a hard no. Yeah, this is hard. Yeah, we've already Yeah, we've already asked. I mean, again, doesn't mean we can't do it. If there's If there's people dying, we're going to do it for public safety. Yeah, 100%. Yeah, you're going to go through. We're going to do what we need to do. I'm just We may not have enough to block that anyway. We needed a truck to block. And Mindad has already said no. So, we did ask that question. So this this thing that we're talking about right now at minimum would need to or would want to occur at such point as there's 200 units that have a C of people moving in once it's going above that. Is that the trigger on this? That would the building code that's when it would kick in and assuming we have sprinklers which we are planning for. So yes questions about that. Okay. So let me ask the following. So we're we're only right now this season there's only so much time and so much product that we can get out given that it's you know almost the 1 of May. So um there's no part of me that thinks by the end of this calendar year we're going to have any units actually see a vote right we'll have the road started. So I guess the point with with this and Zach or John does this how is this relevant for today? Um if if the council does some so the first edition requires you to build that that access point. If if the today's decision is something different then the question is which one are we following? Is it the agreement on the first edition or the agreement on the second? Well the first agreement is already done. Right. Right. So that's what you're probably right. Yeah. But we're not building the first edition first. We're going to be building the second edition before the first. We just need consistency. I see. you know, if the the direction is build the access at 200, you know, once you hit 200 units, that's fine. Um, but we just need that direction from once you build 200 units once or occupied occupied once 200 people are living there and need help. 200 units. Well, if that's the requirement, that's that's code. That's code. Correct. Yeah, it's Yeah, they break it down by units. So, To my eyes, the one going east and west to the south makes more sense. For one, it it semi exists today. But also, if we're talking about, you know, your bad scenario, you got a tanker truck on fire up on the Dayton Parkway or on the ramp or something that's blocking that whole area. I mean, it's like you mentioned earlier when you build a when you build a room and it requires two exits, you you can't put them next to each other. Yeah. Right. Right. They there needs to be an alternate way to get to the property. And and that's why I think this one to the south works better in my head anyway that if that's all messed up on the north, then you're not coming through that way. And even the one that you know intersects that comes across further up there still intersects that entrance road pretty close to where we think that the the problem is going to be. So far away putting that farther away in my mind makes sense as as a better access. Now to the chief's point, you you know, you don't want a pile of fire trucks all stuck on that farm road going in either. So there has to be some assurance that the thing is usable. But I I to me that's still the preferred route. Yeah. Can we ask that it be upgraded to not just be or we're going to make the landowner angry, right? If we have to get request, but we can't make No, but we have to require the easement anyway. We're going to require the easement. And I mean, if you got to put 50 grand into a to upgrade a road on this size of project, it's not that much money really, right? Yeah. I mean, you might have to put Is he getting his own say what upgrade? He might have class or whatever. So, we're just talking about class five. It's already class. It's already class 5. Oh, it is. Oh, it's already class 5, but there's some low spots that you might have to fill in. Maybe there's some rock or something. From the chief's perspective, it would be have to be paved because if it's class 5 and it's muddy in the springtime, whatever. I don't know how I don't know how often that gets driven. I have no idea. Yeah. Put six inches of rock down. Yeah. I mean, given that we have this time of 200 at minimum, I in a matter of a few weeks, double click, figure it out, come back, have the back, make the decision, done. It's you know it's not well in the Elm Creek Park that that south going straight south could also well that the only thing I would say is we're we have fortunately got I think some good news with Henipin uh with three rivers for the trail on our section I believe that they have that south section that John has highlighted going vertically um but I'm not exactly sure and I don't know the exact timeline but I I would like to say that we We intend to put our part of that trail in when we doing the road. Yeah. And I'm thinking out loud, you know, kind of as a fingers crossed. Their road what we are doing to spec is 20 foot wide and it's uh 16 I forget the how it is. I think it's 10 paved and then three jog, but it's all you know kosher up stuff. So that may become a viable thing. So between now and when we do final plaid or I mean it won't Yeah. I mean and that's a while out but long before we even get to 200 I can come back here. I got to come back for a final plat. Yeah, if we want, we'll just put it on our and we'll get bring you facts on it and then we decide how very, you know, so so if I can provide some interpretation if the council is supportive of requiring an secondary emergency access point at the time there's 200 or more o units occupied and whether it's, you know, these three scenario locations or something else, it we'll we'll figure that out as long as there's one. Yeah. Okay. Gee, what about a fancy helicopter? You're gonna buy us one? You want to buy us a helicopter? Give them any idea. Knock yourself out. Can I have a ride? Couple other questions. Oh, okay. Is it on the road specifically, Council Mean, or is it other things? No, it's other things. Okay, I think we're done with the road. Good. Okay, we'll go. Let's go through the slides. I uh it'd be best, I think, for the the developer or the architect to probably explain the project. Let me start. Um Michael, can you just try to keep in front of the microphone as best you can? No. Over No, no, no. There's no one over there. Just try to keep in front of the microphone over there. There you go. There you go. Now you have Adam. Okay. Okay. Um, you can go up and talk about this. We refer to this as part of the the the neighborhood. I have to just get up and move. I'm sorry. Um, so up in here is there are basically three sections of this portion of the neighborhood. What is nice about it is it um works in sequence with the first project we did back in March up top which is a fourstory product elevator service and really kind of a traditional apartment uh underground parking and a unit mix that includes studios, onebedrooms, onebedroom uh den, twobedroom and three. When we come over to here, we now move into really a completely different type unit product type. Um, and we've really designed this quite nicely. If you have, do you have any of the fun the nice looking pictures? So, what I'll suggest is that Yeah, here we are. So, this is our fourstory product, typical underground parking, etc. And we've kind of gone through that. So, now we have three project areas. The town homes, this is 40 units. Here we have what's called the cove which is the coming down and in and we have 1 2 3 4 and five and these are only twotory units. Yeah. Uh in the town houses we have two stories down here and then as you can see threetory three story back to two. So it's giving the neighborhood not this monolithic uh in it really does have kind of independent and so if you rent at the cove your units look it's everything is kind of got its own identity. Um, and then we've paid a whole lot of attention as we've had, you know, a bit of time getting to here to really design the physical conditions where we have um in in no three bedrooms here. Yeah, three bedrooms are in the town houses. These are um largely onebedrooms and two bedrooms with bigger unit sizes. And then these are really cool uh three-story apartments. We call them three-story walkups. And the little bit that we've made some modifications is to uh reduce the unit count and increase the parking. And that's really the small amount of changes that they have in this new. But so bottom line is we have what's back here called the flats. This is 176 units. On your papers, it shows 181, right? 181. Uh something it shows 182. Okay. So we've reduced in the new final plans when we coming into final. We dropped the unit count about six to uh maximize more uh parking so that our uh product that we're offering here has a unprecedented ratio in parking by comparison to all of the com you know kind of competing projects anywhere near um all of none of these are elevator service twotory threetory this is 51 units this is the 176 and there are a total of 40 over here um we've done a whole lot of neat stuff in terms of the design of the units the functionality, the parking, the access. It's a very very livable product and it's also um on an average if we take kind of average rents. These are all going to be a little bit less than this, right? So, this would be the most expensive and and as you come down, it becomes materially important when rent is $20 and some dollars difference. They're two different customers. So, they're non-competing. It's like having a Chevrolet, a Buick in the old days, and a Cadillac, right? They're each very well done, but they have a little bit different uh deal. And so alto together uh when we're done, our final unit count is uh 267 on this. yours shows something in the 270 whatever. Um so three projects uh on the timing um with this plat approval and the way that the current market and you guys all heard the sort of the challenges in multif family development particularly with large projects like this where I have to build this whole 110 units finish it before I can get one certificate of occupancy and even when I do you bring on 120 units at one time you only have 50 or 60 people to move in and now you're paying occup you know paying debt service on 60 units at a,000 2,000 a piece a month and there's nothing here we've come up with a really in sync between the demand matrix which is tied to your market studies that we've supplied you in the past to say what's the demand we're taking a small part of that demand and putting it towards this and then tying them together so the leasing if you will the demand side of it is very well tied with our construction uction. So as the buildings are built by example, what we expect to happen first is this project called the flats will be the first up out of the ground. It'll start in September, October would be ideal. Or better said, what we're really looking for is delivering units where building one is about 12 months from right now. End of April, boom, we have our grand opening. The first building comes on, 25 units here. 25 25 25. So these four will run. This delivers in 6 months. This delivers after 7 8 and 9 and then throw in another month for what stretching that. But that's the first project that we see coming out of the ground and that will be um sufficient as well uh in terms of the total unit count. 76 is tied with uh Zach and I on our original development agreement in order for you guys to uh trigger and say let's go with the roadway up there coming off of Dayton Parkway. We had a minimum unit count of 150 in order to make that occur. Right? So this is the first project you can expect it's going to come out of the ground or start moving this year. Um and then frankly I would while I'm on that I should also just say that we've had a very very nice response from the marketplace in terms of letting them know there's project coming on and so in addition to working on this we've had you know quite a bit of uh from interest in in the market on uh on the town homes as well. So it there's a good possibility that we may have two projects that will come vertical and we'll you know pull permits for uh before the end of this year. But all told uh we call this the cove. These are called the flats and these are the parkway town homes. So all three of those. This by the way is a community center. Uh it will be built subsequent to probably as we bring this and get this finished. We'll we'll pull the permits. you kind of need certain units just like you guys need so many units to get the road underway. I need enough units to go to pull the trigger on that. But um but really some great designs. Uh a couple small things that you should know that are also incorporated in the new plans or will be by the time we get to the print. Uh so we reduced a the unit count by about six. We added uh he'll tell you what the garage count is, but we came in here uh just a few weeks ago, had a really good planning meeting. And one of the I think the good things that came out of that meeting um is when we think of these all of these parking stalls, as you would look at most projects, they just these guys draw them up as 20 ft deep, you know, and then you go outside here today and you look at that really cool Ford pickup truck and that's not working. So, we've agreed, not only agreed, but I like the idea. and Ben figured out how to make it all work where there's uh some room and so we've widened those to 22 feet deep. So your plans show a little bit too much units, less parking and uh and shorter uh how do you say parking spaces? All of those have been improved in our opinion with reducing density, increase the functionality with more parking. And lastly, taking the parking, making them deeper, and a small, you won't probably notice as a blurp, but in these buildings here, um, we've added units on the main floor where they used to be garages. And so what's good about that when you come down that pike, we've added more green space because you don't have just pavement running up to your, you know, front of your apartment, there's grass and a tree and so forth. So the visual when you come down is now even interrupted even more so with eliminating that kind of long view of, you know, nothing but cars. We got nice blocks of grass that have been added as well. So, I think all of those when you get them, you'll see each of them are, you know, better than what you have here. And these aren't really bad, but I think we've massaged it uh and got those improvements. So, that is the plat that we're seeking your uh blessing for this evening. And that's what I got. I Oh, you want to go first? I have questions. I was I just it was just we just talked about it. No, cuz my biggest I I would say probably my only complaint was that lack of green space between some of the complexes where I'm like oh like some of them would be be beautiful views, right? But some of the central ones I'm like that would be awful. Yes. Right. So my my feedback was going to be could we you have more than enough parking. Could you eliminate some of those parking spaces for green spaces? And it sounds like you found a way to do something like that. Yes. And I I would say the parking is a little specific because with especially on the well really all of the cove and the flat if you have a garage stall, the parking stall that's in front of that garage stall has to be for that unit. Yeah. So there's probably a little bit more parking than you you would see if those parking stalls were associated with the garage necessarily. So and it's probably way too late in this process. So I before I moved to Dayton, I lived in some gorgeous town homes in Golden Valley that I loved um and was actually very sad to leave except for you know my horse couldn't live there with me. So so here I am. Um but we had our garages you there was one entrance and the garages were it was under but there was only one entrance so we could have more green space because we didn't need all of those spaces like we didn't each need our individual. So, I wasn't sure if not for all of them, maybe some of those ones in the center if there was some way and maybe not even all one, but like to share, but it sounds like you've already found some solutions to get some green space in there. We do. And it's it's not, you know, it won't be perfect, but it's probably along that stretch, uh, four different lengths of grass that are maybe 30t long by 20t deep. Um, where we had nothing before. And just for a little bit of scale. So here maybe I'll So in reducing the unit counts. Um so this here's a 25 unit building. So now they're all 25 units. So just from a scale perspective, you can imagine this footprint here being stamped here and here. There's just a little less building. And then here on the corners here, here, and here is where we have units on the first level. So, we'll have green space, more green space kind of along that area. Um, and then one other quick, and this is a really important update, parking. So, we got everything in, and we do want to make sure that we're Michael's not calling us in 5 years saying, "Hey, we have people parking on the grass." So this area here with what we want to do for the clubhouse space is really underserved for parking. So we will and have increased the parking in between these two. All the town homes slid south maybe 50 ft. So this town home here is now sitting a little bit lower and so this parking lot increased to closer to 50 stalls. And we are hoping to without increasing any width of the right of way. Yeah. Just do a little curb cut additional and put parallel parking kind of between this main apartment here and the clubhouse. Picking up 20 spaces like no joke. Yeah. Just for, you know, a big event at the clubhouse. Um I think would be nice. And then just overflow parking. So, the the updates are six less units, more guest parking, and uh the flats has a little bit more garage parking, but there's a lot a lot more parking up at the clubhouse and right across that whole road. This curb cut, I mean, it's already there. We didn't have to expand the rightway or anything. Um, and it'll give us 20 20 additional units. And most of us if you're going to friends and so forth at these town houses there's when you live there it's wonderful right you got four parking stalls you're in you're out but you have five people over you know carrying food it's not easy right so this what we've created on that road it can very much service the uh the clubhouse but also overflow for the town home um you're going to hate me that's okay I'm okay Um, fire suppression. I'm assuming we have that in this that connected you like Yes, correct. So, every building will have a fire suppression system. There's two different kinds. One's a 13R that we will look to use for some of the smaller buildings, but they both qualify for that. And then with that 200 unit provision, all of the buildings do need to be fire sprinklered. We might try to get the clubhouse out of that otherwise but here we just assume fire sprinkler in the clubhouse. So to answer that fire sprinklers will be in all the buildings. Okay. Um and then this is another question for Gary. So sorry you're getting all my questions tonight. What that building in? So the the ones Yeah. The threetory over the one that doesn't. Nope. Other way. Keep going. Top right. No, actually the the ones that are side were diagonal. Yeah. Keep going. Nope. Not the next one. The the next one after that. Nope. Keep going. Yes, that one. Sorry. That's a threetory building. Okay. So, my question for Gary is, are we at all concerned about how we would get a ladder truck in there and out of there with how tight all of that is? Yeah. or even a fire truck. Councilman Henderson, members of the council, we're always concerned about that. Michael and I and we've been talking even back to the first segment of the the apartment complex of Yeah. how do we get a ladder to because when he's start talking about um phase one that he's not going to do right now, but we have a the backside of that I believe is going to end up being five stories that we don't necessarily have access to on phase one for the apartments if I recall. Um, so having those discussions of making sure that we have at least availability to get ladder to the front of the structure. Long as we can get one side of it, it makes a lot easier. Um, can we do something here too, Ben with the for him with uh on the just upper left there between the two properties? Yeah. Yeah, we did. Yeah, with working with the chief. One of the things we did to get spinning our this is this is basically for chief to come through as opposed to uh people because this is the cove and this is the flats. But yeah, we connected all of this so that and he can you can see right here too. Same kind of thing. So he's got plenty of ways to get to the face of this building both from here and through here and he can come from this project down into this one just right through here. Michael, do you Sorry, Councilman Henderson. Clarifying question. What are the width the widths of those connections? Yeah. Um I haven't necessarily seen all of this. I mean, I know because we've been focusing on phase one, 24. Uh so those are all 24 and I know for the aerial apparatus provision, if you go up to 26, um that's helpful. Um we committed to two extra feet on the driveways. Okay. So, yes. What I'm thinking is if you have people parked there, can we make that turn in front of that threetory building? Yes. So, I'll just add you I don't have a slide of this. In the packet, there is a a plan sheet that has a turning radius for fire trucks. You know what page that is? I don't know what number is. I It's page C2.01, 01, but it's um the first map after the colored pictures. Okay. It just it looked really tight, so that's why I'm asking. And again, I'm not saying it can't be done. Again, it just something that I thought cuz it's a three-story building there and being able to get like specifically a ladder in there and having enough room to anchor and then Yep. The the one thing that we've done in trying to anticipate some of these types of neighborhoods, regardless if it's single family or like this, is what we've done with the new aerial device that is on order that has rear steer which gives us the ability to make tighter turns and everything. And so does our new engine tender has the same capability. Um, so that does provide us some more capabilities to get into some of these tighter spots because new developments love culde-sacs. So that's we've kind of tried to plan for. Yeah. Okay. And again, I'm not trying to come down hard on you. I'm just making sure that we can protect the people that are going to be living in the I have something else not related to this. Should I ask that now or should I hold my questions? Ask I mean it's related to this but not this specific thing. ask. Um I understand that there's a clubhouse and I think that's wonderful. Like yeah, there's no park. Oh, you're kidding. Welcome to the multi-purpose. This whole area going to the number nine or the site. This whole this whole thing. But that yes, it's a park. It's a flood plane and it's open space. But it's but okay. But already today, that guy today, what are you growing? Corn every year doing just fine. There's a We Ben and I just spent an hour on this today. So, imagine you're in the winter, you've got things like sledding for the kids, you got cross country skiing, you got pond blowing around, uh, how do you say for hockey and, you know, skating around. Um, during the summer, it's, you know, it's this is 97 ft off the ground. Uh, and 913 is kind of the plank. So it does it right it's a little bit low but you know the truth is the guy they've been utilizing this property for years and years right um so in terms of this and then we've got you know we're doing like the trail that you know walking trails around this whole big pond area um etc etc so and I think one I don't know what park features you would be thinking of but like I assure you I'm interested in having year round activities happening on that part property that are ex, you know, outdoor in addition to the uh the clubhouse. And I think one one really great feature of the project is the connection with the trail um and all the effort to get the Three Rivers Trail through the development uh going right by. And this is a great picture cuz yeah, it is a good point. It's very very usable in the winter, in the summer, maybe a little buggy, but we certainly are planning to in, you know, make improvements where we can given the lowlying land. Certainly trails that people can run on, uh, through the trees and the area, a low cost, uh, effective use of it. So, yes, absolutely. through the winter. Uh great programmatically. The trail that runs through it connecting this with uh you know kind of a key piece I think is a a massive um yeah sort of park amenity that this includes and I think that's great. I think the connection to the trails is wonderful. Like those are really great things and I'm going to say this with the most respect possible. So please don't take it the wrong way. But my 5-year-old doesn't care that there's a trail. You don't care about a park. You want a playground. She wants to swing. Yeah. Well, we have that all. Yes. But I'm there's Cuz I don't give a crap about a playground. I want a park. Right. But you want a 5-year-old. I know that. But I'm saying as far as language, like when we're on the same page on park. You want a playground. You want swings and slides. It doesn't have to be fancy and beautiful. But you want swings and slides. We do. We did get one added. It was a a late edition, but uh right over here. Yeah. It's showing up in the blue over here. Is that what that circle? It is. Yeah. It's a bad representation. swings and flies. Yeah. And again, like I I like both, right? Like I love a good trail. I I love all of that and that's really wonderful. But yeah, you need stuff. I need something to get the wiggles out. Yeah, I got I got youngish kids. And so like and again, it doesn't have to be beautiful. It doesn't have to be huge, but just something for you know, mom to go out and say, "Hey, I mean, and you can do that in the field understandably so, but the nearest park is Sundance in Dayton. Yeah, that's a long way right there on the slide. Yeah, and we can look, right? I guess I'm just justifying the fact that I think that because this is a family unit that that wasn't labeled as a park and I didn't know that from it was a very late addition, too. So, it's a it's a fair comment and I think it is a good addition to um it's actually a fair it's a little bit better in the updated version than what it looks like there, but it's a fairly big area that we'll um program for that. We try to we had a discussion about where it was located with the clubhouse with city staff and we kind of went back and forth and felt centrally located kind of where it's shown was a nice spot for it. So I look forward to seeing it. Yep. Thank you. And there's a Yeah, you're right. There is you're all good. We're dating. We play outside. So that means a lot of things for a lot of different people and it could mean swings and slides or open field. I'm a 53 year old 55 year old kid and I got kids and I love going to the I remember the fingernails. So Oh yeah. Again, it doesn't have to be beautiful, doesn't have to be huge. It just something correct would be nice. It's a want, not a need. Yeah, true. True. If I could just add to it. So the blue circle is part of phase one and phase one was approved without the playground. So this is an addition that the developer is throwing in there. Doesn't have to, but that's what he's doing. Um the whole project line is is going to have a thousand people living there and and our comprehensive plan doesn't show a park in southwest 8. Um and so there's just no plan for it. So in the staff report I'm kind of pointing that out that this is a misstep on our part. Um it's something that we need a plan for. I guess you know with this project we're not collecting park dedication fees for fa phase two phase one or phase two. Phase two. Um, so I guess my point is is this is a problem that we don't have to solve today, but we should solve it at phase three. Just pointing out the observations. Yeah, it's all okay. It's on It's on page 193 of the packet. It does say playground. It's between 8B, 8C, and 7. Listen, they were 50 pages for that. I had to break this up all weekend. Little by little through the 228 page document. Where does it say? We didn't see a park today. 350 or 400. Oh, there was 400 to 193. Anybody else have any? Um, it wasn't. I got one. Well, whenever. Go ahead. Uh, we're not there yet. We haven't talked about any of the setbacks or anything. No. Um, 20 foot setback required and we're going to use three. Uh, show me where that is. Request. Um, so the three feet, and Ben, you might need to help me out on this. Three-foot setback is for the clubhouse. Um, and then five feet, I believe. I think it's for this building, more than these two. But so the buildings are 5t, less than 20 buildings are 5T road from the from the road. Okay. So yeah, say that if we are pushing it up, it's where the right away is. So it'll be up against the road which has 20 ft of green space between the actual road. So So Ben, do you can you guess how what's the distance between these two buildings? Um it's at least 20 ft. My guess is it's probably 21 feet. Yeah, cuz otherwise we're really limited on openings. Um less than two and a half parking stalls. So yeah, I think 20 20. Well, the separation between building to building is more on building code and I think what we're looking at is from property line. Okay. Right. At least on those ones you're talking that you have that are tighter. It's definitely just the running road. Never that. We never put building up close. We got to keep you we got to keep you engaged, Scott. So, got those small numbers in there. Yeah. Make sure your head pops up once in a while. Sarah, did you have more? I was the setback. It was the same question. So, any more here? Okay. I do have one just random question. Is the clubhouse going to be open to the public or only for residents? Probably both. Okay. I ideally we we haven't really finished what we're doing on what we call area 4 up there and how to integrate and then you know a combination of the current market and a lot of these renters. I hate to say that uh you know and I don't they don't know how to do oil changes on their car and they don't do as much cooking as like you know years ago. So the idea about starting to do you know food and beverage through here and and so forth and really making it kind of a quasi almost like a country club would operate right you come in you have a food and beverage program and a lot of activities and community schedule you know stuff with the different age groups and so forth. So ideally we want to have a model that can welcome you know either just general public or by way of a membership increase revenue that gives us an opportunity to broaden our services for the people that live in the neighborhood because you I at one point you said community center and at one point you said clubhouse. That's why I was wanted to clarify that. Okay. Yeah. I like but I was just curious. Yep. Little bit in the and it looks like a beautiful building. You got a big one. Oh yeah. Community center. That big barn. That's a private. That's a membership. So, or if you're a chicken, they're allowed in. They have free range of it. All right, we're done with questions. I We'll take a motion, a second. I'll take I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Okay, got a motion in a second. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. Motion carries. Marty, I said it was going to be an hour. It looks like two. All right. Yahoo. Yahoo. Hey guys, can I before I go anyway, can I get one picture with you guys? Please. Please. I won't share it. I'm not only if you got green fingers. No, I won't put it on. This is like a real memory in my whole life. I have green fingers. It's fine. Yeah. No, I won't do that. I'm comfortable with that. Guess we're going to take a one minute uh selfie recess. I won't even call it a Yeah. selfie over here. Right here is good. Yeah. Yeah. Squeeze it in. Come on in. I'm done. You don't have any pretty fingernails this time, do you? Ybody. Thank you guys so much. Appreciate it. We have all those little items done. You put a pool table in there. I'll come up and make some money. Call your mom. Yeah. Sounds good. Okay. This is Whitney, my daughter, by the way. She's getting in the family business. So, she excited. And Whitney gets anything she wants. That's my guess. Yeah. Mom, your finger is in the way. No, it's not. Leave me alone. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Often a guy my height has to That's good. Okay, guys. Be well. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Item O bids. No, not even three minutes. Yeah. Three minutes, please. I'll make approve the bid and we're done. As I said, okay, I'm standing for Jason here tonight. So, I'm hoping his uh slideshow is going to do the talking for me. He actually made a motion. So, wait for a second. Yeah. So, just want to make sure clarify we have a resolution with this 28 2025 20. Yep. That's the 2825 one. Yep. So, I'll second it. Dave, any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. All right. All those opposed say no. Happy day. That's the best. That's the best presentation ever. You get more of you get more of them like that. We wouldn't be here all night. Yeah. Okay. Uh item P. Yep. Mayor members of councel here to resolution 25 to reconvey the property to state of Minnesota which was all right in process. Um approved. Oh wave. Need a second? Yeah, a second. Scott, um, any discussion? Some com comments on this, aren't we? Or at some point we got to talk about Are we Yeah, this is just the first step in the process. So, you will have something come back. Okay. Um, as far as funding, how the funding happens, right? We have to do this first first step in the process. Get it all the way through the county, get it to the get it there, get all the paperwork filled out. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I. All right. All those opposed say no. Motion carries 5 to zero. And if there are no objections, we'll be ajourned. We're journed. Cool. We're good.