One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. So, I think um what we're going to do tonight is we had a couple of items from the work session that bled over that I think we're going to do first and then we will hop into the regular meeting agenda for the city council meeting. So, with that, before we get to that, can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please? >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Motion by council member Pchman. Second. Second by council member uh Pasco. It is going to be a long night. Pasco. Uh any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion passes. All right. Um, just to bring us up to date, we are on the certified levy project up. >> Mary Johnson. >> Yeah. >> Would you would you mind just We have a uh David Breck with the school district is here and he's got they have a school board meeting tonight. So, we wanted to get their item in and then him back off to the Okay. >> Schoolboard meeting. >> Yes, let's do that. Um, let's talk about that. So, okay, forget what I said. We'll shoehorn 8.1 in before we go back to the work session. Does that sound good? Okay. Um, as David's looking at his watch. Okay. Um, okay. So, let's do item eight. Item 8.1, the Commerce Drive Extension Project for Eastern Carver County Schools. Mr. Anderson, welcome. Thanks for bearing with us tonight as this is going to be a little fly by our seat of our pants. >> Thanks, Mayor and Council. It's an interesting vantage point here, but be used to it. Um, so we're here uh for this item, we're we're talking about the Commerce Drive improvement agreement and the um deal that staff has been working uh for months on with uh the school district ISD 112 as well as the Wikenhousers who own the northern the property that's to the north of the uh 20 acres that the school district just purchased. So, that project has been um reviewed and there's some preliminary um work that's gone into it from Bolton and Mink to kind of create a a concept plan that is attached to the agreement and it's for extension of Commerce Drive north. The street's going to go north. It's going to bring sewer and water to that school district parcel and the parcel to the north of it. uh as well as storm sewer improvements to um manage runoff from that new um impervious surface which which will be the street. And um like I said, staff's been talking to the school district for for quite a while about this project and there's an agreement that we've presented tonight for the council that does a few things. Um most importantly, it amounts to a formal petition for the project from the school district. And uh what that means is that the city will be able to construct it under Minnesota statutes chapter 429 which allows us to specially assess their property for it. Um so that is is baked into the agreement. It also talks about many terms and conditions related to the acquisition of easements. We will need to get some easements both from the uh school district uh over a portion of their 20 acres as well as the wicked housesers who are also a party to the agreement. Um, and there's a small offsite easement necessary um on the Lake View Industries parcel, which is just uh just west of this, which we're also going to have to get um as part of the project to to support the project. Um, very high level. Uh the way that we intend on this this whole deal working out is Bolton and Mink is going to design and uh bid the project and we're collecting a escrow from the school district um that will have to be maintained at $50,000 to support that ongoing design work throughout um sort of the near term I would say to get us through bidding. Um they will also uh be obligated to pay the city the lump sum after we bid the project and that's anticipated for next spring um just because it's going to take some time for design easement acquisition. Um there's other things that need to happen with permitting and and some wetland work that needs to be done. And so we're teeing this up for um a spring of 2027 uh bid which um will then offer everybody what what the total cost is going to be. It's a $2.3 million estimate uh right now for for total project cost. Might come in lower, could come in higher. Uh but the bottom line is this agreement's been drafted in a way that um the city has no risk. The school district has agreed to pay for the entirety of the project. if bids come in higher than anticipated, the school district will have an opportunity to agree to a a larger assessment. But if they don't want to do that, then we would be able to walk and there'd be no project. Hopefully that doesn't happen. But I just want to make sure the council understands that um the city has a lot of protection in this agreement from all ridges and and those kinds of things. Um so again, there's a lengthy agreement in your packet that that's a pretty high level quick summary of where we're at and how we got here. Um the schedule in terms of what we would anticipate from a design, bidding, construction uh standpoint is in the memo that is in your packet. Uh again, we'd be looking at bidding next spring, construction next summer into the fall, substantial completion by um I think October, Novemberish. Um and then final completion would occur after the freeze thaw cycle. So it would be sometime in 2028. Um, as we know, Mr. uh Breck from the school district is here. Um, the agreement has already been agreed to in principle and signed by both ISD12 as well as the Wikenhousers. Um, I'm here to take any questions if there are questions, but I think this is a good result. I think it gives the city a lot of control over what's going to be a public improvement project. um it's going to make this property developable for the school district and it's going to benefit that whole area and make um I think a lot of improvements that um that we'll see some growth in that area in the in the near future. So >> questions >> I like it when the attorney says there's no risk. >> I was just going to ask you like okay risk what is the risk? Is there risk? Is there anything risk? Yeah. I what what are like the risks of this? I know that you've done your due diligence and I completely trust in what you're telling us. I just feel like if it's too good to be true, why is there no risk for us? >> Well, this is a this is a project that many times um you'd see a developer building these improvements to accommodate what they want to construct on their site. In this case, the school district has vision for a transportation facility at this site. Um which I know that has been mentioned before. Um but they're not a developer. Um, and so they've been meeting with the city to talk about what are our other options here. Can we can we are we willing to work with them and and I know staff's been open to it. Um, and u there really is no financial risk at all. Again, typically what we would see is if a developer wanted to put something on that site, they would come and say, "Okay, here's how we're going to extend commerce." our engineers would review it and, you know, do all that typical um work on the front end to make sure their plans are adequate, but the developer would be paying for 100% of it. That's what we would expect. Um, and in this case, it's just a little different because we're working with another public entity, not a traditional developer. Um, and so, uh, again, I mean, from a financial standpoint, there there really is is no risk that we're going to have to have skin in the game, um, other than sweat equity, but that's really normal with any development with the all the land use applications and the agreements and the inspections that our engineers do. So, um, it's just going to be a it's going to look from everyone's, uh, perspective and for all intents and purposes like any other public project. It's just we're not paying for it. It's the school district that will pay for it. >> Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. >> No questions. I would entertain a motion. >> So, I'll make a motion to approve and authorize execution of site improvement petition waiver and reimbursement agreement for Commerce Drive Street and utility extension project. >> Motion by council member Persman. >> I'll second. >> Second by council member Conrad and we'll set. Uh any further discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I >> I oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. Thank you. >> Um okay. Now we are going to go back to the certified levy project update topic from our work session. Um for those of you who are new um or are watching from home, I generally refer to these as our kitchen table conversations where we're talking about issues for sometimes the first time um and they're just a little bit more casual. So with that, Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Hubner, >> sounds good. >> Thank you. Um, >> looks like the TV's turning on. >> Yeah. >> About 20 seconds. >> There we go. In the in the meantime, um, I think one of the the things that we had already talked about was obviously the uh $3 million gap in the in the funding. And and I will say that um one of the things that you know Carver is really important to us and and we know that we let you down with that initial estimate and what we have today and we want to make sure that we give you the best information that we can and and perhaps we could have earlier in the process done a detailed analysis on on the quantities and um we'll make sure that in the future that none of that that happens again. Um that certainly is is very important to us and um we you know this project has changed a number of times throughout and and we probably should have taken those changes to heart and really gotten into some of the details to update some of those numbers and we we do apologize for that. Um, but where we stand today is is to try to fill that $3 million gap. And I think we spend a long time having conversations about some of the design considerations and the work session, also some of the future funding opportunities that might be there. But I think the the thing that we have to remember is right now we do have a significant amount of money. Um, and we're recommending that we we bid this project uh in its entirety uh this summer. So we bid all three phases. Um we anticipate having enough money to bid phase one and two and phase one is Spring Creek from um all the way down to the pedestrian way. Phase two is from Spring Creek to the east um and try to get that open to coincide with the Mariam Trail uh grand opening. Uh and then see what the real cost actually is for that phase two and see where we land uh to the third segment which is Spring Creek to the west. And that segment contains um the Asht Street lift station which is in serious need of of reconstruction uh and some adjustments to the levy uh and grading improvements and height increases. Um that would give us an opportunity to look at where the real money is at and also allow us to construct twothirds of the levy. Uh, and it would also begin allow us to begin the Clomar application and get the properties that are east of the levy, all of the businesses and so forth begin to get them uh recognized for their Clomar and get them out of the flood plane and stop paying insurance and having any restrictions on those properties. So, it gets us uh down the roadways and then that gives us some options to look at other the the other funding sources that we looked at and continue to purs pursue some outside funding that might be available. As far as schedule, um right now we're finishing up easement acquisition. Uh fall we're looking at a bid date and award and beginning construction uh late fall uh early winter this year uh on Spring Creek and the western segment and then continue to work on the the certification. That process can linger a long time. That takes a while for the federal government to get through that. It's usually a lot of back and forth on on varying things. We've already begun that process with what we call a a Clomar, a conditional letter of map revision. So, they're going to look at the plans we currently have drafted, give us some direction on areas that we might want to make some modifications to make it easier to go through the final process. So, we're currently in that process with FEMA and we're currently in the application process and permits with DNR and the other entities as well. With that, I'll entertain some questions. Who's got questions? >> I have a timing question. Go ahead. >> Um, we talked about in the work session that there's going to be some need to go back through some per provisional permitting um because of the changes that we're talking about possibly to this shipo things like that. Um, how much do we anticipate that delaying groundbreaking for this project? Well, I think we talked about two concepts and um I don't know that there was there's a decision on it. I think what we would recommend is we continue to bid through concept A and see what the real cost of the project is and come back and and have that conversation. If we want to take out some of those amenities that are included in concept A and go with concept B, um, one of the things we have to remember is that we wouldn't be able to get those funded in the future from outside sources um, to bring them back in. Whereas now they're currently eligible for funding um, because they're in our current permits. And >> say that one more time. I'm sorry. Which what part can't we bring back? If you you can't bring back the amenities in the future under, you know, we can't build concept A on grant dollars in the future. They'd have to be all city dollars. >> Okay. >> And when we got these grants, federal, state, more local, we just got them basically in mostly layman's terms for a levy in the city of Carver, not something that looked more like concept A or concept B. That's immaterial to the grant requirements. >> Immaterial to the grant requirements. The question is how will Shipo view the change? Right. Shipo has essentially permitted concept A. They have not seen concept B. >> And when you say that we are 60% through design, we are designing concept A at this point. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, if we were to change course and to go to concept B, at what point do we need to say, "Hey, Todd, we're pulling back." >> Um, fairly soon, I would think. Yeah. >> Okay. I have a question then. Back to um Can you go back to the bid phasing recommendation? Okay. So, if Yep. So, if we So, green plus yellow phase one. Do we have enough money to complete that section? Can we and do we um with the grant money and all the funding that we've received so far, can we do the you know our concept A on phase one and then we'll have to figure out phase two later? I mean is there enough money or does the project and what we've applied for have to cover all of the phases or can we just shove it all towards one and two? the money we received to date we can use to build phase one phase um concept or phase one here that we have the green and the yellow um there is always been a conversation about phasing this project based on the availability of financing that's one of the conversations that we had with um the DNR they wanted to know if it was phased our legislators wanted to know if they could be phased and we've always indicated the project can be phased and so this phasing would not be out of any of the discussions we've had with them over over the years. >> Okay. So, if we're looking at phase one and then obviously there's phase two which it says we can bid as an alternate. If we have phase one, do we have enough money to do concept A >> in with phase one? Right now, >> we believe we have enough money currently to do phase one. >> Okay. In the concept A the Okay. So then phase two, let's say we were to put all of the money that we have towards phase one and then later on we obviously need to get to phase two. Can we reapply for different grants or are we kind of out of luck at that point? >> No, we can continue. Um, as I I mentioned previously, the DNR flood mitigation program, we're still eligible for that to finish phase three. It's a matter of timing um in trying to figure out when the legislature will act and renew new funding and bring new funding to the flood mitigation grant program. It based on past history once those programs are open they typically continue to fund them till the projects are completed. >> Okay. If phase one, let's say we put phase one forward, we use all the money that we have and we get concept A, does that is that complete enough to remove some of the flood insurance and some of those restrictions on those homes that are in those area or does it have to go through all the way through phase two so that the the masses I mean in totality can get that? >> No, we can we can begin the the the flood insurance relief to everyone that lives on the east side of the levy. We'll have a certified levy that covers the east side of downtown Carver. >> Okay. >> The historic Carver. >> Okay. So, they could still see those savings. >> Yes. >> Without completing phase two. >> And I would recommend that when we finish that we continue we start that process and get it moving. >> Because it takes such a long time. >> Okay. >> And and I don't think that this is what you're saying, but there is because of the grant requirements a requirement and expectation that we finish phase two at some point. at some point in time. Yes. >> Okay. And then >> just to be clear that at some point doesn't have a defined end date. >> Correct. >> Correct. We've always said that this will be phased based on the financing that we have. >> Um I don't think we can hold them off until 2040, >> but I think we have some time. Just anecdotally, you asked, can we just get another grant? We, this is something that I've been working on since 2018, 2019, probably 2017. I went back, our first meeting on council was talking about this levy project back in 2017. >> Um, we have heard um from when the House Capital Investment Committee was out here last September, we heard from one of the folks on there. Why are you asking us for more money? We already gave you what did we get from the state? $6 million. >> Um, which was like because the my answer of because the project isn't fully funded yet didn't carry any weight. >> That was a hey, why why do you keep bugging us with this? Why do you keep asking? So, what my gut is saying that our chances at state bonding money isn't as great as it was when we started this. I believe that we have missed the funding cycle already for 2027 federal funds. I think that just opened for a few days and might already be closed or closes in a couple of days. >> Um so really we've got a lot of eggs in this DNR flood mitigation >> bucket or having to levy >> for the le. >> What do we think that phase two red is? If if I might interject, I guess I I I should stand back that we can make the decision on concept A and B after we open bids and we could eliminate some segments from that and see what the savings are. I mean, I would recommend we we go to bid and then we could eliminate some of that flat work. >> Mayor and council, just one the there's two pots of money for this hazard mitigation money. So what you're referencing, mayor, is the straight bonding request. What Todd's referencing is there an ongoing program that you would have to appear at Senate hearings for, etc. It's kind of where that initial 200,000 came from. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. How much is it for phase two, the red portion? Like what dollar amount do we have on that? >> Yeah, I think it's around 2.8.8 somewhere in there. Does that have any uh dial back in the construction of you know the aesthetics of it when we're looking at B as far as >> so sorry there you're flipping around on >> yeah just sorry I was just going to the we have a summary slide on the cost >> okay so when we're looking at um phase two right the red section there um I don't I know that a lot more of our you know aesthetically more pleasing things are obviously going to be a little bit closer downtown because we're looking at more retaining wall, right? People's backyards. So, do we have a phase or I'm sorry, a phase. Do we have a concept B for that section or is that kind of just a statement and what that red section is going to look like? Um concept well there is so the red segment there is um there is no concept B for that. It's all turf for the most part. There's some retaining wall in and around the access point where the new Ashtag Street lift station will be. >> Okay. >> Um and then we have some sheet pile at the Masonic Lodge there. Um field >> stables that will be in installed with that as well. >> Okay. So no matter what happens, phase two basically is going to look and be what it is. Yeah. Right now. Yep. >> Um I feel like it's probably a topic for another Do you need to know from us tonight direction of concept A or B? >> I think what we're asking is to prepare and bid the project as it currently is and then we could based on the bid results come back and pair some of those back. we can bring the information because we can show you what the savings would be, the real savings on eliminating some of those things along with what the real cost of segment two is. And we'll also consider, we'll also continue to work with the DNR to try to figure out if they do fund it, what's our new cost participation formula because they're updating that. And we can bring all that information back and give you the opportunity to give a decision based on real numbers. Okay. >> If we bid a and then say this is more than a million dollars or we're not comfortable spending the million dollars on the beautifification aspect of this project. What does that set us back timing wise? Because I assume we would have to reject those bids and then put it out. >> I don't think we'd need to reject the bids. >> We can we can we can change order out with the contractor. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, >> post the war >> then we'll >> Can I just We can talk through. Sorry, >> not used to having to >> you know the seat next to Brent is we can probably take this to offline but um I just wanted the change order part always throws me off because I want to make sure we're not you know communicating with a low bidder prior to award and then agreeing to some sort of post-awward change order. So I I want to make sure we think through that. Um, we don't need to talk about it now, but I always >> there's several things to consider. If there's a significant price change between the high and low bidder based on what we're changing, then we have to have a conversation about what we do. >> But in in circumstances, we've done this before, we've been able to to walk through those things and we could set up the bid spec in a way that might make it easier for us to do that, too. >> Okay. And then just >> Go ahead, sir. I was going to say just like any other project, we will do we authorize plans and specifications. Is this what we're doing? We've already done that. You're 60% of the way through. Yeah. >> Then we see them before they go out to bid. >> Yeah. We'll bring them back to you. >> So that's when we have the next conversation on this. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> I just wanted to clarify like that million dollars isn't they're not site amenities because that wouldn't be eligible. These this is a different way of maintaining it. rather than driving on grass, you're driving on concrete. >> Correct. >> Rather than, you know, getting a long armed uh backhoe, right? Is that the right term? >> Uh you have railings where it might be easier to access. So, just just for like the record, for those watching, these aren't the state and feds aren't funding a million dollars worth of amenities. It's another approach to maintenance. >> Correct. And it's also I I would say that some of this was with the railings and that and the visibility was part of our conversations at the historic preservation society as well. So trying to not box it in as much. So we we'll be having conversations with them again. They get another round of input into the design plans as we move forward. So we'll have a conversation with them. It would be helpful for staff to understand the council's vision for this. If you were like, we're committed to concept A and barring uh big budget changes, we want to try for that for phase one and two or if or if you're saying no, we want to cut a million dollars from the budget. So, if you're ready to say that tonight, we would take that because that would be helpful. If you need more time, we can also do that. But the sooner we know uh just from a cost savings perspective so we're not misusing time and resources on something that you don't support the better off we'll be collectively. >> I can make a quick answer. Um I can't say committed to either one yet not knowing the price. Um >> that's not an answer. But my first choice is a but I would like to see um aerial photo of those different like we looked at three I feel like streets and that if if we had to at a minimum I would want one of those three to have some type of railing so that we don't have so much concrete something that we could a person could view and just look >> I think that's can I just warn like we're looking at a project that is for all intents purposes from where we're sitting $3 million >> over budget from what we were >> considering a couple months ago. Every time we ask for different concepts, different pictures. This costs money from our engineering team. So, I think we should be really prudent in that spend even though we don't have shovels in the ground yet. >> Go ahead. >> Um, yes. Now, I was I'm a little sidetracked. So I my preference is that we put it out as a see what comes back then we can start dialing back different pieces of it. If that's if I'm correct in that understanding then we can start dialing back different pieces of it to get into the funding range we need to be in. So if that is all of those things are true um I would prefer to keep a and to see how that comes back. I am comfortable cutting straight to concept B. This is we're talking about the Spring Creek section. Have we seen some really um Have we seen some pictures that make it look like it would be a lot easier to maintain this and be aesthetically pleasing? Yes. Are we potentially going to hear from the residents along that stretch that they don't want folks walking along their back what they consider their backyards? Um I'm anticipating that. I think um a million dollars, this is a billion dollars that we're talking about. It's not going to look like a prison wall. We'll make sure that it's stamped concrete. It's going to look just like the bridges. We'll tie it into our historic downtown. There are it's already stamped concrete in what we're seeing in some of the concepts um for the walls of it because there are wall portions of that. I I'm comfortable with cutting as much as we can as soon as we can to lead to the endgame of having a certified levy. >> Kayla, >> I agree with Mayor Johnson. I'm comfortable cutting back the budget to get this done. This is a project downtown needs and as nice as the aesthetic parts would be, um the most important thing is having a functional levy. >> I just want to respond to both of you then. Um if that is the concept that you guys are in favor of, I mean that is basically what the other what I had proposed. I mean, if it comes in so high that we just can't feasibly do it, then we can dial it back down to this one, which is my understanding is what we can do. But at that point, we would have the opportunity, let's say it did come in closer than we think, um to maybe keep some of it, keep some of the aesthetic things in that are um maintenance important as well. But then we have the option if we we completely tie our hands to having any options if we just go straight to B. Um am I super confident that the numbers are going to come in really great? No, I'm not. But at the same point, it leaves us open to the fact to having bits and pieces of it that we might be able to still include. I I was reacting to Brent's question of it would be great to have direction of where are your preferences right now. I think while we may be saying the same thing at the end of the day, I'm okay with starting at B. >> So the problem I see with B is it precludes us from ever adding those things back in. We have to start with a to work down if we want to keep any of those features, roadways, maintenance ways, uh, in the project. I don't even know how we're going to come up with the 1.7 million delta uh, in concept B. It's it's not as though concept B gets us there. We're still one and 1.7 million away. Um, you know, as far as engineering costs and going back and forth, I'll be looking at you guys for that. Uh, we're only in this because we didn't didn't have a number to go ask for the right amount of money. Uh so uh I'm I would rather see a so we can work backwards if there's any piece of that we choose to keep or we decide in some further discussion now we really need to have this this access way be paved or we're going to have city expense going forward fixing the grass every time we bring a vehicle down there. Um, so I I'd like to see A and work backwards from that. >> That was one of the questions that I asked kind of to your point about additional expenses like do we need with option A, are we going to need a new special doohickey to dig out the the levy when we need to kind of pull out the sediment out of that? And are we going to need something that has a certain angle and reach? >> What' you call that, Brent? long arm, >> long arm, >> long arm >> or do hickey. Um, but it's my understanding that that was something that would we would already be under the assumption that we would rent or that it's something that we already have existing equipment that could do the job. So >> regardless of concept >> I think I think that's the direction that we have is that there's not consensus in the council has some varying viewpoints on it and I think we can work within that framework because the reality is you don't have to make a decision tonight but just hearing that I think gives us some ingredients to come back to you with some more uh refined information. Um, and we'll just proceed from there. I think there's some certainly some things that we can work through. >> Do we go forward? So, we're not going to go get bids until we settle on this. >> Yeah, we're not in a position, we don't have the plans completed enough to go get bids. And there's always, you know, for as much as we rely on engineers estimates, like it only costs uh we only know what the costs are once we get the bids. So there's always that extension of kind of you don't know until you know. Um but I think there's some things we can do just with the differences between concept A and B to maybe find instead of it just being A and B, maybe there's like a B+ A minus. >> Let's make it an A minus. >> Okay, that sounds good. So you have what you need from us? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you guys. Um, let's close out the work session agenda and talk about private well regulations and a draft ordinance. >> Did we go to community comment? Did we skip over that? >> We haven't gotten there yet. Okay, >> but we will. >> Uh, thank you, mayor and council. I'm pinching here for Andrew Simmons tonight. Uh, but this is a followup over several work sessions the council has related to private uh wells in the community. Um, at your December 15th work session, you asked uh for an ordinance update uh that used some more plain language and understand uh for residents to understand uh the regulations. He wanted to make sure that new wells were allowed through a permit process. Uh and then three, provide protections to ensure uh wells don't invertly interfere with the municipal water system. And through uh help from the city attorney, Dave Anderson, uh an amendment to the ordinance has been drafted that uh does what we believe or accomplishes those goals. Uh also have an application, a new application that was uh drafted uh through the help of Natalie Meyer and Andrew Simmons. Uh so happy to answer any questions you may have. We we feel like this kind of resolves the issue um kind of on both accords. one, the council wanted to make sure private wells exist, but also um protecting um adverse conditions to a well system, giving uh the city engineer and public services director the ability to say, "Hey, we have information that leads us to believe that this could cause an issue." So, uh again, happy to answer any questions or take any feedback from the council. If you're happy with it or happy with it with some additions or deletions, uh we can schedule it for a regular council meeting. >> Well, the language is in here that we um engineering has the sole discretion to make a decision. So, I think that protects us for the law, right? >> Um I I don't know the answer to that, but you're looking at me. Well, so that's my comment. >> Well, he's like looking directly at >> looking at the rest of us didn't make eye. >> I'm happy with that language. Let me put it that way that I think it it gives us that flexibility. We don't shut it down completely, but uh the city engineer gets to make the call. >> Correct. >> So, do you mind? So Erin, I don't know if I can put you on the spot or if it would be more in Andrew's wheelhouse, but what is a scenario where we would say no? Like what is an adverse condition where we would be like, "Oh, that's not going to work here." >> So the probably the biggest consideration we'd have is if they would be drilling into the an aquafer that we have our production wells in. So that would be a big thing that we would be looking for because if they're essentially tying into our aquifers, there could be another source of contamination to the water supply. >> Okay. >> So that would be a big trigger point >> if folks are digging >> fairly deep in the >> 3 400t for our deep water wells. >> Okay. >> So I that would be a a pretty cost, you know, costly endeavor for a for a private >> uh residency. So, I don't know that we'd see that. But, um, >> if you had to guess, how deep would a irrigation well be? >> I mean, you can do a shallow drift well, you know, 30, 40 feet deep, you know, surface water well. >> Okay. >> Not a confined aquifer. >> I'm over 200 feet from getting to that. So, it's like 60. Okay. >> Like, it's they're very like the fact that no one's going to water their lawn and spend that money to get 300 feet down for the water. It wouldn't be. Yeah. No, I'm not I'm not laughing at you. I'm just like the thought of someone doing that is so >> Wow. >> Interest. Yeah. >> But we're protected from it. >> I think you guys know how I feel about this. The whole thing is interesting to me when we're concerned about water. >> Are you ready for me? >> I am. >> Okay. Um my only question on this is when I first read it, I found the first two a little bit confusing because it says the drilling of new wells shall not be permitted for dwellings which can be serviced by municipal water. So all of our homes basically can. But it makes it initially kind of sound like if you can get water service, you can't have it. So does it need to be I know we have notwithstanding the foregoing new irrigation wells, but just that first line. I mean could it have a few more words that just say because otherwise let me get this out correctly. So the drilling of new wells shall not be permitted for dwellings which when can be serviced by municipal water system. They're kind of two separate things. This is irrigation wells and here we're talking about our municipal water service that you would run lines into your house. >> I understand. But that's why the second sentence is very important because the city wouldn't allow someone to drill a well for potable water. >> Yep. >> Um and so the second sentence saying that you can for an irrigation well or for exterior property maintenance. So, >> one sent like I hear what you're saying. It's I think it s like in my opinion it works better as two sentences than to combine it all into one. >> Okay. >> And then >> can I jump into >> council member? Um so I think the punchline is the first sentence. I mean let's be honest the the irrigation well is a exception to what is the rule. The rule is >> we don't drill new wells if you have access to municipal water. >> Okay. I think that second part is really the clarification about if you do want an irrigation well, you can go through the process and get a permit. Um, you know, our engineering and public works teams will look at that and determine if it's going to be okay. Um, but I think the reason that first sentence is there because that's really the the from my perspective the sentence that is of most importance. Um, and and that's how we have why we have it drafted that way. But >> okay, >> that's my take on it. So then the title then where it says use required wells prohibited. Does that say everything we needed to say? Then if it because technically this is a well but the title says well prohibited. >> We we could add a another semicolon and maybe irrigation exception after that or something just to clarify in the >> heading that there's an exception. >> That would be perfect. Then I then everything else looks great to me. >> Sure. Okay. >> Makes sense. Anybody else? I have a I guess an enforcement question. Um, language is great. I'm glad we're doing this. My question is if someone digs a new well under this permit and after that fact is using it for an improper purpose, what's the city's recourse? >> We probably have to seek an injunction. >> Okay. >> Um, in district court. >> Okay. Which is what we would have to do now if somebody already has a irrigation well. that they're using >> for an improper purpose. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So, doesn't change anything. Got it. >> Right. Good. Have what you need from us. >> Okay. Okay. Um let's jump back into the regular meeting agenda. >> We've done a lot of jumping. We're going to do a lot of jumping tonight. Um we are at item number four, community comment. Um, at this point in our meeting, presenters are welcome to address the city council for matters that are related to the city of Carver's authority for up to five minutes on matters uh that are not listed on tonight's meeting agenda. Specific requests for information may not be immediately available, in which case follow-up will occur with a presenter sometime after this meeting. The city council should not be expected to immediately act on requests. However, they will follow up accordingly and may schedule items for future consideration. Anyone with community comment items? Going once, going twice. Okay. Um, we have no presentations and reports. We have no public hearings. Can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda, please? >> I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Motion by council member Comrad. >> I'll second. >> Second by council member Sar. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion passes. All right. Um, moving on to item 8.2, the interimm ordinance for data center moratoriums. >> Miss Smith, sorry. >> That's okay. >> Let's see if it does it. There it is. Thank you, Mayor and Council. The discussion tonight with some action requested by the council is a continued discussion from the March 2nd work session. So, I know there's some interested parties in the room, but if folks are watching online, uh I would encourage folks to go back if they want some information, hear the discussion that council had, the March 2nd work session would be a great place to start just to hear council stake some feedback. I'm going to go over my slides pretty quickly, so it's the same slides that we saw on March 2nd, but for additional detail, I would recommend going back and watching that work session which is available on the city's YouTube channel. So, some information about what a data center is, why we're talking about it, what could happen. A data center primarily is used to store, manage, process, and transmit digital data. They're a pretty hot topic in Minnesota. So, if you Google a data center, you're probably going to pull up an article from some community that's thinking about them in some type of way. Communities are approaching them differently, obviously. And why is it happening in Minnesota so aggressively right now? So, there's obviously a growth in AI. The Minnesota climate lends itself to work well for data centers since we have a chiller climate for what feels like most of the year on this April night. So less cooling can be required. We also have available land grand groundwater utilities and then there's also some state tax incentives. So on the screen is the meta data center in Rosemount which is working its way through the process. I think it's uh either almost there or fully through approval process. So that's the Rosemont Rosemount project for the metadata center. At the March 2nd meeting, we dove pretty deep into the impacts of a data center. So the economic, environmental, political, not all good, not all bad. There's different arguments to be made in each. Uh but just things to think about at a council level, a staff level with our zoning code. uh with the impact to the community can have some tax revenue generation, job creation, but also there are some concerns environmental uh on the environment. So water use is a big thing that folks are talking about. Sound is something that you hear a lot about in the news articles. Um folks living near a data center hearing continuous or intermittent generator noise. And there's uh not much to that's been completed on the comprehensive environmental impact on data centers. It feels like they're having a boom right now. So, we're learning as they're happening. Political gets a little sticky because some communities uh sign non-disclosure agreements. I know the council had a pretty extensive discussion at the March 2nd work session. An understanding of zoning. So, what does our zoning look like? What's the impact of that on a project with land that's available? So, on the screen now is a map from the city's 2040 comprehensive plan. So, uh, what folks are typically calling for for data centers is like an industrial user. So, something that's not directly adjacent to residential parcels, but could develop an in an an industrial district. Our zoning code doesn't specifically address data centers. So, they're not a permitted use, they're not a conditional use, they're not prohibited. So, our uh code right now, if applied, we wouldn't have a clear act uh answer. It lends itself to be similar to some of the industrial users that we have in our code, but it doesn't specifically call it a data center. In our current city limits, just based on my review and Dave's review, there likely wouldn't be land available in city limits right now for the data center just based on the amount of land that they're requiring. So, our city limits have changed a little bit obviously since the comprehensive plan. So, our line looks a little bit different, but the piece that uh the industrial could go on is along Jonathan Carver Parkway uh or west of Lake View Industries, which is currently not in city limits. So, uh we are being proactive in this approach since there likely is not land available, but our growth areas could lend themselves to data center development because there are large continuous parcels that could develop. We're we're anticipating they will develop for an end user of a data center. So key takeaways that we talked about, data centers are happening and they're often contentious. Emotions have and will likely continue to run high for various reasons. U most cities do not regulate data centers yet from a zoning perspective. This feels really reminiscent of the cannabis discussion we had about 18 months ago where cities were navigating this in different ways because we didn't have specific zoning as things were changing at the state level. We don't currently have a project pending in Carver. So again, this would be proactive. Uh public transparency is essential and I know is important to the city council based on conversations that we've had previously, but also through most planning work that you have done. And the goal would be to balance economic development with the long-term impacts of what a data center could do both to the environment, land use, and public trust. So on March 2nd, you were asked a series of options. So the first was uh would you like to instate a moratorum, amend the zoning or do nothing? So see what happens uh pivot when a project might come in. The council unanimously agreed that staff should work on a moratorium for data centers. So what that would do is that it would give us a pause. Uh so the moratorum would we cannot exceed one year from date of adoption and publication. So it'll be Aprilish of 2027 when we'll need to be fully through the process. It will give staff time to study data centers. So, water system, zoning, sound impacts, etc. I think it's a really pivotal time to be thinking about data centers. Uh there are some cities that are moving forward with moratoriums and some that are moving forward with projects. And I think we can learn from both. So, seeing how a community navigates a data center when it does come in, what are the regulations they're thinking about, are they doing specific conditions? So, it's going to be an interesting, I think, 6 months, year, 18 months, just to see how the landscape changes with data centers and as communities continue to navigate them one way or another. Some folks are really excited, some folks don't want them anywhere near their communities. So, it's going to be interesting to watch, but it gives us that time to take in that information, see what other cities are doing, and then create an approach that feels appropriate for Carver specifically. There are two actions in the packet tonight. So there's the ordinance imposing the moratorum and also a resolution authorizing summary publication. Summary publication just allows us to uh post a really cut down version in the newspaper. So it's officially finished when the summary publication happens. That resolution is just allowing us to summarize the information to the newspaper. So again, two actions tonight, but I'll open it up for discussion. >> Questions? >> Um this question might be for Dave. So once we go through this whole process of the mortorium and we get to the end and let's say that we you know as a whole council and we don't we don't want to have these data centers. We've come to the conclusion with all of the facts and findings that it's not for us. Can we legally say no data centers here or do we have to have some provisions of where they could come in? >> No, I think I think we can potentially do that. There's not a it's you know that's that's Erin brought up cannabis right and we talked about how there's actually a statutory provision that says we cannot prohibit cannabis businesses there's no such um language about data centers uh and so if we have the right reasons for it we could do that I mean an ordinance can't be arbitrary and capriccious and what that means is we can't treat data centers differently and prohibit them and at the same time allow other industrial uses that are very similar. We'd have to we'd have to differentiate them in some way, shape or form. So to answer your question, that's possible. Um I think we could get there. Uh but really it would the the devil would be in the details because we'd have to come up with the right reasons for it. Um, and I I think part of the study is going to determine, you know, the impacts these facilities have on cities, particularly how will they affect Carver um and our residents and um um so I think I think we could get there, but I don't know if you know if we will for sure. >> Sure. All right. Thank you. And I I want to just state to that there I have not made up any decisions at the 100% end of this in my mind. This is just if we're looking at moratorum, one answer to a mortorium is yes, we figured out how you can be here. Is there also a no on the other side? So that's the question I had and it's answered. Thank you. Brent had something. >> Dave, would you mind just um speculating on the amount of risk that could come with that? I know there's no protections for data centers today, but they historically have a lot of resources. And so we the city could run the risk of being subject to a a suit for someone using our ordinance and as an example of being arbitrary and capriccious. >> Sure. No, I mean I think that's a good point. Um this is a very fastm moving fastch changing landscape data centers and the the big data centers that are coming in are from these gigantic companies who have unlimited resources and who um might not blink if it means making an example out of a city who would prohibit these things so that other cities don't follow suit. And even if the even if they're doing that simply to get headlines and scare city, I mean that that could be the case. So you you could see some risk there and you'd get dragged into litigation. I like to tell cities um you know don't put a target on your back. Try to kind of see what other cities are doing and you know sometimes there's reason for it, right? Where you'd want to do that. Other times maybe it's not worth that risk. Um, so that could um bring with it um more scrutiny from a lot of large companies that really are pushing and trying to get data centers into places like Carver or at least Minnesota. Um but um you know we can have a conversation when it comes time and talk more about what that risk could look like depending on what the options are. But I think Brent's point is is well taken that, you know, I think he's teeing up that conversation and previewing that we might say, you know, can you do that? Sure. Um, but you want to make sure you're mindful of the risk behind that kind of a decision. So, >> any other questions, comments? I think Kay, >> we covered it in the work session. >> Okay. Um, Erin, my only question for you is is I know that you're going to that you have peers that are going through this and that you're going to be kind of listening and learning from a high level starting tomorrow and in the days and weeks to come. But when do you anticipate this coming back to us as far as like timeline to really start working on? >> That's a good question. Just with how quickly it's changing, I don't think it's going to be something that we'll want to move on terribly quickly. So I want to anticipate it this spring, this summer, but I also want to be cognizant that um we need to have something on the books just with how rapidly Carver is developing. The mortorium can last for one year. At that point, I would want it to be very solid where we are next April. So I would say late winter of this next year, we could probably start having some serious conversations about what it looks like. So we can complete the moratorum with a plan in place, not scrambling at the end to say I want this changed XYZ. I would want it to be fully wrapped up probably at the very latest March of next year. So >> give us some time, see what's happening. >> Um, yeah, the news is changing all the time about them. So it's going to be an interesting process. >> Okay. So I think I'm hearing you say Q1 next year as we kind of revisit this because there's a lot to learn and figure out learn from our peers. >> Okay. >> And there'll be a planning commission exercise with it too. So like the wheels will be in motion I think before it hits council's >> agenda for a final decision but um to Erin's point it would probably start late late fall winter and then it would progress from there. So >> okay great. Um, if there aren't any other questions, I'll make a motion to adopt ordinance 01-2026 authorizing a study and imposing a moratorum on the development of and construction of data centers within the city of Carver. >> Second uh motion by Mayor Johnson, second by council member Pasco. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I post same sign. Motion passes. >> Okay. Okay. I'll make a motion to adopt resolution 116-26 authorizing summary publication of the interim ordinance 01-2026. >> I'll second motion by council member Pchman and a second by council member Conrad. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion passes. Thank you. All right. Uh the 2026 street maintenance project approval of plans and specs. Mr. Spank. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, may I ask, would you like to see the full presentation tonight or do you want to do the council memo version? >> Um, hold on. I won't upgrade. >> I think I can do either. >> I think the coun for me. >> Are you interested in seeing the full presentation for what the street improvement project will be? >> Thank you. We at least. We aim to please. So, we have seen this a number of times. So, we're not like making a decision based on like throwing darts at the dart board. We have seen this. It's in our packet. We've all come prepared to this meeting. So, >> okay, I >> think we can do the council memo. >> Sounds good. Thank you, mayor. Um, tonight, what we're doing ultimately looking for a motion to approve the plans and specifications and order the advertisement for bids for the 2026 street maintenance projects. Um, uh, overview of the areas. So, we're going to be working down in the Carver Bluffs area again. um 2026 and 2027 are the last two years that we're going to be in that area for a while. So, we're uh working on getting that that piece of the of the neighborhood buttoned up here in the next two years. And then a big piece is Mount Hope Road. That's a state aid project here in 2026, which will be a complete reclamation of that roadway surface uh with a new with a new paved surface. And I don't know why that isn't showing up, but >> it's like you're really gonna abbreviate this. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I guess I don't I don't know what's going on here. Maybe I won't share. Um from a schedule standpoint, uh we have the plans. We actually got state aid uh plan approval today. So we got final signatures from the state aid office, which is great. >> Um so that that piece is all all done. Obviously, the local roads plans are all they've been done for a while. So, um the last piece is I forgot to mention on Mount Hope Road, it would include the sidewalk extension on the west side of the road. So, a 6 foot sidewalk would be planned from Lions Park down to Old Carver Road. Um, so if you choose to move forward tonight, we'd be uh posting the project tomorrow uh for bidding and we'd be opening bids here at the end of April and looking to come back to council to consider awarding a contract on May 4th. Um, from a financial standpoint, um, our cost estimates are still aligned with the pavement management plan estimates which I presented to you earlier uh, this winter. So 1.965 or $ 1.965 million uh funded with a variety of funding sources, uh local street maintenance funds, state aid funds, util utility enterprise funds for some of the utility rehab, and then um the interfund loan piece for the the sidewalk extension on Monoke Road. So all that in total is $ 1.965 million. Um I think that's kind of the short of it that I had. Um, I would recommend moving forward, uh, getting it out to bid and getting some final pricing for the project. So, any questions? >> I had one question and that was just about we had, uh, we had talked about for Steamboat Days and what that looks like for Mount Hope being open. Is that something we addressed later? Is it how do we get that worked into this? So right now in the specs I have that the week of steamboat day, so basically immediately after Labor Day, that whole week would be off limits to the contractor based on prior direction from the council. >> Okay, perfect. That's all I have. >> Erin, do we have any expectations as far as like duration? And I know that there were some some feedback last year about, you know, in the areas that were well both Milan and Overland filled up reclamation that the payment was tore up and then it sat >> and sat and sat and sat. Is there any way that we can narrow that time? >> Yes. So, I did add another provision in the specs um what I'm calling a continuous progress provision. So basically when they rip a street open, they need to basically continue to advance that piece of the project until it gets repaved again. >> Okay. >> And if not, we can um apply damages based on their there not being on site. So we do have some enhanced language based on the feedback that council provided on that >> piece of it. So >> great. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll make a motion to approve plans and specifications and order advertisement for bids for the 2026 street maintenance projects. >> Motion by council member Conrad. >> I'll second. >> Second by council member Persman. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um all right. Um up next we have item number 9.1. It is the cover levy acquisitions and we will be going into a closed session um for that because it deals with real estate issues. I need a motion for that please. I'll make a motion to go into close session pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.05 subdivision 3C to discuss develop and consider potential offers to purchase various permanent and temporary easements necessary for the Carver levy improvements project. >> A motion by council member Conrad. Mayor and councel just to jump in. There's actually a resolution that we provided tonight that's in your packet. Um there were remember there's like 21 parcels at issue here and we had to read them all off last time. Yes. >> Um so in lie of of the motion that council member Conrad made um and someone having to read off all those PS um if she's amanable to this if we could um change the motion to just approving that resolution that will get us um where we need to be. >> Okay. What's the what's the title of the resolution >> pursuant to state statutes? That one >> uh it's just adoption of resolution 18-26 authorizing the council to go into close session. >> I might not have seen this. >> It's not on what it is. Okay. Resolution 26. >> 118-26. Correct. >> So I would I'm making a motion to approve resolution 118-26. >> That's sufficient. Perfect. That was a lot better than the first motion by council member comrad. I'll second. >> Second by council member sir. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. Oppos. >> Motion passes. All right. Thank you. Are you guys ready? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thanks, Michelle. Um, okay. Uh, we are back after our closed session. Um, so Dave, I'm a little lost. Do you want to talk us through what we need to be doing right now? >> Sure. Uh, and for some reason the link to the resolution isn't coming up on my and the the memo isn't coming up when I try to open it on my computer. So, I don't have access to the memo. But, um, there is now a resolution um that we're recommending approval of. That's resolution 119-26 authorizing easement acquisition for the Carver Levy improvement project. Um, as we have talked about, um, I know we had a close session to talk about some things, but, um, just for the folks that might be either watching or or paying attention on the recorded version of the the public meeting, um, the council met last July to talk, uh, initial stages of the Carver levy project and the need for easements and acquisitions of various property interests um, in order to uh, construct that project and maintain it uh, into perpetuity. Um we're now at the point from a project scheduling standpoint um and a sequencing standpoint where we need uh the city council to formally authorize the easement acquisition so that u my office can initiate condemnation, file a petition if we get to the point um here with some of these properties where we don't have agreements in place. Um and so there is that resolution in your packet. There was one very minor change made to um the resolution and so I know it was updated um on on the system. It's really uh not super critical from the council's perspective. There was a a temporary easement area on one of the parcels that we had to replace in exhibit A. Exhibit A of the resolution of course has all the legal descriptions for all the easements and all the parcel sketches. Uh so it's a lengthy resolution. Uh but again um the recommendation is to to approve that resolution tonight. So that would uh give us the direction and authority most importantly we need under um the condemnation statute in order to initiate things. And so um I'm here to answer any questions or if you have any questions for Josh Weir, my colleague who is our eminent domain expert, he is also uh present tonight. >> Point of order. Have we gone back into open session? Have we made a motion to go back into open session? >> Uh we have. That's a good question. I think um we formally opened the meeting up, but if um did we do it in that way? >> I don't think we did. >> Okay. Um it doesn't hurt to make that motion just for the record, although we're we're >> technically back in open session. >> I'll make a motion to go back to the open session. >> Motion by council member >> retroactive. >> I'll second it. Second by council member Conrad. All those in favor any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. >> Motion passes. All right. Um, any questions or a motion? I'll make a motion to approve resolution 119-26 authorizing an acquisition by eminent domain. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Conrad. A second by council member Persman. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. All right. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you. >> Um, okay. 10.1 communications. Um, strategic plan update, city manager report, city manager's choice. Brent. >> Yeah, let's start with the strategic plan. So, >> okay. >> Uh, just two updates and I'm happy to kind of get into other areas, but uh just for the sake of time, I'm focusing on page two related to our emergency operations uh plan. So, we've hired Beacon Safety Services to lead that. Uh, they've been conducting department review, so from the fire department, sheriff's office, public services, uh, finance, uh, I think they're scheduling to meet with, uh, Erin and Nick on community development, etc. Um, and so really excited about how that's going to be coming together. There is going to be a opportunity uh during one of the work sessions for the council to be engaged as part of that kind of formulation of that operations plan talking about you know what you want to see in that plan and uh how you can participate uh during an emergency situation what your roles are what that looks like etc. And then a second item, uh, Abdo is conducting research. Uh, Chief Walsh along with Lynn Shudy are working uh in assisting them on developing the fire department's 5-year compensation plan. So, it's going to mimic uh what the city put together for their full-time employees um as it relates to looking at our peer cities and what they pay for retirement and hourly compensation. So, um, excited to, um, see that unfold and then eventually bring that to the council. So, those are the two main updates. Uh, but again, happy to talk about any of the topics that are covered within the strategic plan. Any questions for Brett? >> And just a little commercial that I know it seems like probably we just did this, but like in the could be the uh late winter spring of 27, we'd be scheduled to do another round of strategic planning. We do it every two years so we can have a whole new list of goals. >> Yeah. And then uh I'm going to bring up the city manager report from the work session. So we haven't met for a month. So we have I have quite a few updates to share. So, uh, Spring Creek Drive, you might remember in, uh, on the north side of that road, Chaza has a residential development that's going in. And in conjunction with that development, they're planning to install a sanitary sewer line. And so, that's going to impact the north half of that road. And so through our kind of team's analysis and we reached out to Braun uh Intertech who does soils work uh it was our opinion that that construction on the north side was going to uh have an adverse impact to the south side of the road. And if you recall the boundary line for the two cities is the center line of Spring Creek Drive at least in that old straightaway section. And so we were uh as a comment uh requiring or asking it be required uh that the development reconstruct the entire road so that it's one consistent uh subgrade and then pavement structure etc. And so in kind of working through that uh this is something that Aaron Schmidt would be bringing to you at a future meeting. We have a mill and overlay project scheduled for 2028 in around uh $87,000 for the south half of that uh drive. And so what we've negotiated in principle, but we need council sign off is to uh Chaza would frontload that pro the whole reconstruction and then uh when we have that 82,000 available in 2028 that we would uh pay them for the mill and overlay project that we uh rescheduled but in turn get a full uh city street reconstruction out of that. if I wanted to bring that up to you and get any preliminary feedback that you had um related to that. If not, I will move on. Uh design guidelines. This is something that I've talked a little bit about with the heritage preservation uh commission. Uh the historic district guidelines for both commercial and residential haven't been done in probably close to 20 years. And so there's um funding through uh the state historic preservation office that can help us upgrade that. So I've I got a few um suggestions or recommendations from the Chipo staff uh for doing that work. And so one of the groups that I reached out to has been kind enough to help develop an RFP for that work. And so going to be working with them and the HPC on developing that concept. and what uh tweaks or uh changes we can make to our existing guidelines to make them more user friendly. Not just from a resident's perspective, but uh I think council member Conrad could kind of speak to this. Sometimes it's kind of hard to read them as the commissioners or staff to like what are they really getting at? Uh there's a lot of conversations about like materials and if the improvement is made, you know, non street side, what that means? And so I think there's an opportunity to really um give a refresh to that set of regulations. >> Yeah. And you know, materials change over time. And when we're looking back 20 years, different things come up, right? And then the guidelines we have right now don't even address a lot of materials that we wouldn't have known were coming up and that we've had now for a number of years that you are able to use um as you know, a regular homeowner, but we can't do anything because we can't address it within the guidelines we have. So looking forward to this update. I mean it's a great document. It it help. It's very helpful. It's been very helpful for the HPC to have because they can reference it. But yeah, that refresh is definitely it's time. >> Uh the Carver Insurance Group at uh has purchased the 212 Broadway building or sometimes known as a 212 and 214 Broadway building. So that's immediately south of uh Harvey's. And they're planning a ra major building renovation both uh exterior and interior. And so uh Paul Newton is going to be coming to the next HPC meeting uh a week from Tuesday just to get some do a design consultation. We haven't done a lot of those in the past, but he just kind of wants to run some ideas and concepts before presenting a full set of plans. So, um, just kind of highlighting that, um, meeting. Did someone say so? Nope. Uh, the League of Minnesota Cities conference is, uh, in Rochester, June 24th through 26. Uh, I know Mayor Johnson is attending. I'll be attending. I don't know if any other council members I know council member Sar said she won't be attending this year. I I did reserve some rooms in advance for the city um just so you don't have to be shuttled. I know there's some hotels that are a little further out. So, if you are interested, uh let me know and we can get you registered and get you assigned a room. Is there anybody that knows right away that they might be interested or >> Yeah, I would be >> maybe a question. I have to check with my child care. >> Uh the Southwest Chamber is hosting a first responders lunchon on Wednesday, April 29th at the Chesa Event Center. Uh we signed up Mayor Johnson, but if anyone else is interested, please uh let us know and we can get you registered for that event. Uh we last look at our cell phone policy in 2022. So, we're uh starting off on a um an amendment to that just to kind of freshen it up. I'm not expecting anything major, but one of the things I did want to broach to the council is if you're uh interested in uh participating in the reimbursement program or the device allowance program. So, uh right now full-time employees that are approved for use get $75 towards a phone and a plan. What we're working towards is developing kind of a lower user plan for some folks that maybe aren't using it as much as our high users. Um, and then clarifying some stuff for the fire department. But I I do think there's an argument to be made that the council uh could be eligible for that $75 uh bring your own device allowance. Uh but before I know that talking about council and reimbursement and compensation can be uh tricky. So I just wanted to uh check in with you before developing a formal uh policy amendment. >> Thoughts? >> Not opposed. >> Not opposed. >> Not opposed. >> Not opposed. I am not in favor. Um, I have a plan already. I have a phone, respectfully. I bet I use my phone more for city business than everybody combined. And this isn't the day of like I have unlimited texts. I have unlimited data. I have unlimited calls. I I don't like the optics of the reimbursement. >> Would you like it less more of it with less or just at all? No, at all because I we get what is sometimes referred to as a stipen that can go towards that. I don't think that like again respectfully you guys I don't think that you were using your phones. >> This is not for a separate device for the >> No, this is a reimbursement. >> Yeah, it's it's for it's a reimbursement for using your own own device. that we're already using. >> No, I'm still not opposed to it. >> I don't see the need for it if it's I >> So, this is not having to acquire us your own device. >> Correct. >> Spec solely for city use, >> right? We don't have that for any employees. What we do is a device reimbursement program to use your own device. And so, what I some cities do that and so I just wanted to broach that. And so rather than showing up with that in there, I wanted to see if you were amendable to the conversation at that time. I don't need a second device. I'm doesn't cost me anything more to use the one I'm using. So I >> Well, just to be clear, this isn't a second device. >> Right. Right. I get that now. I thought I thought this was an option to have. So, no, this is city use for me is a is a email address on my existing device. I don't >> I don't I don't know. I feel like I'd be giving myself a $75 raise if they did that. So, >> do you want to run through it again though? See? >> Sorry. >> You know, I'm hearing no, >> no, and no. So, you can That's what I needed. I Nope. I wanted to count three. Yeah. Okay. So, yes, I am still yes, but that's we counted to three. Okay. >> Sorry for the misunderstanding. >> All good. That's why we checked in. Uh just letting you know I'll be at the Minnesota City Managers Conference April 29th through May 1st in Nisa. Uh just calling out uh we've posted on social media and the website, but we're going to be doing some additional seating work at the Creekide Park dog parks. So, uh planning to open on May 22nd and then mark your calendars for June 3rd at 5:30. Uh we're planning a uh ribbon cutting and doing some extra kind of events. Aaron Smith and some others on the team are kind of working toward uh developing some fun options. And I think Erin's reached out to Dr. Cararissa at Healing Hands to see if we can do kind of a in conjunction event to talk about her services as well. Uh I shared with the council last week that uh we finished one project out of the funding for the state's local road improvement program. Uh so I reached out to uh MDOT and asked for if we could just get like an agency review and if there are things that we could do to uh enhance our project scoring and create opportunities for that that we'd be open to that. And so uh they were open to doing that. So, we have something on the calendar in June to do that. So, I know we've uh tried on that and and missed twice, but I do think uh this opportunity creates some more opportunities for us. So, I I think it'd be uh worth the uh uh time and effort to submit again in 2027. >> It's a great idea to do a review, too. Like maybe our eagerness and familiarity with the decision makers would help a little >> too. Uh uh on upcoming agendas in May, on May 4th, Will Little uh who's the new administrator for the lower Minnesota Watershed District, uh is going to be doing a welcome and presentation or organizational review of what they do in the community. And that'll be followed up on May 18th with Paul Molen. We serve we're served by two watershed districts. So Paul Molen is with the Carver County Water Management Organization. And so I've connected with both um and so it be something new for the council to discuss in May. And then uh finally earlier in the year we were talking a lot or could have actually been in 2025 now that I think about in the fall working with uh Mark Lano on some concerns he had with drainage through his property and uh at least in work sessions the council had discussed and uh kind of had some consensus around the city doing a project to bring a kind of a formal concrete storm uh water pipe down commerce cross 212 and then kind of work its way into our overall drainage system. And so, uh, Aaron Schmidt, the city engineer, developed kind of a concept and as a part of that review, we needed to get sign off from, uh, Mandot's water management group and were not to date successful with that. Uh, >> didn't they kind of shut you down on that? >> Yeah. Uh, I would say they they wanted some additional research to be done and I offered to them that the city had exhausted its resources on this and that this is our plan and we think it works. Um, but there was some contention about from them on whether or not there was a problem and what a solution if any should look like. And so, uh, I would say the summary version of that is that we put them in touch with Mr. Lano and said if you want to do some survey work, you should get in contact with them. And so, the way that I perceive this is that uh, this project will move forward or not depending upon MDOT's willingness to allow the city to do a project or or have a project done at all. Um, and so I I just wanted to kind of because we talked about that in such a public forum, just kind of provide an update on where we're at to date and it potentially could mean that um the situation to whatever degree you think it's impacting things uh may not change in the short term. So, uh, those are my updates, but happy to answer any questions or, um, share updates on projects that I haven't, uh, provided here. >> Any questions? >> I don't. All right. Uh, council requests and updates. Kay, you want to go first? >> Yeah. It's been a long time since we've been here. Uh, and the big thing that happened since we've been here is that Courtney and Brent and I went to the League of Minnesota City's day at the capital. Um, and we had some really good conversations with Representative Harter and Senator Grunhagen as we were chasing them in between their meetings, but they were more than happy to meet with us and to hear what we had to say. And we were also um able to kind of do some spontaneous advocacy regarding transportation because that came up in in committee that day kind of unexpectedly. Um and you know, we've talked we talked about our legislative priorities and not wanting Southwest Transit to go away. And so being able to grab some people as they came out of committee and give them a couple of words and say, you know, this actually does matter. um because that is not the picture that they're necessarily being given. So um that was really good and I was glad to be able to take part in that and uh look forward to continuing those relationships as they're have a little bit more time outside of session. I don't know that I've ever remember doing it like that generally like we meet in their office but >> the chasing down you haven't done the hey yeah >> so I'm outside room number text actually I chased Senator Grunhagen down before Christie >> um the only thing I have is next week we have an HPC meeting on Tuesday the 14th I now unfortunately have a work conflict Mayor Johnson also has a work conflict or I should say a conflict. I thought it was work, but it is whatever it is. Um, is are any of you available on Tuesday at 6 p.m.? >> Say the date again. >> 14th. Next Tuesday. >> I am available. >> And if you can't, I am too. >> Okay. >> So, all right. >> Um, yes, I will be in attendance. >> Okay, sounds great. And for some reason you can't, then you can punt it over to Eric and we're covered. Okay, great. Thanks. >> Uh, I have one update. So, on the 14th, I'm going to be at the uh HPC meeting. That's it. >> Okay, Eric. >> All right. So, on March 11th, while you guys were running around the capital chasing Harder and Grunhagen down, uh I was in the uh uh in session testifying uh for uh the city's position on it. So it is John Cosnik's uh HF4111 and it is to consolidate suburban transit providers which means for us dissolving Southwest transit. Uh there were a number of people uh testifying on behalf of Southwest Transit from the agency, but we also had surprise uh riders show up that we didn't have any even have knowledge would be there. uh in support of Southwest Transit. Uh the >> you said writers like writers, >> the users. Okay, we get riders. >> They showed up as well. >> Uh so this is this is the proposal says the bill says it'll save $50 million to turn everything over to to Met Transit. And that's a very that's looking at very specific selected metrics in a worst case scenario. Uh, I don't think that number is a real number, but you would save money because it would eliminate Southwest Pride. It would eliminate services like that. We would lose that. Um, we could also consolidate all the libraries in the Twin Cities to one >> and the state would save money. Uh, it doesn't mean >> Well, there's a proposal for that. >> So, you know, it doesn't serve uh doesn't serve our community uh well. doesn't serve Waconia or Victoria or any of the other communities that uh the opt out providers um support. So, uh that was it'll it'll move forward. I don't think anybody wanted to if if it had been a roll call vote, it probably wouldn't have moved forward, but it was easy to punt kick the can and and let it go forward. So, uh I think we need to um make sure that our voices are heard because we will be uh we lose everything. We are more impacted than Chaska, Chanhass, and Eden Prairie. So, as this as things keep going forward, let's reach out and tell the folks that have a voice how this impacts us. >> That's it for me. >> Thank you. Is that continuing. Is that is there still life in that bill? >> Well, it hasn't been voted down yet. >> Okay. >> Uh but it has to get funding. It has to go to uh >> uh the next stop is to to really look at the numbers and I think that's probably where it >> is likely not to go any further because I uh there's not $50 million of savings. >> What's the final committee deadline? Have we passed the final committee deadline yet? >> I don't know. Well, I don't think we have, but I don't know the date. >> Okay. Because it may not even come up at committee again. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. Thanks for >> Yeah. Thanks. I mean, really, thank you for like looking out for that because >> we would be I mean, it would be horrible if we lost that in Carver, right? I mean, and not just us. Every a lot of people would be a lot of other places, too. It's really tough because the way that it's being portrayed is that no one will lose any service is the way that it's being portrayed. And the the legislators I've talked to are saying that that's how it's being presented to them is that no one loses anything. And while that theoretically is true, in reality, we're going to lose service. So >> from a Met Transit standpoint, in their view, nobody loses core service, >> which is a big bus. >> Yeah. But in 2026, people don't take big buses from >> to anywhere. Right. Yeah. >> Right. So, >> we don't have them. >> So, it it is it it does affect any community that uses a a Southwest Prime or similar service. >> All right. >> All right. Um updates for me. On March 4th, it was local government day at Chesca Middle School West. Um I spoke to three question or three classes and they do a panel discussion. So there were uh CHASA mayor was there. There was a council member from Chaza. I think there was also from Chan and Victoria and then one county commissioner. Um best question was what would what advice would you give seventh grade you which I thought was really insightful. >> Um and then that we did >> I would tell her to not stress so much if it all turns out okay. Um, and then we got the how much do you make question, which I love, but there was quite the juxtaposition because there was me on the low end and then there was a Carver County Commissioner who makes a little bit more than what we make here in Carver. Um, >> and to them it probably sounds like a huge number no matter what it is, right? >> Well, and that's the question that I always say like I say, this is what I make as mayor. Who thinks that that's a lot of money? Especially with like the elementary school kids, like all kinds of hands go up and it's like, "Okay, well here's what a car payment costs and like that's not enough for a car payment." Like this is how much to fund your Roth IRA kids and it's not enough to do that. So um on March 10th, I had um dinner with the mayor. I hosted five community members at my home and had a really great conversation. Um people email me. I've communicated a couple different ways and we just so happen to have like all five folks had careers in STEM which was super interesting. Um, Day on the Hill we already talked about which was March 11th. On March 13th, Council Member Pchman and I visited Carver Crossing. Um, and it was a little bit of a smaller group but a really really good group. Um, apparently they are hearing there and I'd heard this from another um, community member. So, I posted something on social media about it, but they said, "Um, so who are you selling it to?" We were like, "What?" They said, "The parking lot next to us, Carver Station, we hear it's being sold." We're like, "It's no it's it's not being sold, in fact." And so, it was a good opportunity to kind of ed educate folks. The city owns that. We're not doing anything with it. The farmers market will continue to be there this summer. Special events will take place. Special event busing will take place there. Um, I was in Washington DC. I wrote about that in the uh April newsletter. I was there from March 15th through the 18th for the National League of Cities Congressional City Conference. Um, and that was something that I was there in my role as part of the um executive committee on the Minnesota League of Cities. So, um, huge benefit to having me there at zero cost to the city of Carver. Uh last year we kind of charged the hill and had a day on the hill where we all went and met with our congressional designate delegates. Um this year we did things a little bit differently where the league held a breakfast on Tuesday morning and invited everybody and I think we had about I think it was like six or seven out of 10 of Minnesota's congressional delegates. So that was the week right after the snowstorm in Minnesota. So we didn't have uh Senator Smith. she sent somebody from her office and then um Representative Emmer had a scheduling conflict. So um but it was great to hear from the folks that we did. Um Carver Business Alliance meeting on March 20th, continuing to have a decent turnout at those meetings. Um on March 24th, we had the chamber coffee connect here at city hall. Brent mentioned the first responders lunchon and the chamber very purposefully has um coffee connects in each of the four committees or each of the four communities before the first responders lunchon and they invite the fire chief and they invite the sheriff um sheriff's deputy to the event and kind of let them talk about what they do in the community and kind of what's on their radar and those kinds of things kind of all leading up to this event that'll take place a little bit later this month. Um, on March 27th, I'd meet the mayor at Carver Ridge, and it's always so fascinating to hear from the folks who are living there and their lived experiences and their life experiences. There was one woman um who is clearly now retired. Her professional career was in real estate. And she said, "I'm so intrigued that Carver got," she goes, "I'm so impressed that Carver got a Taco Bell." Because she said, "I was doing professional real estate. I forget where." She said it was a college town in Arizona and they couldn't get a Taco Bell. >> So just like just their anecdotes and you know what they've learned and teaching me, it's it's fascinating. Um last last well let's say on March 28th Chesa Mayor Hubard and I went to Chaza High School way past our bedtimes and helped welcome home the uh class 4A state boys basketball championship team. So it was fun. They had a little impromptu pep rally. Um and it was fun to see the community come out and support them. On last Friday, April 3rd, I did lunch with leaders at Cologne Academy. That's a group of fourth graders who are leaders in their class, leaders in the school. They help identify good behavior from their classmates, especially in the lower grades. Um, but then part of this program is they invite leaders in and just ask all kinds of questions. So, um, lots of good questions from that group. Uh, the lion's Easter egg hunt was on Saturday. Yeah, last Saturday. Um, and it was a really great turnout, which I wasn't quite expecting because the weather was not so great. Um, but the Lions were out bright and early and once again put on just a fantastic event for everybody. So, um, last call out is in the consent agenda tonight. We accepted the grant funds from the DNR for Creekide Park. So, that was $350,000 that didn't come from park dedication uh fund, but we were able to use it for the park thanks I think to Erin and some of the other team members hard work of writing that grants and successfully getting it for us. So, that is it. I'm glad that we're back in our every other weekish rotation. A month away was a long time. So, uh with that, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Motion by council member Sarah. >> I'll second. Second by council member Conraan. All those in favor say I. I. Post. Same sign. Motion passes. Good evening. Okay, >> we're on air. >> This is This is actually two seconds. >> It's okay. >> We'll just do it real quick. This is going to be quicken. I'm going to It is 9:16. I am going to call the Harbor Economic Development. Are we still okay to do this? >> Yeah. I thought we were done with Eric. landed at the airport. >> Does she need to be picked up? >> No. No. >> I can go and grab her. >> This is a plug for uh >> Okay. Um let's see. We're going to convene as the Carver County or the city of Carver Economic Development Authority. So, I'm calling the meeting to order. Um can I get approval of the minutes? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of the February 3rd, 2025 CEA meeting. Motion by council member sir. >> Second. Uh second by council member Pasco. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. >> All right. Um tonight's uh >> I think we have um there's two more motions um in part of this meeting. >> Yes. >> Yes, we're waiting. >> That's where we're getting to. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Uh tonight's business item is the amendments to the downtown restoration loan program. Mr. America. >> I can't believe I did that. >> We all did. We all >> We all did. >> I thought we were done. I was like, "Okay." >> Yeah. >> We all did. >> I blame Dave. >> I didn't even meet. >> It's your fault because you told us we had to meet more regularly. So, >> and we are right. Dave, while I catch my breath, could would you just mind uh explaining to the city why we're meeting as EDA what it is and how it functions within the umbrella of the city? >> Sure. So, the EDA, of course, is a a separate legal entity. Some people don't fully understand that. Of course, it's the same five people who sit on the EDA as as on the city council, but you take off your city council person hat and you put on your EDA hat. Um, and EDAs are a creature of statute. they have um different authority than cities and they can do things like um create loan programs for downtown restoration um and use money um to um effectively provide forgivable grants to that's just one example of course something an EDA can do that a city cannot do. So um because we're a separate uh legal entity separate um meetings need to to happen. So, what we have been doing, and I think it's changed a little bit since um I've become the city attorney, is we're kind of getting away from doing an EDA meeting during a council meeting. Uh and rather we're um doing these meetings separately. So, we do them on the same night because it's convenient, but technically we're of course ajourned from the council meeting and now here we are meeting as the economic uh development authority. So, um trying to keep that very clean, separate. Um and then the other thing that you noticed um just sort of go along with that is uh you'll have to approve minutes uh for the most recent meeting. Sometimes that could be months or or years later. I think in fact when we met last February, we approved minutes from a meeting that had happened I don't know in 2015. Yeah, it was like it was like 10 years previously. But obviously it's a neverending cycle. if you just meet to approve minutes, you'll have to just meet again to approve minutes. So, um anyway, that that's a quick um uh sort of rationale for why we're meeting separately, but um throw it over to Brent to handle the business. >> Did the EDA approve the minutes from the last meeting? >> Yep. >> All right. Uh thank you, members of the EDA. In uh August of 2011, uh the EDA established a facade treatment loan program. Uh the purpose of the program was to encourage and provide a financial incentive for exterior work to buildings in the Carver historic uh district. Uh in 2014, the EDA made some amendments to the program, including renaming it to the downtown restoration loan program. Uh the program in part provides a forgivable loan to non-s single family property owners in the district. Uh the pro program provides up to 50% of the project costs uh to make uh exterior building improvements. Uh the improvements have to be approved uh by the his uh heritage preservation commission which in turn means that they have to be consistent with the historic district guidelines. Um initially there was two parts of the program. uh one for a traditional loan which uh right away in 2011 when the uh EDA approved the program uh Carver Country Flowers and Gifts uh Net Henses property took part in that. So that's the only traditional loan. Uh the balance of the loans have been forgivable. So loans have been made to Harvey's, the Dog House, uh I believe Getaway Motor Cafe, uh and a Cup of Carver. uh just from memory might not have that might not have a complete list there. Um but we're still operating off of the initial investment made by the council via the budget to the EDA and so uh and we haven't changed the loan amounts and from feedback from our most, you know, recent application to the program. I know $2,500 is a is a lot of money, but considering exterior improvements, the applicant mentioned it's really a lot of paperwork just for that 2500. And so there's we have 94 $9,500 in cash balance. Considering kind of the scale when you think about tuck pointing brick or um some of the other things that go along with exterior improvements, it's really not a lot of money. And so on top of uh removing some of the um requirements for applicant information, a lot of this was uh baked in under the city's uh former city attorney. I think there was an opportunity to have uh Dave review it and then kind of clean up um some of the uh items that we really don't use. Like an example is we wanted the the Beacon credit score which is uh probably not something that we've probably ever significantly looked at when making uh awards out. And so uh then the third piece is increasing the maximum forgivable loan uh from 2500 to 7500. So it end up being a $15,000 project where they'd have to contribute at least half. Um I think there's frankly an opportunity to do more to be make it more significant but that's uh probably a conversation for uh 2027 and beyond budget as far as how you want to manage uh that program. We also have not contained within the EDA but we have that sack and whack rebate program. So, uh, if a business was changing its use and they had to go to Met Council and they got an additional an additional SAT determination, the city always then matches that. And if they make historic improvements to their building, we'll rebate them dollar for dollar on that. And so, uh, we did do that with the Getaway Motor Cafe and, uh, Capa Carver, uh, which is now no longer in existence. But those are, it's not just this program. and there are other programs that are out there. So, happy to answer any questions. Dave helped with the review and the edits uh made to the program. >> When did we last fund this? >> I think 2012. >> So, it's been sitting with a $9,500 balance since then. >> No, it's been going So, we've made reductions of $2500. So, $2,500 to the doghouse, 2500 to Harvey's. I think our initial investment was from memory was somewhere between 20 and 25,000. >> Do we have a schedule to refund it? >> Uh we don't. That's what would come up in the I would say the 27 budget discussion. I would >> um just to kind of preview I I think my my commentary would be do you want to fund it? And if you don't, I think we should look at like exhausting the funds and ending the program. Um, but we're at a point now if you know I'm suspecting uh and I've offered it to Carver Insurance Group that this program would be a good use of like the things that they're talking about which are way in excess of $15,000. Um, but I think since it's been so long since the council slash like EDA's had a conversation about it, at least over a decade at this point, um, it's worth another conversation about is this the work you want the city to do and what that investment looks like, all those types of conversations. Brent, what if we go to page? It's the actual physical page four of the document. So, it's going to start with eight forgivable forgivable loan terms. Um, well, one, we've got a lettering issue because it's a BBBC. So, we'll just have to have that relettered. Are you there? >> Okay. Um, but the $200 application fee, does that come out of I mean, are people are they going to spend the $200? What what would prompt someone to say, you know, hopefully I get some money, but I'm going to spend $200 to get to even just apply for it. >> Does that come out of their award at the end or? >> No, it doesn't come out of their award. >> Okay. So, >> we have costs. So, like >> I'm not saying it's not that we can't have it. I'm just saying $200 is a fair amount of money to put in a permit or an application fee. So, do we coach them ahead of time to say here's, you know, this is likelihood of this project is good to be funded or are we just willy-nilly taking, you know, having $200 come in and being like, "No, never mind." >> Yeah. We've never had a project like that. >> It's not. >> No. I mean, and the the two because we'll have to have in some cases multiple agreements drafted by uh the city attorney for it. So, it >> it probably doesn't cover all of it, right? >> It it definitely doesn't. I mean, now that we've done one recently, there's more of a template for it, and I think it would wouldn't be a ton of work to put new ones together, but to to answer your question, I assume they're going to come in and talk to staff and say, "Here's what we're thinking. We haven't applied yet." But Brent, to your the coaching element to it, I they're not going to come in um and catch staff um you know, cold with an application. They probably talk through it. Staff's always very available to talk to downtown business owners on these things. And I suspect if Brent said, you know, this doesn't seem to meet the criteria or you got to make a couple changes here and there and they're unwilling to do that to get to the um criteria, they would probably just wouldn't spend the $200 and we wouldn't we wouldn't be moving forward with it. So, >> and I would say every time we've had a um building exchange hands and even starting back to when the program kicked off, you know, I did door knocking and like I remember sitting down at Lisa's place with Lisa with Diet Coke >> and went over the went over the program and encouraged her to >> to apply for it. But it it also is a like a it is it's helpful because in some cases like the formal process adds like some expectations for like fulfilling some processes and paperwork or like we've run into occasions where folks just say they are interested and then expect to get a check and there's like more to that because like the council has to approve it, a document has to be created. So, um, but to your like original question, we'd never put ourselves or the council or the EDA in a position where like we'd accept an application on something that we knew was going to be a fail. >> Okay. Okay. Good. I figured, but I just wanted that to be out there because that is a decent fee. Um, is there a reason that 7500 was picked as a number? Because I'm just looking at 2500. Yes, I I agree that it should go up. 75. I mean, we're helping out businesses, homeowners. I do hear from homeowners downtown who say, "Well, wait a minute. So, now if I if it's a business, you can get money, but this from the city, but the city won't fund obviously personal homes." So, I'm all for this, but for me, maybe just the doubling of it to 5,000, I think to me is really palatable. I don't know why, but I just think that I mean, we still haven't funded this fully for upcoming years, so if we go to 5,000 now, I think that's great. We have we still have some left in the fund and then we look at funding it additionally but we have a lot of expenses as a city coming up. Now this is not that much but it I mean everything could be not that much. We can be throwing $5,000 out here and there$7,000 here and there. I was thinking similarly of that, but my rationale for that was with the current fund balance in the EDA being $9,500. That seems like an awkward amount that's left over, right? And I feel like we could fund two $5,000 grants. I'm sure we can figure out $500 to put into the EDA >> if we were to get a second applicant >> and then maybe we re-evaluate it during budget season when we think about >> Well, let's be honest, someone could come in with a project that's 8,000 and they only take 4,000 of it. But I do think it'd be nice to be really close to funding two projects out of this. >> Yeah, >> I agree. That would be my only comment was and just for that reason because we only have less than $10,000. >> So turn it to 5,000 as max amount for now. >> For now. >> I'd agree with that. >> Okay. >> Agree. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Does anybody want to make a motion with that amendment? >> Do we need to make a a motion to alter the amendments? >> Yeah, that would be in your motion. I'll make a motion to approve amendments to the downtown restoration loan program >> with >> with an amendment >> with an amendment of $5,000 instead of 7,500 >> for the maximum forgivable loan >> for maximum forgivable loan. I'll second. >> Does that cover us? >> Yep. >> Okay. Uh we've got a motion by council member Sarah, second by council member Conrad. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> Oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. All right. Can I get a motion to adjourn the Carver Economic Development Authority meeting? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion by council member Parchman. >> Second. >> Second by council member Pasco. Still struggling with all those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. >> Motion passes. >> Good evening. Now for real. >> Now you can go get Erica from the airport. Yeah.