This transcript is from the Rosemount City Council meeting on October 17, 2023. I have identified the speakers based on the provided list of officials and the contextual clues (such as the Mayor’s roll calls and staff introductions). Note: The original transcript contains several phonetic misspellings of names (e.g., "Tyson" for Theisen, "Fresy" for Freske, "Clle" for Klimpel, and "Chief Doom/dlrm" for Chief Thomas). I have corrected these to the proper names in the speaker labels. *** [0:01] [Music] [0:34] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Oh, doing... not... how are you? [1:09] **Logan Martin:** Doing so we'll stick with the plan, right? I... [1:23] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Than are we bring any R responses T's to night's comment? [1:27] **Logan Martin:** We have comments yeah we we we'll have them but are we providing we have stuff in the back of the room. [1:35] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Okay sorry I thought you might have told that all right ready M everyone all right ready up down here we go. Good, I'd like to call the regular city council meeting for Tuesday October 17th 2023 to order. Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. [2:10] **All:** I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [2:25] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Thank you and welcome everyone both present and online this evening. The first item up is the approval of agenda. Are there any additions or corrections to the agenda? [2:44] **Logan Martin:** Yes Mayor, item 6G under consent. Staff is not prepared to throw that on the agenda tonight, so we'd like to pull that item and further discuss with our Consulting engineer. [2:55] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Okay, 6G is removed. Anything else? All right, with that, move the approval of the agenda. All in favor signify by saying Aye. [3:08] **Council:** Aye. [3:09] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Opposed? The agenda is approved. First item up is the presentations, proclamations and acknowledgements, which we have none this evening. We'll move on to number four, which we have reversed the public comment this evening. Our response to the public comment from the previous meeting two weeks ago will be presented first. If there's any additional questions or comments after that, we will take those there. So with that, tonight we'll have the comments being presented by staff. After that, there will be an open period for any of the council members to speak on any items that they wish to on the recent comments. And just a follow-up comment is that there currently is no application before us regarding the Bigfoot project. With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Martin. [3:58] **Logan Martin:** Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. Yeah, I just wanted to explain some of the switch here in the agenda. I think as we had thought about it at a staff level, as we're responding to public comment, that should come first on the agenda. It happened two weeks ago, we've had a chance to research and talk, let's respond to it, and then so you'll get that now and we'll stick with this kind of model going forward. Then we'll move on in the agenda where new public comments are received and then Council can choose to direct staff to respond as they wish. So, responding to public comments received at last council meeting—a lot of similarities to the previous city council meeting discussing project Bigfoot. As the Mayor mentioned, there is no pending application in front of the city for project Bigfoot, but we do want to discuss generally speaking kind of misconceptions about development, how development processes are handled at the city, and help provide some additional narrative on development—how development really works at a city level. So what we're going to do here a little bit tonight, and for folks in the room, we have a preview handout here that's a two-page spread that's coming up in the next city newsletter, which is hitting mailboxes in the next 10 days to two weeks. A deep dive that's titled "The Winding Path of City Planning and Community Development." It's kind of an expansion on the previous article that happened in the city newsletter, I think was titled "The Mystery of Development," talking about how development really works. From a high level, I wanted to just give a couple comments, then Adam Kienberger, our Community Development Director, will talk through a little bit of the highlights from this article and then encourage folks watching online to watch for it in their mailboxes. It's getting mailed to every homeowner to help folks understand how development really works at a city level. Folks in the room are happy to grab it in the back of the room. But from a high level, and in the kind of context of project Bigfoot, a project like project Bigfoot has been in the city's strategic plan for many, many iterations. So developing the University of Minnesota property as the university has decided and chosen to sell has been in the city's strategic plan for a long time. The City Council has been a stated and open pro-growth City Council, pro-business City Council, for many, many versions of City Council far preceding the City Council that sits up here today. So I think from a staff level, we just wanted to kind of maybe answer that misconception that this is maybe a new idea or a new experience. I started here in January of 2017 and I can say that we started responding to requests for proposals on the UMore property right away when I started in 2017, and I know my predecessor and Adam's predecessor in Community Development were responding to them as well. So folks have been looking at this parcel for projects like project Bigfoot or others for many, many, many years. It is just recently now that the university has completed their environmental analysis and been willing to, from a policy standpoint, sell the land as a willing landowner and have now made the decision to sell the land. Just kind of an important distinction there. Adam, with that, maybe that's a good ground set and I can throw it to you to chat through a little bit of the handout. [7:12] **Adam Kienberger:** Sure, thank you Mr. Martin. One of the things that Logan was talking about is communicating how City processes take place. How do we get to develop a community, where are we going as a community? So as you did note, there is an excerpt from the upcoming City newsletter that's provided in the back for anybody that's in the audience that would wish to take a look at that. But again, it's on this series of not only demystifying development, but just how does development take place? What are the processes involved? Why are we doing the things that we do? So if you take a look at a lot of eastern Rosemount, for example, a lot of it is guided Business Park. When we say guided, we mean that that's currently what our 2040 land use plan shows that that land will ultimately be—could ultimately be—depending on development, willing sellers, willing buyers, those types of transactions. So it is important to note that actions that the city contemplates, or as we're working with developers or end users, that's what we communicate to them. It's all dictated through the city's land use plan, which is something that cities within the Metro are obligated and required to do through State Statute via the Met Council. Every 10 years we provide updates on that. So what we are really doing is just following that pathway that we have currently had in place for many, many decades. One other thing to call out in the update that's provided and will be hitting mailboxes here in the next couple of weeks: something that the city is very conscientious to do is that all of our processes, they are not specific on *who* is making application; it's *what* is making an application to the city. So it is the size, type of business, location—those are things that are within the purview of the city to manage, review, and make recommendations to both the Planning Commission, Port Authority, and City Council on. And then lastly, those things keep us on that track towards the vision that the City Council has outlined both within the city's Comp Plan as well as other strategic visions and guiding documents that the city utilizes. And just emphasizing that this is all done to create an equitable playing field for both landowners as well as buyers. These are market-driven transactions within the free market economy and they ultimately will lead towards continued investment and a strong and successful Rosemount. So I think with that, I'd be happy to turn it back to you. [9:45] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** All right. Any questions for staff regarding that information? All right. I'm going to open up the podium for any comments from Council. I'll look to my right... my left first. Anyone wishing to speak? [10:00] **Paul Essler:** Yeah, so just as a follow-up to the last couple meetings. First of all, I think that the point was made—or a point needs to be made—that all the residents, the 26,000–27,000 residents of Rosemount elected the five of us to represent your interests. And that's what we take pretty serious. We're representing all residents of Rosemount, not just the individuals that are currently in the room at meetings. So I think that's really important to point out. This Council really wants engagement with the community. We want to hear from the community, but we want engagement. And what engagement means is listening to different perspectives and learning. Learning what a project is, learning about what's going to happen. Engagement is not a one-sided conversation; engagement is truly listening to other perspectives and what reality is. And that's what you guys should expect from us and that's what we expect from residents as well. You guys trusted us. For those of us who are elected, you trusted us, you voted us in to represent your interests. Our responsibility is to learn. We dig in, we ask tough questions, and you guys have every right to hold us accountable to do that. So we will continue to do that, and that's the reason we have public comment in all of our meetings. The point was made several times that residents don't feel like we've been transparent. I think, and we feel pretty strongly, that we've been very transparent. We're following all the rules and then some. We take public comments when we are not required to take public comments because we want to hear from residents. We want to hear from you guys and we want to hear your concerns and we want to address them. And you guys will bring ideas and questions that maybe we didn't have, and that's the purpose of the public comment. But in turn, then you need to trust that we're asking those tough questions and you guys need to be involved. You have every opportunity to come to every open meeting and hear the dialogue—the same dialogue we've got. Work sessions—you guys are invited to every single work session. So we want you engaged. From all of us on the Council, we want engagement. At the end of the day, you know, we again, we answer to all the residents. Not all residents are able or show up for City Council meetings, but we take our role very serious and that is that we represent all residents. At the end of the day, I know a lot of residents are really concerned about losing the small town, the hometown feel. I just want everyone to know: every decision we make, every conversation we have, it's all about keeping Rosemount’s hometown feel. And we're working hard to do that. Growth is inevitable. We want the growth, we want the business, we want happy businesses, we want profitable businesses in town. But at the end of the day, we're working really hard on your behalf to keep the hometown feel and we'll continue to do so because we know that that's what our residents are asking for. That's all I've got. [13:17] **Tami Klimpel:** I will defer at this time. [13:18] **Paul Theisen:** Yeah, and what I'd like to add is... so I've been on Council for less than a full year now and I'm still learning as I go. But one thing I think Councilman Essler was referring to is really what's the "why." I think we heard that loud and clear from the residents that have spoken up in the last couple meetings, and that's why I really do believe that it is engagement back and forth. Because the importance of that is showing that we're really working hard to ask the tough questions of staff. That's one thing I guess I've been so impressed with so far in my short tenure: the knowledge and the due diligence that our staff does for this community. If there's one thing that I could do, it is just celebrate all the work that the staff does behind the scenes to make sure that we are making sure that we are developing in smart, safe, intentional ways to require the planning. So when somebody—a big business—looks at land in Rosemount, they're taking in all of these considerations following State Statute, following the company guidelines. When we look at opportunities like this, talking about growth and development, I really look at what are the benefits to the residents. I think the benefits are something that we really will highlight when we know more, but there's a lot that were mentioned as of the last Council meeting. I just want to continue to learn, but I also want to continue doing that engagement with the residents because I think there's a lot of great things that are coming to Rosemount and I think there's a lot to celebrate, but we want to make sure that we're transparent with that. So keep reaching out, keep reaching out besides these meetings. The engagement is important and that's two-way. So thank you. [15:17] **Heidi Freske:** I have nothing further to add than what both Councilmen Essler and Theisen have mentioned. Engagement is critical. I think about some of the comments that were made in the last couple meetings and I heard a couple times, "Well why Rosemount? There's got to be a reason, there's got to be something going on." And I kind of turn the page and say, "Well why not Rosemount?" We've got a lot of available land that's been for sale or that needs to be developed, and it's the big pieces of land where companies like this are looking for. We're close to the airport, we're close to the highways, and I think it's finally our turn. I say that because we are a pro-business, a pro-growth Council and we're starting to see these opportunities come our way and it's really exciting. But just to echo what they have said, we are constantly pushing of how do we do that while still maintaining our hometown feel, and it's very hard to do, but we're very deliberate on that. So just keep that in mind, but we continue to welcome the engagement, your thoughts, your questions. We truly are trying to do what's best for our community. Thank you very much. [16:20] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Thank you Council. With that, I will consider the response to public comment, item four, completed. We'll now go to item five for public comments again. Anyone wishing to come forward before Council can do so at this time. Please state your full name and address and limit your comments to three minutes. In the past, there's been some people that have extended that time. I will gavel at 3 minutes and ask you to complete your comments. Also note that we do have a fair amount of business to transact this evening. We took comments last meeting for over 45 minutes. Based on the responses that we've given over the last several meetings and that there is no actual project before us, I would just caution anyone from further expounding on something that doesn't exist as far as we're concerned at the moment. I will take any other comments and appreciate any of those. So with that, the podium is open. Please come forward, state again your name, address, and your question or comment. Going once... [17:51] **Kathy Pritchard:** I just want to say that I really like how... excuse me. Oh, I'm Kathy Pritchard, 1573 Crystal Path in Rosemount. I just want to say thank you. I really appreciated that you all spoke before because at the last meeting it felt like more of a statement, and this is more of an interaction and I do appreciate that. Every time I have ever emailed the City Council or anybody that's in the city, they have been very responsive with responding back to me right away and very professional, and I just want to thank you. But I was confused a little bit last time so I just wanted some clarification on something that happened. A member of your community asked if you could please hold off on approving the Title 10 until we could ask some more questions and discuss this in further detail first. Your response was, "If you had concerns you had the opportunity to bring them up a month ago at our commission meeting," which made me wonder why we couldn't discuss this before you voted on it. I don't feel like it would have hurt anything for a further discussion, especially since we've reached out to you. I just don't think it's fair because you do say that you would like us to be engaged and informed, but where you are actually denying us to ask further questions about the Title change concerns, and yet you still voted on it anyhow after knowing ahead of time we just wanted to talk a little further about it. This actually kind of shows me that you're preventing us from being engaged and informed. So I'm just a little confused about that part because I don't think it would have hurt anything for us to ask some more questions because we did and we do still have some questions on that. I think the rest is about Meta and so I know you don't want to hear about that, and if the application does come in I would like to say some things. Thank you. [20:11] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Thank you. I'll speak directly to the question regarding the Title 10. It currently is open for comments and you can contact our Storm Water Specialist if there's any questions that you have regarding it. It was a business item that needed to be approved under a certain time frame. We were simply reflecting changes that the state had made and so we were incorporating those in our ordinance. Thank you. [20:43] **Linda Nero:** Hi, Linda Nero, 15039 Derby Circle, Rosemount. I spoke last time but I just have a question. It seemed—I know you said there's no project—but then the next day in the Minneapolis Star Tribune they started talking about that the site plan’s been approved or electrical, because we had pictures that day that we were here of electrical trucks out on the site. I was wondering if you could give us an update of where we are on the project even though there's "no project," but there really is a project because it hit the paper. I used to work for an architectural firm and once a project hits the newspaper, it's a project. That's all, thank you. [21:28] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** I think we did hear something about the activity that was going on in the site. My understanding is it was not related to anything. Does anyone on staff could speak to that? [21:35] **Logan Martin:** The article in the Star Tribune talks about the approval that the Public Utilities Commission gave to the project's parent company to receive power. So that's why it got coverage in the Star Tribune—is that the Public Utilities Commission took action. This is part of the due diligence process that the project Bigfoot team has been completing prior to them bringing an application to the City Council. So yes, the Public Utilities Commission took an action to agree to give it electrical power. [22:24] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Right. I also think wasn't there—and I'll look to our Community Development Director—I believe there was some action that was being taken by actually the university on their property related to an updating... [22:36] **Adam Kienberger:** Correct. Yeah, maybe I'll kind of reframe that Mayor. We had heard from a few that there was some activity near the site within the UMore private property. The university did confirm that they are always doing work within their own property. In this case, they do annual asbestos abatement in areas of the UMore property out there as part of their regular scheduled proper property maintenance and upkeeping abatement that they do on an annual basis, not on the site that is being considered for this project. [23:14] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Thanks. And also there is an annual—oh, is it not an annual, a five-year update that will be due on the AUAR? [23:25] **Adam Kienberger:** Yep, the AUAR is the overarching environmental document that takes into consideration any number of impacts for general development of a parcel of a certain size. Again, these are statutory requirements and there are a number of existing and ongoing AUARs throughout the community for future and proposed development projects. [23:42] **Paul Essler:** I mean, isn't it also important to point out the fact that this is the University of Minnesota's property? This potential buyer is doing due diligence on a parcel of property we don't own; the property is owned by the University of Minnesota. They're doing their due diligence to determine whether they want to bring this project forward for approval to the City Council. [24:09] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Correct. Correct. Okay, thanks. All right, thank you. Anyone else wishing to come before Council on any other question or comment? [24:23] **Bill Keifer:** Bill Keifer, 3245 145th Street West, Rosemount. I don't understand—if there's not a project, what are we talking about? You keep saying there's no project. I just don't understand that's all. [24:43] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Exactly. We have comments from the residents that we're trying to respond to regarding a project that we don't have in front of us. So yes, that's really strange. [24:55] **Bill Keifer:** Yes, it is. Well it said in the paper something about somebody's got to approve it—this project that doesn't exist. [25:05] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** This project doesn't exist. They have not made a submission to the city for us to take any action on. [25:12] **Bill Keifer:** Do you know what the project is that doesn't exist? [25:15] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** We are under a non-disclosure agreement regarding a project called Bigfoot. Anything else that you've read in the paper, we know as much as you do about it. [25:28] **Bill Keifer:** Well, I guess I don't understand, but I don't know enough to ask you more questions. [25:34] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** I guess that's why we've asked for limited conversation about it. Thank you. All right, seeing no one at this time I will close public comment... I'm sorry, one more gentleman. All right, one more gentleman. [25:52] **Lance Kimi:** My name's Lance Kimi. I live at 12900 Amen Circle in Rosemount. I've only been to or watched two City Council meetings, but I've recently moved to Rosemount. My wife as well as her parents and grandparents have all lived in Rosemount since they were young. Her grandparents remember when modern conveniences such as going to Target would take 30 minutes and full class sizes consisted of 17 kids. They remember Rosemount having a sign by the now Middle School that said "Town with a Future." Fast forward to today, Google Maps says I can be at Target in 10 minutes. The local high school regularly graduates 500 young adults. The sign "Town with a Future" is no longer there, but I believe it's a brighter future than they once thought. Every community experiences change, but as I'm sure you're aware, Rosemount is positioned to see many more changes in the coming years, being in the third most populous county in the state and a city which sees consistent growth year-over-year. Rosemount residents place a tremendous amount of trust in you, the City Council members. Change is hard, uncomfortable, and can be scary. It is the City Council's job to ensure clear communication and understanding to foster said trust. I believe over the last several City Council meetings that fear of change has expressed itself and quite loudly. Residents have stated they do not want to live in a city or Rosemount to become a "15-minute city," when in fact, Rosemount already is a relatively short distance for modern luxuries. This city is positioned in such a way that if you need something you can get it without causing too much hardship. Examples are grocery stores, hardware stores, daycare, leisure activities, shopping, and of course school events. What I'm asking of my fellow residents is to trust the City Council members you have elected. They're members of this community too. Rather than worrying about something sinister at hand, envision Rosemount as a town with a future and not as a city that avoids change and gets left behind. If we do not allow businesses to come here, they most assuredly will go somewhere else. And then a more boring question: the city's tax capacity. At the November 19th meeting, there was a figure that showed the city's 2023 tax capacity at around $50 million. The same chart also called out the portion of that tax capacity as it related to Flint Hills. Does the city have projections on the rezoning of the UMore Park whenever that is done, and if so, am I able to get a resource on that? And that is all I have, thank you. [28:44] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Thank you. I'll look to staff if you even want to try to swing at that. My sense is that since we don't know what that development is, any tax capacity projections would really be meaningless, but I'll look to staff. [29:01] **Logan Martin:** Mayor, members of the Council, it's a very good question and a very fair question. I would love to have you shoot me an email or I can catch you outside and we could maybe chat some more. But yes, it is hard to know if a project were to apply, what value it would be given at the County Assessor's office to then know how that would spin off into a tax capacity. But the reason why historically the City Council had asked for an allocation of Flint Hills's capacity inside the overall city's tax capacity is this notion that there's a large singular landowner that has a pretty sizable—about 10%—of the city's tax capacity. Just knowing kind of how that ebbs and flows over the course of the years has been beneficial to track and monitor. It's very hard to know what impact a potential future project Bigfoot applicant could have. But happy to run those numbers when they do apply, if they do apply, and then make those calculations and chat through that with you. [30:16] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Just as a follow-up comment: I think the specific question was maybe UMore in total. Since we don't know what fully is going to get developed out there—whether it's large buildings, smaller buildings, or houses—that does make it difficult. For the length of time that I've been on Council, we've noted Flint Hills because we've had comments both pro and against Flint Hills. Like it or not, Flint Hills is in our community and they do represent approximately 10 to 12% of our tax capacity. So if you were to shut it down tomorrow, that would be a hefty tax increase for our residents. They've been good neighbors to us, making sizable donations to the Flint Hills Recreational Complex. That was 57 acres of money that the city residents did not have to pay for that amenity. Plus and minuses—we try to balance it all. [31:37] **Logan Martin:** Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, maybe I can take one extra swing at that question. We talked a little bit about an upcoming article in the newsletter. I think this could be also good foundation for a continuance of that same trend, talking about Economic Development and the strength of our community from a tax base. The note about Flint Hills as being a single large component of the tax base—sometimes you've heard historically about cities that are like a "one-industry town" or "one-business town." What happens when that business goes under or something changes globally, economically, financially? It can really hurt that community. So kind of a fundamental of Economic Development is diversifying your tax base whenever and however you can through different types of residential developments, different types of industrial, commercial, other types of developments. The more diverse and the more different development you have throughout your community, the stronger and more resilient your tax base will be. [32:41] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** That's a good point. So I think just to put a final comment on this: we're all here learning and we're all here to try to connect and to make Rosemount a better place for all of us to live. That is our goal and we will keep listening. With that, I believe that will complete our public comments, item number five. We'll move on to Consent Agenda number six. As noted previously, 6G is removed. Are there any items Council would like to pull for further comment or discussion? [33:14] **Paul Theisen:** I'd like to pull 6F. [33:17] **Tami Klimpel:** And I would like to pull item 6I. [33:20] **Paul Essler:** Oh yes, item 6L. [33:24] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** All right. So with that, would someone like to move the Consent Agenda items 6A through 6N with G removed, and F, L, and I for further discussion? [33:37] **Paul Theisen:** So moved. [33:40] **Heidi Freske:** Second. [33:41] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion by Theisen, second by Freske. The items on the Consent Agenda that remain include our bills listing, minutes from our October 3rd regular and work sessions, donation acceptance from American Legion Post 65, land exchange agreements regarding the Public Works and Police campus, Belesta Greenway Trail project change order, a declaration of surplus property for Parks and Recreation, the Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for absentee voting administration, and the approval of the Amber Fields 13th edition preliminary plat minor amendment. Roll please. [34:15] **Erin Fasbender:** Essler? (Aye). Klimpel? (Aye). Weisensel? (Aye). Theisen? (Aye). Freske? (Aye). [34:25] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Consent Agenda is approved. We'll move to item 6F, hiring new firefighters. [34:34] **Paul Theisen:** Yeah, thank you Mayor. I just wanted to call this out. Over the past few months, firefighter applicants Jessica Bullen, Brett Harms, Michael Lee, Will McDonald, and Alex Salinas have gone through physical agility training, completed a written test, participated in the interview process, completed medical testing, and completed background packets that were investigated by the Rosemount Police Department. I'm happy to say that all listed candidates have successfully passed each phase of the hiring process and are now Rosemount firefighters. I just wanted to call that out and say congratulations to these new firefighters. At this time, I'd like to recommend we authorize the hiring of additional firefighters as presented. [35:46] **Paul Essler:** Second. [35:48] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion by Theisen, second by Essler. Roll please. [35:54] **Erin Fasbender:** Klimpel? (Aye). Weisensel? (Aye). Theisen? (Aye). Freske? (Aye). Essler? (Aye). [35:59] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** 6F is approved 5-0. Move to 6I, appointment of election judges. [36:04] **Tami Klimpel:** Yep, same as with last meeting. This particular item is specific to the special election this fall on which I am on the ballot, so I would respectfully withdraw myself from that vote. [36:18] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Any other questions or comments? Just a note of appreciation to those volunteers. I'll also note that one of those volunteers is one of our Youth Commissioners. Yes, it is. [36:31] **Heidi Freske:** I'll make a motion to approve the attached resolution appointing additional election judges for the November 7th 2023 election. [36:40] **Paul Theisen:** Second. [36:42] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion by Freske, second by Theisen. Roll please. [36:46] **Erin Fasbender:** Weisensel? (Aye). Theisen? (Aye). Freske? (Aye). Essler? (Aye). Klimpel? (Present). [36:52] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion approved 4-0. We'll move to 6L, Lifetime facility change order. [36:57] **Paul Essler:** Yep, I just wanted to pull this one just from a transparency standpoint. Looking to understand the reasons for the change orders. Obviously structural was a negative, but the other ones—maybe you can just talk a little bit about what the background is for the increases. [37:16] **Logan Martin:** Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. Parks Director Schultz wasn't able to be here tonight so I'll take my best crack at this. I've obviously reviewed the packet and been in conversation with Dan. The big-ticket item there on concrete and civil is just some soil correction related items, and so some of the areas of the foundation required a bit of additional concrete support for that area. I think that also is equated to the aquatics area of the facility as well—so some of the soil corrections and concrete additions in the aquatics area and then the civil design that came along with that. I'm not as up to speed on what the HVAC and plumbing changes are so I don't want to jump too far ahead on that one. The good news is this is the first change order for the project. The project is otherwise really progressing very well, and the contingency fund for the project is funded right now at $884,000. So it is on track, it's on budget, and within the contingency budget that was provided for the project. But beyond that, that is the most I can get you tonight. We can get you some additional follow-up if you'd like it. [38:34] **Paul Essler:** On the concrete and civil—so these are unforeseen circumstances at the time of purchase? [38:40] **Logan Martin:** That's correct. Yeah, once we got out onto the site, understanding the additional needs for both of those line items... [38:47] **Paul Essler:** Wouldn't the developer have identified that as part of their due diligence at the time of the purchase though? [38:52] **Logan Martin:** No, I mean, often what happens is soil borings take place on the property but certainly don't happen at every square inch of the property. As I know this is in your industry, so to my knowledge there were areas where soil borings occurred, but specific pockets of soil compaction issues—extra moss and peat and things of that nature, unnatural material that isn't buildable—they had to remove those items, civil design it a bit differently, and then I think add some extra concrete footings is what I understand. [39:27] **Paul Essler:** I guess I would just ask maybe to pass along the comment back to them that in the future, if these are things that probably should have been identified as part of their due diligence, it's usually not something that is easily just accepted as a change order. [39:43] **Logan Martin:** Yeah, I think the issue is how could it have been found during their due diligence? There's always that risk developers take; that's their job. [39:55] **Paul Essler:** Okay. So just make sure they pass... I'll go ahead and approve this for tonight, but just I guess the message going forward is that things they should have identified as part of their due diligence, I wouldn't expect to get a change order for. [40:11] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** You're okay with moving forward or would you like to hold it up? [40:15] **Paul Essler:** I'm comfortable moving forward as long as they're getting the message that going forward not everything is just a rubber stamp in terms of approving things that they probably should have caught. [40:27] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** I'm having a little difficulty pulling up the specific attachment... I did want to see what was in here. Concrete... next page we got here. Yeah, there's several ASIs in here. I'd like to understand what some of those are if they are related to site conditions, moving things around, I don't know. It's not really clear. Those are just the backup—the change orders themselves. We're not seeing a full detail of what some of that is, and I think we'd like to see that kind of transparency. Particularly like ASI 1 is not part of that backup. [41:35] **Paul Essler:** Yeah, I think the better thing is to just defer it and I think we're okay with that. [41:41] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Yeah, so unless someone wants to take a motion on that, we can make a motion to defer it. [41:48] **Paul Essler:** I'll make a motion to defer the recommended action to approve change order number one for the Lifetime facility as listed in the executive summary until further backup is provided. [42:06] **Tami Klimpel:** Second. [42:08] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion by Essler, second by Klimpel to defer. Roll please. [42:14] **Erin Fasbender:** Theisen? (Nay). Freske? (Aye). Essler? (Aye). Klimpel? (Aye). Weisensel? (Aye). [42:21] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion passes 4-1. That completes the Consent Agenda. We'll move on to public hearings. The first item up is Schaefer Richardson conduit financing authorization request amendment. Mr. Kienberger. [42:37] **Adam Kienberger:** Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. This is a continuation or an amendment to an item that the Council held a public hearing on and provided an approval action for back on July 24th of this year. As the Council is well aware, Schaefer Richardson is pursuing development of a workforce housing development at the northeast corner of Akron and Connemara. Part of their financing package allows them the ability—and the city was receptive—to do some conduit financing through the city. It says on here "the City of Columbus," which when you read that out loud doesn't usually translate into something that the city would typically see in its own memo. We do have a couple of attachments here in the memo from Schaefer Richardson's legal team at Kennedy & Graven to explain the "why." This is a bit of a repeat from your July meeting. Their original request is in here along with their amended request. Previously, we provided host approval for the issuance of obligations in the principal amount of $30,570,000, including those on a tax-exempt basis in the amount of $24,570,000. There's been a need for an additional $6 million and then, due to that increase, this is essentially an amendment to that action that was previously approved by the Council. Council is required to conduct another public hearing to satisfy the requirements of both state and federal law. I can certainly answer any questions on the project. Legal representation from the developer is here that can answer any of those more technical questions. The requested action would be to hold a public hearing and then to approve the attached resolution providing host approval for the issuance of revenue obligation bonds by the City of Columbus for the benefit of Aden Avenue LLLP. [44:39] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Any questions from Council? I would just have one ask: if I'm a resident listening in right now and I'm scratching my head as to why are we doing something with the City of Columbus, can you further explain that a little bit? [44:59] **Adam Kienberger:** I can, but I wouldn't be able to do justice to the memo that's attached from Kennedy & Graven. They did a very good job of succinctly describing what would be described as a very nuanced and very atypical type of mechanism that exists for how bonds are issued for these types of projects. Should we have... [45:33] **Sophia Ley:** Thank you. Sophia Ley from Kennedy & Graven. I work with Julie Eddington, who is Bond Counsel to the City of Columbus, who is the issuer of the bonds. The reason the City of Rosemount is holding a public hearing is because the project is located in Rosemount. For state law and federal tax purposes, the City of Rosemount has to hold a public hearing, as does the City of Columbus who will be issuing the bonds. The City of Columbus is issuing the bonds because they have submitted an application to the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget for an allocation of volume cap. Volume cap essentially is called "bonding authority," and so volume cap is allocated by the federal government to states to issue private activity bonds like the bonds to be issued by Columbus. These bonds will finance a multi-family housing project. [46:50] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Why isn't the City—since the project is here—why aren't we able to hold the bond? Is it just simply that state law requires that? [46:58] **Sophia Ley:** It's actually the City of Columbus that will be issuing the bonds, but because the bonds will finance a project in the City of Rosemount, the city has to say it's okay. They have to consent under both state and federal tax rules. [47:20] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Okay. Anything else our residents should be aware of regarding this action? [47:24] **Sophia Ley:** These are conduit revenue bonds. Neither the City of Rosemount nor the City of Columbus have any liability for payment of the bonds, even in the event the project or the conduit borrower encounters financial difficulties. It doesn't count towards the city's "BQ limit"—the tax-exempt qualified bonds that a city is limited to $10 million per year. [48:15] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Okay, any questions from Council? No additional? Thank you. With that then, we will open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward regarding this may do so at that time. Please state your name and address and your comments. Seeing no one making a mad dash to the podium, I'll move to close the public hearing. Is there a second? [48:59] **Tami Klimpel:** Second. [49:01] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** All in favor signify by saying Aye. (Aye). The hearing is closed. Action? [49:09] **Paul Theisen:** I'll make a motion to approve the attached resolution providing host approval for the issuance of a revenue obligation bond by the City of Columbus for the benefit of Aden Avenue LLLP. [49:17] **Heidi Freske:** Second. [49:19] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion by Theisen, second by Freske. Roll please. [49:22] **Erin Fasbender:** Freske? (Aye). Essler? (Aye). Klimpel? (Aye). Weisensel? (Aye). Theisen? (Aye). [49:33] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion carries 5-0. Thank you very much. That completes 7A. We'll move to 7B. Mr. Nemcek. [49:45] **Anthony Nemcek:** Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. The city received a request from SKB Environmental for an extension of their current Interim Use Permit (IUP) that was approved in 2018. To provide a little context, we are talking about SKB's landfill operation in the eastern portion of the city located along Highway 55, east of Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend refinery. The current IUP was approved in 2018 with a 5-year term, meaning that the expiration date of that IUP would be November 7th, 2023. Ahead of the expiration, SKB came to the city with a request for an IUP renewal that included an expansion. That also included a few conditions, one of which was that they receive all necessary permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Dakota County. In early 2023, the MPCA indicated that the review process was a little delayed due to turnover, specifically with their hydrogeologic technician to look at the groundwater and make sure that there wouldn't be any groundwater impacts for the expansion. With the expiration date arriving prior to receiving that MPCA permit to expand, SKB asked the city to consider an extension of that 2018 permit until June of 2024 to allow them to finish up that review process. Not only does the MPCA have to go through their review, the county itself is the one who issues the permit. To allow for that process to be completed, the applicant requested an expiration date of June 30th, 2024 of their existing 2018 IUP. The implications of the extension would be that they can just continue doing what they're currently doing on the site now. Once the permit is received from the MPCA and issued by the county, the new IUP that has been approved would come into effect and at that point SKB could continue their work with their expansion. Before the Council tonight is simply an extension of their 2018 permit to allow them to continue operation while they're finishing up getting those conditions for their new permit in order. The applicant is present and can probably speak a little bit more clearly to their operations, but staff does find that an extension is justified based on the correspondence received. [53:18] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Any questions? I'd just like to clarify: so if I'm hearing correctly, the delay here is something outside the control of the applicant? [53:34] **Anthony Nemcek:** That's staff's understanding, yes. Based on the timing, they applied for their renewal back in '22. [53:49] **Paul Essler:** I'm presuming they are fully compliant and operating under their current interim permit? There's no issues? [53:57] **Anthony Nemcek:** Correct, that's come before Code Compliance or anything like that. [54:05] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Okay, so with that I will open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this issue may do so at this time. The applicant may certainly come forward. [54:41] **Ryan O’Gera:** Good evening, Ryan O'Gera with SKB Environmental, 251 Starkey Street in St. Paul. Mayor and council members, I just want to take an opportunity to thank staff for moving so quickly to get this hearing in order. It sort of got lost in the permitting process with MPCA and the staffing turnover there, and that delay made us realize that our current IUP was expiring and we kind of need that to keep operating. So really a big hand to staff for making this come together because, while it is just approving what we do today, it's absolutely necessary for us to operate. I appreciate the consideration. [55:40] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Going once, twice... With that I'll move to close the public hearing. Is there a second? [56:03] **Tami Klimpel:** Second. [56:05] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion by Weisensel, second by Klimpel. All in favor signify by saying Aye. (Aye). The public hearing is closed. Who would like to move the motion? [56:18] **Tami Klimpel:** I will move to adopt a resolution approving an extension of the 2018 Interim Use Permit for SKB Environmental. [56:28] **Paul Essler:** Second. [56:30] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion by Klimpel, second by Essler. Roll please. [56:34] **Erin Fasbender:** Klimpel? (Aye). Weisensel? (Aye). Theisen? (Aye). Freske? (Aye). Essler? (Aye). [56:45] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion approved 5-0. With that we'll move on to item number nine, new business. 9A, the PD/PW update and change order package number one. [56:56] **Logan Martin:** Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. I'll get this one started and then my project partners, Mr. Egger and Chief Thomas, are here as well. The PD/PW campus is progressing rapidly and going really well. For anybody who hasn't driven by, it's certainly a changing landscape out there and it's really looking like a building. We have been providing the Council and residents a monthly update that you see attached here. We would really encourage residents to go to the project landing page to learn more. Kraus-Anderson produces a really nice piece of literature and then some updated aerials, some drone imagery, and videos. As the project really is ramping up here and we have our first package of change orders, we want to get a rhythm whereby we do something like this on the Council agenda monthly. This item in front of you has a couple of months' worth of changes. Catches us up to present. Going forward, then, we would do a monthly update and ask Council for an action on the change orders that occurred in that time frame. As Council will recall, the City Administrator is able to approve change orders up to $50,000. We will do that as the project goes through the course of the month. What we're asking for also is that Council's comfort level with allowing change orders that are above that $50,000 limit to occur throughout the month and then be reported on after they've occurred or been authorized. Likely the work hasn't started, but they've been authorized in the field by the project team, and then come back and report that out to the City Council so long as the project contingency budget is still fully funded. If we were to get into a situation where the project contingency budget is getting close to expended, we then would not approve change orders until the City Council has had a chance to see them. We have vetted this with our finance team and the auditors and they're comfortable with this operation because we have an established parameter that you've told us to operate inside of. The large ticket items as you saw with Lifetime really happen as you're first getting in the dirt and finding dirt issues. We were pretty successful without really any soil corrections needed on the property. We're also in the other big ticket items right now, which is steel and major components of the building. Kraus-Anderson has told us that the hope is after we get through these initial months, that change orders aren't going to per se go away, but they're hopefully not as sizable as the couple that you see here. Only three of the items are above the $50,000 limit. The first is that structural steel clarification—it's a $248,700 expected change order because of the project structure alterations that happened from Bid Package 1 to Bid Package 2. In Bid Package 1, the structure wasn't at final design, but we wanted to get it out at an aggressive time in the marketplace to get good bids. This change reflects the final steel required, connecting the Public Works building to the Police building. Second item above 50,000 is the Verkada camera and door system change. We had a camera and door system that was chosen to help us stay within project budgets before we went out for bid, but it did not have the capacity and features that the Chief and Nick would like to have for site control and safety. Upon further research and with the good bids we received, we are proposing that we would go towards the Verkada system, which has a much more advanced and robust camera system and door tracking system for access. Chief Thomas is ready to talk more about that system if you would like. Staying on that vein, one of the things we changed through value engineering was we didn't include the amount of high-density evidence storage that we would have liked to see. Because the project was bid aggressively and is in budget parameters, we would like to add back in the high-density evidence storage system. Storing evidence is a critical component of what police departments do. Chief Thomas has educated me about this quite a bit. The chain of custody of a piece of evidence is critical for future prosecution. If we can't prove that piece of evidence was handled appropriately and stayed secure, then that piece of evidence is exposed in a trial. We have state standards we get audited on, and this will help us ensure we are achieving audit standards. The project contingency budget is well funded—we're at 3.9% or $1.772 million remaining on the project. We intend to do this update with the Council every month. If that sounds okay to Council, we would appreciate the recommended action and providing staff that flexibility going forward. [1:05:43] **Paul Theisen:** Yeah, thank you Mayor. Two questions I have for you, Logan. One, is the project currently still tracking on schedule for the end of the 2024 completion with all these change orders? And second, is the budget still currently tracking at $58.2 million total even with these change orders? [1:06:06] **Logan Martin:** Yep. And so that budget number, that 58 million, includes a contingency number in it—that 1.7 million that I mentioned. The hope is that we would not spend that whole contingency number and then we would be able to come in below that $58 million number. [1:06:50] **Paul Essler:** Okay, so on the bottom of page 196 of the packet, you've got executed change orders of 383, pending change orders of 264, but the ones we’re being asked to approve right now total 443. So help me reconcile those three numbers. [1:07:08] **Logan Martin:** Well, item number one, the 248,000 structural steel number—they’ve got that labeled as fully approved because they are charging forward with that change because it's critical to the building. In Kraus-Anderson’s accounting, it's considered fully approved, but as of today we're required to authorize that before they move forward with it. [1:07:37] **Paul Essler:** So what's the point of having the policy? You're asking to change the policy, but what's the point if they can proceed without getting our approval even though our policy requires anything over 50,000? [1:07:56] **Logan Martin:** That's a fair assessment if you're going to look at it in language on a paper, but managing a project in the field doesn't work that way. If you want us to deliver a project by the end of December 2024, then we will stop every week and come ask you for information... [1:08:12] **Paul Essler:** I've worked with city and government entities in my other job where they meet once a month and they have to approve every change order. We meet every two weeks, so I think we're pretty reasonable. I think some of these larger change orders, like the camera and door system or the high density storage—waiting two weeks isn't going to slow them down. The 248,000—the fact that we have a policy in place right now that anything over 50,000 requires our approval, that just goes against our policy that we've got in place right now. [1:09:12] **Logan Martin:** For the project to operate, we've got 6 to 9 month lead time on ordering steel. For the project to stay on schedule, I would imagine that this steel got ordered in April to be able to have it being installed right now. I guess all I can say, Councilman Essler, is we're asking the City Council to trust staff to manage the project. [1:10:04] **Paul Essler:** If it was really ordered back in April, that's even more concerning because we're six months later and we're just now hearing of it. That just seems odd. [1:10:44] **Tami Klimpel:** Can I ask a follow-up question? Under that bullet item it says "this change was always anticipated." My question isn't about this directly, but are there other things coming in regarding this project that you guys already are expecting that we're not aware of? [1:11:00] **Logan Martin:** I think first and foremost, we can have our construction manager here next time to speak to that directly. Because we did a two-bid package process, this is one of the risks we run into. We were under a time frame—not only with lead times on materials, some of them longer than 9 months—so because when we went off Bid Package 1, the entire design was not completed yet. Before it went off for Bid Package 2, we got the sizes of the rooftop units and things like that which increased the need for steel reinforcement. They did also mention they had 150,000 set aside for what they anticipated was going to be the need for more steel; it just ended up being over 200,000. [1:12:44] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** So what I'm hearing at least on the steel: there was an anticipation of 150, it actually came in at 248, so really your difference is about 92,000? [1:12:54] **Logan Martin:** Correct. The number 248 isn't quite as alarming when you realize that we already recognized a contingency amount of 150 prior. [1:13:04] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** We should have had timely notice of that. I understand urgency, but as a Council we are available for special meetings if needed. I suspect some of this information didn't come to you quick enough because I know how hard change orders are to keep track of. But I don't know in June that maybe you had something to bring to us at the June meeting? [1:14:15] **Paul Essler:** Again, these are three good examples of why we would change the policy. In the case of the first one, if it's truly lead time to get it done and keep it on schedule, I think that's fine. But in these other two examples, I don't think waiting two weeks to add back value-engineered items is too much to ask. [1:15:37] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** On items 2 and 3—since they weren't in the original and they got pulled out, when we bid those, was there an alternate? Did we get the best price when we had the opportunity to bid it or is this now a change order where we are kind of stuck with it? [1:16:15] **Chief Carson Thomas:** I'll stand up here more to answer any of the questions you have about high density shelving or the camera systems because we have not authorized those. In terms of publicly bidding, this fell within a cost threshold where we looked at different companies and different bids. I spent a significant amount of time last April doing my due diligence to vet certain camera companies and that's when I was introduced to Verkada specifically. We had them come in and do presentations with our IT team to learn about their capabilities. We found out it's cloud-based—we don't have that right now. It has artificial intelligence capabilities that our current system did not have. The only reason that we went with our current system was because it's what we currently had; it was an easy way to "value engineer" and find some savings when we were concerned about that top-line price. It brings capabilities that are going to be very important for our Emergency Operations Center—think about security for things like civil unrest or live feeds. [1:18:28] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** The question is, how did we bid it? Is this a change order that came after the fact or did we have an opportunity to bid it as an alternate? [1:18:40] **Chief Carson Thomas:** No. [1:19:15] **Paul Essler:** These two examples are the reason why we put that into the policy—anything over 50,000 we wanted to be able to have a dialogue. [1:19:40] **Logan Martin:** Can I just ask though a clarification on that? I mean these two absolutely make sense, right? What happens when it's something that's absolutely not "optional"—so like soil correction? If it's $100,000, how does Council feel in a capacity to make a decision on whether or not it wants to approve a soil correction that we're basically required to approve because the project is unbuildable if we don't do it? [1:20:10] **Paul Essler:** I'll answer the way most of my owners would have answered: I want to understand what caused it. I want to understand what caused the surprise. That's why we want to have the dialogue. [1:21:00] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Going back to the question: were either one of these bid as an alternate? [1:21:10] **Chief Carson Thomas:** No. [1:21:15] **Paul Theisen:** Me personally, I'm good with the changes that you've made. I understand these two were included originally and we took them out because of the budget concern, and now that we had a favorable bid opening, we’re adding them back. For that, I'm comfortable. [1:22:18] **Chief Carson Thomas:** And just to give a 30-second why high-density shelving is important: with one pound of force on a handle, you can move 5,000 to 10,000 pounds of evidence. Instead of our evidence techs getting up on ladders to pull down bins, which isn't safe, it triples the capacity of storage we can keep on the same footprint. In order to get the high density shelving in, they need to lay the railings in that room when the concrete's going down. [1:23:07] **Heidi Freske:** Knowing that we are in month four and we've got 18 months to go and we do have that contingency fund—do those have to be decided now or can they wait to see what else may be of more importance later in the construction period? [1:24:00] **Nick Egger:** Thank you Mayor. As Logan alluded to earlier, a lot of vertical construction has happened over the last six weeks. There's 426 pre-cast panels—they’re getting to the tail end of setting those now. We've even witnessed some of the roof steel start to go on the police garage portion. It's hitting right where we needed to in terms of getting to this point before things get too cold, which enables the interior work to proceed throughout the winter. That ties back into why we bid this when we did and compartmentalized it; with that came some risk of not having a 100% fully cooked plan when we issued that first bid package. [1:26:09] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Is there anything this fall yet anticipating putting down base coat asphalt at all? [1:26:24] **Nick Egger:** No, all the paving, curb and gutter, landscaping is entirely 2024. They're going to leave it a stabilized site throughout the winter. [1:26:42] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** The concern is I've seen it a couple of times when it's been wet—the road gets it, it tracks out some stuff. As we get into the wet weather, that's going to be a problem. [1:27:00] **Nick Egger:** We've been reading the weekly erosion settlement control reports on this project. They started off on a great footing, but throughout time they've gotten even better. [1:27:14] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** When do they have a projected roof-on date? Is that by the first of the year? [1:27:32] **Nick Egger:** I think it's in the December time frame. [1:28:43] **Tami Klimpel:** I am not a construction expert, but as we've seen this tonight, I am somewhat decent at policy and so I think my biggest disappointment is it does maybe look or feel a little bit like we've kind of deviated from some policy. I'll just reiterate—we are available for special meetings. [1:29:14] **Paul Essler:** I apologize for being such a stickler. I've worked on the owner side and there are some just basic things I think we want to have in place. I think to Council Member Klimpel's point, we have a policy, we set a policy, and I think we should follow the existing policy. We are four months into an 18-month construction project. Just because we're within contingency now doesn't mean we won't get there later. [1:31:00] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** I understand the steel thing. I would actually like to continue with the current setup—anything over 50,000 we should know about. Within 2 weeks, if not less than that, Council should have been aware so that we could have acted on it. [1:33:40] **Chief Carson Thomas:** Like I said, the reason decisions like the shelving need to be made now is because they need to lay the railings when the concrete's going down. [1:34:40] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** I think staff has done a tremendous job getting the project where it is. This is not your normal work. The one disappointment I have here is communication. Bringing this information to us is what I call "taking a partner." You certainly want to take the residents and we're their representatives as partners. [1:36:50] **Paul Theisen:** I was just going to go ahead and move it forward. I'll make a motion to authorize change order package number one for the Police and Public Works campus through October 2023. [1:37:12] **Heidi Freske:** Second. [1:37:14] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion by Theisen, second by Freske. And I just want a clarification: this is not changing our current process of 50,000, but with the understanding that if there's a time-sensitive thing, Council's made aware of it so we can act in a timely manner. [1:38:12] **Logan Martin:** Mayor, I would just add, based on tonight's conversation, I don't anticipate ever feeling comfortable utilizing that extra authority. We'll call a timeout on whatever item may be exposed to that 50,000 change order. [1:38:25] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** That's fine. Roll please. [1:38:28] **Erin Fasbender:** Weisensel? (Aye). Theisen? (Aye). Freske? (Aye). Essler? (Aye). Klimpel? (Aye). [1:38:35] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion passes 5-0. Item 10, City staff updates. [1:38:50] **Logan Martin:** Nothing further tonight, thanks Mayor. [1:39:00] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Anything from Council? [1:39:16] **Paul Essler:** I'll just put in a plug for the Haunted Trail on the 28th. We did confirm our partnership with MVTA; they will be providing a free shuttle from the Rosemount High School parking lot. Pickup starts at 5:00. [1:39:50] **Tami Klimpel:** I'd like to point out residents are encouraged to submit their spooky front yards for a tour of Rosemount to be published. [1:40:03] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Speaking of which, I did see the posting of the staff's pumpkin contest. Any residents that would like to see your Mayor in pumpkin form may do so. I had to hear that from my daughters on social media! Upcoming calendar: Utility Commission on the 23rd, Park and Rec on October 3rd, Planning Commission on the 24th, Youth Commission on the 25th, and Haunted Trail on the 28th. Next Council work session is November 6th. [1:41:40] **Erin Fasbender:** Currently right now at City Hall we have absentee voting taking place. Residents can come in between 8:00 and 4:30. Direct balloting begins this Friday at the Dakota County offices. [1:43:00] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** This Thursday from 6:00 to 7:00 there will be a public forum sponsored by the Chamber for our City Council member election. With that, all in favor of adjournment signify by saying Aye. (Aye). We are adjourned. Thank you. [1:44:28] [Music]