This transcript features **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**, Council Members **Jeff Holtz**, **Nick Dragisich**, and **Katrina Backstrom** (who is addressed throughout the transcript as "Council Member Backstrom/Beom," though not on your initial list), and various city staff. [00:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: We are on the appointed hour here so I'm going to call the city council meeting for the City of Lake Elmo Tuesday July 2nd to order. If everyone would please stand with me for the Pledge of Allegiance. [00:12] **Group**: 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. [00:30] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Okay, second item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? [00:35] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: So move. [00:36] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Second. [00:37] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right, so we have a motion and a second to approve the agenda. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. [00:43] **Council Members**: Aye. [00:44] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: The minutes were in our packet from June 18th of 2024. I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the June 18th meeting. [00:52] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: So moved. [00:53] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Second. [00:54] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the June 18th meeting. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. [01:00] **Council Members**: Aye. [01:01] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Minutes are hereby approved. Uh, nobody with public comments or inquiries this evening, Julie? All right. And we do not have any presentations at least that I'm aware of. So the consent agenda item number— [01:14] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: I'd like to pull two things from the consent agenda. We just already approved the agenda; I wasn't sure if I did it there or here. So you would have to—I'd like to pull two items: number 7 and number 11 please. [01:27] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: So we need to make a motion to open back—open that back up? [01:30] **Nicole Miller (City Administrator)**: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, usually when you go to approve the consent agenda, that's when you ask if items want to be pulled, and then if a member wants the items pulled, usually give them that privilege. [01:42] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: So you wanted to pull, excuse me, which ones? [01:44] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: Number 7 and number 11. [01:46] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Number 7 and number 11. Okay. Um, so Council Member Backstrom has requested to pull number 7 and 11, which we would make number—after the public hearing it would move to 13 and 14. So any other changes to the consent agenda that somebody wishes? I will read the consent agenda. Um: approve payment of disbursements; approve SE construction engineering task order for Village Parkway UP railroad crossing improvements; approve pay requests number 16 and 17 for water tower number three; approve pay request number one for Stillwater Boulevard trunk water main improvements; approve Easton Village 6th and 7th addition development agreement Amendment resolution 2024-071; requesting to be pulled into the regular agenda is approve Parks master plan; number 8 is approve planning assistant hire; number 9 is approve Lake Elmo airport advisory Commission appointment; number 10 is approve of peanut Poppy's Ranch reaffirmation resolution. [Music] A motion and a second to approve the amended consent agenda items with number 7 and 11 being pulled into the regular agenda. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. [03:22] **Council Members**: Aye. [03:25] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right, so item number 12 on the regular agenda is a public hearing for 8286 Hidden Bay Court variance resolution 2024-074. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, I'll uh entertain a motion to go into a public hearing. [03:44] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Move to go into the public hearing. [03:46] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Support. [03:47] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All those in favor of going into a public hearing please signify by saying aye. [03:51] **Council Members**: Aye. [03:53] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: We will go into public hearing at 7:08. Anybody wish to speak at the public hearing? Hearing, seeing none. Hearing none, I'll take a motion—entertain a motion to close the public hearing. [04:06] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: So move. [04:07] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Second. [04:08] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for resolution 2024-074. All those in favor of closing the public hearing please signify by saying aye. [04:16] **Council Members**: Aye. [04:17] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Public hearing is closed at 7:09. [04:19] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Move to adopt resolution 2024-074 approving the request with conditions from Jeff and Judy for a variance to allow a reduced structure setback of 47.2 feet from the ordinary high water level for the property located at 8286 Hidden Bay Court based on the findings listed in the staff report. [04:38] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Second. [04:39] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: We have a motion and a second for resolution 2024-074. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor of adopting resolution 2024-074 please signify by saying aye. [04:52] **Council Members**: Aye. [04:54] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Motion passes, thank you. All right moving on to what we call 13 in our—was previously consent agenda item—is approve Parks Master Plan. Is staff available to speak to this this evening? [05:08] **Adam Swanepoel (Public Works Assistant Director)**: Uh, I'm—I'm Adam here with the Public Works Department. I'm available to speak, uh, possibly answer most of the questions. [05:15] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right, thank you. Council Member Backstrom. [05:17] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: All right, so I asked um for this to be pulled to the regular agenda because I felt it was necessary and needed to just to provide some transparency um from the workshop meeting until this meeting um as there were some discussions at workshop that um that um needed to to come forward to to council for resolution. Um so just a recap, um at our June 11th meeting, uh we reviewed the parks plan um presented. I shared several concerns regarding the insufficiency of data in the report um that supports the recommendation for a $5 million ball field complex. Specifically, some of the key issues that I raised were um the data utilization: I asked about the types of data that were used um apart from the survey data and the facility standards to ascertain the necessity of that project. I also brought up um concerns or uh looking for clarification in the disparity between the community feedback uh obtained at the pop-up events versus the survey outcomes, um noting that baseball was not identified as a priority uh by the community at the pop-up events. Um and and lastly, um potential bias: so I really I questioned the awareness of any potential bias within the survey um and within the advisory committee particularly due to the inclusion of board members from the Lake Elmo Baseball Association on that advisory committee. I provided um an analysis of the survey data um which indicated a bias stemming from specific communications by Lake Elmo Baseball. It included a Facebook p—post as well as direct emails to parents on January 8th um containing the survey link with explicit instructions on how to respond to signify a need for baseball fields. There's a noticeable shift in the other responses mentioning baseball was observed from that date forward, um diverging from the previous two months when the survey was available to the public. An adept survey analyst would have recognized this anomaly and questioned the validity of these results, um and I can certainly provide the um exact communications that were sent on January 8th. I have those copies as well as the analysis. So in that meeting, the representative from Bolton and Mink was unable to provide any satisfactory answers um to those questions or address the concerns. Consequently, I requested additional data be presented when the plan is submitted to council for approval which would be this meeting. At the time, the mayor voiced this request at the conclusion of the workshop indicating that um the plan would be moving forward to council um and data uh would be provided at that time. Following the meeting, um post-workshop, I was prompted to engage directly with Bolton and Mink to resolve my questions, um seemingly to conserve city funds by avoiding the need for their representative Bolton and Mink to travel to our meeting, um which frankly raises questions about our financial priorities and transparency in addressing public inquiries. But I'll set that to the side. It's perplexing to me that council members who profess to make data-driven decisions appear disinterested in the data supporting a $5 million recommendation from a consultant. Maybe this suggests a pre-existing awareness of the lack of substantial objective data supporting the recommendation and further public discussion on the matter might only highlight this deficiency. I reached out to Bolton and Mink as suggested; the only data they provided was the raw survey results in a revision to their qualitative facility standards table in the report which frankly contradicts their initial version. No objective, no quantitative data was provided that supports their recommendation, simply changing their table. So the recommendation for a $5 million baseball complex seems to be influenced by a survey comprised by Lake Elmo Baseball to yield favorable outcomes and an assessment by Bolton and Mink who frankly has a potential gain as a city contract—contracted service for the progression on a sports complex. Conflicts of interests right and left. This Parks plan is—is a document we will use moving forward as to what we need in the city and quite honestly I don't trust the document any further when there's no data to support the—the significant recommendation around um ball field complexes. Um to me and for—for the response into my questions and looking for the data to simply be revising a table, um again with no concrete data saying we have a problem in our city with baseball fields. So um I have significant issues with the quality of this master plan um and I'm very concerned that it simply was placed on the consent agenda knowing that there were outstanding questions at the workshop meeting um and that I was directed to deal with that behind the scenes without transparency to the public. Um so I—I don't know at this point that I can support this plan unless um there are specific things removed from it. One being removing the priority initiative section 1.5.2 which proposes the development of a new Athletic Park to support baseball and softball ball for competitive and Town ball; this should be eliminated from the plan. Amendment of the survey results: the results need to be revised to exclude all responses received after January 7th, 2024, which is the date when Lake Elmo Baseball is known to have influenced the survey. Inclusion of the existing facilities in the report: there should be—this—the report should be updated to acknowledge the existing ball fields at Oakland Middle School which serves this community as a competitive fields. Contrary to Bolton and Mink, um they have not recognized Oak—Oakland Middle School. There are four fields; there's competitive field play there and it should be counted in our field—s that—that are used in the city. So these changes aim to ensure that the park plan reflects unbiased community input and makes use of existing resources. Um and with that, I—I will not support the—the plan as it sits today, but certainly with these recommendations I would. Was there any questions for staff? [11:05] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: No. [11:06] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: No. [11:07] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Okay, unless they have the data. I mean, do you have any data, uh, Adam, that supports $5 million towards a baseball complex? [11:14] **Adam Swanepoel**: Not any additional data which was otherwise provided by Bolton and Mink. [11:18] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: I didn't think—you probably didn't, but thank you. Any other discussion? I will say that you know it was brought to my attention that—that maybe it would be best to have um you interact with Bolton and Mink staff directly as you were the one that raised the questions. So that was my intent on that, nothing else other than that. Um, evidently your questions weren't uh satisfied, and I have not been made aware of that prior to this meeting. [11:47] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: I forwarded the communication to you. [11:49] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: I don't think I remember seeing it. [11:51] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: And I suggested that when you don't have the data, you make it up. [11:54] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: When was that? [11:55] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: Recall last week? Last Thursday, Friday. [11:57] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Oh, I was out last Thursday, Friday. My apologies. [12:00] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Can I ask a question for staff? [12:01] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Absolutely. [12:02] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: I guess for—might be for Adam then. Can you just clarify then for the public with the updated table, the clarifications that do occur, the—the difference between a competitive field, recreational, and then how the differentiation with youth and full size occurs? [12:17] **Adam Swanepoel**: So um we did provide Bolton and Mink with the definitions of what we had referenced as recreational youth baseball, full size, based off our survey results that we had planned last year in June. So um I don't remember those right off hand but we had had indicated as far as field size, you know base length, things like that. But uh those were provided to Bolton and Mink—uh that survey as well as those dimensions of those fields. [12:44] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: So it's based upon objective variables to differentiate what qualifies as a competitive field versus what qualifies as a recreational field? [12:51] **Adam Swanepoel**: Correct, like every baseball field's different as far as you know if it's competitive or not. [12:56] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: So is it reasonable to presume that's then why the Oakland fields are not considered competitive as they don't meet those criteria? [13:03] **Adam Swanepoel**: Yeah in uh—the Oakland schools brought up a number of times throughout the plan, especially the—there's property there that was that the city has a um joint powers agreement with. So we do share those uh those tennis courts as well with the city. So there was a number of conversations throughout that work plan of whether to—whether or not to include assets that aren't um city-owned, uh which include—there was a number of comments in the survey results too that say why aren't we including the—the county park itself? Well we excluded a lot of those amenities out of the—out of our initial plan because again you could—that—that's not accessible to everybody at the thing because you had to pay for it, right? So um so that's another reason why we didn't include Oakland Middle School. [13:48] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: And then was anyone turned away from being on the steering committee? [13:51] **Adam Swanepoel**: No, we had 10 applicants and one late applicant. So uh all 10 applicants made the um the advisory committee. Anyone could have showed; we could have had residents who are board members of St. Croix Soccer or board members of SCVAA. If they had—if they were interested and wanted to serve, they could have served as well, correct. [14:11] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: And I guess to clarify then on—oh now I lost my train of thought. Um, no I'm good, thank you. [14:18] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Do you know how many Lake Elmo Baseball people that were on the advisory committee? [14:23] **Adam Swanepoel**: Uh, two that I'm aware of. [14:24] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: There were two. And then I see that we have some retired folks that I know, somebody from the Parks Commission... are there any more? Was there more than one on the Parks Commission on there? I only see one that I recog— [14:34] **Adam Swanepoel**: No, we just had one representative from the Parks Commission. [14:36] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Okay, okay. Thank you for your uh looking into that Member Backstrom. Um, I can entertain a motion for discussion. [14:47] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Okay, I had one more question for staff. [14:48] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Absolutely. [14:49] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: And I don't know if this for Adam or for Director uh Miller. So as—as this, help me clarify and especially for the public: does staff see this plan as more of a vision and a set of similar to a Comp Plan, or do you see it as "here's what shall be done"? Like, because those are drastically different things and I'm—this is in discussion so I'm not going to say what I see, but do you see this more from the former or the latter? [15:13] **Adam Swanepoel**: So that's uh one of the questions that we put in there as far as what—what shall be in the report and what we would like to see in the report. So we look at trends; um that was one thing that we as a division looked at as far as what are some things that we should be looking at as consideration in the future. So something that maybe we're not even set up for, but what are the trends within the National Park and Rec Association. Um so you know, is it something—um it was just another document that Parks Commissioners as well as City Council Members could look at, use as a guide, uh that these are trends, these are activities in the community that we could bring to our community. Not as a—something as you know that we might be able to do in three to five years, five to six years, whatever it might be, but not something that's set in stone that we must do uh within those time periods either. [16:04] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Thank you. [16:05] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Well yeah, just I had a quick question on—so the National Parks Association is at a—I'm just wondering what—what is that entity? [16:15] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: She references that in the Parks master plan a couple times in regards to just um um synchronizing like what we have for residents versus what the national standards—what I thought. [16:26] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Okay. Council Member Backstrom, can you confirm that we are actively pursuing land for a sports complex? [16:33] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: That's correct. [16:34] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Thank you. All right, is there a motion? [16:37] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: Motion to approve the parks plan with the following amendments: removal of priority initiative 1.5.2; amendment of survey results to exclude responses received after January 7th, 2024; um and the inclusion of Oak—Oakland Middle School fields in the facilities report. [16:59] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: I'll second. [17:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right, so we have a motion and a second for approving the Park Master Plan as prepared by Bolton and Mink with the amendments to remove section 1.5.2, the addition of Oakland Fields as an—um I'm sorry, what was the third one? [17:15] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: Uh, it was to amend the survey results to exclude responses received after January 7th, 2024. [17:21] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right, we have a motion and second. Discussion? [17:23] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: I just was going to mention in—we talked a little bit about the National Park and Recreation Association has a very widely uh cited standard in Park and Recreation nationally. Um lot of—a lot of communities provide data for them which is distilled down. It's actually a wonderful report if you ever to take the time to read—I've read it a number of times and we've looked at similar studies when I was a consultant. And so it's a very widely accepted standard to base your decision on just okay. [17:54] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: I've shared my fee—feedback on—on the report and concerns. Um I think another concern with the report is um an urgent—an urgent priority to hire a um Parks Director. And when we questioned at the workshop meeting for what criteria is used to determine when you need a—a director added, uh it was essentially "everybody else has one that I've worked with." Um so to me that—that is not supported by data either, which again calls into questions the um the accuracy and completeness of the report. Um and the reason why I'm—I'm really being a stickler about the park master plan: I think to—to Council Member Holtz's point, yeah it's a tool that we use to look forward but unfortunately um you know we're pursuing land for something that does not appear to be supported by the community results. Um and I think we need to look hard at that. And the other um piece of it um is the um—oh I just lost my train of thought—the—oh shoot, I lost it. Okay I'll have to pass. [18:59] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right. Council Member Holtz. [19:00] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: I—I would be fine with having the asterisk in the data to say there are additional survey results that came from re—non-residents and here's the additional data from non-residents. I would be fine with that. But I see no reason to vote for all three of these amendments, especially in the case of the Oakland Fields—those are not city-owned. Those have to be—and the standard that was used for facilities such as baseball fields is that they're city-owned. So I would be fine with saying "here's an additional facility that exists that we don't have the same ability to upgrade or to add resources to and that has a separate type of more limited agreement." But I—I do not support this in this current form. And I—I guess in the case of the example of the parks director, as I see this plan as a—not as a "shall do" but as a set of goals, as ideas, as visions for the next 20 years as a city continues to grow. If and when we were to look at a Parks Director, even that would be done based upon a review to say do we have something comparable right now on staff or maybe it's a current position that gets upgraded or elevated, or is it actually a Parks Director? I—I don't see anything this report as "each of these shall occur." I see the—this thing as a—a vision. So with that being the case, I don't support the current thing with the current amendments. [20:18] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Council Member Backstrom next. [20:19] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: So the one—one other item um or point that I wanted to—to make is just to remind Council why we pursued updating our Parks Master Plan and what we were looking to get out of it last fall when we hired Bolton and Mink to do it. Um we—we had numerous conversations around ball fields or fields and multi-use fields and and trying to figure out what we needed. Um and we had the million dollars to spend um which I would um I would make sure everyone realizes that Tartan Park was not a city-owned park and we used it and we are replacing apparently fields that were used by Lake Elmo Baseball and others there. So whether it's city-owned or not is really beside the point in my opinion; it's available for community. Um but we pursued this because we wanted to know what the community wanted for amenities, what the community needed for amenities. This was to help inform what we did with um with regards to ball fields; we wanted to know what was needed. And so if we're getting a report that is skewed based on results, we're not truly getting what the community is looking for; we're getting what one entity in Lake Elmo has been lobbying for for the last year and a half. I want to know what the community as a whole wants, not what Lake Elmo Baseball wants. I want the community perspective and unfortunately the—the report is skewed um and so I can't trust it. [21:49] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yeah, I think as I read through the report and—and the exchange that was going on um you know when you do these kind of studies there's always a little bit of hesitancy to spend money for a—I'll say a statistically valid or scientifically valid survey. They're around $25,000. Um but when I look at—we have a recommendation of $20 million in capital over the—you know to implement this study. And to make sure we spend the money where the majority of the public wants to have it spent would be kind of important in my mind. And you know, the $25,000 for a—for a valid survey is minuscule in comparison to $20 million to spend um based on results that may or may not be valid. I'm not saying the results aren't valid because we don't really know. Um but the—the process of gathering data for type a master plan like this is often times done this way, but that's one of the risks you run as you get done and you start looking at—did I—no she did say that they did check the IPs, ISP, IP—whatever IP address, IP addresses of—of the—and they found a couple that were repetitive um but generally they found that they came from separate computers. So that's kind of an indication we didn't have a group of people who just kept you know putting it in. Um but if you were say, "well what's our confidence level in the survey?" You—you can't state one because you don't really know where it is. And—and so you know, while we say develop a new Athletic Park to sport baseball fields as part of the recommendation, maybe the answer is "further explore the need for the facility" and you know identify what was really needed based on some valid uh survey. It's—it's a big piece of—to do and we—I—I think everyone in the council wants to provide the community residents what services they want and need. I think Counselor Backstrom's just saying she's not sure that this has been done in a—a way to give her comfort that it's actually valid. [23:44] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Thank you. Well, I um looking at the amended—I'm not in favor of removing 1.5.2. That's just my personal opinion. Um I'm okay with amending the service results with an asterisk that there were some results that come from outside of the community. Um I'm going to disagree that Oakland fields are part of the fields for the City of Lake Elmo for much the same reason uh Stillwater, Oak Park Heights don't include the fields at the high school as part of their—um their—their fields that they have. Anytime we do surveys or voting, those results are skewed by people that are paying attention and want to voice their opinion on it. So I don't know that there's anything that made people not to go in there, and there may have been people said "hey this is out there, want to make sure your voices are heard," and I don't see anything wrong with that. That's how things have always gone. Um you know, it's—there's—there's an inference there that it's not supported by the community, but I don't know that that inference is what I would call statistically valid either. [Music] Um I guess I'm—I—I won't vote in favor of the amended motion but I'm certainly uh willing to call the question. [24:55] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Mayor? Yes, could we find a—kind of a compromise where we—where we say well for item 1.5.2 that we further evaluate the validity of the—of the need? Um I—I'm—I'm—I'm not so locked in I want to kill this whole thing, but I do think making sure that it's a valid need that our citizens want is important before we spend $5 million. Uh and maybe there's a compromise where we can find a way to refine the validity of that recommendation um but accept the plan. [25:31] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: So I do recall the Council looking at several areas within the city where we already have these recreational parks uh with recreational fields, and the Council at the time voted down adding um competitive fields at Park Ridge Estates or Pebble Park because they just weren't locations where we—the Council at the time felt like it was a good position to sink dollars into those that weren't going to get a—I—I'll use the term "bang for the buck." So using recreational fields as a basis to increase um competitive fields I think has been talked about, discussed, and—and um alleviated from the program. But that's—that's what I recall, and maybe I—I recall incorrectly, but we could always go back and look. So to your question Council Member Dragisich, so you're saying you would see—we've always had problems with—with surveys, right? So um I can't remember what the other survey we had where we just didn't get—what we get like 300 people that commented on it or something like that. So this $25,000 to have a—how are we—how do we know that that's going to get garner us any better information than what we have at this point in time? [26:41] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Well someone who ran a business that was one of my divisions—I didn't do it myself—but the science behind it is that the random selection and the way the questions are asked and structured and evaluated gives you a 95% confidence level that you're reflecting the value, you what people really think. Um okay. And uh where they mostly use in the consulting business we had was to validate whether school bond referendums would pass because they're fairly controversial and generally they're fairly accurate. If you—you know the question would be asked "would you support a referendum if your taxes went up $500 or $400?" and where they target in is where there was enough support for the referendum that was likely 95% likely to pass and that's generally where the bonds were structured. I know that the Stillwater School District used a survey before they went out for their election. Um and and maybe we don't—I don't know—survey is—is the most accurate way to do it. But given the concern, there maybe another way to come at it. My concern is I don't want us to walk out of here and kill the concept 100% without some thought of maybe the—the process did actually give us the right—the right answer. We just don't know that. And and I think you know, the recreation programs are important. Um my—my sense would be if we amend the motion in some way that says not kill it out but further validate it, and perhaps in our um 2025 budget we could find funds to do the survey and then actually do the survey and confirm—confirm that this is a—a priority that our citizens want are willing to pay for, then we could move it forward. I'm a fact-driven guy, I'm sorry. [28:22] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: No, that's—that's true. Council Member Backstrom. [28:25] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: So I just want to go back in history here and refresh on—on the process. And so we actually didn't vote down um refurbishing or adding to existing fields; we never got to a vote on it. We got to the point of uh reviewing RFP uh for design services for those fields. We never actually voted on whether we wanted to hire an—hire one of the design groups to show us what a field could look like in an existing park. Um it was actually you, Mayor, that brought up the pinwheel design and it being your ultimate Utopia for the city. And so at that point when you brought that up is when we stopped talking about upgrading fields in the city, adding fields to existing parks, and we shifted attention to purchasing land for a uh pinwheel ball field. And so that is the history, and I'd be happy to share the timeline on that. So no, we have never voted on not pursuing upgrading existing fields to competitive or adding in existing parks. [29:21] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: You're saying that was done in a workshop? [29:23] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: What was done in a workshop? [29:24] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: The not hiring uh—uh somebody to design. [29:27] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: It was put on hold with your recommendation to discuss pinwheel at a workshop. [29:32] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: So we voted to table the RFP process? [29:35] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: All right. [29:36] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right, so—but everybody agreed on that to table it to discuss pinwheel. [29:40] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: All right. And then our plan was to again have a Parks Master Plan update that would help inform us what we needed and if indeed the community supported a pinwheel ball field complex. That is one of the the paramount reasons why we wanted this master plan, why we hired someone outside to do it, and we were looking for the results of that to help inform us on what we really needed. And in parallel we were looking for land in the city to see is there anything possible should that be the direction the city wants to go. So we have our answer now as far as I'm concerned in this park master plan: it does not clearly support a pinwheel ball field complex in the city based on the lack of data that—that is not subjective or the opinion of Bolton and Mink. [30:26] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: I don't believe that to be true that it doesn't clearly establish that. Me—I'm still talking. [30:30] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: Show me. [30:31] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: I'm still talking. So if your point is that it doesn't show that we need one, there's certainly not information there it says that we don't need one or people don't want—want one. So you're making inferences to information on one side but not allowing it to be used on the other side in the same effect. So if—if there's—I'd be willing to go down this rabbit hole of doing a statistically valid survey at the cost of roughly $25,000, but again I'm not—I'm not going to uh vote in favor of removing it um or adding Oakland field. [31:13] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Motion to call a question. [31:15] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: I'll second it. [31:17] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right, so the question is—move the motion is to approve the park master plan with the amendment of removing 1.5.2, amending survey results at [Music] after to show uh responses after 1/7/2024 and to add in Oakland Fields as part of the plan. All those in favor say aye. [31:40] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: Aye. [31:41] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All those against say nay. [31:43] **Council Members**: Nay, nay, nay. [31:45] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: So that fails on a one to three. [31:47] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Move to adopt the parks master plan as prepared by Bolton and Mink. [31:51] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: We have a motion. Is there a second? [31:53] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: I'll second it for discussion even—or actually I'd like to amend that, a friendly amendment. [31:59] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: We can do amendments after. [32:00] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yes. All right so I'll—and I'd like to make a friendly amendment that the survey results should show updated after 1/7 of 2024 and that we add a—at the direction of Council Member Dragisich and Council Member Backstrom—that we have a survey done by a technically competent firm um to look at uh a competitive baseball field sport complex within the City of Lake Elmo. [32:27] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right, I'll second that amendment. Okay. All those in favor the amendment—discussion? [32:32] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Sure. Discussion on the amendment? [32:34] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Yes. Discussion on the amendment. [32:35] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: On the amendment, yes. If we—if we take a careful look at the—the piece here, the whole thing, and we were to have—if there any—any other couple other areas we want to survey on, it wouldn't cost us anymore to do that if we had or three areas that we want to validate in some way. Okay. And so you know, I haven't dug into this way up to my ears; I've just kind of gone through the discussion we've had and looked at it. We had $20 million popped off the paper at me and some of the other things I looked at the—the results. But there may be other things that staff or other elected officials would say "could we um firm up the—you know the support for this" uh and we can do that at the time we ask for the survey. I just want to—to bring that up in discussion in case there's any other areas that we'd like to ask folks for their input, and then we would have this 95% confidence that we have the opinion of our citizens validated. [33:28] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: So then question is at the time we could put in things in the survey to validate things that as you said, you know this has been the point of discussion was the ball fields. Add things that we think are germane to the parks master plan? [33:41] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yeah, if there's something else in there. I didn't want to preclude it; uh we've just had this for a short time to look at. Um but if there's one or two or maybe three other items there, and there may not be Mayor, I just for discussion purposes— [33:55] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: We would—that's fine by me. Council Member Holtz. [33:57] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: And I guess my two cents would we then need to have a discussion at that time— [34:02] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Yes. [34:03] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: —for what to put in the survey. This seems to me putting horse before the carriage and the parks master plan is the vision and then to me this is more of an implementation phase to get more—more and more specific about how to implement some of these things from the survey. So I—I—I support doing it right the first time as we are looking at—the goal here is to put in place a vision for the parks and services that our community will be using for the next two to three decades. So it's worth it to do it right the first time and to know exactly what that looks like. Are we looking at—we're not—are we looking at eight competitive ball fields? No we're not. Are we looking at 50 competitive soccer and football fields? No. So what is it? We—we have the clear objective data based upon national standards for how short we are, um but we can also use a survey to gauge the involvement from residents as—as well. Um so I—I do support this version of the amendment and I—I think one—one thing the survey will help us with is based on the level of importance of all these things we need to implement, which would be the most important to implement? Where's the greatest support immediately for implementation in need? See that. [35:14] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Council Member Backstrom. [35:15] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: Can you please restate the motion? I'm not sure I track the entire statement. [35:20] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: The motion was to um am—amend survey results to show additions after 1/7/2024 and add the contingency to have a ser—survey statistically valid survey done to incorporate um portions of the plan that are important to the community in moving forward that are in the plan. I say that right? [35:42] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yes. We can finalize the survey variables down the road. [35:45] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Yes. [35:46] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: Could I add a friendly amendment to that to just qualify it by um including but not limited to the sports complex? I think that was the gist of it. [35:56] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Well if we look back in history, I want it to be very clear that's what we intended. As long as we've got that in the statement, it's not just the sports complex; it's other things that may come up where Council would like to have clear direction on um things that are listed in the Parks master plan. [36:12] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: So I'll call a question on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. [36:15] **Council Members**: Aye, aye, aye. [36:16] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Opposed same sign? I want to—oppose the amendments in there. So I'll call the question on the approval of the parks master plan as presented by with Bolton and Mink with the exception of uh amending the survey results that were noted after 1/7 of 2024 and including the ability for Council to have statistically valid um surveys done to um see what the community's response is to items such as this Sports Complex, not precluding other items that are in the master plan as to where the community would like to see things and their uh implementation. Implementation. All those in favor say aye. Can I just clarify please? [37:05] **Nicole Miller**: Yes. [37:06] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: So that your statement there was not the same as what the amendment was. I just—can I just get clarification on what the specific language is that we're voting on? [37:16] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: So the amendment is to have a statistically valid survey done to include the sports complex, baseball fields, and other items in—associated with the parks master plan to inquire as to the community's implementation preference. [37:32] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: Okay, thank you. [37:34] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Okay. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. [37:38] **Council Members**: Aye. [37:39] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Same sign? Hearing n—motion pass. All right, so item 14 is approve construction of sand volleyball courts. You want to hold on—staff ready to talk about sand volleyball courts? [37:54] **Adam Swanepoel**: Yes, I'm available. [37:55] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right, you want to speak to the item that was presented to council please? [37:59] **Adam Swanepoel**: Yeah, so uh—we brought in front of the Parks Commission in June uh the—the option of bringing up to adding additional sand volleyball courts to as one of our amenities to our parks. Um we provided three options to the Parks Commission. They selected option—um they uh selected two—two placements for them: one in Pilot Park and one in uh Carriage uh Station as well to to recommend the city council. [38:29] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Question: where is the—so the—the request is to place it in—is that uh—one is in Easton Village? [38:37] **Adam Swanepoel**: East Village—so you're proposing two: one—one in Easton Village. [38:43] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Okay. Council Member Backstrom. [38:44] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: So one of the reasons why I wanted to pull this to regular agenda is I've gotten feedback from Easton Village as you can imagine. Um and so I'm curious if the Parks Commission um if you talked about parking challenges at all as part of the recommendation and and how that might uh potentially impact. I know that is a—a fairly significant concern in Easton Village is—is parking. [39:07] **Adam Swanepoel**: Yeah, so uh in that area that is one of the rec—or one of the criteria that we had in there when—when selecting or choosing our—our three locations. So because there is only parking on one side of the street there, uh that's why we did limit it down to one—one court. We initially were planning that it does have room for two, but because of the parking—you bring that many more people there, it does—it does fill up. So um yeah, so parking was one of the considerations that we took into all of our—all of our options. [39:41] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Any more questions? Yeah, Council Member Holtz. [39:44] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Can you just speak to the background um because I—I watched that meeting in the prior meetings where some of these assets have been discussed. Can you just speak to a little bit um where we are at with sand volleyball courts overall? I know we have the ones in downtown, but usage and how the Parks Commission came to view that as a—the next thing in the CIP to start working on? [40:07] **Adam Swanepoel**: Yeah, so um it's actually been considered uh—in the C—placed in the CIP back in 2001, they was the first time they put in the CIP. But it was definitely discussed when I first arrived um heavily. Um so um when placed in there, the only reason why it was is because we did limit ourselves just to the um the sand volleyball courts at Lions Park. We do have two courts there currently; uh those are reserved on a weekly basis, um but I think they're heavily used on weekends when it's not in reserve. I think uh we see a lot of people down there using them. Uh we get requests all the time for repairs, adjustments of the nets throughout the week, um so we know they're actually being used down there. [40:53] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: And then in terms of long-term costs: we have the construction costs here, what are the long-term costs in terms of upkeep? [40:59] **Adam Swanepoel**: Uh upkeep of—of uh sand volleyball courts is pretty minimal. Um yearly we go out and grade it normally in the spring to flatten it, but it's otherwise it's just uh set up the nets and adjust throughout the year. Um it's our normal garbage pickup if any, but uh that's—it's otherwise it's pretty minimal. [41:17] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: And as I know there's—there have been soccer nets there in the—in the past and I'm just looking at the aerial. Is the plan to put—plan from the agenda item—one sand in the Northeast part so north of the park? Is that correct? North of the playground? [41:31] **Adam Swanepoel**: Correct. [41:32] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Okay. And then everything to the West would then be the essentially for soccer, for recreational soccer—wide open space? [41:40] **Adam Swanepoel**: Correct. [41:41] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Where are we at in terms of—I—neighbors have asked as well about this topic. Um where are we at in terms of—I—every single neighborhood wants this, I get that. Where are we at in terms of pavilion structures or grills or th—those other things where it's your—your gathering place and then you have your amenities around—around it? [42:01] **Adam Swanepoel**: So uh that is one of the things we got back from our Parks master plan was just like to consider those pavilions at our community parks, maybe not so much your residential or your uh neighborhood parks, but your community parks because it is a place—excuse me—it is a place for gathering, right? So um and another option for um rental space and actually maybe possibly in the future, you know, um gaining funds from those rentals and things like that. So as far as Pilot Park, I don't foresee that one as like a huge pavilion shelter uh in the near future, but probably uh potentially shade structures if anything. [42:43] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: So refresh my memory: do we have anything in the CIP for that type of structure at Pilot Park identified—uh shade structure, pavilion? [42:51] **Adam Swanepoel**: No. Yeah, so what was put in the CIP this year by the Parks Commission which yet to be approved is a pavilion or a—a structure uh—one for the next five years in one of our parks. [43:04] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: And then refresh my memory—I—I recall that meeting it was like three, four weeks ago—the third place that they were looking at was Ivy uh for sand volleyball. That would—was it a distance issue for parking to get from park to the sand is that why they looked away from—? [43:18] **Adam Swanepoel**: No, uh it was questioned um by one of the commissioners of why we didn't recommend that as staff. Um we just foresee that park as probably becoming a more of a community park and likely with the future of probably having to use some of that open space for parking to create a parking lot. We didn't want to put a—a possible amenity there and actually have to move it or change it for parking. [43:44] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Is the plan that this would also be reservable for the community as a whole? Because I—I know we're using the term of neighborhood part—neighborhood volleyball court. So was a plan that this would also be available with the reservation system Citywide? [43:58] **Adam Swanepoel**: So at this one—this—this one neither one of these would be reservable; they'd be first come, first served. Neither park is. [44:06] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: All right, thank you. [44:08] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: Do we have to put two in right now? Can we hold on one until we have further development in the South? Um as I look at where these are located—so we've got—one is it Lions Park we've got one, correct? And Pilot Park is just right there, a very close. And Carriage Station that is a little bit north but there's nothing in the South. Um so is it—can we put one in now like—here—Station North, we've got the village, and then hold until we know there's developments going in um large development going in off of Manning and Hudson? I mean can we—can we just hold on putting another one in and to find a place in the South? [44:45] **Adam Swanepoel**: Definitely considered. I feel like we have a lot of amenities up here and not so much in the South. [44:50] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: So any more questions? I'll entertain a motion. [44:54] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: Move to approve the construction of one sand volleyball court at Carriage Station. [45:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Not hearing second. I'll entertain a motion. [45:03] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Move to approve the construction of one sand volleyball court at Pilot and one sand volleyball court at Carriage Station. [45:10] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Second. [45:11] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Motion and a second. Motion—uh—to approve the construction of one sing volleyball court at Pilot Park and one sing volleyball court at Carriage Station. Discussion? [45:22] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: I've talked with many neighbors as well and I know that Council Member Backstrom has—has put the commentary up on Facebook and there's—there is definitely feedback on this topic. I would also note that this is not the first time this has been discussed within the public; uh it's been on agendas at the Parks Commission, it's been in the CIP, and the process has—has occurred. Now with that said, I guess moving forward I—I fully want to see those—those next-level assets, which is why we have the—the new parks master plan. So I would like—in the case of Easton Village and Carriage Station—these are two very large, dense neighborhoods and to me that is why the Parks Commission put those in this location. I appreciate that these are not going to be reservable; that definitely discourages community-wide use and definitely makes it more of a neighborhood asset. Um so I—I appreciate that factor. Um these are not going to be lighted. I guess I know one piece of feedback I've heard from—from neighbors is "why not a basketball court, why not pickleball court?" Um we know from experience with pickleball, it's loud. And the first thing that people say when you build pickleball—as we found out with other items that we put in other neighborhoods—those neighborhoods specifically said "please don't put more pickleball here," and we did because of the noise. Um basketball is not as low as pickleball, but sand volleyball—there—there's—you don't have that same level of—of decibels as you do with—with pickleball. But I—I do want to continue to have those conversations as to what other assets we can have at these large neighborhood parks such as uh Pilot Park. Now I fully agree with Council Member Backstrom as the Southeast continues to develop; the parks plan obviously outlined this as well. There is—is a—a massive gap of assets and we do need to have those conversations and we will. Um but I—I fully support the—the process that has occurred here; it has been long in the process and it is not new. Um and I—I do believe it'll be an asset that will be utilized by neighbors of both neighborhoods. [47:29] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: I don't necessarily have a strong opinion one way or other on sand volleyball courts. Um if it's in the plan, and great. Um my concerns really are um you know, the proximity of the Pilot Park um courts to uh existing courts in the village, and that's been brought up by a number. It's really close, and so I really feel like um placement in the South for um our residents down there, it—it would be a much better approach. Um we seem to forget about them a lot. Um so that's one concern. I think the other big issue is parking. Um streets are narrow um and um it's—it's a circle. And um I—I think I heard from everyone nearly everyone around um that—that borders the park, and they have significant concerns about the parking. Um and I would tend to agree with that. I—you know, again s—sand volleyball is fun, so it's nothing against the sport itself. I just don't know that Pilot Park is the right place for it um given some of the logistics there. Um so um I'd much rather see it in the South. [48:43] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right. Call the question. Motion to approve the construction of one sand volleyball court at Pilot Park and one sand volleyball court at Carriage Station. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. [48:56] **Council Members**: Aye. [48:58] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Those oppose same sign? [48:59] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: Aye. [49:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Uh, motion passes 3-1. Moving on to Council reports. Council Member Dragisich. [49:08] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yes. I don't know if other members of the Council received a—an email from some of the residents of the—in the Lakes area about um wakes on—on—it's kind of interesting. One of the residents who submitted a email—at least I got it—someone I knew for many years ago when he—he actually called me, asked me for my number and called me. We had a discussion. Um I think some of their concerns are valid with the high water. He did send me something he got from the Minnesota DNR which is a list of all of the wake restrictions on lakes in the metro area and it talks—some places have 300 foot from shore, some have 150 foot, some have only when a high water exceeds. But I—I think it might be an issue um that might be worth us looking at at some point. I thought maybe there'd be someone from the lakes here at the meeting in public participation to talk about the wake ordinance which um our administrator sent us some historical information that have been changed at some point and what the current ordinance was. I thank you for that cause I wasn't aware of it. Um but the concern raised at least by individual call me seem pretty valid because the wakes—and I did some research, the engineer in me—you know, are wakes damaging to the shoreline, are they damaging to the water quality? And the science is there: they are. And yet I appreciate the fact that there are many people enjoy boating on the lakes. So that—that part says is there a compromise we can find um that will allow people enjoy the lakes but not you know cause damage to the water quality and—or the shoreline. And I just throw that out; I—maybe someone will show up in the next meeting or otherwise, but it might be an issue we'd want to explore. [51:14] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Thank you. Council Member Holtz. [51:16] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: I would echo that similar feedback that I've also received and I would agree that that is a—a worthwhile conversation to pursue as a science does support it. Um there have been some updates with the 3M settlement work group but they're more so logistics. There's been some delay with priority two in the grants that I know um one of our EDA members plans to apply for and things are being delayed. There's issues with the statewide staff that are on the MPCA but nothing that has substantially changed at this point. If there is—but if there is, I will make sure to note it. [51:53] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: So last week I was able to attend the League of Minnesota City's conference in Rochester with many of our staff. It was um good to hear some other cities and organizations that use various tools for various city ideas, functions, how they work, how they take care of communication. Um it was good team-building for the staff I think to be out of the office and um have some conversations uh work together in those. Um I thought it was very valuable. Um gonna really quick talk about Fourth of July parade and activities that uh you know we're anticipating some inclement weather on Thursday as uh has been happening a lot early this season and well it's July already. So um please know that Connect Lake Elmo, the organizers, along with Rotary, City staff, Fire Department, Sheriff, been in close communication about contingency plans. Um people that are planning on attending um please watch social media—whether it's the city um website, uh the Lake Elmo um Connect Lake Elmo website on Facebook. Um let's see, there's connectlakeelmo.org, you can go to their website; that's Connect Lake Elmo all one word. Um really want to thank everyone that's been involved for—for making this a special event that's—that's fun and safe and uh we just want to continue that uh this year as well. And uh then I just urge that people with their activities and fun over the 4th of July, um please consider uh being safe when dealing with various aspects that people like to do around the 4th of July so everybody can keep their fingers and toes intact; that would be wonderful. Council Member Backstrom. [53:51] **Council Member Katrina Backstrom**: No report. [53:52] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Staff reports. Administrator Miller. [53:55] **Nicole Miller**: Yeah, um last week myself and Special Projects Coordinator Clark met with um five members of the Traikes community to discuss their um concerns about delays with getting their wells tested, getting the results, and getting filters. So staff will be taking um their concerns to our meeting with the Board of Trustees um next week. And then also staff has been working with the um PCA and MDH to secure um a date for a community meeting about PFAS. And so we um just today confirmed that everyone's available on July 25th. So we'll be having that Oakland Middle School and more information will be coming shortly. I have a meeting tomorrow um to discuss the details in the agenda. [54:43] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Thank you. Miss Johnson. [54:45] **Julie Johnson (City Clerk)**: Just one quick thing. I spoke to a resident on the phone today who hadn't heard of the Fresh, so it's probably a good time to remind folks that we do have a weekly email newsletter that goes out every Friday with um information on events in the city, um public notices, uh public meetings and such. So uh there's a link on our website or people can just reach out to me directly, jjohnson@lakeelmo.gov, and I'd be happy to sign them up. [55:12] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: That's the letter J not the name jay, correct? [55:16] **Julie Johnson**: Two J's, yeah. [55:18] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Uh, Mr. Stopa? [55:20] **Nathan Stanley (City Engineer)**: Uh, no report. [55:22] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Mr. Swanepoel? [55:23] **Adam Swanepoel**: Nothing. [55:24] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Right, we are now a step five at the Green Step program? [55:29] **Nicole Miller**: Yes. Thank you. So at the LMC, the hard work of our wonderful planner Miss Sophia Jensen, uh the City of Lake Elmo uh was awarded step five. And the next step is what—the Golden Leaf? [55:42] **Staff**: Gold Leaf program. [55:43] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Gold Leaf program. Well done. Thank you very much. Mr. Isakson. [55:48] **Chad Isakson (Assistant City Engineer)**: Um, just a couple of regional project updates. The Amira project located at Hudson Boulevard and Eagle Point, um just east of Inwood Avenue, will go—um start constructing on Hudson Boulevard next—starting Monday July 8th. And that will bring Hudson Boulevard down to one lane controlled by port—portable signal systems. So um if you can avoid that area it's recommended to do so, but there will be east-west traffic maintained with that portable signal system. So just observe um on-site traffic control. Um and then Stillwater Boulevard was open last week from the Norstar development to traffic, um but starting next week we'll be starting our water main project along that corridor. Traffic will remain open east and westbound but there will be crews working on the shoulder. [56:46] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Will there be uh shoulder closures for that? [56:49] **Chad Isakson**: There will be. [56:50] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right. And 30th Street? [56:52] **Chad Isakson**: 30th Street is proposed to get their base course pavement next week. We're waiting for confirmation on that from their construction meeting scheduled for I believe it's tomorrow to confirm that schedule. But moving—moving along. [57:07] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Is it open to traffic currently? [57:09] **Chad Isakson**: It is not. Um we're gonna all right work towards it once we get some hard surface down. [57:16] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Okay. Miss Senala? [57:17] **Jennifer Doyle (Administrative Services Director)**: No report. [57:18] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right, with that we'll adjourn tonight's meeting at 8:09.