All right. Going to call this evening's uh city work, city council workshop to order here on the 10th of March, 6:30 p.m. Uh our first order of business is to discuss city-owned property at Ideal and Still Water Boulevard, otherwise known as 180 acres on on the west side. All right. Good evening. Tonight we're going to just uh provide an update on the 180 acres and talk about next steps. First thing we wanted to just discuss and you've seen a presentation on the um ULI technical assistance panel report. So we have our website created and we want to go ahead and post that report um you know after this meeting. So if there's any comments you have about the report and what you've seen you want it added just let me know. Um from the report you'll know that we discussed uh uli is kind of this tap report is going to guide our work going forward for everybody watching but we have three parcels identified parcel one parcel two and parcel three and the question is about the phasing of the project and in the report we have sewer and water to parcel one. So the idea would be to go ahead and try to sell that um first and then bring sewer to parcel two. There was an approach to try to bring it to two and parcel three. We'll talk about that a little bit more. Our recommendation is just to get the sewer under the the train tracks to parcel two and then find a developer for for the second um two parcels. Either they could buy parcel two or three or andor. Right. So they try to figure that out moving forward. But uh I guess the question we're going to have a sewer question, but the phasing does this sound correct? any comments um about this approach and about the report when it comes to phasing? >> Yeah, I I mean from my from the history that I have with this parcel out there, that seems to make sense. I think we've tried it a couple different ways and um trying to do it all at once wasn't wasn't ideal just because it's such a large piece and it needs to be phased anyway. So starting off with parcel one that already has sewer and water to it seems to make sense as far as I'm concerned. >> Yeah, I agree with that. I I I wasn't here obviously when you guys did this the first time. Um but I know that wasn't concerned and just yeah that is a lot of land to as we saw as we're working through this plan. It's a lot of decisions to be made. So I think that does make sense from the phasing standpoint. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. I think the other thing just to add, you know, from the report is that parcel 3 really changed from prior um land use guidance where it was mostly business park. It's more of a residential commercial land use too. So you may have different types of developers looking to develop site. The next one is just you know we're talking about the sewer connection. Um the question just you know does the council support engaging with engineering to create a plan and begin the actual engineering for the expansion? We received a an estimate from Bulma Bank for around 850,000 that includes contingency engineering and um it includes bringing the sewer under the track a few hundred feet um to a roadway alignment to the just the second parcel. So if that's something that council would like to do, we would move forward in 2027 CIP to add it, but we begin engineering as soon as possible after. Do do we know when Washington County plans their work on that stretch of ideal? >> I think Nate has the answer. >> Mr. Mayor, the uh project's currently scheduled to begin construction 2029. >> Okay. >> So, I I guess I'm just They don't have to go inside. just um just wondering if that makes any sense to coincide that with their work or it it's kind of hard to say if parcel one goes right away and you're looking at two if that may I mean ultimately I I think that the city's in an advantage at selling parcel two if it if it does have sewer that's available to to to instead of making the developer put it in it I think it makes it more attractive. And um my only question is if it makes sense to do it in 27 or to coincide that with the Washington County project. >> How quickly do we think parcel one I mean would be >> right. I don't know what the timing is. >> Time frame. I mean it seems like >> that could work. Yeah. waiting till then and >> we're looking to market parcel one if everything goes smoothly around August. >> Okay. I mean the design for that isn't too involved. There's permits related to like if you stay on 25 feet outside of the railroads right away. You just got to deal with the easement for the utility. Right. >> So Mr. Mayor, the the the the big lead time is getting the permit to cross the tracks. You know, I mean, our recent experience here on Village Parkway, I I think I can remind everybody how that went. >> Yeah. >> Um so, while we may be starting the effort for a a CIP project next year, um it it likely will be it could be close to when the construction begins with the county road that it does actually happen. I guess if I had my brothers, it would be to put it in the CIP 427, but try and time it so that the construction is roughly around if we can piggy back off of Washington County's permit or whatever would seem to make sense. Maybe some discussion with Washington County as to their permitting process and how that's going or what they plan to do around that railroad might make some sense. >> Yep. So, there has been a a a diagnostic meeting and some preliminary discussion so far. Um the the issue is that the county doesn't do utility work, >> right? >> So, um it'll be it'll be pretty much a process driven by Lake Elmo to get that permit through. >> Well, but they'll be doing approaches right up to the rail. I mean, they're not going to stop >> 25 ft outside with whatever they're doing the roadway, right? >> Yep. And we would >> So I I guess >> I guess is just some of it we don't even know what they're doing with the profile of that roadway, right? >> Well, obviously near the tracks it's going to have to more or less match or tied to the tracks, right? So >> um they're at a stage where you know they're working towards a preferred layout right now. >> Yeah. Um, so, uh, you know, the profile is going to have to very clo it will closely match what's out there today because there's so much relief, you know, if you look at from, you know, County Road 14 down to six and and you've got, you know, fully developed residential areas in Oakdale, um, you know, adjacent to the roadway there. So, >> which is which is kind of where we're talking. So, the profile is going to remain relatively consistent. I guess putting it in the CIP is just a good first start. >> Um >> I was just looking at here. I mean they're just asking to create the plan to begin the engineering, right? So I mean >> yeah, we need to move forward with that and >> then that way we're just prepared if >> if it does move quicker or if it doesn't. But I agree if we can coincide it. >> I mean the other alternative is to say no. If the developer wants that piece of land they can put in the sewer. But I I think that as a an entity, we're probably better served working with the railroad ourselves. >> Yeah. >> Um rather than uh playing middleman to any developer and and the railroad at that point, >> I'd rather look to assist the developers this way versus maybe some of the other stuff that we talk about later as well. >> Sure. I think there's also a logic and if we can do it at the same time, we we obstruct the traffic flow on that road just once rather than a couple of different times. And there's some efficiency in terms of mobilization demobilization costs that we could achieve if we work with the county on it. If it's the same contractor doing that work, which likely those direct drilling guys or those tunneling guys aren't, they're not going to be the people that are doing the road surface, but there's definitely efficiencies of of scale and overall cost. And >> so, let's let's start it off and and kind of touch base as we move along and see what time frames we're looking at. >> That's great. Yeah, we'll uh um we'll work with community development to that end to get it set in the CIP and >> you know if you decide to change later, you can always adjust the CIP. >> Mhm. >> But I think this sets up the city for the best successful report. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So we bring this up because in the report there was a scenario of five different scenarios of you want to just do scenario one just put a sign up, right? Maybe hire a broker and then city installs sewer connection. That's what we were just talking about. We kind of landed through the presentation kind of talking about uh level two. There was some discussion about being the city as a developer and going all the way and trying to plan out. And I bring that up to today um because I think there's an opportunity on parcel 3 that we're going to discuss a couple slides from now. But for this slide basically looking at, you know, does the council support hiring a commercial broker for parcel one? So that would be someone who could give us uh broker price opinion. They could give us a good idea of what the market looks like. Um feel all the interest on the property. Try to maximize the value of the property knowing that their commission is going to be two to 3% as a seller. And if they sell to another like a b a buyer that has a commission, it would be closer to like a 5% commission. So this just kind of bringing this up. Uh we talked to brokers in the past the rail issue. they were saying they market as rail adjacent and go after people that may need or want the rail accessibility. So, this is something we haven't really talked about, but um in terms of hiring a broker and just um going that route in terms of marketing the property parcel one, >> I'm 100% on board that. That's I mean there's things that government does well and things that government doesn't do well and I don't know that we've we've got that expertise. No offense anybody, but that's not that's not what we do on a on a daily basis. Um, you know, we don't government takes a better does a better job I think overall of maintaining our roadways or clearing snow, right? But >> wouldn't want to do that with a private entity, but this is seems to me as a as a professional exercise for somebody that does it on a daily basis. I 100% agree with that. I just I didn't know if maybe the alternative because you kind of talk about it with with parcel 3 is the RFP. Is that the altern would that be an alternative is RFP for >> we could do an RFP? I would not recommend the RFP for something like this. I mean >> versus because I think they mentioned for parcel 3 that that might be something we'd want to consider. >> That is something that um I'm bringing up it I just reading the report. Parcel 3 is a more complicated parcel. I think there's opportunity there that we can look into. I think for something like this, if it moves forward in the community engagement um supports industrial from what I'm talking to the brokers, we seems like we have interest that we go ahead kind of just sell it to somebody and kind of create the guidelines for what we want to see, but we don't have to go through this long RFP process and you know, we can kind of maximize our value just putting it on the market. >> Well, then yeah, I completely agree. Full support hiring the commercial broker for parcel one. I agree as well. I think that that would be faster. Staff all has a lot of things they have to do already and adding that on is you know not going to be as efficient as if we have someone who's that's her sole purpose. >> Okay. So the AU this is basically like an EAW but for the entire site and we do it prior um prior to any project coming in. There was one done for the ciphers project. They paid for it. So that one expires March of 2027. We talked to Bolton Bank. They gave us a rough estimate about 50 to 60,000 to extend it, renew it. Uh it takes about 180 days to complete and the cost goes to the developer. The developer, future developer would reimburse the cost. So that's something that we would um want to move forward on. if you support that and what's your opinions that way that way we the developers don't get caught up in any EAW issues later if we don't complete an EA an AUR um the report also talks about you know speeding up timelines and making things easier for development so this is something that we can address prior to selling parcel 23 >> did the original AU >> I don't know do do you remember >> I don't have it at the top of my mind I can look though >> okay >> just curious ious if u there's any efficiency uh understanding that BMA can do that but if if somebody that's already touched it been through it their learning curve might be less >> we could reach back out to them get a price and bring that back >> I think that would that would be good >> why don't we um go this way why don't we have get a price AU A and get a price from Bolton and Mink >> and then we'd have some comparable like a measurement. You know, I think that's maybe that Nate is so efficient he'll be better. >> Nate Nate's stopped doing the >> Yeah, I I I'll uh I'll sit on the sidelines for that one. Council, you don't want me weighing on that. >> Again, getting the people that are professionals. Well, I just think it'd be good to have two, you know, two quotes on that. And that way we won't be saying, well, could we got a better price if we went somewhere else? We'll have competitive quotes and >> and we can then take a look at the qualifications and the people and the price and pick, you know, pick one that makes sense. >> Okay. >> Any other thoughts? Just move forward on the AU. I mean, in terms of pricing and Okay. I think it it it I mean just to your question. Yes. Get it refreshed so that we don't have to do the whole thing again. >> Yes. >> Okay. So the other part now is the community engagement process. We talked about at the EDA workshop that we'd bring this with a timeline so people could see it and just if you have any comments, if you want to add anything, let us know. But moving forward fairly soon in April, starting to announce the project, working with Kathy Story in the Fresh, doing our website update. We actually have a page for this project. We just need to build it out, you know, add the report, do things up to the page. Um, so working on that in April and then moving into community input. We're looking at an online survey. We'd want to share that through the website, social media, newsletters, that sort of thing. have an open house town hall potentially two here um during the day if we have an opportunity on the weekend to do a weekend event just to get the word out. We talked about that if we can coordinate something that is going on um before the report. And then we also discussed at EDA EDA having a public hearing so people can come just discuss the project at one of the EDA meetings um to just get public input at a at a meeting prior to going into the reporting which would then happen in July. just kind of taking everything that we hear uh presenting the findings to the the commission the planning commission the council and EDA looking at the direction next steps and putting that into a uh report of the findings and then that is something that we would publish to the project web page hopefully around July August and then it would also have highlevel steps of we're already going to have the steps but it would show you kind of where where we are in the process and that way the big question is I think that are going to be asked are land use. Obviously, we asked ULI to look at what we've already done. Do you think it would be feasible to kind of keep the business park, looking at maxing out land use, um the amount like the dollar amount tax, uh diversifying the tax base, that sort of thing, having more business park commercial. So, just kind of seeing where all that lands, uh hearing new ideas and kind of approaches. So, that's kind of what we see in the community engagement process. And then having a much higher level kind of timeline which will be on the um website which is talking obviously the workshop tonight but um the sewer connection county coordination hiring the broker au kind of public engagement where we think the sewer will work uh begin work obviously we don't think it's going to be June to start construction that's more of like moving forward with um with engineering and then marketing the parcel uh basically in the fall parcel one and then the land use and zoning updates. We don't know what that's going to look like and there's some strategies that I've been thinking about um especially on that third parcel that there's no rush to move and and do the amendments. But this is kind of like the timeline that we're looking at. So really question is anything community engagement wise that you would like to see added and maybe even like a technique or something. I don't know. >> A question on the on the online survey. Is that something we're going to do internally or are we going to contract for that? >> We'll do the this online survey will be internal >> because one of the things you have to worry about an online survey is someone going on 25 times to slant the results. And usually when they do it on a contract basis, they'll look at the URL where it's coming from or the numbers anyway. And if there's duplicates from the same computer, then they will only accept the first one and they discard the others. prevents, you know, someone from stacking it on and and slanting the survey. >> Okay. >> May be something, you know, maybe Metro Metronet could do for us. I don't know. Just I would just hate to see we get some residents out in the area who, you know, who are opposed to whatever the concept might be. They want to push a concept and so we have 13 people that they register 50 times and we say, "Wow, there's widespread um opposition to painting it red. Yeah, I think it's a good point. You know, I guess just to the initial the question here, I think it's really well thought out community engagement strategy. And I I I don't know if there's anything else that we need to add. I think this gives the community multiple opportunities to participate, you know, whether it's just so they can participate once or if they want to participate multiple times. Um, so I think it's really comprehensive from that standpoint. I think it's a good point. I know we've had a lot of issues with surveys in the past and then when it comes to council that you know that argument gets brought up and then the results just kind of get thrown as a result of it. So I I think that's a valid concern. I don't know how much it costs to do something like that but um I don't think it's really expensive. We used to do you know both scientific surveys and these online surveys and um I think a lot like survey monkey was one that was fairly commonly used but the staff the IT staff would go through and they pick out the multiple URLs >> and and just you know and drop everyone but the first one. >> Um but it prevented that from happening and it was fairly frequent depending how controversial the result was or the how active you know the people were. I think it was one of the things we heard on one of our surveys before was that there's a group of people who got everyone and their brother to sign on and presenting a particular view. >> Yeah. Which I mean like that's >> if it's the same person doing it over and over, that's an issue. Well, you know, we did this with the the old village um uh when we renewed the plan for the old village. We did a lot of the surveys during the the inperson and and maybe that would just be a nice way to kind of complement it where if we did some surveys with the in-person as well. >> It's a little harder then to to cheat that short of like you told everybody in her that wants the same thing to show up but that's knowledge as well. There's a lot of people showing up for it. So, we've recently with the Boulevard Tree program, we've used um an EZRI product like ArcGIS called survey 123. This was just a form. So, I can look into see because I know we can block like duplicates and set it up a certain way. So, >> I can kind of run that past you and see if you think it's something we already pay for with our GIS. So, >> it's possible we can have them, you know, require names, addresses, so we know >> um >> and then block. It does say like you can't submit duplicates. So they would have to actually like go to a different computer or you know if they really >> sometimes you you can't stop if they call every neighbor and say call in that you can't stop that's people expressing a their view whatever it is but if the same person doing it 25 times that's what we want to prevent. >> Okay. >> Looks good. >> Okay. So parcel three, this is what kind of what we're talking about is you see it the parcel one two is business park development and then it could be kind of a they left it open, right? So they had different scenarios where you have commercial along the street. Obviously we talked about expanding public works. that's we think smart to like save the land for public works. But other than that, it was, you know, some apartments, some town houses, some medium density single family, and then like larger lot single family. And there was an analysis done on tax revenue. The small lot single family brings in the most per unit in terms of tax revenue. They also we also included a Washington County CDA about the for every tax dollar generated you know residents requests about a$120 and it's about 30 cents for a business. So we're just kind of looking at blending that. So, what I want to bring up here is this is one opportunity for an RFP where we can look is at doing a um more traditional neighborhood development, something that's more walkable and trying to get almost like a new urbanist approach to this one site. And we're really not going to have that opportunity since this is the only lot, you know, parcel that we own. Typically what you'd have is a developer comes in and like what we're seeing in Oakdale which is you have the Starbucks, the Chipotle, Aldi and then you have a lot more apartments and residential. But if we could bring a developer in that I've shown in the past like a Sarinb or like these plan communities. It could be more of an interesting where you have more neighborhood commercial that's integrated maybe some more mixed use and you kind of let them tell you oh we can bring in townouses or small lot and we would guide them. we in the RFP process, what we want, density, unit counts, that sort of thing, but kind of put it out to the you could really put this out to the country through the Congress of New Urbanism. They have chapters. Um, and just share it and see if anybody wants to come in and do something that's a little bit, I would say, unique to the region. I think one of the advantages it could create a community commercial that benefits the entire area. So people in Oakdale that live next to this development can go to maybe a local coffee shop or like something that's a little bit more local but local and walkable and connect it with bike paths and and everything else that we want to see in the buffers and and the ponding that we have here. So just wanted to put that out there that in terms of the conversation of the city being the developer, I don't think that's something that we would take on. I don't see how we would actually anticipate the market like all the stuff that it actually takes. But putting this out and framing it up through an RFP and just seeing if somebody wants to come in and do something unique to this site that um I think could maximize tax revenue and give kind of like the best product um that you could ask for in terms of like a mixeduse walkable development which we've had. We have it guided in certain areas but it's very difficult u to build. So, it'd be nice to see if we could do that here. >> I like that concept. I just for people that are going to look at this online, I don't know if there anybody's watching or not, but I know there's a few people out here, there's that big red line through the circle. That mean that doesn't mean it's a, you know, ixate or bad idea. That that red line represents a gas line utility uh that goes through that property. just so >> people take that the wrong way. >> Um, >> yeah, I think this parcel 3 is maybe a little distance off for us, but I I do kind of like that concept. I'd like to keep it in mind and maybe see where other people have done an RFP for something like that and how it's worked out for them. Um, >> what was it? It was called New Urbanism. >> Yeah, New Urbanism. It's been aroundation. >> It's an organization >> that assists with RFPs like this. >> Well, they they really promote more walkable traditional neighborhoods, mixeduse, >> kind of like town developments. So, they promote that and they have conferences and it's it's a movement of planners and >> did well with kind of the feedback that we got at the first I think it can. I think I mean it it also doesn't stop you from doing some of the commercial along the street potentially, but then integrating other uses more on the inside. And I think one of the things that we've heard from residents and having the buffers is going to be really important. So yeah, >> having the buffers and having also lower density single family housing buffering with, you know, with the buffers can still be achieved with this type of development. So, I think it's a way that we could Yeah, I think it's definitely an option to >> One, sorry, one other thing to point out is I did get a resident that lives to the east of this saying we don't need a road up on the north side of our development. Just I don't know if we need to put something on it says like trail on there so people don't hyperventilate thinking there's a road going in >> arrow, >> you know, with the arrow. Um, well, it's just a concept and >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. You You know, it's going to >> Sorry, I didn't mean to step on you there. >> No, that's okay. >> I I think it's I think this could be a really nice way to hand off a lot of that work. So, obviously the city's not developing it, but also maintain a little bit of control to ensure that we that this gets developed the way that, you know, the feed from the feedback that we're we've been given with that RFP process. Um, I guess we we're still going to wait to see, but I mean, you know, I thought the process for the old fire station went really well and you know, and guess we'll see in the end, but um, >> we obviously have a community that's really wants to be involved with that. And I think this is a good opportunity to do it that way and versus just having the developer come in and and make the decision, which, you know, I part of me is, you know, says, well, you know, you have to kind of give the developers that freedom. they know the market, but if we can have a little bit of a say with the RFP, I think that's a maybe be a nice compromise for this this uh this acreage. >> I think we should do and I'm all in favor of the RFP and the concept and that, but let's say we get three proposals. you know, you have the aesthetics part of it, but I think we have to develop an economic analysis to say what's the economic cost benefit to the city of each development so we make an informed decision on how that will impact us, you know, financially. >> And if if I understood it right from the financial report based off the few different scenarios where they went all commercial, all residential mix, it ended up being fairly similar. I believe for all those from the the financial >> it >> it's similar but it has to do with fiscal disparities when you're building >> the point they missed though is these almost create operational costs for us. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> And they talked about the taxes coming in. >> Sure. >> You know on the fiscal disparities because the reduction does some dilution on the commercial side. But when you get into the operating cost impacts all of a sudden the commercial has a lot less operating cost impact than the residential. So you want to look at if a fiscal impact that looks at both sides of the equation. >> Correct. >> And to kind of follow up on that too, if you're looking at an RFP for the site, you'd be framing it up in terms of square footages and unit counts and those sorts of things. So at least we have a better idea. Like >> we're looking for at least this because we know that it's going to generate tax revenue to a certain extent. >> Sure. the I I I think you mentioned something about it where it's probably the staff doesn't think it's a good idea. I know it was brought up a lot in the report, but just to have that discussion with the public works building. Is that even something that we're considering that with their discussion of considering moving it since it is the prime real estate of this of this lot? I mean, if it were if it were not already established, I'd say, "Yeah, let's not pick that location." But I think >> where it is now, it makes it pretty hard to to move that and and make it cost effective from what, you know, they were saying the cost would be, you know, potentially moving it to parcel one. >> Um, >> which I don't like that idea. Yeah. If we're going to move it, >> let's not move it on the site. >> Yeah. I I mean, for where it's at, better or worse, it's where it's at. And maybe expand that yard so that it can be used for future use uh as a city grows and it is it doesn't become a something that we have to necessarily abandon 10 years from now. Makes sense. >> I think there's a way to integrate that in where it wouldn't be um a detriment to the neighborhood. It's going to take some planning, landscaping, maybe some BMS, whatever. That's more of an architectural thing, and I'm I'm not an architect, but I think there's ways to moving it would be pretty much eat up any a lot of potential return we would get. >> And you know, where do you go? >> I agree. I mean, >> one comment from the report, too, is that we were hearing people thought that was a landmark. So when you come into Lake Elmo, it's an old red, not old, but it's a red barn. You also have the water tower. It kind of serves as that landmark where you know you're in the city, right? >> And I think people also like that um look and then just Yeah, I mean the dollar amount moving that we already talked about this, but it's just very expensive to >> agree with that. I just I guess I wanted to bring it up because it was mentioned in the report a lot and I mean it sounds like we're all on the same page with Leave that there. The only way we could make it a little more friendly is if we could put the mayor's picture on the water tank. You know, >> that's not friendly. That's painful. >> Obviously, this is going to happen later. We'll bring this back up, right? If this ever comes forward, we're going to look at what's what's the how we're going to frame it up. What are the density numbers? But I really like what you and and and the planning group has done here and presented this evening and and thought out the process and kind of the phasing. >> Um >> can I just ask one more question actually from that last one? >> Absolutely. >> Real quick here just because I know this was brought up a lot with the the neighborhood to the east. Have you received any feedback with this layout with this design? because I know you know they were concerned about the properties that were going to be developed right on the the eastern portion of this property. Any feedback that you've received? >> Received feedback during the process, right? So, they were involved. Um I think the challenge is that this site sits a lot higher than their neighborhood. >> Yeah. >> So, I think the buffer that's already built in is almost 400 ft in terms of the the land use. So, >> I think not connecting this to their neighborhood was a concern. They don't want to see that. And then also having the spacing and I think the spacing also helps us in terms of keeping more of a nature-based approach to design. So I think if we do go that RFP route, you're going to write some of that in anyway. In terms of just like commercial versus um residential and types of residential, I don't recall um if there was any um feedback on that, but we're going to go through the community engagement process and that's kind of like to hash out apartments versus town houses versus yeah single family, >> right? >> And just something to bring up like um we do have the density in terms of the wreck units, but when we were talking to ULI and just my opinion, this kind of maxes it out to where it could be a little bit tricky with the flexibility because we only have so many wreck units, right? So like >> this may be too many units of residential anyway, just to throw that out there. But you can limit that in RFP. >> Exactly. So in case just putting that out there tonight was we move forward. We may not even have the wreck units to build what's drawn especially on the um third parcel if especially if the second parcel requires more. >> Right. Okay. Looks great. Everything's great. >> Well, thank you. This is just the questions together. We decided to go through it. Um so unless you have any other comments, I think we've got direction to start moving forward on this project. Sounds great. >> Efficient way to do it one at a time. >> So, next on the agenda is use of storm water funds to pay for street imp or street improvements. So, I think that's to pay for the you >> water improvements involved with ste street street improvements, right? Not the whole street improvement in itself. >> Correct. Just the storm water improvement. So, this was um just a quick history. Um this has been brought up a couple times. There's a um more of a a council consensus that we should look at it further um at the last meeting. Um so we do not use storm water funds. Um I haven't tracked this back significantly into the into the past, but um since I've been here for a whole two and a half years, um we haven't really used storm water funds for street construction projects for the storm water. >> Prior to that, I I don't remember doing that either. >> Right. Right. So, um, so in looking this at this, we just wanted to to add this to the utility study as a little bit of of a review, have a discussion, see if this is something that council wants to pursue in the future. So, I provided a little bit of background on the storm water fund. So, the storm water fee started at $20 in 2004. It um was up to $95 for 25 uh 2025. Our recommendation which will come next week um with the storm water or with the utility study is an 8% increase that gets us sort of um on that path to um expense recovery which is our goal um for all of these funds. Um as we increase these revenues um certainly we'll we'll have some additional cash we can dedicate to the funds. So the our early estimates are that that um the revenue sufficiency in order to pull money out of that fund probably won't come until closer to 2030 based on our current CIP >> if we don't spend what's in our current CIP. Obviously that could come sooner. So um I am certainly happy to answer any questions as far as you know what you know sort of what however you want to sort of guide um this conversation. I had jotted down some of our steps moving forward which includes some of our goals for that fund um as uh for that fund and and the other utility funds um and those are actually part of our sort of larger um strategic plan moving forward. So we're looking at um reviewing the stormwater fee structure. So that could impact how this um this this discussion, you know, uh proceeds in the future. Um we will need to increase storm water revenues. Um if we're going well, we already need to if we want to reach that goal of expense recovery. Um as we're doing that, we can certainly pull money out um towards these projects. Um we are doing a lot of process review as and this is is an ongoing um issue. Uh Nina and I have only been here for a couple years and so you know every time we do the audit, we're tweaking how um how we're recording and how we're sort of reviewing and and um our fixed asset list um how we're accounting for things, how we're projecting our um our expenses moving forward. Um, so we're really looking at this as a long-term, again, strategic implementation of all of these items. Um, and making sure that we are well funded for capital projects well into the future, obviously covering our operations and meeting our um, fund policy as we do that. Um, yeah, that's kind of >> just give me a quick I'm sure what you were saying kind of ties into your graph that you um supplied in the packet, year ending cash versus accumulated depreciation. >> That was just one of the lenses. So we're trying to to come up with just a way to look at cash. So a lot of times um at least the the utility studies that have been done here in the past and it seems the focus of of a couple of the companies that I've looked at the focus on utility studies um is more about revenue sufficiency. So, do we have the cash to do these projects and fund operations for the next 10 years? We are um in a in an interesting situation in um Lake Elmo because so much of our capital investment is going to be coming sort of all at once 30, 40, 50 years from now. So, my outlook is more about what does this look like? you know, obviously we want to know that we're going to be healthy for the next 10 years, but given the rate of development, we're it's sort of a given. I am most concerned with the long term. And so, just one of the lenses that I've been using um is that how much cash do we have relative to how much depreciation, which is a portion the portion of our capital um assets that we've depreciated to to date. So those have come online at various points in the past. Um depreciation rates um sort of vary depending on who is putting it in the faxed asset table. It is definitely not a perfect measurement. It is just one lens that I've been looking at to you know if we've gotund again you know $100 million in assets and $20 million in accumulated depreciation and we only have $5 million in the bank today and that's just going to get worse over time, right? the the the ratio um that again it's just one lens. >> I see that the accumulated depreciation uh increases at a steady rate. Is that just like a 3% rate increase? Is that what you put in there? >> No, depreciation is based on the actual assets that we have and so those are um >> and then I see the fund takes a dip down to 2029. What is that? What is that telling me? >> There is a CIP project scheduled for 2029, which is the Lions Park. Uh I think the CI there's a page of the CIP in the packet as well actually. >> Yeah, I see that. >> So I believe that's the Lion's Arc >> storm water lines and BFW irrigation. Okay. The second line, phase three regional drainage improvement, Lions Park pond is 575,000 in the CIP, >> right? That's in 28. Okay. >> And then it starts going up because we're assuming at that point the fee is at a rate high enough that we're able to turn that curve around. And >> we're also decreasing capital improvement expenditures beyond that point. And that's a that's 575, you know, 8050 and then we just it's minimal out here because we don't >> pop we don't know more will pop in there but >> right and that's you know one of these additional sort of uh uh weaknesses we have in our studies is that we there are certain areas that we maybe just haven't done the longer term capital planning for certain things. >> I certainly know how we got here. I don't think there's I don't think we can just start doubling up the um storm water fees >> to the extent that you'd cover that. The problem we h we have here is is multiple multiacet. First, let's talk about depreciation. When we buy an asset for the storm water utility, we take it from some funding source, utility, bonds, whatever. It doesn't come off the income statement. There's no line for capital expenditures on the income statement. The depreciation charge is recovery of the cost of that capital asset over time, over the life of the asset. And so when you look at an efficient utility, whether it be storm water, electricity, sewer, water, you name it, you want your operating funds to cover all your operating costs, including depreciation. You want to establish what's the minimum amount of cash that we need to have in this fund to cash flow for the variation expenditures and revenues that occur over time and to replace, you know, a certain amount of your capital assets going forward. When we look at the storm water fund, correct mayor, in 2016, 17 and 19, the bonds that were issued for the city included bonds repaid from the storm water utility. We've issued, you know, we've issued bonds in every year we've issued bonds except 20 and 25, we've had both portion of those bonds repayable from the water utility and all but three years we had portions paid for from the sewer utility. So, in our other utilities, we finance those capital assets and pay for them over a 15-year bond issue. In the storm water, we've been doing two things wrong. One is, well, we don't pay for them from the storm water fund. We include them in the bond issue and levy a tax to pay for them. There's no free ride. So, the taxpayers are paying for storm water utilities. And taxpayers and storm water utility customers are not the same people. They're different people. And so the taxpayer gets a disproportionate burden of paying for storm water costs that benefit tax exempt entities. And so to straighten this out in a way that makes the most sense, we need to set our storm water utility up so you know, everyone that contributes to storm water pays their share of that contribution. And when you put it on a tax role, there's no rational nexus between the value of a property and the storm water contribution. You can have a expensive property that has less storm water impervious area than a cheaper property. That's why you set the utility up in a way that provides equity. So I suggest in this case we take a look at these capital assets and say if we pay for them over time as part of our geo improvement bond issue, you know, what would it look like? We have to raise a rates. There's no question. I think, you know, Clariss has done a good job of looking at that and developing a plan. We talked a little bit last year about we can't double them overnight. We have to find a way to phase them in and subsidize them in a way that makes sense. And we're going down that path logically. We're going down the path on the street side where we where we don't have a utility or enterprise funds to pay for them a little more aggressively than than I thought maybe we should. But, you know, we're still going down the right path. We have a plan to reduce our debt to half over the next 10 years, which makes sense, but we need to step back on the storm water utility and take a comprehensive look at that. You know, what if we come in and say we raise our rates gradually to bring it up where it's paying all of its operating expenses, including depreciation over a 10-year period of stock, would be just fine. It's a plan, right? But >> aren't we Aren't we increasing? I mean, I remember I moved into my house in 2005 and I think this city was increased. I think at that time I was I paid like 35 bucks a year or something like that sticks in my head >> and then it's been like 10% per year for a while. >> It just hasn't been increased in a in a couple of years. >> In a couple years it hasn't increased. Okay. >> And that's I'm sorry. >> I was just gonna say so so yes. So that's the plan, but but again it's and this is this is the discussion. So so it's >> it's we're going to be increasing revenues, >> therefore we could potentially fund some. I think that the um equity issue regarding um nonprofit properties could certainly be addressed in the fee structuring. Um and we could we can probably tweak so like tweak around the edges here a little bit with the structure to to fill in some of those gaps. Um and so there there's a lot of moving parts here that that we'll just we'll get more information. recall as we move forward a nonprofit entity coming in to try and get his >> water storm water fees not happen and that that >> well our ordinance artist provides a reduction >> I don't think we did we said no to him >> that section ordinance our city attorney has opined is probably needs to be changed >> okay >> so you you can't give reductions you give reductions in storm water fees um if they put in storm water retention or something that reduces the amount of contribution, >> right? >> Um but you know as we go back setting and and that's something we asked Nate to do is set those up so everyone pays their fair share based on contribution. >> Then we need to take a look at the finance part and say how do we develop a plan that has storm water paying for its improvements whether it's part of the street or a separate storm water plan and how do we manage that in a way that's affordable for you know our customers. You can't you know, pay $800,000 a year in cash for improvements and keep your storm water fees somewhere reasonable. That's why we would issue debt and pay the debt over time like we do for sewer and water. >> So then would you then create those bonds as a storm water pay? >> There would be geo utility geo um bonds >> geo revenue bonds. So, so as part of your argument saying separating out bonds to pay for the storm water stuff and have the storm water fee pay back those bond versus the taxes. Okay. >> Yes. Either way, you're paying them back. It's just a question. What's the source? >> I can hear that. >> And so, we do that with our sewer and our water. Right now, when we issue a bond, if you look at the at the offering statement, you'll see it says it's a $2 million bond and a,325,000 we paid from a tax levy and $500,000 we paid from the from, you know, from utility revenues and then you go into a little deeper say this from water, this from sewer. So it sounds to me like what director handlers I think that we need to get back to increasing the storm water fees on on an annual basis just to keep up with the the cost of inflation and the depreciation of our assets. Um um but I also agree and I and I can hear the part where when we're doing bonding for projects to separate that out some but I we started at a different place and but we can't flip it 180 degrees right away right would you agree with that you do it incrementally >> well till we see what the perform looks like if we pay for the storm water utility assets with debt were appropriate than cash were appropriate. You know what what would it take to make it work? So, we're not paying for them with taxes. If that means raising the rates 75%, I say, "No, let's phase it in." But what we have it right now, it looks like, as I read it, all the capital assets were being paid for with cash. >> Correct. >> And we weren't paying for any of the street capital assets. Well, if you know, if we had the street capital assets in, we paying like $730,000 a year, which would be all cash. and we only take on 650,000 a year in revenue right now. So we have this huge increase, right? So if you say look we don't we don't want to pay cash, we want to pay with debt over time, the asset is going to last 50 years so we can pay for it over 15 matching sources and uses. So it's a question of setting up you know if we take a look at it from that performer from that perspective what would that mean to rates and you know if we one of the dilemmas we're in here is we have about you know uh about I think $14 million in cash in our utility funds enterprises water sewer storm water about 14 million at least that's what our 24 audit said and so you could borrow money from the water and borrow cash in the water and sewer fund rather than sell bonds and have the storm water fund pay it back. The downside of doing that of course is it would reduce the cash in those funds which would have a negative credit rating impact for us because we have a lot of debt outstanding >> and we like to avoid that. >> We yeah we so we can borrow the money in the market and keep our cash you know within the funds to maintain our credit rating. It's there's a lot of moving parts here. It's not it's not simple. I just think step back and first construct the proforma on the premises that we're going to, you know, first collect storm water revenue equitably from all parcels that contribute. Number two, we're going to look at funding those capital assets over time with debt and if they're small cash, not everything has to be debt. Um, but you know, you work up what are the options for that. Uh, good performer will allow you to do that. Along with that, we need to establish what is the minimum cash we need in the storm water fund, you know, to cover operations. >> Director Hannah, is that something we're doing in the utility rates? Is this perform for >> Yes, you'll see the the full uh utility study next week um or you'll see it later this week uh when you get the packet. Um we did not assume um that we would be funding it with debt. How hard would that be to change at this point, Nina? >> Easy. >> Yeah. So we could do an email about that answer >> easy. >> So I mean we could definitely add that in >> for that >> button button. >> So So we just didn't want to um you know change too much of how we sort of project and manage things without getting a bit more consensus from this council as a whole or the three of you that are here. >> Yeah. Right. The three smartest ones. um before we sort of presented this sort of change in in structure of how we do things. So, we're certainly happy to to show that. Um and again, you know, we don't necessarily have to like make a decision immediately with regard to how we're funding our um bonds. Really, next week is a discussion of that rate for this year >> and then the additional rate uh structure change discussions will come later. This will be sort of an ongoing thing. I now have a little better understanding because I've always kind of wondered how that because I know the public works some of their you know when you're doing MS4 and things like that or the guys are spending their time clearing out grubs around ponds and stuff code that time to storm water. >> Yep. >> And that that covers some of the operational costs and things like that. >> Yeah. Like some some street sweeping's charge against the storm water utiling entirely. Some do tree trimming against the storm water utility because the leaves get in and block the catch basins. >> Milwaukee does that. Not that we have to. I think Clar's point is well taken. She has they have a projection for us for next council mean increasing the race. We ought to go with that. We're not going to step back and change the world in a week. You know, then let's let Nate get his stuff done with the parcels and we this can be done, you know, within the next year. You know, it's not something we have to jump on. But I think conceptually we have to come to the point that storm water should pay its own way and not make it a tax levy payment. Either way, we got to get the money from somewhere. >> I can hear that. >> And um and working with staff, Nate, Clarissa, Nan, we can, you know, we can come up with a solution to this that everyone can live with and being it's and it's not anyone's fault here that the rate rates are in the condition of the funds financially where they're at. You know raising rates every year is far preferable to waiting two or three years then going 30%. >> Right? >> You know you want to keep up with them can manage them. The other part is if we do this projection like Clarice is doing and it's your best guess over the next 10 years but it's a pretty good guess. You know you can't predict >> you know everything but you can get reasonably close but our big users can take a look and say well here's where we're going to be going. So we can budget for that going forward. It's not a big surprise to them either. So there's a lot of merit in in the stuff they're doing. >> So do I hear we need to look at our ordinance as well? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. But we'll need to do that anyway when we look at the change system. >> Okay. It's on the list. >> Yeah, it's on the list. Yeah, we need to do that anyway. And the other thing maybe we look at and I don't know if you've looked how recently looked at often times the depreciation life of the assets was more of an accounting life than a real life. >> And so changing those more accurate life. Um I 50 years is kind of a common number and you know pushing it to 75 would oftentimes make more sense. Again that's kind of a call with the engineer you know what do we expect the life of that you know that asset to be but when we minimize then we up our depreciation cost which means you have to have higher rates. So there's there's a lot of moving parts here and I think >> you get a force mean that only lasts 20, >> right? But sometimes that happens and and sometimes you get a hundred, you know, >> right? >> It's on the average, but I think the steps that we have in here, you know, there's a lot of stuff to be done, but I think it'll get us on the right position if we just follow through on them. And then when it's done, we're going to pop a big champagne cork. Of course, not on a city property, across the street and celebrate. >> All right. Thank you for that. >> Yes. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Um, next on the agenda, and we'll have uh special projects manager Clark Schroeder discuss this since uh city administrator is not with us this evening. agenda, procedures, discussion which was brought up as to the timing and ability for council to um add things to an agenda in the in a time frame that our current policy doesn't allow. And so Clark will step us through that. All right, mayor councel um we bring before you after uh council wanted to address the issue of how do council get items on the uh agenda. I will say that uh the current ordinance that you're currently working under was developed during a period of less less cooperative council and while a current council might feel they don't require impediment stated in that ordinance it does not meet future councils will be as accommodating. We need to have ordinances um if you change it that can function not only for a well well-run council but also a council that has challenges getting along together. So that's when we talk about what changes need to be happen I want you to keep that in mind. Um I was here when we put this ordinance in place in 2015 2016 and it was put in for a reason. The current ordinance basically says any ma you to add something to an agenda. Any staff member, mayor or two councils wishing to add an item to an agenda must pursuant to the section shall do so by following the uh by by doing the procedure here 11 days basically before council but it goes to a work session. So the current ordinance basically has the council that they want to add something it goes to the next work session and at that point the reason it was there so it can be the scope what's the intent is and directing staff to do research and come back with analysis and a recommendation. The one thing council should remember, you're a policy recommending board. And so, um, it's staff's job to come back with recommendations to fit the policies which the council is interested in. So, with that, in your packet, you have the current ordinance. You also have a few pages of what other city councils do. There's a number of city councils who develop their agenda at with the council and staff during a work session before each meeting. And so some of them meet a half hour before where they have an informal discussion that would drive future research, future analysis and future writeups for council. So the one thing we have to weigh in here is also staffed that do all these packets that you see you know we've done approximately in the last six months we've done about 160 packets each packet obviously is multiple documents and multiple pages and staff wish to do and have the time to do a professional job and so I want to make sure that if council is interested in discussing something that we allow staff to come back with a recommendation ation to fit a policy which the council's interested. So with that, I'll uh take questions or we can discuss what possible changes council may wish staff to research. >> Well, I'm the one who raised this issue. I think I'll go back to what I said before. Staff can add something to the agenda that or make a change agenda the day of the meeting. It's an elected official. It can take anywhere from three weeks to seven weeks to get something on the agenda. That just seems completely mind-boggling to me. Yeah, we're a policymaking board. We also are a board that approves finances, approves bonds, and it's not all policy. You know, we're paying bills. That's not policy. That's paying bills. And so, a lot of councils, a large number have Robert's rules of order. And under Robert's rules of order, on the day of the meeting, a council member can before you adopt the agenda can make a motion to add something and a majority of the council can vote yes to do it. I'm sensitive to the dysfunction that can happen, but you know, I think we have to be able to do something quicker. The one we're talking about tonight after this one, 25th anns to get it on the agenda. A simple question. Do we want to do something for our 250th anniversary? There's no policy. there's should we do anything? And so I I think we have to find a way to as a council person to amend the agenda and bring some discussion. If it requires staff input, the council should then direct staff to do that research and come back at the next meeting with the information. We can't hold them hostage and make them their job unbearable either. That's why I I think we have five people. A majority would be three. That's 60%. I wouldn't even oppose if we said it has to be twothirds which mean four of the five council elected officials would have to agree to add it to the meeting and if we don't have the information we need a council member can vote to table it. So, in in the packet there's, you know, some some examples from other cities, and I see a couple of them say you can add an item into the discussion arena, which means you discuss it and maybe then it goes on the workshop, the next one. So, at least there's some thought going into the item on the agenda, but then it can be put on the the next workshop agenda. Um, >> is that right? >> Actually, they're all over the map based on city. You can, you know, you can >> that was just one one or there's a couple of cities that seem to do that. Um, >> in my quick review, we had you had still wanted a North St. Paul, Cottage Grove, and Line of Lakes that were simply Robert's rules of order. I can make a motion as a council add it tonight. Hastings has one. You had to submit it to the city clerk five days before the regular council meeting to get it on the agenda. And it could be any elected official. And ours is just so ownorous. It it it doesn't make sense to me. It's a council meeting. We are the council. It's our meeting. And >> I guess maybe just help me understand too where you're coming from with this. So the example you gave, right, with like the 250th anniversary, you have to wait seven weeks to get that on. And obviously that can be frustrating if it's something you want to discuss and get the ball rolling on. Do you feel like it's kept us from doing our jobs, you know, the safety emergencies, things that come up like that? Has this format kept us from being able to make sure that we're handling those situations in a timely manner? >> Make sure we're handling in a timely manner. >> Do you feel like that's been a concern? Because I guess that's where >> Well, in this case, I mean, seven weeks to get something on the agenda as an elected official. I mean, it doesn't take Congress that long to get on the agenda. >> Yeah. I just I I'm very sensitive to to setting something up where we have chaos like the city has experienced in the past, but I think we have to find more of a median, you know, than where we are now. Um, >> so how does that play into because obviously I have never been on a council that has done it any any other way. Um, how does how how do then do we take into account the staff time that may be required or needed for an an added agenda onto the item the day of? Well, if we add it on, let's say the crazy counselor adds it on and I I can and I make a good enough argument that three of my other elected officials say, "Okay, we I'm of four." that means it has to be something everyone really agrees we should discuss tonight you know a strong majority so we add it on the agenda and as we go into our discussion we realize we don't there's information we would need to in order to make the best decision we can then you know agree to have it move to change it to be added to the next agenda or table it there there's ways to deal with that I can tell you when in in the other places I served in government you know we could add things to the agenda that evening Spokane, Washington, you know, 200,000 people, you know, threequarters of a billion dollar budget counselor, a counselor could add something to the agenda. If there wasn't sufficient information, staff was directed to, you know, seek more uh information. The other thing that you can do is is as Clark was you can have an agenda meeting, you know, before we used to agenda meeting before the regular counseling, but that was the agenda meeting for the next meeting. and there you could add things on and direct staff. >> So you develop it, you know, you develop the agenda for the next meeting before the first meeting tonight. It's just a more expeditious piece. You're waiting two weeks to get something acted on, not seven. >> I could see. Okay. So I have a hard time equating Spokane to Lake Elmo just from a staff size. We were Spokane or >> we only had 2,000 employees. Yeah, exactly. Relatively speaking. So when an item comes up, there's certainly enough distribution of work force that somebody's >> Yeah. >> probably in tune with that. So I always I I want to be cognizant of that we are not a huge staff. I also am cognizant and aware that sometimes we do need would like I don't think this is something that would happen on a regular basis. I mean >> I don't either. Um but I also in in line of thinking that you know you got to have so maybe it is you have four council members that want to discuss it and it can be tabled and then a discussion be had with does that allow for staff to gather information maybe if it's tabled for the next workshop or the next council meeting >> maybe we strike a comp I think you went down a path that that maybe is a good compromise that a council person can vote to add something to the agenda for discussion. >> Yeah. >> And four people have to agree that we should add it, but we can't take any action on it that night. It can it would then be moved to the next regular agenda, regular council meeting, >> not have to go to a workshop. >> Not it doesn't have to go to workshop. It could if you could it could but you know if we have a workshop in between it could go to the workshop but otherwise it'll go to the next regular agenda meeting. So if you have the third Tuesday council meeting, somebody brings an item that they'd like to be on the agenda for discussion >> can discuss it and then it could be on the next >> council meeting. >> And if if we wanted to >> and that really gives y >> more than typically more than a week to be able to >> to put some thought >> and assuming it was something that wouldn't require any research and there could be, you know, maybe something want to raise a flag in honor or something, you know, that's not just making stuff up. if was something that wouldn't require any any staff research, the council could maybe then by unanimous vote, you know, have it be an action item. >> I don't know. I'd be careful about that. We Yeah, transparency is an issue. So, when we don't put public notice out, one of the more common things that I've seen people say, "I didn't know." And you all have heard that too. Even though we do a lot of notice, you have heard that from your your citizens when you make a decision, that would only increase if you add things to an agenda that night and you make a decision outside of an emergency management type issue. I I do think there's some merit to to having an agenda item, a strong majority feels like it's something worth talking about and discussion without any action so that the the item can be made aware of and then proper notice could be for the next council. The only the only downside is >> currently, right, it goes to a workshop. So, it's not just the staff that's giving an opportunity to be brought up to speed on whatever we're about to talk about. It could also be the council member. And I guess I think it's a good compromise. I just I am going back and forth a little bit on this is I think it's a working system. Um, as a as a small business owner, it's super frustrating for me, right? We want to do something, I want to do it now. But this is when we have five people that have to agree on it and we got to get the community involved with it. I I think there is some benefit for that res that resistance and that time frame that it takes to to think through these. >> I I think that gives you some some time to work through it though. Even even a short discussion on something and maybe it's limited to >> you just may not be able to >> 10 minutes. Well, you're not going to make an action on it, right? >> You just may not be able to really um intelligently participate in it. If it's a a topic that you normally you would have had to do some research, talk to staff. >> But let's say it's the first meeting of the month, then you're going to have a workshop in between that and the second council. >> But the goal would be ideally >> and then if you >> skip the workshop with this item. >> Yeah. But the only time you're going to skip a workshop is if you make that decision, have a discussion item in the third the third Tuesday. And then you've typically got two weeks prior to your next >> Yeah. >> council meeting, which gives you time to talk to the staff person, talk to the administrator, talk to one other council member. >> Sure. Okay. It might provide more >> in my opinion >> it might provide more scope for staff >> right >> when you have a discussion because there may be just one person wants mirror golds in the boulevards >> y >> no one else does and during the discussion item for agenda topic we may decide that's a crazy idea >> and u you know or everybody's buying into it so then we have to do a little more research to bring back to you for you to consider >> may maybe again to try some more protection maybe we the discussion item and at the end of the discussion we take a vote to either have it referred to the next agenda um referred to the staff for input and added to the next agenda or we say no we don't want to talk about the next agenda. I'm just I'm trying to build in enough protection that we don't end up with where where the reason that drove this thing but to just expedite things you know a little faster. Sure. And I agree with Clark. If we just do with the discussion, it'd be on the next council packet and the public would know we're going to discuss it. I know we have provisions for emergencies. If we truly have an emergency, we can declare an emergency and and move forward on it. So, we don't have to worry about the emergency part. >> But it might be, you know, it it might be that after we discuss it, the council's majority, we say we don't want to add this to the next agenda. So we, you know, we have a four out of five to discuss it that night and a majority to add it to the next agenda. >> And we could add it to the next agenda or workshop >> or workshop. Agenda or >> decide we need more information. >> Well, I think we'd add it to the next agenda, but have it part of the workshop discussion >> because that you know, I don't know. There's >> Yeah, I get it. If there's a Yeah, >> but if there's not a workshop in between, it would go on the next agenda and sometimes we have three weeks between meetings, right? >> So, it gives a little more time. I would um I would just that said, I know this is a bad it doesn't happen, but I would just ask the council people who are sitting here to give a lot of thought to when they make that motion to add it in. If it really if it's if it's not such a burning issue or timesensitive, you know, maybe we just ask to put it on the on a workshop on the next workshop agenda. It's I think well >> so if you look at so if you look at your packet and you look at the uh order of business at regular meetings 3.08.004 um you would like to see some changes to that ordinance or language to consider at uh future meetings to change what you just discussed which is four fifths to add to an agenda for that particular meeting >> and for discussion >> for discussion only. And so we could put that in the ordinance where it's a non-action item discussion only and then a simple majority for adding to the pre the next agenda. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I think that's that's fair. I think that's fair. I mean staff. >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> I think that provides a protection against a renegade council like Dragoich coming up and adding something to the agenda that no one's had any input on and trying to ram it through by jumping up on the desk and hollering and screaming. Good point. >> You do that? >> No, I haven't. >> Yeah, but I've been thinking about that. >> You won't do that. >> All right. We'll work on >> we'll work on some uh language for your consideration. >> All right. >> You know, so for um I suppose be the next meeting then, wouldn't it? >> And I I think that you know the staff the staff input. >> I don't I don't think we'll have time to do the next meeting to do for an ordinance. So fine. Let's put this on an agenda in April then. Okay. And then there first first meeting in April would be just fine. >> And if that doesn't work, if that doesn't work, the second meeting >> you're going to have to help out with this. >> I will. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And if there's any intermediate thoughts as we prepare the package, share them with us. If there's something that this for some reason doesn't make sense or or there might be a problem, just share with us. Let's have a let's have a good discussion about it and come to a compromise we can all live with that protects against the stuff that happened before but doesn't take so long to get something on the agenda. >> Sounds good. Thank you. >> Thank you, Clark. >> Next um agenda item is the 250th anniversary of the USA discussion. >> I think I've occupied the whole agenda tonight. >> You you you pretty much have. Well, my my thought was on on that was to appoint a committee to come back and talk about what should be the 250th anniversary. I know we have the Fourth of July parade. I wasn't looking to upstage that. I don't think it has to be on the 4th of July. What does a community want, if anything, to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our country? And my thought was a couple people from the couple elected officials um our civic organizations connect Lake Elmo um Rotary and some of the you know the downtown merchants and sit down as a group and talk about what's the wishes of the community uh for some type of celebration and when would be a good time to have it where what type and then come back to the council with you know with that like we had so much positive feedback on that street dance last year and our celebrate the 100redy year anniversary of the city um and we have a unique chance that won't come again for you another 25 years at 275th anniversary. So if the community doesn't want to do anything that's fine but if they do what what would they like to do where should we hold it what should be the you know the things involved is it one day is it two or three days and if it's just that discussion I know in my in some of the discussions I've had with people with the Rotary uh reps and that is they'd like to be involved in a discussion and they think it would be nice to have a city celebration and I think we just sit down and have that conversation and come back with feedback. back. You know, we're the Fourth of July isn't as far away as we think. I we we did last year's hund in in three weeks. >> Well, that was fairly stressful for me. >> Yes. And that's why that's why the seven week delay is stressful for me. But I think >> well here's here's and I and I you know I saw this and and I think it was I was gone when you originally brought it up and and so I've been thinking about this for quite a while is um I 4th of July this year 250th year of the US a uh lands on a Saturday. >> Yeah. And I just generally in Minnesota it's uh they they go to their cabins, whatever. Right. So >> um and us again, I'll just go back to the size and I I know how much time I put into getting a band, getting a stage, getting the tents, getting the chairs, and putting them up. And thank goodness for the fire fires that were there that night to help me take all the chairs and tables down. um and you know somebody that gave some community service time to help put them up. But um I just don't know that there's an enough for me enough of a crowd that would be around for like a big 250th celebration on the 4th of July. I like the parade and I don't want to bring any It's always been like no businesses, no elected officials. I I like that that it just feels more >> Yeah. >> normal. But what I do like and what I did like and what I did here is that the street dance last year in September, people really like that. >> And it could be September. >> Yeah. I don't know if that makes sense to say, hey, 250 years, three months late, right? But I think that, you know, other cities have some events. We used to have huff and puff days. Now that was not a city event. That was done by the JC's. JC's aren't here anymore. I think we have an opportunity with some with with I think that there's I mean, we're a growing city. I think this is something that, you know, certainly It happens in the old village area. But when I go around to these things, it's the people that are involved in those. It's the same 15 20 people putting all their effort into that. For me, it's a little discouraging that we live in a community of 14,000 people and all. I mean, you're just begging for volunteers to help out with traffic control or something like that. So, it's kind of a plea from me to residents that if they like to see community things happen to actually get involved a little bit and offer up a couple hours of your time to see something good happen. Now, I would like to see somehow we we do do a fall festival, call it something. And I would like to some input from the Rotary, the downtown businesses connect Lake Elmo. Um, you know, if the businesses in in other parts of our city want to get involved, >> you know, we >> we do have some great things that volunteers do related to, uh, the Fourth of July parade, the National Night Out, um, and, uh, Light Up Lake Elmo that happens December. I'd love to have a band where people can come celebrate, hang out, have a good night. I think it turned out great last year. Um, that's something I' I'd like to see continue >> and I I contend we can celebrate our nation's 250th anniversary because it's all year long. It doesn't have to be Fourth of July. I agree. people at their lake cabins, people are traveling because it's summertime and you know I think the key is to get a committee to talk about that and the merchants and how we position it and where should we hold the street dance and that kind of thing and then come back and say I actually like the September idea myself but um getting the business involved in our in our short time frame last year we didn't get much of a chance to get our businesses involved so if I owned a you know a business and I look out and say well I would like to have been involved I would have set up a stand if I would have had more time. >> Sure. >> And so something along that line is is what I was thinking, but it's I'm kind of I know I'm half crazy, but September for the 250th celebration would be just fine with me. We'd be celebrating it and our folks would be in town and there wouldn't be, you know, so many people out. Uh it would >> right and that I think that's just I I was like time I mean even if just for my recollection of trying to get fans and stuff last year trying to do it for the 4th of July even if it was seven weeks ago would be pretty difficult just because it >> well it's 4th of July a lot of booked a lot of them are maybe playing I don't know >> but um maybe that's the discussion point is >> um maybe we can get this on the uh April agenda as well is like how do we formulate that and we we I mean we don't have somebody in staff that's a an event planner right so it really does need to take um I know typically we don't um have the audience participate in this but I see a Rotary member here and yeah >> I I don't want to speak on their behalf but knowing a good portion of the people there I think that they would certainly like to be involved and and a part of that and maybe as a downtown business I know you're also a council member but maybe there's some business people that >> would be interested in that >> and I I'll just share kind of you know when I've been thinking about this originally my scope as I was thinking through it was more from the stands of like not a single event I was actually kind of thinking like how do we >> do we put flags out on Main Street or do we do things like that where it could be out there the entire month. Um, and so less of the event. Again, I felt like the Fourth of July event that we do currently is so great. I don't really want to, >> you know, change that all unless it was, you know, adding fireworks or doing something like that. But I think that's going to be really difficult with being on a Saturday like I'm a baseball being there for a tournament. Just logistically, I don't know if that's feasible. So from the scope and scale standpoint, you know, with that question that's proposed to us is I guess I don't know, but I do think having some sort of group, the commission, bringing the Rotary, bringing the local business. I think that is the right way to go. Um, from my perspective, I I mentioned this previously and I guess this kind of plays into like what is the budget for this event. I I I really do think I think the city can play more a role of here of trying to help promote this, trying to help um clear any restrictions, permits, whatever that might come as a result of trying to do this. But I think we look more to the community, to the businesses. You know, if we did the flag idea, businesses are sponsoring flags um to try to make this more of a community fundraised event versus a city. And again, you know, the city has to fund some of this. I >> I think that's reasonable, but I think I'd prefer that that we serve more of a role of >> trying to just kind of remove as much red tape as possible um and and try to bring people together to do this. >> And I think our staff, again, we have a small staff, you know, I'm not looking to add to their burden. Maybe get a couple of elected officials to facilitate the meeting with the business community and you know connect Lake Elmo and Rotary and we just have to have some someone to be the spark to get it going. Yeah. >> And have that discussion about what would we like to have. I It doesn't have to be one day. I'm like you. It could be, you know, two or three or could be a week. You know, maybe maybe Monday night is Monday night is bar hopping night. >> Yeah. >> You know, um and and Tuesday night is go to eat that. I don't know. I'm just making stuff up. But, you know, come up with a scheme where where the city as a whole benefits from and people get together and celebrate >> being, you know, a resident of this community. >> I actually really like that idea. Kind of like the weeklong celebration, a different theme each night that supports the local businesses >> and the mayor has to give a speech every night. >> And I because Hudson does something like that in the wintertime, >> their balloon festival or whatever. I don't even know which one it is. Um, >> shoot, it's blanketing on me. But where they, you know, then like they have a a hockey organization sponsors one night and know the all the hockey organization kids are out there handing out candy canes and then the next night it's the dance team and um it just brings the businesses in, brings the community and gets them involved versus just saying, "Hey, city do all of this." >> We have city hall staff versus public works in a softball game. >> Yeah. Hey, there we go. One of the I'm on a couple nonprofit boards and we do gaylas and just like uh the city the staff at these nonprofits they don't have time to do these gaylas. We hire event planners and we spend money and we budget that money every year so that staff can do their job but the board is interested in events and gaylas. We hire people to do that. Something for council to consider if they wanted to have an event. >> Yeah. I mean, I ideally I'd like to see maybe what an event planner would cost for something like that. And um >> we would probably need a more definitive scope. Is this a one day? >> That's not my uh forte really. Uh >> right. So um Maybe for 2026 we could get our volunteer group to do it and plan in the 2027 budget what an event planner would take. >> Yeah. And I just I remember previous to um the city used to have some event that happened and and they did use some funds from the the charitable gambling that came into the city to help pay for that. This was pre 2017 or something like that. They would have a band. The firefighters held like maybe in the morning they did a a >> breakfast. >> Breakfast. Yeah. >> Around the >> They actually did a pig roast. >> A pig roast. Okay. So, I mean it and it can be a you know fundraiser for the for the fire department, things like that. um that you guys are throwing out a week. You You're totally throwing me out of the loop here. >> We're party people. >> I'm I'm all about light that fire one night and let it let it burn and then put it out. But >> I I just I mean I guess maybe just take a step back too like I'm really glad that you brought this up in the first place. I've had a lot of people say, "Hey, like what what are what's the city doing for the 250th anniversary?" So, I do think this is something that that this the the residents do want. Um, I guess I just for tonight, I don't know how much direction we need to give. If it's we need to say, hey, we want to spend no more than 50,000 and have that brought back to vote on or I guess what I don't know. I think we we don't know what we need to spend. Let's get the committee together and and look like we talk about a week long, you know, one thing I saw in other communities was like the church groups or some civic groups sort of like a bouabay on Sunday, you know, or a shrimp boiler, you know, I mean this stuff, it doesn't have to be fancy stuff, but people come together and so if I'm the um, you know, little sisters of the poor and I want to have a bulab, I can sell, you know, sell tickets and they can make a little money and people still come together as part of the celebration. I don't know what it is. It's imagine >> it sounds like there's some ideas, Clark. What is the what kind of a direction can we give that would be more specific than Yeah, I think we should maybe cl >> money from the charitable gambling that we could use. I know there's parameters around it, right? Um, but we maybe maybe maybe maybe we put an email out to the Rotary to connect Lake Elmo to uh because they're involved with the businesses, right? >> Yes. >> And ask them to to to gather some information and feedback um for discussion on on something in September. Is that would that be >> Yeah. So I I I think two things. one for the uh April meeting. I don't think staff have enough direction to come back with any recommendations, but I think it would be beneficial for us and uh for Nicole's weekly update to reach out to council and hopefully we'll have two more council members there at the April further this discussion and then encourage council to come with their thoughts so we can coales around one thing >> because right now, no offense, you're all over the board. >> Yeah. and and and uh I think it'd be beneficial for council to contemplate this and then further discuss it at the April meeting to direct staff to do some research. >> Okay. >> I'd also like to see a notice go to the you know our civic organizations the Rotary uh you know connect lake Elmo and ask them for their we can have their thoughts at the meeting. >> What I just said >> are you listening or you just waiting for your turn to talk? >> I just like to talk to hear myself talk. Jeez, >> let the record show. >> In terms of in terms of funding, we we have almost $30 million in cash and investments in our funds. I think we could find a few dollars to celebrate 250 years. >> All right, let's talk about it first April. Come with some concrete thoughts and um let's move from there. Maybe maybe I'll send an email out to some of these people and ask to get their thoughts beforehand so that it's not just us Yahoos talking about it. >> Fair. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'd be glad to help you with that task if you like. >> Yeah, that's what you said last year. All right. Um >> I'm a politician, you know. >> Yeah, I figured that out. >> All right. I think that kind of concludes what we had for this evening. It really done really well done. Uh Jason, Ashley, whoever worked on the the um future land use out on the on the west side of town. Clarissa, thank you for clarifying some of the issues and things that we're working on related to the storm water stuff. and Clark, thank you for your your uh experience in dealing with agendas, items on the agenda, and thanks for all the discussion. That was really good. With that, I'm going to adjourn the meeting at 8:04.