good to go all right 5:15 let's call the workshop to order please roll call council member Cole here council member Wong here council member nordby here council member schwe is absent and mayor mongi here thank you a motion to adopt the agenda please so moved so moved council member Cole second second council member Wong all those in favor say I I I thank you thank you city manager thank you mayor uh one topic up tonight uh Community Center next steps and uh State Grant discussions and I'm going to turn that over to finance director Dan winnik well good evening mayor council members uh we're here one more time for another uh workshop on the community center in our next steps and uh from our last meeting um we've got a little bit of direction and uh we wanted to take a look at uh uh at the grant uh just as kind of a reminder um our format that we've adopted is that there'll be a little staff presentations city council questions and answers public comments um kind of develop our next agenda um and then do a city council wrap up um this is what we've uh accomplished or gone through so far uh we've had clarification or modification to the grant terms which we're going to be going back again tonight to get clarification to make sure that everybody is comfortable with everything we've had a present ation by uh the Ramsey County Library here in the North St Paul um we've uh uh completed an uh a request for uh interest in um Partnerships at the community center we went over that last week and as a res two weeks ago as a result of that uh we decided that we really wanted to kind of go back and look at that Grant to make sure that we're comfortable with the terms get some clarification on some of those terms and that's what we'll talk about tonight and then um The Next Step that we had talked about would be to develop an RFP for Community engagement um which will touch base on after we've gone through the the grant part so tonight is really a review of the state Grant um that was attached to your documentation um we need city council to be um very participant in um this meeting tonight to identify uh any Clauses or terms that they believe uh create a potential issue um we are fortunate tonight to have uh Rodney here from uh Minnesota Department of Economic and I'm not an employment in Economic Development and we also have our City attorney saurin here to help with any clarification on any of the legal terms um so I really am going to turn this over to city council to ask questions and we have either uh Rodney or saurin to try to make some clarifications um and at the end of it if we need to um submit a document to deed with our questions so we get um actual written responses and clarifications on how the grant can be modified if that's necessary we'll end up doing that so with that I'm going to turn it over to city council and hopefully we have the questions and we go through uh this grant um and we make sure that everybody's uh concerns are addressed so who would like to start tonight I'll start I'm the one who asked for this meeting to be put together so um thank you Dan for put for uh officiating that's kind of what it yeah um the primary reason and function for why I wanted to get um this document in front of all of us and have all of us pre-read it and go through it and come in here with questions is that there's legal documents are a wonderful thing they can be misinterpreted or or read or heard or determined um however you may choose to want to take a look at it so I wanted to just get the bodies that are here together to talk through some of the sections that may or may not have concern um I've heard you know lots of different rumors floating around whether it be up here within the community of their interpretation so I just wanted everyone to be able to to speak with they had and uh and gain Clarity for me uh I have two sections that um I have questions over um one is section 5.11 um regarding prevailing wages uh and I talked through that with um with Brian and having read this in other contracts that I've signed in other cities um I just wanted to make sure I completely understood that um it it doesn't have anything to do with the city but more or less puts us um on notice for making sure that the contractors that are used uh do pay the prevailing wages and I did not go in and look up all the Minnesota statutes that it listed into there um I don't know if it requires that we only allow award contracts to Union and or non-union uh and my experience uh with uh prevailing wage is that it does not um differentiate between union and nonunion so that's not the issue um but uh out on the Minnesota State's website um they have uh prevailing wages documented and um it is a requirement on any state funded construction project that you utilize prevailing wages so that would have to be incorp corporate into any one of our uh contracts and then the onus is on us to um get from the contractor um on a regular basis usually monthly when they give their pay applications um their prevailing wage documentations and we need to check those over and we check them in in um comparison to what uh the state's website has on to it we would be um our contract um we really should when we set the contract we would have the contract be date specific if it's a multi-year contract to have it that it's the prevailing wage at the time that the execution of the contract because um prevailing wages usually do change they usually change about May 1st of every year because that's when the union contracts um are up um so it is not for Union or non-union but it is um prevailing wage and it is our responsibility to make sure that that's adhered to with our our contractors and to saurin or Rodney if any clarification or difference on that no nothing to add the prevailing wages really is not a union versus non-union issue uh and there's no requirement that you use one sector versus the other it is a statutory requirement so it's one of those in my opinion I'm not necessarily a fan of template but that's what it is it's going to be in the contract that's not it's a non-negotiable and it is what it is and and I appreciate that from both of you and I I read and interpret it accordingly um I have signed contracts where it required Union only so that was why I wanted to just gain Clarity on that point Y okay um and really the only other one that jumps out at me is very towards the very top the useful life um on my document it's left blank but I'm under the impression that we submitted 25 years or 30 years or we had we did something um that's the only other piece that I would like to amend to be no greater than 20 um adding the 125% which would make it 25 years if my public school math worked right absolutely May yes um on that particular piece when it comes to property we typically say 30 years but if it's 20 25 it's totally up to you guys on what the property how you want to do that when it comes to the useful life because I've seen it even though it was not building related I've seen it as slow as 10 oo but it's more less like for a a field for baseball or something like that it's not necessarily real property gotcha so so so have we submitted documentation to the state for 25 years plus one plus 125 there's been conversation around or was it 30 there's been conversation around the commitment to 37 A2 years we excuse me when we initially were figuring out potential costs for running the building um that was part of the formula that we used um and we initially thought it was anywhere between 25 to 35 years and so we just used 30 down the middle which where it came up with that 37 um and then with clarity through Rodney we found out that it didn't even have to be that long okay just because the document that I'm looking at is everything is blanks right so I just wanted to to gain Clarity on that and I appreciate that and I guess my comfort zone is 20 tops um if if there's if there's room wiggle room mhm so other than that those were my two big buckets with that I'll pass I have a quick question if we could uh section 2.3 of the manual it says op in of real property and facility it's kind of a general statement the grant recipients shall operate the real property and if applicable the facility or cause it to be operated as blank or for such other use as the Minnesota Legislature May from time to time designate um can you maybe talk to that does that mean that they can step in and use this facility for as they see or and that was 2.03 that's correct okay I just want to get to that to see exactly I actually have it highlighted give me one second sorry page five of the grant agreement okay I think mine's different only because I have it on PDF looking it on the computer it's not actually five okay I'm almost there right there okay so the operation of the real property and facility what it's basically saying is um it's going by what you have is the legislation so you're going to operate it as the St Paul um Community or Outreach Community Center that's what would you usually go right there because it's going exactly by what's in your legislation so in your legislation if I remember right um actually I have it not even remember right um St Paul Community Multicultural Outreach Center so that's what you're going to operate this project as correct that's correct yep so it's just basically saying that you're going to after you get it renovated um whatever construction or design that that's what the facility is going to be operated it's not going to be on the side you know uh Toyota cars are being sold there it's going to be exactly what you are using it for and it looks like um it's a multicultural Gathering facility maybe gy library freter dropin center so that's what you're going to operate it as as exactly what's in the legislation and nothing else so if I could so the first part of was the grant recipient shall operate the real property and if applicable the facility or cause it to be operated as and that's where we fill that in and then we insert what you just read there actually I would fill that in after you have um after I've gotten your application I'm going to take a lot of the information off your application and fill it in and then because I gave you this blank copy just for you to see but after your application is completed I'm going to fill it in with the information and then I'm going to turn around and send it to you all to review and then if there are things that well you know what can we change this we're open to negotiate whatever changes if there's any changes and then after that has been completed then I would send you once I got it back from the contracts coordinator I would send it directly to you for for Signature and you could read through everything that's been done yep and that's for the information that you would enter in but then it goes on to say or for such other use as the Minnesota Legislature May from time to time designate that is not what we're operating at then it's them saying that they could come in and operate it as something they wanted to operate it at no we're just trying to go by what's in the legislation how you're going to operate it and just seeing that you're not going to do anything different than what's being said in the legislation okay yeah that language could be made clear and I understand the the concern with it but when I've dealt with these traditionally what that means is to the point that's being made is you you indicate what it is you want to do with it you're committing to do it for a certain period of time should you get the grant um and when the legislation comes through usually the legislation parrots whatever you've put in your application and that's what it's been designated as the idea isn't 10 years later the the time to time I get the the objection on that I have not seen that they pull the rug out from underneath you and say and now you're going to do this um it it stays whatever it's been designated as but if that sentence becomes problematic we we can certainly take a look at that and discuss that but I I haven't seen that be a problem what it is is you apply you say what we're going to do it for the legislation then says yes we'll give you the D for this amount or for this use and you're going to commit to that time period that's what it stands for thank you for the clarity have you also seen the number of years that you can just choose that it seems like as we can't seem to really been involved with the number of years that candidly hasn't traditionally been a problem these are usually longterm projects um so I no I haven't had to fiddle with the number of years what I would say in general is the more you ask the longer it is well that's why we're trying to figure out we've asked or it was asked for four and a half what does that number of years mean I'm sorry can you say the question again I'm still I'm trying to figure out the number of years with being blank and you've gone from you know 25 30 to 10 I I I just confused yeah um when it's typically I and it was confused when I first started too and I just looked at real property is almost like being a house you know it's usually a 30-year mortgage nowadays is probably even higher than that but uh that was usually the typical but there are some facilities that can you know do it in 2025 long if you operate exactly what it says in the legislation for whatever amount of years you end up choosing when I said the 10 earlier it was for a baseball field so you're just more or less doing the grass and that's not gonna that doesn't help me right figure out what what this actually entails so because we're dealing with a building here so it's different I don't understand why it's such a hard number to figure out I guess and that's why we're here tonight what number are you comfortable with that was why I initially stated no greater than 20 because the intent of tonight is anything we're not comfortable with we make Amendment we make amendments to and and I don't know R if it goes back to you or if it goes back to whomever for the you know the the nod um but in the event or if this project goes forward everybody sitting here has to be comfortable with the wording in the document is is how it sits so that's why I'm trying to get so well I I guess I'll go through my list then um uh my first one was exactly what uh uh city manager Brian frandle said was the line that had from May time to time designate it sounds like we would ask for clarity um which I agree with that we need Clarity upon that line uh the next thing I have highlight it is the same thing as The Honorable mayor has been talking about um is the multiple times in the document there's useful life of the real property um I think we need to nail down what that number would be before any of us could say we were comfortable with it um and I have that highlighted a bunch of times through here um and then my next question is on Section 301 uh section A for the use contracts it says the purpose for which the used contract was entered into must be a governmental purpose I was hoping we could get clarification because I'm not sure exactly what that means as far as this contract yeah that whole section on the 301 a b and c that'd be awesome I mean I I take that to Simply mean that what we're doing here furthers a governmental purpose and I think there may be some policy considerations in terms of do we want to do it or not but running a rec center for the purposes stated in your Grant um in my opinion clearly satisfy any governmental purpose those that providing opportunities for uh wreck and park and those kind of things as described in the the original here's what we're going to use the building for satisfy any form of governmental purpose or any sort of public expenditure uh qualification I think there is the the policy decision on whether you want to do that or not but it satisfies in my opinion a governmental purpose okay and then um on the same section 301 um item G if the amount of the grant exceeds 200,000 which this does then it must contain a provision requiring the U to list any vacant or new positions it may have with the State Workforce centers as required by Minnesota statute is that something we currently do with all of our open positions or is this would this be a burden upon the city well I I interpret this to be not for the city of North St Paul these are used uh the use contracts so in other words if we have an entity providing programming or services that comply with the intent of what the community center is to be those contracts need to have this language in it and if they have any uh if they fill any positions or create new positions they need to report those to um to the workforce Center um right the the section three is is premised on just the first sentence which says each and every use contract that the grant recipient which would be the city enters into must comply with the following requirements so I mean right now the obvious contract that we have in place would be say with the county and the library that to me is a no-brainer qualifies um if you were to enter into any other sort of contracts for recreation things like that it's fine and then we there it's listing out certain requirements that other requirements that we need to make sure we follow in those contracts you of themselves because of what's in the building will the city have to create a UC con or and pardon the language I don't know but because we have the generator and stuff like that there well once this is all together will we have to create a lease back to the city and then would the city have to I I apologize I'm not following a lease back to the city well well there there's infrastructure within the building y that is maintained and operated by City staff yep once the if we agree with this contract to the rec center or or the community center does the community center then have to lease the infrastructure back to the city or so so we wouldn't the city would not fall under the worker even though part of the city is infrastructure unless and I've I've been following this to a point I have not had you know a number of meetings with staff and I apologize I'm coming off of a vacation so I didn't get up to date on all of this the discussions but I mean the city owns the building so the infrastructure in there in my opinion unless there's some other operation being set up is going to be owned by the city there's no lease back of any of that that just becomes part of the city's ownership okay okay so so technically only we'll say 85% of the building is becoming the community center and that's what must be fulfilled by the governmental purpose uh I'm still not f one where the other 15% go well 100% of the community center isn't going to be used for lease out as a Rec Center you're talking what the fiber is with the fiber the the generator and stuff like thatc so the city is retaining that for in infrastructure so 100% of the building isn't the community center you know 20% is the library 78% is whatever we might rent it out the 2% is stays within the city for the in infrastructure part will that create a issue at all with this contract or any of the work Clauses not in my opinion okay usually when I think of lease agreements and again it's irrelevant to what's going on here it's like if this project was for North uh high school and they got a brand new track and football field but they lease it out have a lease agreement with maybe a semi-pro football team to use that as their home so then a contract has to be used when it comes to a use agreement I don't you guys are not going to have anything like that that I can think of where you're going to lease your facility out to another party on a ongoing basis agreed we just have our backup generator our fiber and some infrastructure there and I wanted to make sure that wasn't going to create a potential legal issue no it it's still your building you still get to in terms of normal City operations house certain things that from an either an efficiency or just sort of a common sense this is where it makes sense to put those you can do that assuming it doesn't inter interfere with any of the terms of the Grant and I I haven't seen anything that would that would constitute that so you still get to do your normal City operations as a part of this okay that doesn't preclude anything and if and if it makes sense to house the generator there that doesn't in my opinion that doesn't interrupt the grant to house your fiber there does not interrupt the grant okay awesome I appreciate that clarification I do have one if you wouldn't mind why he's looking is um you mentioned that because we're not going to run the community center we're looking at Partners to run it does that have a problem with it as far as that people that you're hiring that has nothing to do with a use agreement okay use agreement you're leasing it out for someone to use for again using that example North High has a football field or the hockey arena but they lease it out to a semi-pro team or somebody that's going to use it here and there around um the high school you know along with the High School is not actually using the property so that's the use agreement are you clearing it are you clearing it okay I must I'm having trouble I trying to understand it clear no I'm just thinking I was trying to figure out so even though it's because you said the semi-pro team is using it right so we own the building but we're not going to be running the community centers that's somebody else using it that's different than the than the football field well because the football the let's say the semi-pro football team is probably going to generate some income too under that agreement people are going to come pay to see them so community centers usually charge for that too what does that right but is not open to the more to the public we don't know that's what we're trying to figure out we don't know how we're going to run it because we're not well it have to if it's a public purpose but charging wise I mean you can charge but it's still a public purpose right that's where I'm getting screwed up then because basically when I think of use agreements I'm thinking some one has the rights right now so that Semi-Pro team that's using it it's our time because there's no high school football or high school events going on at the time that's one of the best examples give you if a volleyball goes in there and there we've we've had a lot of volleyball people that have asked so they're charging their people to come in and do volleyball is it a a team that's priv always do it or is just something that you're doing well we had one that just left and they rented it for couple for years and we got a couple that have been asking volleyball seems to be very popular so they run their their program and use our gym for their people okay at least that's why I'm trying to figure out the difference here because we got these other people that want to come in and start their programs and use it but they're going to be having their income if it's the if it's the theater if it's the volleyball if it's all these people they're going to be making money off of it okay well then that would be something to consider then leasee agreement if it's a particular team that's going to always be there as well even though it's going to be a number of groups the devil in the details on that mayor like for example when kak Coro was there would that satisfy the public purpose in the sense that you are you know under the grant agreement it's a it's a private entity if the city ran a wreck program in my opinion ran a wreck program saying volleyball every Tuesday Thursday night and charged for it I don't think that violates any terms of the Grant and I agree but these are private ones so so I mean let's check the box on that one right so then in terms of you had a question of but I felt like you were saying is the if we have a management company for lack of a better words they're not a user that's just instead of utilizing public works that's I understood that one once we got to that point it was these other groups that are interested the oh check the box on that so then then there is you know to go to the pro football team if you dial the pro back and just say look there are entities that exist for the sole purpose like the corals and other volleyball clubs which this is a desired facility does that satisfy the public purpose side of things is it because it's not run as a community ed thing it is a higher level thing I think that's something we'd have to look into I don't I I wouldn't want to give a kneer answer on that one right now but and so far a lot of those has been people that are doing private which is the the theater and these other groups that want to have it and I I think that's where it does get a little tricky in terms of is is volleyball in of itself a a recreational thing that fits within the terms of the Grant application in my opinion yes is theater also one of those items yes in my opinion so the use itself now how is it structured and who runs it I think that is where we'd have to take a look at and understand the details so those those activities in and of themselves in my opinion satisfy the terms of what is an allowed activity how we set it up who runs it and all those things that is a detail we'd have to figure out yeah and I and I understand that part it's just not it's almost seems like it's North St Paul's going to run a community center and I just to haven't seen that yet as far as some of the the wording on there when we're talking so I just wanted to verify it's my understanding that with um Partners um that we would also submit those um Partnerships to you at deed and that would also get to MMB for approval yeah okay so it'd be approved on multiple levels so okay that leads into my next question and that's section 510 C and F because we are going more than likely the discussion has led to if if this goes through that we would have um someone leasing this from us to run our program it sounds like those programs have to go before many committees of the representatives and the legislature does that have to happen when the house is in when they're in session well typically during the grant agreement whatever you guys decide you know leasing out or however you're going to agreements that you have it would just be something that we would ask you to provide us beforehand the different agreements um that you sign with people for and that's basically it so we know that that's one of the things that you do do that you have an agreement with uh aou um volleyball or something to that point that you just have a written agreement with that particular group and I agree with that but this States the grant recipient shall not prepare final plans and specifications until it's prepared a program plan and cost estimates for all elements necessary to complete the project and present them to the chairs of the Minnesota state finance committee and Minnesota House of Representatives Ways and Means committee and the chairs have made their recommendations um and basically CNF do the same so the way I read this even if things go wonderfully it would be the next session before we could get possible approval from them because we can it says we cannot prepare final plans until it's been approved by them um I think everything's set up already for your Grant in the legislation right now at this point it's more or less completing the application and then putting the grant agreement together um if there was something that you wanted to change within your legislation that's when I know there's going to be people coming in saying okay we're going to have to wait and you know get the legislation change the way you want it like say for example like one thing we had talked about before the first time we had met we had talked about possibly moving instead of happening at here 2300 we were talking about a different location that would be a legislation legislation change so then that would have to go back through your legislator and everything be Rewritten to wherever that different location was going to be and then that's when we're looking for approvals and stuff like that if you want to make that change but if the way we have it now if it was staying at the address that we have issued here and nothing else was being changed within the legislation then we would just move forward okay it yeah it isn't meant this agreement is not meant to be monitored by the legislature where we go back for each and every item it's the legislation's been passed now it's now it's up to the state agencies to administer it and we communicate with them that's how it goes we don't have to go back to the legislature for each of these things if we want to change the overall scope of what we're doing yeah that changes the legislation but right the day-to-day how we administer it there's a check and balance of hey we want to do this here's what we're thinking of and we can get feedback on that from the state agencies then my last question I believe is somewhat on the same line is the section 5.26 the third party beneficiary would someone like coko or that fall under that third party beneficiary clause or is that something we don't have to worry about said 5.26 this doesn't yeah go ahead uh I was going to say for this one [Music] um yeah this one is uh I don't actually think this affects you at all no it this has nothing to do with really who we're renting it to or leasing it to again it's acknowledging that the state has given us money and is therefore part of a beneficiary I would again put this more in the boilerplate portion of the contract to just acknowledge it gives them some enforcement rights as a beneficiary of all this that it's nothing more than that okay those were my questions thank you I really appreciate you're taking the time to come out here absolutely I don't know if you're going to need it Al my wrong um I'll need another minute thank you I don't think I have any standing questions okay or concerns okay it's I think um been answered I was going to ask you quick do is it my understanding that you can pay a general contractor um wages to serve as the general of the project but you cannot do it with a like City employee or is that not correct can labor be uh reimbursed with the grant funds from city employees it's never i' I don't think I've ever had anything like that happen the ones that I've done um that would be something I would have to double check but I've never had anything like that I me they require all sorts of documentation throughout the process and I didn't know if a city employee did that or and that could you get reimbursed for that labor time or does it have to be a general contractor for the project that would do something like that well cuz most of the times it has been a contractor that has done it um whoever you guys have do the construction or the work but I don't know if it's necessarily if a city person or not that one I'd have to get back to you all put a note on that one so Brian for Clarity on your question are you referencing um say Finance director win wanted to be the general and run the entire operation his time are you asking can his time be included in that or is the question more along the lines of we had someone from Public Works do demo work in there can we reimburse ourselves for that is that one of those two scenarios is that where you're looking or am I completely out of Base um well part of that I what if you Public Works did some of that work but also maybe not so much as a general contractor but let's say a general contractor turned in information that then we took labor hours to fill out their forms to send that back into the state um are those hours reimbursable or does that all need to go back to the contractor to do that work right and it it sounds like just kind of maybe smaller oneoff kind of projects or something that needs like maybe smaller attention or less attention that would not require like maybe a large scale contractor yeah I mean like a general contractor would looked over all the other contractors for whatever work demo or roof or something but if uh if information was turned in and you just have a form that you're filling out um information that the state needs with those labor hours if it was done by a City employee be reimbursable there's just a lot of documentation when it comes to Grants as you know but uh it would make sense that the contractor would take care of all that but I just didn't know okay I made a note of that question I'm gonna find out I've never come across anything like that it's been typically the um contractor but I'll find out yeah I guess one thing as far as anytime I have a contract and I have a lawyer I have them look it over what is your you see anything as our lawyer that anything that pops up at you as far as contracts or anything like that no I I consider this to be a standard Grant agreement I mean keeping in mind that someone's giving you money and so a substantial amount with that come some strings and you have to be comfortable with the strings in terms of the um technical terms in there I have no concerns at all uh in terms of are you comfortable with the commitment to me when I've talked to folks about this there seems to be this do we want to do this question and what I don't think we can answer via technicalities in the contract or these documents is do we want to do it and I think that's fair once we get to the point of yes we're going to do it these contracts and documents fall into line but I don't I don't think these documents are going to answer the the overall question of do we want to do it or not and I I think in some respects we have to answer that question just to receive Clarity at a staff level to move forward or not to move forward because the the documents are in order okay this is my first run at this so I haven't uh you know there's a lot of lot of stuff in there that uh like you said it's it's their Grant and their money but it's just kind of overwhelming when you're reading through the different things so that's why I just wanted to make sure that everybody was comfortable just like Tim said too I was remember Tim it's a lot of money uh it's being given to you by a governmental entity to a governmental entity they want to make sure that the use satisfies a public purpose we've spent some time talking about that and then there's just the checks and balances to make sure that it's used appropriately and that it's you know which is all above board which is not a problem we're an open book entity here so um no I I view the document to be largely in order I think it's a good point there's some some wording issues in here that maybe we could clean up a little bit I think the from time to time on the legislative side I understand the objection to that candidly I've not ever seen that become a problem but I think things like that can be cleaned up if if that's if it's those sorts of things that are the you know heartache on this that that to me is easy enough to fix I think there's still the bigger question out there but those are easy and the years for me you know we had it we had it and it was open and it's closed for many years so it's the years of and that's where I was kind of hoping to get a clear for that kind of money what what's expected but sounds like we can give them an idea what we think yeah I I think that's com exactly it what are you comfortable with you know at some point it needs to be an affirmative statement here's what I would like everything else is drawn out so tight and legally I would think the years so that's what was kind of confusing to me okay it's my understanding that a useful life is an estimate of the building so um then would that have been in the wal report and is that something they can revisit sure they can because they're the ones that determined our original useful life if I'm remembering correctly we can ask them about that absolutely I think it's one of those things where it's it's there's a lot of factors at play um and and yeah it's it it can vary it sounds like depending on the condition of the building I just appreciate going over I mean we came in after the grant was asked for and now we didn't know the stipulation so now that we you know understand some more you know for it so we're you know the three new members have been trying to catch up and understand it so I appreciate everybody's patience and just understand where we were at it's like coming in you know bottom of the eighth you're pitching what's the score I don't know just throw the ball so that's now I want to get some information find out you know and I appreciate that we're able to to talk as a group with this to understand a little more so it was very very helpful and um just like sain was saying um once a grant agreement for a grant application has been submitted um by Brian cuz that's basically a rough draft again I would put it into a grant agreement but I have to give it to you because eventually you're going to sign it but what I typically do is I give it to you and maybe the whole board looks it over there may be some language in there you want to change there may be you know different things uh we don't like this could it be this and then it comes back and then in most cases dealing with MMB they're pretty reasonable yep that's fine excuse me I'm sorry MMB what is MMB is um Minnesota management and budget okay so it doesn't have to go back to the legislature at all if we decide to hey we like to do 15 20 years it it's not like go it it wouldn't go to they didn't pass anything off of the time period or anything like that only time it goes back to legis legisl move like you going to make a major change that helps clear it up too yeah so but otherwise uh when it comes to the fun fing itself because after everything is done and said and we're kind of moving along I will go back to I I just call them m&b but Minnesota management and budget and they and I request the full funding from them and then that's where they give the approval that we have everything and we move forward okay sounds good I just did a quick Google search the useful life of a building is an estimate of the number of years that can be used for a business to generate income and remain profitable so but is that yeah that's more for private not a public entity in essence it's the same thing because the usefulness of what we describe it for can change so that's why I do would not want to I would I mean I'm going to commit 20 years 20 years is what I want to see on the agreement I don't want to see anything higher than 20 years 25 with the formula 25 with the formula so I guess I'm asking the three of you to say to to make a commitment to yours as well so we can get off of this point well if it's not 30 then 25 I mean I guess my question is what is the justification behind that the justification is that it shortens the amount of the agreement time that we have with the state it limits the number of years that we have to to match any state state funding so the smaller the number the better 2012 was when it closed 1992 is when it started so that's 20 years as far as how it was how long it was open before it closed just kind of looking at the number there can't couldn't remember how many years it was open I think it's important to look into the past and I would also say that um this community is changing dramatically and the population is going up quite a bit so I think it's um worthwh for either City staff or consultant to really look into what a Model A feasible model would look like um and if 25 years is a comfortable number that we can start with I think that's you know something we' need a consultant to kind of give us a little bit more guidance or a project manager but I hesitate to just look at the past and and say that's the future of the community center I just don't think that um can speak to um what is today and again well as far as as far as useful life you know 20 years of the useful life after you've um you know put the construction dollars in there to the envelope of your facility is not out of line um most facilities usually are estimated at having a 40 to 50 year life span um obviously if you go into downtown St Paul you're going to see facilities that are well beyond that so A 20-y year useful life is not out of out of line which then translates to 25 I do have a question as far as um what constitutes a default the event of a default def fault so I'm going to give an example we go with the grant we've accepted the money we've done everything we're entering year six and we no longer are able to provide the programming that was agreed to in the agreement are we in default I think it would depend and the reason why I say that is it's making me think about um one that I'm currently kind of dealing with and it's just kind of in the air and it was one of the what is it called Min Minneapolis Shumard I think it is and they're basically a like an opera or Symphony and now they're funding they're not making money anymore and they borrowed so much money but the income's not coming in anymore so they just kind of have it on hold they never really said if it was a default or not because there's a reason because they're not bringing in income so it's kind of shutting down they're looking for somebody else to take over and that's about the closest that I've come to anybody not being able to move on um but I've not really come across that I would say so I would have to double check on that as well on to that and then if you are in the event of a default um then it goes to the section 2.06 which B which talks about the remedy where the commissioner of MMB um then can you know uh demand um a portion of the grant that's been dispersed at this point in time it would be the full Grant can they do the full Grant or is it somehow amortized at least on a straight line basis for the useful life that has been used or is it going to be the full Grant amount and the same condition then Falls underneath in the event of year 5 10 whatever the city decided to sell the facility with the proceeds of the sale right now how it is is that all the proceeds of the sale per per the grant um all the sale all the proceeds of the sale up to the amount of the grant would go back to the state M if in the event that the price of the sale was less than the grant funds it's a wash the city would not owe any more money but again I would be asking is there some sort of a to have language in there that it's at least amortised over the the portion okay um I know if you were to sell it um the state would ask for money back correct and it states it in there up to the amount but if if the sale if the net proceeds of the sale were less than the amount of the grant that's all the state would get and the state wouldn't come after the city for any more at least that's how I interpret um proceeds from a sale but again clarification onto that to me that's where the number of years becomes some sort of a concern for a risk factor of how long you have a programming or how long you're you're complying with what the intent of this grant is and what are the tales that from a financial standpoint that the um the state can come back at the city for it's not I think the 20 years is very reasonable um but yeah anything 20 years that's my number but 20 becomes 25 uh and again in my definition that doesn't mean that whatever the community center becomes would go away at the end of that time period it just ends the regulatory period that we're held accountable by the state for the funds so in other words what council member Cole is saying is that if you could get 10 years and it was and it was 12 and a half for the thing you would take that because again that's where the there during that time frame and that's where my questions on the default is because that's where the city's at risk umate could come back and challenge that as well y so that's why I just went with this the lowest number I thought we could probably get away with yeah for mine it becomes this but then there's also that whatever shortfall it is between what the actual Grant is and what it's going to take to to do it as far as that and so for me it's I I'm not interested in the grant as far as that so that's where I'm at because of excuse me can you restate that sure because what it the grant is is you know by the time you get it up we're still a couple million dollars short one less than a couple million okay 1.7 whatever it is so that's uh and how much we've gone through as far as different things we have coming up as far as the other buildings and things like that I uh I'm one one of the votes so as we all are so that's where I'm comfortable so I I hear that I think um the $1.7 million is a large amount if we look at it at a one-time payment which I think um we're looking at an extended long-term plan so the grant is about renovation so the remaining funds are renovation funds for the building does that and then my understanding is we're going to do this deferred maintenance plan in phases um likely so wouldn't that stretch over 30 years instead of just a one time 1.7 million as it was stated last session uh Workshop because that just leaves $3,667 per year for renovations if we break it down that way for 30 years does that does that make sense in terms of the finan other maintenance and other stuff right from the beginning you're going to be taking care of a building a building's dying as soon as you build it so you know as far as maintenance and things like that so I I believe that was put into the Deferred maintenance P plan as well I don't know when when you're referring to deferred maintenance f is that the one that wal had put together yeah I haven't looked at it that closely but I think you're you're correct at least but again I don't know how they've got it divided whether shortterm medium how how many years they've included everything but um and and I don't suspect that we put all of that money on on our residents as a levy I think there are many Avenues in which we've not even explored um we have opioid settlement funds we've not discussed here we have over a million dollars sitting in the general fund unallocated um we have opportunities for Grants through public infrastructure grants sustaining Sustainable Building retr grants placemaking grants met Council grants Community violence prevention grants um public private Partnerships what does rentals look like um foundations nonprofits um a resident last time said you know put solar panels that's part of you know what the legislation said um can we sell back the excess um we're we're looking at it from a levy explicit way and I don't think that is sustainable at all what needs to be explored is multiple Avenues of funding because that's much more viable if you look at again Central Park in Woodbury they have over 20 funding streams um for funding their building so I think that we need to be a little bit more intentional about where we're getting our funds from and that's going to take work but um the trade-off would be uh I mean we there's there's money that we've not even discussed um the allocation of and also part of those everybody when we name off these other places they're real Parks this is just a little building that has no outside grounds and little parking it's it's not a a a park it doesn't have anything much to offer as far as like a regular um Central Park or Conway park or stuff like that too to me it's a lot of it is just good money going after bad so that's my feeling can you can you explain what bad means well it it it's not feasible for for to have a big outdoor park like if this building was at Casey Park it' a completely different thing right now it's just a little wedge that the city had up there and there's there's really no parking outside there's no outside spaces so to me the building was very limited when they built it and they built it in a poor spot and for us to have that kind of money plus put more money in is I don't I don't see that and some the emails I've been getting from people also we all get you know emails from different people and so that's where I sit at it I think um again that's that's making um we we don't have enough information um I I go back to needing more information around feasibility we haven't even assessed um what is nearby what is popular what are people coming for um I think that we are not looking broadly enough and we don't have all the information to make a really important decision we're talking about $5.3 million that's a lot of money so um I think we need to really take this and dig in and learn a little bit more we haven't done the community engagement component as we had promised to the public that we would have several of these before making a determination so there's just a lot of information that I am needing and I still need to make a better decision but to for me I I I can't make a decision based off of what I have and for me tonight well this is awesome dialogue this wasn't the intent the intent was to check the bo on one portion of what it's going to require and what we're comfortable with so regardless of the outcome my goal was that we're comfortable we can move the move the ball forward at least getting some of the wording changed tweaked amended um you know and then Contin then continue that debate funding has we're being asked we're discussing your comfort level with the grant not whether you accept it or not it's your comfort level and what you're not comfortable with please please express that so that it can be changed or tweaked this may go one way it may go another so thought I did that when I when I said that the get they kind of go hand inand because we can't have the grant without you know being able to finish what what is entailed so that's where I so you've so so that's not my definition of being comfortable with the grant with the grant wording you're not comfortable with all of the funding to me they go hand in hand so okay that's where I sit on it you can't have one without the other so I guess my point is we don't know what the other funds are coming are coming from we're making an assumption that it's coming from the TA like taxing our residents and that's not necessarily true and it doesn't have to be but that definitely does take some work into looking into what is feasible for us what is out there besides taxing our residents I much rather look at Grants and other avenues than taxing our residents CU I too am about to tax myself out of this community so all you are M yeah and I'm one of them too so if we can be a little bit more Innovative and creative about where our money is coming from I think then um we can learn a little bit more about whether $1.7 million over 30 years is feasible I guess I'm stuck on the 30 years I mean how does it finish I mean for them they gave us a a a thing to fix the building of $7.3 million is that correct I think so my understanding is we have $5.3 million from the state and federal government M they've given that to us they've pass legislation we have that if we apply for it um and and the remainder is an estimate of what the remaining costs would be after adjusting for inflation and different changes cuz it started out at 2 million and has now jumped up to seven so that is just the remaining gap for the Deferred maintenance plan that was presented by wal and that was over 30 years and that's what I'm referring to see I thought the way it was looking it was the 7 point that's what it was going to be to get the building up to where it was without doing anything on the inside pretty much is that am I mistaken on that 7.3 to bring it back to where it was in 1992 I believe that's correct I don't know if it's over time or not that's the part I don't know how long of a time frame that Walt had put it together if they had that was multiple years if that was a 10 year look 15 year look 20 year look and I wasn't there when it passed so that's why I'm trying to yeah so I'm not I'm not sure that part to it but I do remember I I do think you're correct on the other part I don't I believe there was very little for interior Renovations that was included in their estimate correct okay anybody else so I'd actually like our attorney to to rephrase something that he said ear because I think he hit the nail on the head it's not necessarily the terms of the grant um that need to be discussed and decided it's do we really want to move forward with this or or not and that's kind of where we're you know we're having and I'll I'll give it over to sain because he said it so eloquently no I I mean this is something Brian and I have talked about a number of times because I think from my perspective and I'll speak on my behalf not on Brian or anyone else's there's confusion on what to do next so um I appreciate council member Cole bringing this forward saying hey let's talk about the AG agreement let's work through that so that if the agreement is the sticking point let's unstick it so we can move forward if if the agreement isn't the sticking point if that's just sort of hey we're not really in favor of moving forward with it so we'll look into the agreement and see if there's issues in there I would put the agreement aside I feel like from my perspective there needs to be a step back do we want to do this or not and we need to start to figure that out because at a staff level we want your direction and even tonight I'm hearing multi not just for and against but multiple opinions more information sort of hey let's at least talk about moving forward the grant agreement not in favor of the grant agreement I I'm not sure if we want more information it would help to be specific about what we want that's a fair request but we're we're looking for some pretty specific Direction at this point and I I feel like we're floundering a little bit with lack of a a majority on hey let's go do this so that would be helpful and if I've missed the mark with my comments I'm certainly willing to receive that feedback but I I think at a high level that's what we're looking for I would agree with you yeah I I guess I have a question for everybody um in the short time exploring my own feelings here um some of the things I think Lisa said I I very much agree with with um for me I guess the first question I would have to ask myself is if we took this 5.3 million and we found a bunch of other funding where we could guarantee that there was no tax burden for our residents for the next 20 25 years is that the right location to use that grant money for me I'm not 100% sure that it is um I I'm not against it um you know and there's something to be said with already have a facility there so is that the first conversation we need to have is if all the stars of the line we found some grant money wouldn't cost our residents anything is the current former Community Center the right place to have that kind of monetary investment or or were we just going down that road because that's what it used to be for that location um is that the first question that needs to be [Music] answered mean to speak out of turn but it seems like the feedback I've heard most of all is the concern of uh the financial obligations that we'll have to this when there are so many obligations that we are looking at that are coming down the road right now that seems to be the most feedback I hear from either public or any conversations I have with it so now we're not even talking necessarily about the Comm Center so there are lots of issues and lots of angles that we need to figure out and I absolutely agree with that I was my question more was let's say um leis went out and found us another 5 million worth of Grants not that it should be her job to do it but we all went out and found us another 5 million in Grants so we had and obviously I'm p and stuff out of thin air but if we had 10 million and grants that doesn't cost our residents anything is the current location the community center the smart choice to put that money or or would we want to build something on Casey Lake you know or or somewhere else where there's parking or better infrastructure um so so if we if we take the levy component out for our residents is the current location the smart choice I guess that again that's that's information I would want from a city staff or a project manager is to do that that homework um to get the lay of the land is mcnight field a better option um it was my understanding that this group here we did not want to sell the building um which would be excuse me not at the time I yeah we talked about since we started conversations yeah that was in there with you know at this time we're looking forward you know to see what we can do with them at that time okay so um that was um again that still takes um a lot more information on um what is feasible and then um it also would require a legislative change which means we need to go back to our representative uh to make those changes and advocate for those so it it kind of is one of those things where um again I need a bigger picture a much more comprehensive look before um just making a decision sorry to interrupt we have uh two minutes until 6:30 so I don't know we have to accomplish this right now so I just wanted to be mindful of the time one of the questions brought here today was um what um what does that wal um money mean what does it all Encompass for the next Workshop it would it be fair to ask for a more detailed summary of that wall proposal what that seven all the money of the wall proposal does and also um some proposals for um council member Wongs um what would a outside um what did you call them uh project manager consultant project manager what would that cost so my opinion is that's what we ask staff for direction for for the next meeting is the summary of the money so we have a what did all this money mean what does it fix what are we left with and then a cost of a consultant or project manager um to help us better justify the 5.3 that would be what my feeling for the director of the staff is the staff probably definitely could uh deliver the W summary report as far as an estimate it's going to be pretty wild estimate because we actually would have to go out for an RFP um and um and so forth because we're not really sure what that that estimate would be we would never have that ready for for the next city council and we would have to draft an RFP and I'm not the person who would be drafting that um but we would want to have city council review it no different than we did with the um RFI in the past and then it would hit the streets so that that part of it would take a little bit and I think we've kind of acknowledged that and because we want to make sure that we're encompassing and asking a consultant for all the services that um you know have been identified and making sure we're not missing anything so we're not going back again because this Consulting right now you know to me after this conversation which has been a fantastic conversation tonight has opened up I think the scope of services for a consultant because they're going to have to assist us in trying to find out um other revenue streams as far as grants and so forth and and that to to Levy or to minimize any Levy impact it would have on our residents CU as seem to be a very critical component that was discussed tonight can I ask do current staff have the capacity to look into further information the the scope of information that we need I guess I would ask for feedback for specific information um you you've brought up you know public feedback back um I know Dr Walder had advertised that we opened that up to the public they came in we asked for feedback on our website we asked for your feedback on our newsletter so I mean if if you could say what you're really specifically looking for if we're not covering that they would be helpful um I so what I I can do is share maybe a a community center feasibility study um with you from maybe another city um and you can kind of look at all the different components of of what that's made of um it kind of looks at the scope of what services are in the region so we're competitive or not um it looks at our changing demographics it looks at all those different components so we can make a little bit more informed decision but um it's it's um it's there's a lot to it sure that' be helpful that would be a good good yeah we could actually reach out to that whatever entity of that was to see if they Pro you know had an RFP or whatever to um be very helpful so at this point we're looking to get quotes of what that would cost correct okay that's all we'll do the meeting yeah yeah we're passed so moved call what oh oh did you do it already motion to adjourn please so move so move second council member Wong council member Norby all those in favor say I I if we can have two minutes