[Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Good evening everyone. Uh welcome. Tonight is Monday, April April 7th, 2025. This is a meeting of the local board of appeal and equalization. I will call this meeting to order and we'll ask Miss Larson to please call roll. Kley here. Foster Bolton here. Shack here. Wilburn here. Calvert here. Romeley here. Wearsome here. Next item is approval of the agenda with it appears an addendum. Um so Mr. Funk. Yeah, thank you, mayor. Good evening, city council. I have three considerations for you this evening related to an agenda to the council agenda. First one is related to item 5A, which is section A, untested appeals. Items 15 through 22 have been added since the publication of the packet last Thursday. Then the second item is related to item 5B, section B, which is appeals to be referred to our advisors. Added numbers items 2 through 4 like the item I just mentioned were added after the packet was distributed last Thursday. And then the last one is item 5C, which is section C, appeals to be referred to the assessing staff. We're adding numbers items 2 through three, and those have been additions since the distribution of the packet since last Thursday. So, in summary, you have in all three sections of the agenda some additions since last Thursday's packet. Those are being noted here this evening and then turn it back to you, mayor and city council for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Funk. So, um we've got the agenda and it has been amended as um relayed by Mr. Funk. We do need a a motion. Council member Calvert. Thank you, Mayor. I um move to approve the agenda as amended. And is there a second? Council member Romey, I'll second. All right, we've got a motion by Council Member Calbertt and a second by Council Member Romey. Um, Miss Larson, please call roll. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbert, yes. Romey, yes. Wearsome, yes. Motion carries. So, item four on the agenda is the introductory report. And I believe Miss Putts, you have that. So, um, good evening and, uh, thank you for being here. Yes. Thank you, mayor and councel. Tonight, we are meeting as the local board of appeal and equalization. The purpose of this meeting is to provide a fair and objective forum for property owners to appeal their valuation and or classification. It is the duty of the local board of appeal and equalization to determine whether the appellants property has been properly valued and classified for the current assessment year. Per state requirements, all property is to be valued at its market value and all property is to be classified according to its use. The appeal process assumes that the assessor has correctly valued and classified all property and the burden of proof rest with the property owner. The local board has the authority to change the valuation or classification of a property for the current assessment year. Property taxes and prior year assessments are not within the jurisdiction of the local board. The purpose of the local board is to determine an accurate market value for property where an appeal has been filed. The local board does have certain limitations and the local board cannot consider prior year assessments. Reduce the aggregate assessment of the city by more than 1%. Exempt property. Grant a special program. order percentage increases or decreases for an entire class of property or make changes benefiting a property owner who has refused entry of assessor. At tonight's meeting, we have three sections of appeals to address. First, section A. This consists of appeals brought forth by the assessor. These are appeals that the assessor and property owner have agreed to prior to the meeting. They must be read into the record individually and can be approved with one motion. Next, section B consists of appeals where the assessor and property owner do not agree. These properties are recommended to be referred to the adviserss for their opinion of market value. The advisor's recommendation will be brought back to the local board at the reconvene for a decision and the following adviserss were previously appointed by city council at the March 3rd meeting. Mia Beardsley, Ambrosia Severson, and Keith Swanson. And lastly, we have section C, which are commercial appeals to be referred back to staff for further review. Once the properties on the agenda have been addressed, any walk-ins and appeals can be addressed on a first come, first- serve basis. After all appeals have been addressed, the local board will be continued till April 21st. This concludes my report. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, Miss Putts. Um, so what we will do first is move to act on properties in section A, which were reviewed by staff and agreed to by the property owner. If there is anyone present here tonight, um, who would like to speak on behalf of any of the properties listed in section A, um, if so, please indicate and we will have you come forward and do so. Is there anyone? All right. All right. Well, then I will read um the um these properties into the record and uh bear with me a moment. I think I will. I mean, I can start with um I I can uh start with the the ones that are not in the addendum and then I'll need uh to study the So anyway, I'm going to read these addresses into the um into the record. The first is 36005 Oakton Ridge and the assessor's recommendation for that property is $598,300. The uh second is 5745 7 Oaks Court and the assessor's recommendation is $955,000. The third item is 15608 Post Road and the assessor's recommendation is 60 $61,700. The fourth item is 2923 Plymouth Road and the assessor's recommendation is $380,000. Next is 1509 Archwood Road. The assessor's recommendation is $985,000. [Applause] The next item is 13505, excuse me, um 14303 Oakwood Road extension. The assessor's recommendation is $1,300,000. Next item is 13505 North Street and the assessor's recommendation is $526,500. Next is 4700 Eastwood Road. The assessor's recommendation is $900,000. The next item is 5920 Camelot Circle and the assessor's recommendation is $575,000. Next is 11905 Minnetonka Boulevard and the assessor's recommendation is excuse me $650,000. Next is 14911 Pelvore Drive and the assessor's recommendation is $416,000. Next is 59.85 85 Roland Road number 305. The assessor's recommendation is $255,000. Next is 2021 Hopkins Crossroad and the assessor's recommendation is $315,000. Pardon me. Pardon me. Sorry, mayor. I thought you said 215. No, I I believe I said $315,000. Okay. Pardon me. May maybe my addiction is going a little bad, but I I think we're okay. So, the So, the last of the ones prior to the addendum is 10780 Cedar Bend and the assessor's recommendation is $46,000. And then I will move to the um items that have been added. And thank you to Council Member Romey for assisting me. um 2608 Crosby Road and the assessor's recommendation is 4,317,700. The next I uh next property is 11120 mil run and the assessor's recommendation is $854,000. The next item is 10201 Cedar Lake Road and the assessor's recommendation is $8,168,000. The next item is 1011 Cedar Lake Road and the assessor's recommendation is $8,168,000. Next is 10101 Cedar Lake Road. The assessor's recommendation is 8,169,000. Uh the next item is 16516 Graze Bay Boulevard and the assessor's recommendation is 2,200,000. The next item is 14801 Wwood Road and the assessor's recommendation is $642,100. And I believe the final item is uh in this section is 12301 Whitewater Drive and the assessor's recommendation is $6,800,000. So um we did not have anyone who wanted to appear in terms of uh section A. So uh is there a motion to approve these um um these items uh 1 through 20 22 in section A. Council member Calbertt. Thank you mayor. I'm move to approve the values listed in section A of the agenda items 1 through 22. Very good. Is there a second? Commissioner or Council Member Calbertt. I mean, Commissioner Shaq, excuse me. I'm doing this well. I That's I was I was thinking, are we are we council members or commissioners? Are we are we um board of review members, but um Council Member Shaq. Thank you, Mayor. I'll second. All right, we've got a motion by Council Member Calbertt and a second by Council Member Shack. I'm doing really well with names tonight, just so you know. So, um Miss Larson, please call roll. Kley. Yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calvert, yes. Romey, yes. Wearsome, yes. Motion carries. So, now we were moving to section B. And these are appeals to be refu referred to the advisors. And let me just see if I can make this work here. Okay, I've got it this time. So, um um is there anyone um first of all present here who would like to speak to any of the properties listed in section B items 1 through 4? All right. If you'd like to come forward, please um come forward, state your name and uh and address and let us know what you would like us to hear. Excuse me. Had some issues lately. Well, good evening. Good evening. Uh, my name is Thomas Green. I am an owner of 12700 Sherwood Place, apartment 207, Minnetonka, Minnesota. I come to this appeal for really only one basic reason. I've never attended appeal of this nature because normally I don't get into issues of dollars this way or that way. This appeal has brought me in because essentially which I have worried about the last five years I've lived there. I get three different assessments for a condo. Three different assessments. And I kept thinking myself, why three? You know, normally a you assess a property like a house with one assessment. You would think a condo, which is a living place with a parking spot, would be one assessment. Well, I know when we bought it, we had to got three deeds, but I just thought, well, the deeds are really just to allow at the time it was built to allow the builder or someone to change parking spots where people who have a condo where they want to be. Uh, I don't know what happened. I understand that some people don't have gets one assessment. I get three. I'm not sure why the difference. Uh in talking to the assessor, it came to my thinking that what's happening here is I've been double taxed on those garage balls for the last five years by the value put on those garage ball stalls, which really have no value. You can't sell them to the general public. You can't do anything with them. You might be able to sell them to someone in the condo that wants another unit. But the only reason that you do that is that the guy who bought it wants to have two garage stalls. And rather than having to sell his property and then buy another one that has two stalls, the cost would be in tens of thousands of dollars. So, I'm willing to pay quite a bit of money to get another stall at a lot cheaper cost. Or there may be a case where one of the owners has an extra stall and he needs money, desperately needs money, so he's going to sell it to another condo owner, but it can't be sold outside. So, those sales should be totally disregarded. They're irrelevant to any assessment of any kind of value to anything because the only val income tax transaction. And the only thing that happens is value gets transferred from one condo to the other. One condo's value go down, the others goes up. Has no effect on the other entities in that building as far as value goes cuz they don't get any benefit from any of that. So that's why I'm mainly here because I believe that's what's taking place in those condos. Now, I was told by assessor over the phone that not only are they doing this to me, they're also doing it to the people that have one deed. They're adding an additional I don't know if it's $7,000 or how they arrive at this amount because I can't figure how you'd ever come up with any kind of reasonable figure on a piece of property you can't sell. So, that's why I'm here. Also, I do think that the over value things I do have some analysis I've done on what I believe is probably something somewhat little closer to the parcel that belongs to the living entity which is which was listed which is a property ID ending in 0092 which is listed at where we're assist at $449,400. Now, what I did is I took an act an ad for an actual sale that that was in the in in the market to buy which had 2,300 square feet. Mine was 19, but I don't quibble about that. And then I took what three two realators told me it would be worth to sell. they're trying to get me to sell it or mortgage B banker came to me and wants to me to get the equity out of it which I don't care about and taking those four entities I come up with an average value of $435,000 $853 or $435,85325 versus the $449 and I I won't quibble that if if I would have been an A if that was the only issue because I wouldn't have cared. But this double taxation upsets me because I think it's illegal, unconstitutional, and there's no support for it at all. That's all I have to say. All right. Well, thank you very much. And um what what will happen here is um we have some volunteer realtors who serve as vi advisors and they'll look at your property and they will um look at comparables and uh and um hopefully we can resolve. I'm not sure I'm not sure exactly what's happening with the um you better get the garage thing straightened out. That's the one I'm concerned about. I'm not concerned about the value of the looking at all the other stuff. I'm concerned about this issue of three separate per values. One value being based on the market value of a unit which when they are in a market they go with a garage. They don't sell them without a garage space, right? versus using that value to get to the basic living part of the of my facility and then adding an additional $7,000 for each parking spot. Well, we'll we'll we'll have the assessors look and we will have our our um we certainly want you to be treated fairly and appropriately and comparably to the way other people are treated. And so we will uh I don't have enough information. I can't say yes. Well, I'd like to know when they're and get back to me is how are town houses taxed? Are they tax extra for the garage space? Are homeowners tax extra for garage space? And where's the legal justification for this? Because even if you have a statute, it would be uninforcable because it's against the Constitution against double taxation. Mr. Green, I'll tell you what. Um, we're not going to resolve this tonight. There's nothing nothing to be there's no way it's going to be resolved tonight. But I will tell you that if um if I lived in a house that didn't have a garage and I had the same house that did have a garage, the value of the house with the garage would be higher. I'm pretty conf I'm pretty confident of that. But but we will we will assess the the we will have the experts assess your concern and we'll get back to you. But um we're not going to resolve it tonight. Okay. Thank you. You heard my story. All right. Is there anyone else who um would like to um address the board or review this evening? Is there anyone? All right. Well, then tell us who number three, two, three, and four are on your list. Um yes. If um I mean you could come up and we're not doing this in any particular order. If you if you would like to if you would like to share some information about your property with us, please do. Otherwise, we're going to move on to the next properties. Good evening. Good evening. So, you please state your name and address and um and tell us uh which property is yours and what you would like to uh cover. Uh my name is Amy Rusk. Um we have two part properties. Um one for what's that? Okay, let's see. Do we need I don't believe you are on this section the uh this section. Okay. So, come back when we get to this section. Um, any is there anyone here who would like to appeal something that is on this list, items 1 through 4? And and Miss Pots, if I'm not doing this right, let me know. Mayor, you can hear them whenever you choose. We can vote on B um before or after we hear from them. Okay. um if you'd like to um make a motion on part B now and then make a motion on part C and then you can hear from anyone else that is okay. All right. Well, we'll do that then. So, uh but we need to um let's see. So, these are going to be um referred to the items here one through four and we haven't read them into the uh record yet. So, are we good or should I read these into the record or um Yes, mayor. Sorry, you can read part B into the record with just the addresses, right? And um make a motion following. Okay. So, we've got four properties that will be read into the record. The first is 17412 Sanctuary Drive. The second is 12,700 Sherwood Place number 207. The third is 12,700 Sherwood Place um unit G81 and the fourth is 12,700 Sherwood Place unit G74. So um with that these um these properties will be um reviewed by the advisors and brought back to us um for we will reconvene on April 21st. Um, is there um anything else that needs to be done here other than a motion? Okay, then I will look for a motion. Council member uh Calbertt. Thank you, mayor. I move to refer the properties listed in section B to the advisors number one through four. Very good. And is there a second? Council member Romey, I'll second. All right, we've got a motion by Council Member Calbertt and a second by Council Member Romey. Miss Larson, please call roll. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbert, yes. Rome, yes. Wearsome, yes. Motion carries. So then that brings us to the next set of properties. Um and um that is section C. And um these are properties that will be referred to the assessor's office for review. And then is there anyone who would like to speak on the properties listed in section C? Um okay, very good. Um let's see. We will uh um if you look at the list, we've got three properties. I'll read them and and then um if anyone would like to speak to these, come in the order that they're they're read. Um the first is um 12950 Pisetta Boulevard. The the second property is 5125 County Road 101. And the third item is 15802 Weisetta Boulevard. So um they are read into the record and they will be reviewed um by the assessor um uh when we reconvene on um April 21st. So now is there anyone who would like to um comment on any of the properties um your property um that uh we have not considered thus far and if so please come forward state your name and address and we are interested in hearing what you have to say. So this is for other properties that Yes. Yep. Um, so please come to the port podium, state your name and address and then um indicate what property you're concerned about. Okay. Thank you. Um, my name is Usma Samadani. I live at 2634 Crosby Road and I'm the primary homeowner. Um, I'm a single parent. Um, I would like to appeal my property valuation because it's gone up almost 450% since I bought the property in 2015. And I understand that, you know, obviously Minnotonka house values have gone up, but that to me seems rather exorbitant. Um, none of the houses on my street have sold in the last 5 years for a property value that's even 80% as high as what they're valuing my property at. And so I'd like to um I'd like to request an appeal of that property value. Um, and I have a list of 1 2 3 four five six seven comparable properties and none of them is valued at the same property value as my property. Okay. So, um, give us the address of your property again. 2634 Crosby Road. Crosby Road. Very good. Y All right. And so, um, I'll I'll turn to Miss Putts and, um, um, seek guidance, um, in this circumstance. Thank you, mayor. I would recommend um to refer property back to staff and we will review between this meeting and the following meeting on April 21st. Okay, great. Very good. So, yep. Share um and you can you can get Miss Put's um business card and uh reach out to her and um and you'll get um consider fair consideration. Thank you. Thank you for coming tonight. Is there anyone else who would like to um come forward and um add add a property to list? And as you can probably tell, we're not going to take a lot of action tonight, but we will get you attention from um individuals who can help you out. So, um please again your name and address and uh let us know what you would like us to know. So, I'm Mary Libridge. Uh my name is Amy Rusk. Uh, we're talking here about it actually 1501. Lind Terrace. Lindhurst. Lind Terrace. Lind Harris. Lind Terrace. Terrace. Lynn Terrace. Lind Terrace. Excuse me. Okay. All right. Pardon me. I'm doing such a good job of listening tonight. So, Lind Terrace. We've got it. Thank you. And I We're kind of maybe an anomaly. We're here because we um are the value of our property has been devalued over 200%. Oh, really? Okay. Yep. Um, it is land. Our house is not on that particular property. We purchased it in 2021 and the value at that time was listed at 90 uh 194 $194,000. Um, it went up the year after with the value of $213,400 and it's been like that the next three years for two 2025. Do I need to get closer? For 2025, uh, we being we're being told $5,000. Um, go ahead. Did you want to say something? Yeah. So, um, when we bought the when we bought the property in 2021, um, it was adjacent to the other property that we live on. And, um, we were we bought the property on Cherry Lane um, first and we were negotiating that. And the um agent said to us, "Well, the seller does own this other piece of property that's adjacent to it and um she would be, you know, she's thinking about maybe selling it. Would you want to do that?" And um it made sense to us at the time. So, we bought it at market value um again for uh 1,000 or $194,000. And um on that land itself there was already a poured concrete slab gazebo. There's a pea gravel walking path. Uh stairs that lead from Lind Terrace down to the area. There's a pond there. Um there's a walking bridge. There's electrical outlets. There's a pump to uh generate a waterfall into the pond area. Um there are lamp posts there. And all of these things are electric to at the house. We can turn them on and off. In fact, even our sprinkler system is on that piece of land as well. Uh and there's also a spot there uh that connects to the well to our house. So with all that said, um we're we're stumped. Like we really don't understand why the value of this land has gone down so much. I mean, even in the three, four, three and a half years, whatever, that we've owned it, you know, I've had diseased trees taken out, put in new trees, um, many, many, many perennial uh, bushes and plants and so forth put onto it as well. And we also pay to have it maintained mowed and the uh, fall pickup and stuff like that. So, it's we're a bit stumped uh, why it's gone down as much as it has. And we've we have already had the Amy the city assessor out or the appraiser McNamera came out. Yeah. Yep. All right. Um and she advised us to come here tonight. Very good. Yeah. That sounds that's surprising to me. I can't I don't have an answer for you either, but um but I think this is your right approach to get um um get our staff to look at it and provide a fair assessment because that certainly seems um I would be equally stumped. Yeah. We're in your shoes. Um, may I just add it is a halfacre lot. Um, and we were hoping, one of the reasons why this is going to impact us negatively is we were hoping to leverage the equity in that lot to work on our home to make it accessible. Um, right now last year both our mothers were in positions where they had to go to one level living lev living and they couldn't come to our house because we would have to do a remodel. Um, so if you take the property value from 213,400 and down to 5,000, we have no equity. Right. Understood. I would be concerned about that as well. So, what are the next steps that we take? Well, I think um come here tonight. Um, then we will we turn this one over to the assessor or the um the uh realtor um advisors and they'll take a look at the property and make um make a recommendation to us and to staff. um on uh what what the assess what the assessment should be. So you get you'll get a you'll get a more detailed look at your property to to make sure that is fairly assessed. And will we be told when these realtors will be looking at the property? People have been coming from the city without telling us. Okay. Um you know I'll I'll I'll look to staff for that and you can advise us when I think we make an appointment but um Miss Puts Yeah, mayor. Um, we would actually recommend in this case that it would be referred back to assessing staff. However, you as the local board do have the right to make that decision to refer to either the adviserss or back to assessing staff. Um, if it is referred to the adviserss, we would call um the property owners tomorrow morning to set up a time for the our adviserss to view the property Wednesday and Thursday of this week. All right. And um so you're recommending that it goes back to staff rather than the adviserss. So would the would um property owners also have the opportunity to call and set up an appointment similarly? So whether it's the advisers or a staff member, they can make an appointment to make sure that they're there when when you take a look. Yes. Thank you, mayor. Staff has been um in contact with the property owners. Um we have not come to a resolution as to this point. So there is opportunity to resolve the matter prior to the April 21st meeting. Okay. Very good. So I think the recommendation uh the most lo logical course is for you to continue to work with staff. Um and then and then if um I also think that if you're not able to resolve that you there are further steps that you can take in terms of um in in terms of um getting a second opinion I guess if you will. So um that's that's a recommended approach. And now the council hasn't acted yet, but um um if if you have an opinion on that, you can share that as well uh on that approach. Um well, I have a question because I just don't understand what's the difference between staff and adviserss. Okay. Well, the adviserss are volunteer realtors who who come, you know, so if you buy a property, typically they do comparables and so full disclosure, I am a real estate agent as well. Okay. So, you know, maybe some some year you'll want to be a um be an adviser. We're we're looking for we're looking for volunteer, but we we have um so we have a group of advisor count or realtors who volunteer to be advisers to to staff. And so for these appeals, um they will come out and take a look and provide an opinion to staff and a written opinion as to what it would be. So, it's essentially finding comparables for your situation and then um um the goal here is to get the assessment right. Um people sometimes think, well, the city wants to make it as high as possible or whatever. We have no agenda other than to get the the assessment of your property correct. Okay. Thank you. So, I hope that's helpful. Any Do you have any other questions? Um I guess we just wanted to know the the flow of what was going to be. So what we will do right now is we will act on this and we will um we'll um we'll pro seek a motion to see u to turn this back to the adviserss. Then you reach out to the advisor um to um Miss Putts or a member of the assessing staff who will talk with you before you leave tonight and um you can get things set up so you know what to expect. Okay. I hope that's helpful. Very much. Thank you. All right. All right. Thanks. So, uh, council, any any comments or, um, a motion recommendation? And mayor, we do still need a motion on, um, section C, I believe. Yes. Okay. Thank you for that. Well, we'll do that next, and then we'll then we'll go back to this item. So, um, the, um, section C appeals, um, they will be referred back to the assessing staff. We need a motion to refer the properties listed in section C, um, the four properties. I believe it's four. Um, three, three, excuse me, mayor, you can make one motion if you'd like for the three properties listed in C and the two um that we heard tonight. All right. Well, then so Okay. So, we'll do that. We'll we'll do the three listed and the two that we heard tonight. Council member Calbertt. Thank you, Mayor. I'd uh like to move to refer the three properties listed in section C and the two properties that were appealed in person to assessing staff. Very good. And is there council member Romey? I'll second. All right. And council Wilurn, did you have anything? No, it's f. It just was unclear to me whether it was going to assessing staff or to the adviserss and whether the property owners had a an opinion on that. But I that's fine. Okay. And I think we we settled on that it would go back to assessing staff with with the understanding that there could be a followup to that as well. Is that correct staff? Okay. So we've got a motion by council member Calvert and a second by council member Rome. Uh Miss Larson please call ro. Kley. Yes. Foster Bolton. Yes. Shack. Yes. Wilburn. Yes. Calbert. Yes. Romey. Yes. We are some. Yes. Motion carries. So, let's see. Um, I think I think that covers it. Is there anything we anything further we need to do? Mr. Funk? Thank you, Mayor. Maybe I could lean on Miss Pus just to provide a little more explanation on the process. And I I'll just kick it off by saying that in the city of Minnitanka, we have roughly 20,000 parcels that are part of this assessment process. So there's an extensive review of those parcels and Miss Putts and her assessing staff do a a wonderful job at doing that. It's a heavy lift every year where they took take a look at all of our parcels to work on the fairness that you uh talked about, mayor and city council. And so in that process, what starts here this evening is anyone that has concerns, any property owner that has concerns over their value um makes notice to the city. And so that's what led up to this evening is making notice to the city. Often folks first reach out to our assessing staff to work with our assessing staff first. However, tonight as part of the process, people can also come in person. And so that's what you've heard this evening is some property owners that have come forward in person. um it's harder to make those assessments in person on the fly tonight because there's obviously calculations that need to be made and our staff gets intricately involved in that. And so with section C this evening, what you're doing is in essence turning that back over to our assessing staff to work with those five property owners because there hasn't been that extensive deeper dive that usually would take place. And so that'll happen first uh with uh in the next two weeks. Really what happens between now and then April 21st is either the assessing staff uh as noted in section C will work with those five property owners and then the items uh properties listed in item or section B tonight. That's where our adviserss will really get involved and they will work with the uh the properties noted uh those property owners have the opportunity to work with the adviserss. Uh you heard this evening that homeowners often do calculations and do comparables. Uh that is part of the process. So they will have an opportunity to share that with the adviserss and then the buyers will take an objective look at uh staff's recommendations the work and uh points that are being made by the property owners and then all that data comes back to you on April 21st for your second meeting of this board where you'll make final determinations and so you'll have more information coming back to you at April 21st where again you will have final decisions uh on those values again then the process does get extended from there if there are further disagreements about the values that are determined. Then I just turn over to Miss Putts if she'd like to add to that process. Miss Puts, good evening. Thank you, Mayor. That covers it pretty well. Um I feel like the motions made tonight were appropriate and we're working through the process. All right. Well, thank you very much. So, um that is on the local board of appeal and equalization. That's it for tonight. So, we don't adjourn, but we do recess. And do we need a motion for that to recess or No, we're going to recess. Recess the local board of review. I know. Okay. So, do we need a motion or we just move on to the council meeting? Yeah. Mayor, it's uh recommended that you have a motion to recess and continue the meeting to 5:30 on Monday, April 21st, 2025. Very good. Council member, thank you, mayor. I'll make a motion to recess and continue the LBA meeting to 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 21st, 2025. Very good. Is there a second? Council member Wilbur, second. All right. A motion by Council Member Romey and a second by Council Member Wilburn. Miss Larson, please call roll. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shack, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbert, yes. Romey, yes. Yes. Motion carries. We are recessed. So, should we just jump in or do you want to take five minutes or mayor and council? It is up to you. Our meeting is scheduled for six o'clock. It can start at any time after 6:00. So, it's up to you whether you want to We'll just keep we'll just keep things rolling. So, uh thank you um to everyone who was here for the board review um and equalization and thank you staff. So, um I will move forward. It is still Monday, April 7th, 2025. We are now moving to a regular meeting of the Minnitankka City Council. I will call that meeting to order and ask all those who are staying to uh please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Miss Larson, would you please call roll? Rome here. Kley here. Foster Bolton here. Shaq here. Wilburn here. Calbertt here. rem where some excuse me here. Next item is approval of the agenda and I am not seeing um any addendum. Um Mr. Funk, are you anything? Yeah, thank you mayor. Good evening council. There is no agenda for tonight's um consideration. So the agenda that's been presented to you is stands. Very good. So um a non amended agenda. Um would somebody like to make a motion? Council member Wilburn. I move approval of the agenda. Council member Calbertt, I'll second. All right, we've got a motion by Council Member Wilburn, a second by Council Member Calbertt. Miss Larson, please call roll. Romeley, yes. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbert, yes. We yes. Motion carries. Um, next item is approval of minutes. And we have two sets of minutes. The first is the March 17, 2025 regular meeting minutes. and the second is the February 3rd, 2025 study session minutes. So, are there any comments or um a motion? Council Calbert. Thank you, Mayor. I make the motion to approve the February 3rd, 2025 study session minutes and the March 17th, 2025 regular meeting minutes. Is there a second? Oh, Council Member Foster, I'll second. All right, we've got a motion by Council Calbertt and a second by Council Member Foster Bolton. Um, I will say that I did talk with Mr. Funk today and made a a slight correction or a change to the um regular meeting minutes and I think he will the staff will confirm that my change is accurate. Um, but other than that um we're all good. So, Miss Larson um would you please call roll. Rome, yes. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbertt, yes. We um yes on March 17th and I will abstain on the February 3rd study session [Applause] minutes. All right. So motions carry. So we are then uh up to special matters and we have two tonight. And the first is the recognition of the 2025 Minnetonka Academy graduates and participants. So, um, Miss Faulk, are you, uh, let's see, you are you ready? I will get my get the right sheet of paper in front of me and we'll take it from there. This just take me a moment. Okay. So, um, first of all, we're here to recognize the 2025 Minnetonka Academy graduates, and, uh, the city, uh, truly celebrates this. Um, the Minnitankka Academy is a program that provides residents with valuable insights into, um, city operations and how the city works. Um, and the dedicated work of the staff that keeps Minnetonka thriving. Over the past five weeks, residents engaged with city staff learning about public public safety, parks, infrastructure, and planning, demonstrating a deep commitment to their community. The academy is more than just an educational experience. It fosters connection with the city. By engaging with city leaders, res residents uh took an important step toward active involvement in Minnitonka's future. Their dedication strengthens the city. Whether through volunteering, serving on boards and commissions, or even pursuing public office, Minnetonka's success relies on passionate and informed residents, and their curiosity and commitments are sincerely appreciated. The involvement ensures that the city remains a wonderful place to live and grow. Graduates and participants, please come forward as I say your name and receive your c uh certificate from Sarissa who is standing to my right. Please stay standing in the front so that we can take a group photo along with the city council. So, thank you all for being here. And I'm going to read your names and um and there's just a couple that I might have a little um you can assist me on the pronunciation because I want to get it right. So, first, um, we have Susan in it. Is it Well, I'll let you help me with, uh, Susan Bianic. Is she here? Okay. Well, I hope I got her name kind of close to right. Um, next is Christopher Carlson. Next is Peggy Carlson. And then Sonia Ecklund. And then Sarah Ellis, Owen Gonzalez, Mary Grove, Hamilton Hines, Elizabeth Jstone, Wayne Johnstone, Ben, is it Messik or Misek? Guy Milbert, Shane Nekarude, Jenny Resner, Jackie Smolen, Jeff Sundberg, and Nate Thornton. So then these are the folks who who made it to um four at least four of the sessions and then some participants could not make it to all of them but we want to recognize them as well. They made it to at least three sessions. And it's Janet Ajax, John Inkham, Ingram, Zen Louu, and Richard Toledo. All right. Well, I would like to thank all of you for your participation and congratulate you all. So, we'll give you a round of applause and [Applause] then and then Sharesa, where do you where do you want us all for a picture? Should we come down or should we We'll come down. Come right in the front. Okay. Yeah, you can come in front. Make two and maybe two lines. Taller people in the back. Can't tell. That means I get to go in the front. Always in the front. How do you move to the back? Okay. Are we all good? Yes, I think you're good. Ready? One, two, three. Can't see everyone's fine. Can you closer, Paula? Sure. Very good. Thank you. All right. Thank you. [Applause] [Applause] [Music] All right. And I want I want to thank everyone um for participating again. Um the uh the academy really is beneficial not just for the participants but also for staff to to get to know our residents and share about what we do. And uh um I just think it's very time well spent. So thank you so much for participating. All right, get myself organized here. Um, so special matters. Uh, the next item is, um, in special matters is the ArabAmerican Heritage Month proclamation, and I've asked Council Member Shaq if she would read that proclamation. Thank you, Mayor. Uh whereas American or excuse me, ArabAmerican Heritage Month was first met recognized at a national level in April 2021, marking an historic acknowledgement of the contributions and presence of ar Arab Americans across the United States. And whereas ArabAmericans have been an integral part of the American story, contributing richly to our nation's history, culture, economy, and public life through achievements in medicine, law, business, education, technology, government, the arts, and more. And whereas ArabAmericans have often faced discrimination, bias, and stereotyping, yet they continue to build strong communities engage in public service and advocate for justice, equity, and inclusion. And whereas the ArabAmerican community is composed of a diverse group of individuals representing a variety of cultural traditions, religious beliefs, and national backgrounds. And whereas ArabAmerican Heritage Month is an opportunity to celebrate the history, contributions, resilience, and rich cultural traditions of Arabameans and to foster deeper understanding and unity among all residents of Minnotonka. And whereas recognizing ArabAmerican Heritage Month reaffirms our shared commitment to diversity, equity, and the full inclusion of all communities in civic life. Now there be it resolved that the city of Minnotonka does hereby declare the month of April as ArabAmerican Heritage Month in the city of Minnotonka. I'll even turn my microphone on. Thank you. Um Council Shaq, next item is reports from city manager and council members. And so uh we'll turn first to Mr. Funk. Again, thank you, Mayor. Good evening again, council. A couple things for your consideration this evening. First off, applications for the Minnetonka Police Department's Youth Leadership Academy are now open. This is open to 14 to 17 year olds. And council, I know you've uh expressed uh youth programming. So, this is a nice opportunity for 14 to 17 year olds. It is a free summer program that is a behindthescenes look at law enforcement, team building, uh other activities, and leadership training. Applications are opening on April 13th. So, if you know of anyone or anyone that might be listening this evening, more can be learned on our website. And then the annual tree and shrub sale will open up soon. It is coming up in May. I know it's the beginning part of April, but it is open on our website and we do have some information out there for residents. I do want to note that in context, for the past 20 years, Mitankka residents have purchased more than 21,000 trees and shrubs at a reduced cost with this program. Uh this as you know this program has helped the community maintain our very valued uh tree canopy. We often talk about our run that 58% of our city's uh tree canopy and it's one of the highest in the metro. We're very proud of that and it's contributed to our annual tree sale. The pre-sale will start on May 5th with the general sale opening on May 12th. So if anyone again is interested in that, you can start to look for information on our website. And it is that time of year. I know it's a little colder today than some of our recent days, but there are some of those springtime activities happening here at the city. Uh city staff have put docks in at our Graves Bay Marina this past week. So, we're gearing up for the opening of Grey Bay's Marina. Uh Mr. Manchester and his staff have begun potholes. I think uh that is that time of season as well as there's been the thawing of the winter and certainly we're noticing uh potholes that again I call it is that time of year. So, if you do hear from residents, uh Mr. Manchester and our public works staff are aware of those and they are uh out and about starting that work. And then also want to mention that also with the nicer weather, it's pickle ball time and so our nets are going up for pickle ball season. So again, we're gearing up for more outdoor activities here this year. And then last, just want to mention also public works related that the county road 101 trail improvement project is on the horizon and our engineering division has sent out our newsletter and correspondence to those residents. So, we're starting to see that project and that we'll start gearing up for that significant project and we're excited to see that starting here this summer as well. So, with that, Mayor and Council, I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Funk. Uh, council members, any reports that you would like to make? Council member Calbertt, just a very brief one. This weekend is uh the beginning of Passover and I would just like to wish everyone who um celebrates uh happy Pesak a happy Passover. Anything else? Council member Rome. Thank you, mayor. Two quick things. Um on March 19th, I along with the mayor attended the Minnitonka Business Council. Um just want to congratulate both the staff and our partners at Weisetta Chamber. uh you know kind of for helping us grow uh this this kind of business council which started last year. It's uh continuing to grow um and and look forward to uh more quarterly meetings. Uh invite all business owners and others interested in business in Minnetonka to come and learn more and uh meet and connect with the city. Um learn about initiatives and opportunities as well as connect with your fellow business leaders in the community. Um, and then the second thing is to thank uh again Minnotonka staff and our firefighters. Really enjoyed attending the firefighters annual awards uh ceremony uh Saturday a week ago from this past Saturday. Great opportunity to connect with our firefighters who served the city so well and to listen to them get a bunch of great awards and uh and talk to a lot of great people. had a really good time and thanks to them and thanks to staff for putting that together. Thank you. Um is there anyone else? Um I'll just I'll just add Yes. I was uh um at the the same two events and uh the fire fire banquet is always a great event and I'm always impressed with our firefighters, but the the camaraderie and a spree decor that exists with our firefighters is really inspirational and it's a great group of people and um and we we do need more firefighters. So, uh, if, uh, you're interested in becoming a firefighter, anyone, um, this is a great place to be a firefighter and, uh, um, uh, reach out to Chief Fox or, um, or just call the, uh, the switchboard and people can get you set up, um, in terms of, uh, where to call. The switch board number is 952-939-82000. And, uh, if you have any interest in being a firefighter, it's a it's a a great opportunity for both you and the city. Um so with that I don't see anyone else wanting to make comments. So um uh we will move on to item eight which is citiz citizens wishing to discuss matters not on the agenda. This is an open mic opportunity. Um if you have something that you want the city to know, come forward, state your name and address. Um we will hear what you have to say. We will take no action tonight um on whatever it is, but we will turn it over to staff for followup and um you will get followup from staff and they will report back to us and if there's any future council action needed that will be taken. So, is there anyone who would like to uh report um to the council? Is there anyone? I have to ask three times. So, is there anyone who would like to come forward on that? Okay. Well, then we'll move to the next item. Um, item nine on the agenda is bids and purchases. And we have one item 9A, bids for the police department roof project. And Mr. Manchester, I believe you have that. It is. Thank you, mayor. Good evening, mayor and councel. For you tonight are bids for the police department roof uh project. Um, we have some recommended actions tonight. We just wanted to put those up. to start uh a motion to award the contract for the police department roof replacement uh to Horizon Roofing uh with the base bid and then alternates in the amount of 676,500. A motion to amend the 24 and 25 CIP and then further to a motion to direct me the public works director to expend the funds provided they don't um do not exceed the amended budget of 775. So something to consider as we get started. Um the project does relate to the street strategic plan. Um this is desired outcome 51. So improve the reliability and efficiency of our utilities and facilities as part of our infrastructure and asset management piece. Uh for some background, the project was uh reviewed by council on February 10th, 2025. At that time, you ordered the improvements, accepted the plans, and specs, and then authorized the bidding for this project. uh the roof structure had reached the end of its useful life which is the need for the project. And then further at the time we did discuss uh two other bid alternates that we would like to consider as part of the bidding process to see what kind of prices we could get on those as part of this which included the community center link and the council chambers. Uh the background uh the current police station was built in 1974. It's about 7200 square ft. Um, it currently consists of an asphalt base uh with an existing steel deck, a number of layers of insulation, and then it's covered in asphalt and a membrane with a gravel surface. Uh, the existing RV value, which is an insulation rating, um, is approximately 16.5. Um, the other two alternates that we're considering, the community center link is around 1,025 square ft and then the council chambers is about 1,800 square ft. And those constructions are similar to the police station. Um the proposed improvements uh would include an existing we would remove the membranes and the vapor barriers uh down to the existing deck. Uh we would provide a different type of insulation consisting of a a polyester reinforced. The roof would be white. It is currently not white. So it would certainly have a heat effect that would be very beneficial. And it would have a 30-year warranty. Um based on the white design, it reflects um more sunlight and absorbs less heat. So the it can reflect up to 60 to 90% depending on the situation of the white roof and the sun. So it does reduce the the heat load on the building. The new RV value would be around R31. And then this would be similar for both uh alternates that we're proposing as well. Um just to talk about the RV value a little, that's essentially the insulation rating. And so the 2020 code adopted um would require an R rating of 30 or greater. In this case, we are above that. um it meets the original sustainability goals of the public safety facility. So at the time if some of you may recall when the public safety facility was constructed uh there was a group of folks that looked at how we could be sustainable as we constructed those buildings and this would meet those um criteria and kind of follow that plan as well. So it' be consistent with what was constructed um on the original building. And then it's improved energy savings, you know, with the increased insulation. It's a huge savings compared to what it had been more than double. So, we opened bids on the 12th of this year. Three bids were received. Our low bid is Horizon Roofing. They have completed other projects in the area. Staff is tonight recommending the base bid of the police station roof as well as the two alternates and it's certainly council's decision if they would choose not to. Um, and then if the recommended actions are approved, it would begin in May and be completed in the fall. Um the base bid project funding does in is included in the 2025 to 2029 capital improvements. So the police station roof could be constructed without a an amendment to the CIP. We are at this time recommending amendments to construct the other two alternates. Uh one would include a 2024 amendment and so the city had originally scheduled some window replacements at city hall. Following the assessment, we found out repairs could be done and we didn't proceed uh with the full replacement of those windows. So we are proposing that to complete one of the roofs and then the other is proposed with the the PEG funding which can be used for essentially the council chambers and broadcast related items. Uh both of those could be supported by funds um that the city has. So go back to the actions um that I presented before so I won't read them again but these are what we're looking for um from you tonight at your consideration and Mr. Kevin Moss is here, also our facilities manager, if we do have specific questions. So, I'll turn it back to the mayor. Thanks. Very good, Mr. Manchester. Thank you, council. Any questions for staff on this item? Any comments? Council me. Thank you, mayor. I just wanted to confirm. I'm assuming that the reason to include these additional what called alternates is basically to um I understand that we have some leaking and issues with uh the roofs here. So rather than wait for them to fail, they're also at the end of their extended life and rather than have to pay somebody to come out on site separately, we're getting economies of scale by or economies by having this all done at once. Yeah, Council Member Mele, Mayor and Council. Yeah, that's correct. We have had some leaks. they've been repaired but correct rather than waiting for them to fail. That's why we're proposing it. And there is an economy of scale when they're here for sure. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Mey. Council member Calbertt, she stole my line, so we're all good. All right. All right. And my my comment was um going to be along those lines. I quizzed Mr. Funk today. Um understanding that um the roof is at the end of its useful life, but sometimes things that aren't the end of their useful life still may have some life. And given that uh um budgets are going to be challenging I think as we look forward that if we can economize we can but I also know that there have been leaking roofs and we um we're not uh we're not signing up for that. So I think this is the right thing to do. So with that is a motion council member Shack. Thank you mayor. I'll make the motion to award the contract for the police department roof replacement project uh 20 24010 to Ryzen roofing and the base bid and add the alternate alternates one and two to them in the amount of 676,500 and to amend the 2024 and 2025 CIP and to authorize the public works director to expend the allocated funds without further approval from the council provided the costs don't exceed the amended project budget of 775,000. Thank you. Is there a second? Council member Romey. I'll second. Okay, we've got a motion by council member Shack and a second by council member Romey. Miss Larson, please call roll. Romeley, yes. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shack, yes. Wilbur, yes. Calbert, yes. We yes. Motion carries. Item 10 is the consent agenda and these are items that are typically routine. So, we don't act on them individually. I will read them into the record. If anyone would like to pull an item um whe a council member or someone from the audience would like um an item to be pulled for further consideration, uh we will pull that item. we will vote on the remaining items and then circle back to um that item and hear what the person who pulled it has to say and then take action at that point. So item 10 A is agree as an agreement with the state of Minnesota institution community work crew ICWC program. Item 10B is joint powers agreement with Minnesota Department of Public Safety and item 10 C is ratification of a three-year Microsoft mic uh enterprise agreement. Would anyone like to pull any of those items? Uh Coun Council member Kley. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to um pull consent item A. All right. She stole my life. Okay. Well, that happens. So, okay. So, let's uh circle back. Would anyone like to make a motion on items 10B and 10 C? Council member Kley. Thank you, Mayor. I like to make a motion to approve consent item 10B and 10 C. And is there a second? Council member Calbertt. Thank you, Mayor. I'll second. All right. We've got a motion on items 10B and 10 C by uh Council Member Kley and a second by Council Member Calvert. Ms. Larson, please call roll. Rome, yes. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbertt, yes. We Yes. Motion carries. So that So we will circle back um on to 10A, which is pulled by two council members, but we'll uh turn it over to council member Kley. Thank you, mayor. I um I talked to um city manager earlier today about this consent um item A and I just had a couple questions and my questions may change depending on how um their my questions are answered. Um I had talked to uh Mike uh Funk earlier about I just wanted to know like if this was a uh this program this work program is it um folks that are coming from the prison institution or is it halfway house? And I also wanted to know like how much they were being paid since we have a contract um with the um state of Minnesota. And so I just kind of had questions around that because um as most of you know I've worked in employment working with men coming out of prison and I know they tend to make very low wages and um I just wanted to know like what was the pay um for these workers and then also um I had a question around if we're hiring people who are out of um institutions so like department of corrections or halfway houses I don't know what level of charge charges. Is it a felony? I know felony cases usually go to prison. So, Department of Corrections and Halfway House um one year or less usually go to Halfway House. So, that may change based on um the level of offenses. So, I'm like, okay, is this a felony case? Is this a misdemeanor case? What type of cases are these? And then if so, um, for our city, whether it's misdemeanor or felony, I I want to know if these people are in this work program when they're done with the work program and say, for instance, they're not in an institution, they came out and applied for a job within our city, do we hire folks who have criminal backgrounds um to work for our city in the same line of work that they're doing um in this position? Thank you, Council Kley. Um, Mr. Funk or Mr. Manchester, excuse me. Yeah, thank you, Mayor, Council Member Kley, Mayor and Council. Um, the program is through the Department of Corrections. And so, the folks that work with us currently are coming out of three locations. Um, Lino Lakes, Fairbell, and Still Water. And so, the Department of Corrections in the morning, um, they have a supervisor. They come to the city every morning and then they return in the evening um through the supervisor at the department of corrections. Um the program is voluntary and so participants are not required uh they sign up. The program is available um within 12 months uh prior to a supervised release. And so um folks that do choose to sign up for the voluntary program through the Department of Corrections um essentially it's available 12 months before. As far as the compensation goes, the Department of Correction sets that. Um, so the Department of Correction has authority on the compensation to individuals. Um, the contract in your packet tonight is the contract that they offer us as a whole for the crews themselves. So, the contract tonight would include three crews, but um, as far as the compensation to individuals, the Department of Correction actually sets that individually. Um, as far as felony or misdemeanor, um, there's an eligibility requirement for the program. And so, if um, folks do choose to participate and volunteer for the program, they are screened through the Department of Corrections. And so, the Department of Corrections looks at a number of criteria. I can grab a few here, too. So, for example, um not to be considered a risk to the community, no current um or prior criminal sexual conduct offenses, positive attitude, um ability to uh physically do the work are just a few of those. And so, they make sure they screen folks on their end um and provide us uh with the individuals that have volunteered for the program. So, I hope that answered it. If not, certainly let me know if there's others I can answer. I just want to make one more comment. Um, I've been in all of these prisons as a um, when I worked at Emerge, I was um, I guess employment work coach. And so I know that typically the workers usually make very very minimal wage, maybe like at sometimes $1.35. I mean, I've heard like different price points um, a hour. Um, I don't know what it is since the last time, that was a while back in 2014 that I worked for Emerge. So, it's been a long time, but one of the things that I really think about and I just want this to be something that we all consider when we hire these folks that come and work in our community. Um, that um, yes, it's given them a opportunity to get out of prison. Yes, it's given them some of them um opportunities to um get job skills, but also um it is another way that our system take advantage of people who um who made a bad choice and end up in the prison system. And so when we're doing these things, um I just want us to know that when they come out, if we're going to take And I'm trying to walk this like lightly because, you know, people everyone don't see it that way, but I do, especially because people of color are really impacted at a higher rate of being incarcerated. And I cannot sit here and be quiet about it, but um I hope that we can give these same people who come work in our city a opportunity to come out and make fair wages when they're released from prison because if they're in Lino Lakes, Fairboat or Steel Water, then that means they have a felony level case. And so, um, I just hope that we will consider them when they come out and maybe apply for jobs because when they come out, we know if they're not working a livable wage job, then they go back to committing crimes. And I just would hate for one of those folks to be working in our city and go back because they had to commit another crime or they didn't have to. They never have to. So, um, but you know, just yeah, that's just my thought process. So, um maybe in the future, we may not be able to do it today, but maybe in the future if it would be nice if we could find out how much they make a hour so that we can um consider if we're not already hiring people with felonies um at some point in our city to give these folks another chance making fair wages. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmber Klay. Are there any other comments for Council Member Council Member Foster Bolton? Yeah. Um, so my question was kind of along the same lines, but do I mean I guess we don't know the success rate after they finish the program, right? Uh, Council Member Foster Bolton, uh, Council Mayor, I did talk to Department of Corrections today following a few questions. Um, let me see if I can find it here. I'm sorry, I got a few papers, but uh the recity rate generally on this program in particular is 15% in three over the next three years. And so it's actually quite a bit lower. Uh the next program is at 36%. And so we think it's a really good program and that's why we've been participating. Um also uh they indicated it's a um continues to build you know skills. There's around 120 people that participate in this program in particular. Um, and the city, you know, the contract tonight would propose three crews of around 24 of those 120. So, we we think it's a really good program. It seems to be very successful. Are there other Excuse me. Go ahead. And then um so in the packet they you talked about like incorporating into the culture of public works and can you talk about like what that looks like? Sure. Uh, council member Foster Bolton, council mayor, uh, we incorporate the individuals directly into our culture at public works and so they share the lunchroom, they share coffee, they share lunch events with us. If we have our spring barbecue, uh, they're part of that. They sit with us. We incorporate uh, crews, city crews work side by side with them. So when we go cut trees, we're all working together. It's not a matter of uh, one group is doing one thing, one group is doing another. Uh but we all just work together like an extension of city employees essentially. Thank you, Mr. Manchester. Other uh council member Shaq. Thank you, Mayor. Um we've talked about this quite a bit before and I, you know, I appreciate the comments of of council member Kley. I think it's a really good, you know, it's something that came to mind for me as well is that, you know, it' be nice to take advantage also of the these folks um skills that they've developed and their experience within public works when opportunities arise. I also just wanted to comment, you know, I happened upon the crews quite a bit in Big Willow Park and around my neighborhood, and you know, I they're just really you it's obvious hard workers. They're very gracious with my less than well- behaved dog. They do like um to have him jump on them. So, it's, you know, it's really I'm I'm glad we have this opportunity. I do agree that um there's some pay equity issues inside the um correction system and I don't think we have a lot of say in that but you know to the extent that we can um advocate for a slightly better conditions. I certainly wouldn't um have a problem with that. So thanks for you know there's a fine line between work crews and giving people opportunities. you know, we don't want to take advantage of people, but I know that this is popular. People want to do it, and I and I appreciate the city's willing to be kind of out on the on the front of this. So, thank you. Are council member Wilburn. So, I also discussed this with with the city manager and we've had discussions previously around this issue. So, I just wanted to weigh in that that like it seems like the majority of the council, this is something that that we're concerned about and clearly don't want to participate in the exploitation of anyone. Um, and I don't know if it was explicitly answered uh, council member Kley's question about whether the city hires people, but in my discussion with the city manager, he said that yes, the city does has actually hired some of the people that have graduated from this program. Um, and it depends on they they they don't always get everyone to apply and sometimes the timing doesn't work out, but they they they have successfully hired people into the program. Thank you, Council Wbert. Anyone else? You know, I'll just comment. I mean, I think we all um Mr. Funk heard probably from all or most of us with with similar questions and and I think from my perspective I mean I understand why a program like this exists and why it's probably structured the way it is. Um but I' I'd like to understand more about about the program. It might be interesting. I I don't know if I don't know if we as a council do field trips or anything but it'd be interesting to hear from people from the Department of Corrections about the mechanics of the program. maybe some statistics on, you know, clearly the recidivism rate appears to be much lower than others. That is that's a win. That that's great. 15% is still higher than I'd like it to be, but it's it's way better than some of the other numbers. But but, you know, we care about people and we believe in redemption and we want people to have chances. So, when we talk about being an inclusive and welcoming community, I'd like to think that we will be hiring some of these people who can benefit um our residents and benefit from uh working here and maybe living here. But I also recognize that people who are at these different locations may not want to work in Minnetonka because they live on the other side of the state or the other side of the metro. So, you know, there's it's a complex issue, but I think because we've had these conversations in the past, if there's something if we if there's an opportunity to maybe do a little deeper dive on the program because I I generally believe it's a good program, but I don't really know as much as I could to, you know, I'd like to be a proponent of the program because I think it really works well for the city and I do believe it is an opportunity for the inmates. Um, but we want them to be successful after they're done um, paying their their debt to society. So, I I think it's a a good program, but I'd like to learn more, too. So, I'll throw that out. So, with that, Council Kley, would you like to make a motion? Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Yes. I make a a motion to approve consent item A, um, agreement with the State Minnesota Institution of Community Work, ICWC program. Thank you, Council Member Foster Bolton. I'll second. All right, we've got a motion by council member Kley and a second by council member Foster Bolton. Miss Larson, please call roll. Romeley, yes. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbert, yes. Wearsome, yes. Motion carries. Item 11 is consent agenda items requiring five votes. and 11A is an interim use permit and variance for the relocation of an existing garden market at 17501 highway 7 and that's a consent item. Is there would anyone like to pull this or would someone like to make a motion? I mean I as I read the the report the the market is going back to where it used to be because there was an alternate use proposed for that area that has not moved forward. So, Council Member Wilbur, I will make a motion to adopt the resolution approving the permit. Is there a second? Council member Calbertt. So, we've got a motion by Council Member Wilburn and a second by Council Member Calbertt. Yes. Um, Miss Larson, please call roll. Romeley, yes. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shack, yes. Wilurn, yes. Calbertt, yes. We Yes. Motion carries. And Council Calbert, I didn't really give you the chance to make your second, so I I I took your you're raising your hand as a second. I hope that uh is so noted officially. I I apologize for that. Sometimes I'm kind of enthusiastic about moving on. So, my apologies for that. So, item 12 is um introduction of ordinances, and we have none. Um item 13 is public hearings, and we have um um several of those. And and Miss Thomas, are you replacing uh Miss Wishnack tonight, I assume? Uh there were some no one can replace Miss Wishnack, but I'm going to give it a go here. Well, well that Well, that's well said. So anyway, so item um 13A is an on sale wine and on sale 3.2 malt beverage liquor license for Aang Yoli Minnetonka LLC doing business as Abang Yoli at 12940 Minnotonka Boulevard. And so, um, I will turn that over to Miss Thomas. Uh, thank you, mayor and councel. Uh, this is a continuation of a public hearing from March 3rd. And since that time we've conducted the investigative report, there were no findings cited, uh, in that report. So, we do recommend uh that the council continue the public hearing. It already started, and then grant the license. Very good. So, council, um, the public hearing is opening, but are there any questions anyone has that would they would like answered? All right, this public hearing is open. If anyone would like to comment on this item, please come forward and state your name and address and let us know what you want us to hear. And if no one does, we don't you don't no one has to. But, um, it is a public hearing. All right. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the council for uh comment or um a motion. Council Calbertt. Thank you, Mayor. This is uh the former location of People's Organic, my my uh remote office location, and I am I was sorely agrieved that uh it was no longer there, but I am super excited for this. So, I'm very excited to make the motion to grant the license at a Bangoli at 12940 Minnotonka Boulevard. And a second second. Yeah. So, I go with a short comment that um I I had the opportunity to visit Korea a few years ago and so I'm so excited that this restaurant is opening. All right, we've got a got a motion by Council Member Calbertt and a second by Council Member Wilburn. Um I've got a quick comment, too. I mean, one is um I'm excited to have this building back in use and um and another restaurant in Minnetonka, particularly in that location, and I'm, you know, I'm just wondering um will they accept my people's organic gift card, but um but that they don't have that will have no bearing on their uh on what my vote tonight, but um I have a little issue there. But um so we've got a we've got a motion by Council Member Calbert and a second by Council Wilurn. Um any other comments? Um, Miss Larson, please call roll. Romeley, yes. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbert, yes. Wearsome, yes. Motion carries. Item 13B is a change in ownership for an existing onale brewer tap room and Sunday liquor license and offsale intoxicating liquor license to Unmap Brewing Company LLC at 14625 Excelsier Boulevard. And Miss Thomas, is that you as well? It is mayor as you uh noted this is also uh or this license is required simply because of a change in ownership. Uh it is also a continuation from your March 3rd meeting. There were no findings cited in our investigative report and so staff does recommend uh approval of the license after you continue that public hearing. All right. Well, the public hearing is open but council any any questions first? No. All right. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on item 13B regarding um Unmapped Brewing Company? Anyone? Anyone at all? All right. Uh seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the council for comment or a motion. Council member Calvert. Thank you, Mayor. Um I'm just really glad that um this change of ownership is sort of keeping Unmapped whole and in the same location. So I again am very excited to make the motion to grant the license um for Unmapped Brewing Company at 14625 Excelsier Boulevard. Very good. Council member Romey and I'll second. All right. We have a motion by council member Calvert and a second by council member Romey. Um, Miss Larson, please call roll. Rome, yes. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbert, yes. Wearsome, yes. Motion carries. Item 13C. Um, the um is a temporary on sale liquor license for Boom Island Brewing Company LLC at 5959 Baker Road. Um, this is a public hearing item, but the public hearing uh needs to be opened. But before we do that, uh, council, any questions for Well, let's see. Um, um, Miss, excuse me, Miss Thomas. And what are your comments? Excuse me. I'm jumping ahead. You can tell I'm kind of That's all right. Maybe I'm antsy. I mean, maybe there's a basketball game tonight. I don't know. Anyway, Miss Thomas, I I will be quick. uh Mayor Worerome and and council. Uh this temporary license would allow Boom Island to host an outdoor and kind of medieval themed event called Nights and Pints. It would include live music, uh food truck vendors, and night sparring demonstrations that are done by a group that regularly performs at events like uh the Renaissance Festival. staff does find that all of the information is in order and we recommend, excuse me, we recommend approval of the temporary license including allowance for a sporting event, these demonstrations to occur in conjunction uh with that license. Very good. Thank you, Miss Thomas. Okay. Um after that, are there any are there any questions um from staff? Um it sounds it sounds good and exciting. Um is there perhaps motion Yeah. And I again I have one comment. So my daughter played with the Laura Weavers on St. Patrick's Day weekend and may I say they are super fun um Celtic style band and they sound especially good with my fiddler daughter playing along. So um yes, I'd like to make a motion to uh grant the temporary on sale liquor license for Boom Island and a second. Council member Wilburn, I will second. All right, we've got a motion by Council Member Calbertt and a second by Council Member Wilburn. Miss Larson, please call roll. Rome, yes. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbert, yes. Wearsome, yes. Motion carries. So that brings us to 13D, which is a temporary on sale liquor license for Resource West, a valued um nonprofit in our community at 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard. And uh Miss Thomas, one more time. Yes. Uh Mayor Woren, this is a temporary license, as you noted, that would allow Resource West to sell uh beer and wine during its Springfest fundraiser, which will be on May 2nd at the Minnitonka Community Center. Again, all of the information on this request is in order and so staff recommends the council uh approve that temporary permit. Very good. So, we need to um open the public hearing and ask is there anyone who um um either the applicant or anyone who would like to report on this item at um at Resource West, the temporary liquor license. Is there anyone? All right. I'm not seeing anyone. I will uh close the public hearing and bring it back to the council for your consideration. Council, any comments or uh a motion? Council member Calbertt. Thank you, Mayor. Um, this is this is a very important uh uh organization in our community that really does help keep many of our may our neighbors afloat. And I think they are unfortunately going to become increasingly important in the days ahead as we are experiencing some market volatility and people are using losing their personal uh wealth. Um and so um anything that we can do to support Resource West, you don't have to wait to go to an event to um contribute to them. But uh I am very happy to make the motion to grant the uh license a temporary on sale liquor license for Resource West. Very good. And a second. Council member Foster Bolton. I'll second. All right. We have a motion by council member Calbertt and a second by council member Foster Bolton uh regarding this temporary on sale liquor license for resource west. Uh Miss Larson, please call role. Rome, yes. And I look forward to attending. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shack, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calvert, yes. Wearsome, yes. Motion carries. So item 14 is other business and uh 14A is a preliminary plat for a two lot subdivision with variances at 5038 Dominic Spur and um Miss Thomas, it looks like it's still your turn. Uh thank you uh mayor and council. Before I start talking about the actual proposal this before you this evening and staff's analysis, I'd like to take a couple of minutes to talk about the development and construction regulations that apply to this property in its current uh configuration. So this property is zoned R1 low density uh residential and with that designation again comes certain standards. Those include uh minimum lot area and dimensions which are shown on the screen. And within that district uh structures are required to maintain a certain setback or a distance um from property lines. And when we apply those setbacks uh to the property and the property lines, we come up with a buildable area. And the buildable area requirement in the R1 zoning district is 3500 square ft. And within that 3500 square feet, we need to be able to find a 40 by40 um box, a square if you will, the property is also subject to the city's steep slope ordinance. And by definition, a steep slope is a slope that rises at least 25 ft and has an average grade of 20%. So this property contains steep slopes of up to 46%. The steep slope ordinance really is considered one of our natural resource protection ordinances. It limits how and where construction it can occur on a steep slope. And the intent of that ordinance really I think is twofold. Um first is to preserve topography um for aesthetic reasons because very topography is really part of the city's natural resource fabric. It's also uh necessary for functional reasons because cutting into or opening up a steep slope has the potential to cause significant drainage and erosion issues not only at the time that the slope is cut into but uh into the future. This property is also located in the city's Shorland Overlay District. And overlay zoning districts are are just that. They're a district that overlays on top of the underlying zoning district regulations another series of regulations. The standards in our Shorland uh district are based on the standards of Minnesota storm water management rules. So, state rules. The Department of Natural Resources uh reviews local ordinances to ensure that they comply with those state rules and and ours do. uh planning and natural resources staff uh myself included worked with the DNR in drafting our current ordinance in 2008 and then we did a slight amendment to that ordinance that was also reviewed by the DNR in 2012. Um, shorland overlay rules, especially when it comes to uh construction and development, really pertain to imperous surfaces, clearing activities, and setbacks not only from public waters, but from the top of bluffs. Um, if you're like me, when you think of the term bluff, you think of Winona or Redwing or or places on on the river. But a bluff um by the state rules is just a steep slope in a shoreland district. It's called a bluff in our ordinance to be consistent with the state rules, but it is a slope that rises 25 ft and has a grade of over 30%. Um, as I noted before, the the steep slope ordinance protects steep slopes wherever they may be, but the shoreland ordinance applies even a greater level of protection to those slopes. It requires a setback from the top of the slope. Really again, intended to ensure that those slopes aren't opened up and cause potentially harmful um drainage or erosion into our public waters. What I've done uh for the remainder of the report is I've taken the plan which you see on the left hand side and staff's analysis which has a lot going on and just created a diagram that's on the right hand side that I think is a little bit easier to read and I'm going to use that for the the remainder of my report. So, uh getting into the actual property and the um proposal, this property is quite large. It's 2.5 acres in size, but much of it is considered a steep slope or a bluff. So when we apply the property line setbacks to the property and then the setbacks from the top of a bluff, it significantly reduces the buildable area of the property. In fact, the existing lot has just 9 about 50 square feet of a buildable area and in that we don't have that 40x40 square. So, in its current configuration, um this property is non-conforming. It does not meet city standards. So, now to the proposal. The Lang family has owned this property uh for over 60 years. certainly longer than the current zoning ordinance or subdivision ordinance have been in effect. The family built a house and a detached garage on the property in the mid 1960s and those uh structures were demolished uh end of summer, early fall last year. The applicants subsequently submitted a application to subdivide that property uh into two lots. The application includes not just the plat but 10 variances embedded within that uh five for each lot and those include dimensions uh the lot with that setback. The buildable area if you'll recall um there's only a very small area that is buildable on the southerntherly lot. The northerly lot would technically have no buildable area. setbacks from the top of bluff and then allowing construction within the bluff itself. There are a lot of details associated with this request like extent of grading, volume of potential fill, storm water management areas, how do we get to the storm water management areas and so on. But really the primary question that staff focused on is whether or not this application and the variances embedded in it um the variances that are needed to create these lots are appropriate. Um if we can't get to creating the lots from staff's perspective the details of how much grading and and how much fill um really don't matter in staff's opinion. uh the variances uh simply are not appropriate. As the the council is aware, especially those of you who served on the the planning commission, um the city may approve variances only when it finds that there are practical difficulties that prevent the applicant from complying with the code. And state statute outlines what we planners like to call the practical difficulties test. And it has three components. and all of those components must be met. The first is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Second, that the need for a variance is based on circumstances unique to the property, not created by the owner. And then third, that if granted, the variances would not alter the character of the area. It's staff's opinion that the variances needed to divide this substandard lot uh are not reasonable. It would create two substandard lots. It's also not reasonable uh from our uh perspective to allow construction resulting in potential site impacts uh within 30% to over 30% grades. Second, the variances again to create these lots are not due to circumstances unique to the property. Certainly, the property size relative to the buildable area is very unusual. But the variances are based on placing that property line in the middle of that property. That is a decision of the property owners, the applicants. So that is uh a circumstance that is created uh by the property owner and applicants. And then finally, staff does not believe that the variances would be consistent with neighborhood character. The majority of properties on Dominic Spur uh do meet minimum lot standards and and are not the homes are generally not built on this steep of slopes. The applicant has provided to city staff, the planning commission, and I believe some council members a list of properties uh that they believe are similar to uh what they are proposing. And so they assert that uh they would serve as a precedent um for your action here this evening. Again, uh staff does not believe that these are similar circumstances. Many of the properties on Dominic Spur and Drive that are referenced by the applicants were created between 1950 and 1970. The applicant is is proposing to create lots this evening or I should I should clarify to create one lot. There is is one existing. Um there is a property at Dominic Drive and Shady Oak Road that probably many of you have seen with a new home. that home in that lot was actually created through the combination of three vacant lots. So essentially that owner um reduced possible impact uh to the water bodies by combining those lots and constructing just one home which is really the opposite of what's being proposed here this evening. And then finally the soulbecken development which some of you may remember which is on Shady Oak Road. It's a condominium development um that is actually built at the base of a slope and that area is exempt from the bluff requirement because everything is sloping away from the public waters not uh towards the public waters. To conclude then, um, staff certainly recognizes the applicant's property is very large, both in terms of the city's minimum lot size and relative to other properties on Dominic Spur, but it does not follow in staff's opinion that simply because it is large, it's appropriate uh for subdivision. that the lot is in fact non-conforming in its current configuration. This would create two substandard lots which staff feels is not reasonable and does not meet uh the variant standard. While the city is obligated to provide this property owner with reasonable use, uh we're not obligated to provide maximum use, which is what um staff believes is is being requested here. And so we do recommend um denial of uh the preliminary plot uh with those variances. And I would turn it back to the mayor for questions. Um thank you, Miss Thomas. Um I think you explained things very well, made it very clear, at least understandable by me. I I won't speak for anyone else, but it was it was very helpful. So, uh councel, any questions for staff? Council member Calbertt. Thank you, Mayor. Um I I did have the opportunity to visit with the property owner and visit the property and um in the planning commission meeting which I watched and in my conversation with the property owner there was some discussion of the bluff being man-made and [Music] um I was just wondering if that is something that staff has been able to uh determine if that that is actually a man-made condition. And then, you know, whether it's man-made or not, it sort of is what it is at this point. And then how would we proceed, you know, what would be the difference between say a man-made bluff and a naturally occurring bluff? Um, Mayor Wisdom and uh, Council Member Calvert, um, staff has not been able to determine whether that's man-made or not. I did go back and look at a lot of aerial photography from the 50s and 60s, but there's not a lot of context for um, topography on those. Um, so the first answer is I I don't know if it's man-made or not. Um second question is about whether or not we differentiate in the code I think between um man-made and and natural and and we don't um because a slope especially a slope like this that is wooded um regardless if it was uh created 60 years ago or not. It is a slope with topography and opening up that slope has the same potential for erosion and drainage. Uh again, whether it was naturally occurring or or created over time. Thank you. Other questions, council council member Kley, I guess I just got more of a comment. Um I we're doing questions now, but we'll have opportunity for comments. Okay. Yeah. Um let's see. Any other council questions? Council member Wilbr. So, can you explain like when you're when you're taking this into consideration? So, um there are no actual uh development proposals. Um, yeah, it's asked, you know, how the owner intends to use the property and and submitted these sort of general plans, but I guess I'm I'm not sure like how that how the how much the how they plan to use it factors into the decision. Like would it be if they said I just I just want two lots and I and I'm you know I'm I'm going to build a shed in the middle or something. Would the would the would the recommendation still be the same? Uh Mayor and and Council Member Wilburn and council um staff's recommendation is really based on the creation of these two lots. um these variances that are shown um in red on the screen would be required regardless of the size of the home or the location of the home. Um specifically, not sure which mouse uh is working here. Um but as you can see uh the the area in orange is considered the bluff and uh by our ordinance by the state rules any structure needs to be set back 30 ft from from that top of bluff which gets me to this little um red line uh here. And so regardless of uh home size and location um these same variances would be necessary and and I should say and staff's recommendation on the creation of the lots would be the same. Thank you mayor. Um that reminds me of another question and and um council member Wilburn's question also reminded me. So there was some discussion of F um and also I just started thinking you know there the property owner um there was some discussion of building quote unquote modest homes and I think that we've seen we've had a couple of proposals come through where we were promised modest homes on like R1A lots and that is not what was built. um what you know how much how does it work? I I'm assuming that we cannot dictate um what size of home a developer would propose to build here. We can deny or approve um the homes, but we but I mean they're going to they're going to come to us with whatever they come to us. Correct. Uh, Chair and Commissioner Calvert, typically speaking, when a a proposal for subdivision comes before you, you're absolutely correct. The the council is acting on the creation of the lots, um, not the size of homes. Um the caveat is that because the council has the McMansion policy, a written policy in your policy book, um when a variance is requested, um you can by that policy establish a maximum floor area ratio. Um in this case, I think I noted in the report that because the ls are so large, the maximum floor area would be 10,000 square ft. Um I I think and I maybe would defer to the city attorney on this. Uh if the council was inclined to approve this because it is a variance variances and because um the variances are related specifically mainly to um let me back up. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say. you may be able to apply a condition so long as there's a nexus or a connection between the condition that you're applying and um the reason that you're applying it. And Mr. Nielsson can say it much better than I can. Mayor, thank you. Council member uh Calvert um Susie explained it very well. In general with conditions imposed on land use applications in this case um the variance the the condition must have a a rational relationship or a nexus to the requested issue. So it should go to uh in some sense um mitigate um the the exception that you would be granting the individual. So the specific type of variance. So, in general, the the law says that you shouldn't impose a condition that has that is completely unrelated. Um, and so that would be the the the notion here. If the council was inclined to consider approval and to consider a condition, you'd want to articulate what what you view as the connection to the variance requested issue. Thank you. Other questions? Anyone? Council member Kley, I guess I have a question about um when did the bluff requirements come into place? So, I thought I read it somewhere um because I was wondering um at some point this bluff ordinance came into place, but if we didn't have this in place, um would this um lot be able to be split prior to this bluff being in place? Just curious about that. Mayor Woram and Commissioner uh Kley. Uh that that is a a good question in that um the bluff ordinance uh in our ordinance is is a little bit newer from um 2008. Um even if this property however were not in um the Shorland ordinance, the steep slope ordinance would still apply. And that steep slope ordinance uh says that to construct within a slope, the council needs to make certain findings. Um there are a lot of them, but I've just shown um three up here. Um so if this proposal were to have come before you in say 2005, it does not follow that there would be no variances. There would still be the variances for um lot width. Um certainly and you would still have to consider whether or not construction within now called the steep slope uh would be appropriate. Does that answer the question? It does. Thank you. Other questions, council? Um I've got I've got one and leave please. Um, I wanted to refer to this uh existing conditions chart um because uh clearly the um the buildable area is small and so we're being asked to do two lots. But if nothing existed there and nothing had been torn down with the ordinances and the rules that are in place, whether they're city ordinances or state um rules or whatever, and the applicant came forward with a single family or single single housing unit proposed with these restrictions, would staff say, "Well, um saying no would be a taking, so we have to apply it or would it be a circumstance say you know what this really is not a buildable lot? Yeah. Uh council members and u mayor worome I'll start and um the city attorney may uh want to jump in. Um from a planner's perspective again the city needs to provide reasonable use to a property owner. Um reasonable use of a single family property on which there was previously a single family home I would say is construction of another single family home. Um so that generally yes uh staff would support some type of variance to construct uh a single family home. Um the specifics of that though would have to be reviewed at the time that the the home came in. For example, if uh someone were to come in and want to build in the steepest part of this bluff, um staff may not find that that's reasonable, but staff may find that perhaps a front yard setback variance is reasonable to prevent construction. So, the specifics of what staff would support, we we can't say without a plan, but in general, um yes, variances would be needed of some kind to provide for reasonable use. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Mayor. I'll just add a little bit that was very well said once again. Um what we have here is a non-conforming lot of record and the previous structure single family home and garage that was uh on the property was a non-conforming structure and that was torn down. I I believe the staff report notes in August of last year. So, in addition to to um what Miss Thomas said, the individual would also have non-conforming rights under state law to reconstruct a single family home where the previous home existed uh for one year. So, they would that time that clock is running as well on that. So, so when you say where that previous house is that within the footprint of the previous house? That's correct. Okay. because I've heard that terminology before. And that would be without any particular entitlements um necessary from the city, but that would be a reconstruction on on on the same footprint. All right. And that meter's running, correct? Okay. Very good. All right. Uh council, any any more questions? Otherwise, if the applicant would like to come forward and u tell us um share your perspective, if you um are uh you're not required to, but if you'd like to, you're welcome to do so. Good evening. Good evening. I am Paul Lang, one of the brothers that now are uh owners of the property. And I got to say I was so encouraged by all the yes votes. I was just one yes after another as you guys are sitting up here joking according. But I do want to say thank you to all of the members up here who I met out at the property. um appreciate you all coming out to take a look at it to understand um how from our perspective it doesn't really feel like it's I mean from I forget the woman's name that he was talking back here but that sounds really dire but it doesn't seem that way to us. Um, one of the things that we uh brought up with, I worked a lot with uh Drew and the planning commission, but the shoreland district. Okay. So, Shady Oak Lake, I suppose, is part of that and all these homes down by Shady Oak Lake seem to be able to get with these, you know, steep slope variances or steep driveways or steep backyards and they're in the shoreline district. Our property doesn't face shady Oak Lake. any kind of possible runoff or any kind of erosion has nothing to do with Shady Oak Lake or what I would say would be shoreland. So, it's a little bit tough to understand how we fall into that shoreline district, but I understand it does. Um, but I think that um she also mentioned that we have 10 variances and I've only heard we have three. Um, we had four, but it sounded like the setback variance has been kind of a given a nod by the planners. I'm not sure what the 10 are. Um, but if uh as you all stood out at the property and took a look, this house that we're talking about mostly that's of the concern. And if we look at the visual that's up there now, those orange stakes with the uh the stakes with the orange on them, that's how far down over the hill the back of the house goes. uh 12 feet on one side of the property, 18 feet on the other side of the property. We've got a 1.3 acre piece of property here, piece of land, and it is so far from the bottom of the hill, which is where there is, I guess, a wetland. Um, but we're not uh I think these uh ordinances and these variances are needed to protect sometimes like maybe a neighbor your house is too close or your runoff's going to go in their backyard or whatever. And we've worked very closely with uh say their birthquist the uh the um engineering firm to do the things that were required of us to say we'll put in a boulder wall which is in our drawing. We'll put in a drainage pond which is in our drawing. um we'll do the things we need to do to make sure that if there is any question of erosion or any question of drainage where the water would go, that would be part of our plan. And I understood it that part of our plan is if we said we'll commit to a house that's under 4,000 ft or 3500 ft². I thought that that had to be the size of the house. So if a builder comes in, they have to adhere to that. not that they can come in and build a 10,000 square foot house because we have a 1.3 acre property. Um, and so having looked at that and having looked at how little we're really affecting the bluff and in that photo also is that orange skinny stake at the top. That's where we call that the man-made area. And it it was man-made uh by the city when they brought in Phil for the turnaround, which originally that was just a turnaround for Dominic. Um, and it was also uh land brought in by our parents to build the home. So, they brought fill in. So, the first 10 feet of that property is very steep, but that again is the man-made fill that was brought in. And it's um, you know, a walk out. Most walkouts are steeper in the back than they are in the front. Um, the house to the north of us, which was the Czecha home, which recently sold, they're built into the exact same slope that we are, but that house was built in 65 or 70. Um, but we're not asking to do anything more than that. We're not asking to change the neighborhood. We are um improving the neighborhood. Um, Dominic isn't the most attractive road in in Minnetonka and there's a lot of improvements that can be made and we think, you know, sure there's going to be one new home there, but um adding two new homes of quality build and um we think we'd be improving the neighborhood. Our parents home became an eyesore that unfortunately had to be torn down and now we're proposing to have two homes put in there. Um when we met with the planning commission standing in front of them just like this and I'm sorry I'm really nervous. Um Alex uh Hansen, one of the commissioners, um he was the first one to vote and he had a yes vote for us and he had a great and a logical thought for why he had a yes vote. Um he said that well we're already approving one house for sure on this property so what harm is it to approve two? One house is already going to need a variance on the bluff, the other house, so why not have two homes? He said, Minnetonka needs more housing. So, how how um much harm could there be to have two instead of one? Uh the footprint of the home, the variance that's needed for that, I guess our argument would be that it's such a big property, there's more than enough room to build a house. It just isn't up on the flattest part of the property. So, this 950 square ft footprint or whatever it was, um, if we can go through the bluff, if we can cut into the bluff 20 ft, we've got more than enough room to put in a basement, a walk out, and not be affecting uh the community in an adverse way. And, you know, we'll put in the protections that we said we'd put in, boulder walls and drainage ponds and and whatnot. Um there are 10 neighbors there are 10 neighbors listed within 400 ft which is what we were told we had to make sure all 10 of those people were aware all 10 neighbors were aware we they are the majority of them other than a couple of them but the majority of them were completely fine with this proposal and actually in favor of it um I a couple of them are elderly and didn't want to come tonight to support this, but um they they did not have a problem with what we're doing. Um, and so I don't know if I'm making a great argument here, but I do have our our um our SE birthquist company here, our engineering firm, and if you have any questions to ask of them about some of the details of lots eyes and setback and setback, by the way, too, our setback being proposed is greater than the setback that we had with the home existing home. The existing home almost touched the road. Our garage was literally 5 feet from the road and our setback of 35 ft is uh equal to or more than a couple other houses in the neighborhood in the spur. There is one house that's uh um that were were greater than and and the rest of them, you know, with our setback is, like I said, more than what it was before. The width of the lot at setback, uh, we're off by six feet. You want 110? We've got 106 and 104. So, that width is I don't know. Is 6t really a big deal for the width of uh setback at rightway? I I it doesn't seem like it, especially when the neighbors to our east uh the St. Pierre's is less than what we have. So, I think what we're proposing is reasonable. I I we believe that it's an improvement over certainly what was there, an improvement to the neighborhood, and um we're just hoping that you might agree. So, I think um there's a lot of other things, a lot of other pictures. You guys have already looked at it with all these steep slopes down by Shady Oak Lake. the the one home in particular uh that's at Shady Oak and yeah these are the rows and the one that's at Shady Oak and Dom that one I understand what you were saying about three lots but that's a steep slope and it is on the water you you you're basically you talk about shoreland district well this home has a giant driveway a lot of runoff a lot of drainage and it's right on that third leg of Shady Oak Lake bordering the wetland there um we look at that and think, well, it doesn't seem fair that that house can be built like that and we can't. So, and the other photos are just all steep driveways that are clearly um I think the driveway slope that you look for is 10% and these driveways that are in these photos are 20 25%. um a couple of our new builds and yeah, they put boulder walls in and they turn the driveway and go up and figure out a way to manage that slope. Um but it feels very frustrating when you drive around close to our parents house and in Minnetonka in general and see one home after another with walkouts in the back, steep slopes. You know, what are the reasons that they got approved and we didn't? It's uh hard to hard to follow. Um and then that um that building on Shady Oak next to Lone Lake, that one again, very steep slope. And I'm not quite sure that I understand the argument that the area it affects with the slope coming down that hill because it comes down to a road or a sidewalk. Why that is any less of a concern than water or slope in the back of our property where any runoff or water just goes into a acre of land, waters the trees. But this they've got a retaining wall there that's probably 300 feet long that they had to build um because of the slope that they cut into. Again, um seems like what we're asking for is, you know, 60 ft by 20 ft of digging into a slope. So, it's been a long six months dealing with the city and the you know, it's it's uh finally at a point here where we can decide or vote or whatever we need to do, but we're just asking for um you know, some common sense and seeing that we're not harming anything and we're improving things and we're very aware of the environment, very aware of the neighborhood, and we're trying to be very respectful of all of those things. So, thank you, Mr. Lang. Thank you. The um the planning commission did the public hearing, but um is there anyone else who would like to comment on this um matter tonight? I would Jeff Ables, I'm at 516 Dominic Spur, which is just down the street from it. Um, I've had an impact from things done here in my backyard over the same bluff, just at a different direction. And I'm going to get very nervous while I'm up here. I don't like doing this. Um, the property owner should be able to do what he wishes. These, if you're going to ins uh take variances to this point, let the gentleman build off the back of the hill, destroy that bluff. Don't take variances to the front of it that we have to see. Okay? Let them blow it off the back of the bluff. Don't Don't give them the variances to put them in the front of our house, you know, to where they're sitting on the street where it was before. Um I don't really like them going off the bluffs. I have a house in my backyard off the bluff, put in these block retaining walls, etc. I deal with those now, and I'm still upset with this after 20 odd years. I've been there my entire life. But what was done to me there, I wish some of you would come look at. I know it was within the rights of that homeowner. So, I'm getting off variance. This is my backyard. I wish somebody would look at. But these things, if you're going to let them do the bluff and do this, just blow the bluff out then call it a day and get them off our street to we're not looking at these things, you know, all up and down the block burying some back. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for your comments. Is there is there anyone else who would like to comment on this item? All right, I'm going to I'm going to take it back to the council and uh council um it's um it's for us to decide. The staff recommendation and the planning commission recommendation is to um is for denial. Um this is an appeal of um of that to uh to go against what the staff recommended. Um so council, it's for you to uh for you to comment. Anyone? Council member Calbertt. Thank you, Mayor. Um I really appreciate uh Mr. line coming and and uh you know calling me asking me to come out um you know it's a lovely neighborhood and um it was a super cool house which that they took down which I used to I was always intrigued by um I I somehow ended up in that culdeac many times and looked at that house. So, um, so here are some of my thoughts. One is, um, it's it's a high bar. I told Mr. Lang when I saw him that, um, staff has to enforce the rules we have, not necessarily even the the rules that they want. And, um, it's their job to try to enforce those rules. um and they're making a re recommendation to deny. And that is often a really hard thing for our development staff to do. And um while there were a few comments from the planning commission um that indicated that you know perhaps if our uh zoning code uh changes significantly you know that there might be more of a chance to build more than one home there. Um I was a little confused by you know planning commission really deals with land use issues. I was on the planning commission. Uh, council member Shaq was also on the planning commission. And those are all land use issues, not just development, but also environmental protection issues. And so I was a little confused by the fact that um there were commissioners that that were just fine sort of looking a scance at our environmental laws and ordinances um in order to build another home. And we do have a housing shortage and we do have certain housing types that we're missing. But um what's really missing is affordable housing. And this that is not what is going to be built there. And I know that um that chair Maxwell talked about the only thing that would fit there really if you're going to divide it as maybe two tiny homes. Um and so uh and that's probably true even if we were to change the zoning code at the time. We cannot change our zoning code. We have to deal with the the rules and regulations that are before us now. Um, and the there are non-conforming properties all over our city and there are several non-conforming properties right next door to this property. Um, but what we are trying to do as a city now is to make sure that we are not perpetuating poor development and environmental practices. And when those houses were built, there weren't any um regulations about steep slopes and bluffs or water protection or any of that. And um so you know, those things are really important to me. Um and it's not just protection of the water body down below. It's just general erosion. So, I just came from California where they in a part of California where they don't often get rain, but they're getting increasingly extreme rain events just like we are. And there were some houses on a bluff that I'm telling you will not be there in a few years because they're at the top of a bluff and that's where the water erodess the soil. And the reason that it's different if a if a house is at the bottom of a steep slope is because there is reinforcement. so that the soil does not create basically a mudslide into the house. So it's just a totally different condition. Um so you know one of the things that I talked to Mr. Lang about is making sure that we're comparing apples to apples. Um and so which is what I'm trying to do here. So I would say that from my perspective um you know the council I understand why one would want to build two homes there. I just don't think that the that good development practices aside from the need the need for housing. Just because we need housing doesn't mean we should build it everywhere or anywhere. And so, um, you know, hearing what the city attorney said tonight, uh, knowing that, you know, a single family home can certainly go back on that property, um, I am going to, um, I'm in favor of denying the preliminary plat for a two lot subdivision tonight. Council Wilurn. Yeah. So, um, Mr. Funk listened to me talk around in circles for quite a bit this afternoon when we met. Um, we don't like to to say no and you so um I the discussion was is there is there a way that this could happen? Um, and u I go back. So, uh, I'm not going to go through like every property that you mentioned, but I will just say for the property where three lots were combined and that one house was built on what had been three lots. So, the city said it's reasonable to have a single family home on that property. And that's basically what they're saying to you. It's reasonable to have a single family home where the where the original home was. they don't find it reasonable to have two homes, two lots, two homes. Um, so like in discussing it like I I am the idea of of filling in that the bluff and messing with the bluff, I I just am not comfortable with that. Um, it and it's two lakes that you're you're it's not just one lake. It's two lakes that your property um one on Shayok and one on I don't I'm not going to remember the name of it. Men something. Matoga. Thank you. Matoga. And and I just like I I know it it seems far away, but that still doesn't mean that those those bodies of water can't be affected by erosion and runoff and and all and messing with that that that bluff. Um, so I and you know with all due respect to this gentleman here, like I would be more willing to consider a house forward more forward on the property than one over the bluff. The the problem, again, this was me talking myself in circles. I don't know like if we were to um disregard staff's recommendation and approve this the the lot division the way it's proposed. I think we would give you that northern property you might not be able to get anything approved. So it would basically be giving you a a lot that you couldn't build on. Um, so I think like maybe there's something another way and it's, you know, it's not it's not staff's job to design and it certainly isn't council's job to design. Um, so but maybe there are other other things other ways of dividing it. Uh, doing a twin home that there are possib possibly ways to get closer to what you want. I just don't believe that this is it. Council member Shaq. Thank you, Mayor. Sorry. Okay. Um, so I've been working hard and in anticipating some of the changes coming to the zone zoning code potentially. very early stages of that to keeping an open mind and and you knowve I've always kind of been willing to push the envelope a little bit on some of these um and particularly setback issues or things that can be really um addressed via instinct. Does this feel right? Does this look okay? I'm willing to consider if we can take two and a half acres and maximize the use of that by putting two homes on it. I'm I'm going to consider really consider that seriously. The thing I'm not so comfortable doing on instinct is addressing environmental issues that people who are far more qualified than I am who have come in and taken very deliberate scientific approach in identifying environmental conditions and you know at a state level in an area where that is surrounded by lakes to say well it doesn't feel like it's going to impact the water. I think that is how um if I'm being a little bit editorial, I think that is how we've gotten ourselves into some of these problems environmentally to begin with. And so the thing that I really can't get myself on on feel is to say I I don't really, you know, let's let's give a variance on the bluff piece because it's probably not going to have a water impact. So, I just can't get over that environmental factor. I'm certainly I I wouldn't even get there if you told me I'm going to put two $300,000 homes on it. I would be very excited. But, I mean, there is some point where you have to do this balancing. We want homes. We want affordable homes. That's not this. Um, I'm willing to make some compromises to get there, but I'm not going to compromise water quality. And we've worked really hard, particularly in this part of town, to improve conditions, water conditions, and I'm not comfortable um compromising that on this project. I certainly empathize with the situation. And I mean there are a lot of properties in this city that if we could compromise on environmental issues. We could subdivide two or three times, but we've got such unique topography, a lot of water, um a lot of wetlands that makes it hard to take a 1 and 1/2 to 3 acre lot and and maximize the use in the same way that you might be able to do in Rogers where it's mostly farmland. So, I can't I just can't get there today. Um, and I I don't see with the with the environmental issues how we could make it work even with a different plan. That's not my job, but I don't It looks like we're we're hemmed in here. Thank you, Council Member Shack. Council member Foster Bolton. Um, yeah. Thank you, Mayor. And can you go to the variance? Um like the all the the standards. So the Okay. Um so cuz I had all these questions about Phil and all that, you know, the distances and cuz when I went out to the property too, I was like, "Oh, this looks great." I saw those pictures and I was like, "This looks really good." You know? Um but then you know I listened to the planning commission meeting and saw all the maps and you know had all these questions but then I then it was like when Miss Thomas was talking about here are the three things that we need in order to grant these variances. it seems pretty um you know straightforward like that that you can use the property in a reasonable manner if it was a single dwelling home that I don't think we're um I mean and and you know blasting out the bluffs seems very dramatic and it is and I don't want to do that either but the thing is is that it's still it's not the um there's still a reasonable thing that you can do with the property and that's building the a home. And that seems um the there's there are five variances per lot and that's a lot of variances. Um and you need to meet those standards five times in order to to to to get this. And that that that discrepancy is just too big. There's that's too too much. um different differential between what what you guys want and what we can do. So, I I'm going to have to agree with the staff, too. And and I'd like to point out, too, that that what I think, you know, when I go out and I look at the at the property and go, "Oh, this is great." And it's that feel and but the staff does this, you know, 5 days a week, 10-hour days. This is what they do. this is what their education is, what their background is, and I have to rely on them, um, because I certainly don't understand and don't know about so much of the history and so much of this stuff. So, um, I'm going to go with the staff as well. So, um, thank you, Council Member Foster Bolton. So, um, is this a a four vote item or a five vote item? Uh, chair, I whatever you want to call me. I will remember not to call everyone chairs and I'm pretty flexible. Mayor worome. Um, yes. This is actually a five vo vote item because of the variances. All right. So, five votes to to approve the preliminary plat would require four votes to deny. Correct. Okay. So, I'm always trying to move these meetings along and and I I I'm hearing four votes already to deny. That's that's what I'm hearing. Correct me if I'm wrong. In the interest of time, I mean, we could have everyone comment. I I'm I have comments, but we have four votes to deny. Um, and I don't think we're going to get to any circumstance where we would approve. Would anyone like to make a motion at this juncture? Sure. I just like to make Okay. Council, I'm just, you know, council member. Thank you, mayor. Um, you know, all of the comments that have gone previously I agree with 100%. Um, you know, just two a couple of quick points that I wanted to make. I spent a lot of time looking at this. I sent in questions. Uh uh Miss Thomas was very gracious in responding to, you know, kind of very detailed questions I sent. I really tried to come into this with with an open mind. Um we can get into all of the, you know, kind of into the bluff, the variances and things like that, but that's what we're we're looking at is is the subdivision. That's the question before us, not whether a home goes into a bluff or whatever. And we have to keep in mind, I think, you know, that we're looking at two lakes and one wetland right at the bottom of the slope of of this property. And um you know, that this is at the top of a a bluff, a budding, you know, in a shoreland district. And it is it is uh grandfathered in for a 1900 square footprint right now. If it's built within time is is ticking. And you know we have to also look beyond all of these other things at precedent. If we grant this as a precedent there are a lot of um steep slope and uh bluff properties including my own I might say. So I'm having myself in here to a certain extent and my neighbors um in Minnetonka. And if we were to grant this uh you know in addition to everything else then I think we're setting a very bad precedent um in terms of other properties who would therefore come in and say you know some of the things that we get now driveways and so forth that's reasonable access to structures which in some cases were grandfathered in and they need access to their existing properties now or pre-existing properties or properties that they were able to build on because they needed to have reasonable use. This is something that is not to me a reasonable use. A reasonable use is one lot, the pre-existing lot that you get to, you know, build um on the original footprint, hopefully get some variances for, you know, reasonable use and modern contemporary standards. it to me it just hasn't you know as much as I wanted to and I could you know empathize with the homeowner I couldn't get to uh overcoming all of the other things that the other council members uh pointed to as well as what for me is um a a a very not good precedent to set. So I will for those reasons be voting no as well and I All right that's great appreciate your indulgence. That's right. Are there any other comments anyone wants to make? Um did you have one? Okay. All right. So, um, you know, I'm, uh, we need a motion. I I did not comment. I mean, I I I went and walked the property and so forth. And the only thing I was going to say is that I I appreciate the applicant's, you know, earnestness and desire to get something done, but really the issue here is economic. I asked him, why do you want to split it rather than just do one? And he said, well, it it's it's worth more money. and it's economic. So, I get that. But I don't think I don't think that the uh the presentation made um would cause us to uh we we do offer variances, but when there's a lot of variances and they're not they're not based on um you know I mean to I want to par I'll paraphrase badly but but I really feel like that well we disagree with those variances so you think you should do it because we think our proposal is reasonable. that we we have to we have to hold ourselves to the standards and our our standards are our ordinances and the exceptions and I I I hesitate at that with the word uh precedent because each lot is so unique in Minnesota in Minnetonka that each project lives and dies based on its own merits but but precedent is a factor in terms of it um what happens at one lot will influence another but each one is independent. So I I from a legal perspective I don't like the word precedent. I I prefer the word okay um um the the concept that one project instructs what can be done on another project. But again precedents in in Minnetonka hardly exists because there are no two lots that are alike. So anyway, pardon my pardon my um nitpicking on that. But anyway, I agree with the recommendations here and I would um um I think the votes are going to be to deny, but if someone would like to make a po a motion, Council Member Calbert. Thank you, Mayor. I will make the motion to adopt the resolution denying the proposal. And is there a second? Council Shack. Thank you, Mayor. I'll second. All right. Um we've got a motion by Council Member Calvert and a second by Council Member Shack. Um you know, this this is a tough one. We don't we don't like to say no. I mean, it's this is not this is not a fun part of the job. But I also think we need to uphold the standards and the ordinances that have been passed because we passed those ordinances or predecessors have and we did them with a lot of consideration. It's not easy to change an ordinance in Minnetonka. There's a lot of process that goes into it to so to ignore them um um is a is a significant um a significant issue. So we've got a motion by Council Member Calbert, a second by Council Member Shack. Miss Larson, please call roll. Rome, yes. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbertt, yes. We Yes. Motion carries. Next item is um 14B, uh purchase agreement for 12620 Minnetonka Boulevard. And is that um Miss Thomas or Mr. Funk? Mr. Funk. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Uh again, good evening. Excuse me. Good evening, council. So, before you is a purchase agreement, as the mayor uh mentioned, a purchase agreement for 12620 Minnetonka Boulevard. I to say that I think Miss Wishnack, I know she's not here this evening, but would I think relishes that uh or misses out on having to present this. This is something uh that she's been very involved in for um many years. And so I I I know I'm stepping in and hopefully doing this presentation what you would hope it it to be. Uh there's a recommended action that I'll get uh recommended action for this evening is a motion to adopt the resolution to purchase the property at 12620 Minnetonka Boulevard. and council, as you know, this is a a unique opportunity for the city to purchase this property, utilizing our community investment funds, uh, which we commonly refer to as our CIF funds that have been in reserved for a project like this since 2009 for the Minhaha Creek Corridor improvements. Go to the next slide, please. Oh. One second. So, as it's getting uh getting pulled up, the the next slide really kind of speaks to then our strategic plan relatability. And so, as we looked at as staff as we evaluate the purchase of this property, what really comes to mind with our strategic profile is our sustainability, resilience, and natural environment. And if the council proceeds with the acquisition of this property that this property meets the desired outcome, very specific desired outcome to protect, manage, and enhance the natural environment. And what's on this slide uh is a map of the property uh and at least this this part of the corridor. The green uh boxes or the green shaded area, I should call them green boxes, but the green shaded area represents the property along the corridor that is publicly owned. And I'll really kind of talk about the history of this here in a second and and thank you for the mouse uh that's hovering right over the property in question which is again 12620 Minnitanka Boulevard. Um going to proceed then to the next slide. So a little bit of the background and council I know you're a little aware of this because we did have a closed session back on March 3rd 202025. State law allows uh the city council at that time to go into a close session to talk about and discuss potential property acquisition. And recapping that conversation, as you're aware that the staff were approached recently about the opportunity to purchase this parcel land, uh as you know, it's been privately held or privately owned uh for for its inception. And so part of that has been with the potential purchase of this property. We were uh uh presented with this opportunity from Joshua Wart uh who has a purchase agreement with the current owners of the property and that is the Anderson Family Trust. And as we talked in close session at that time and we can now talk about that uh conversation of close session uh that we looked at a per potential purchase price of $950,000. Uh since the act since that closed session staff has acted in consistency with the council's direction and with that in-ear council packet is a purchase agreement that was prepared by our city attorney Mr. Nielson and along with community development director Julie Wishnack. So, at the conclusion of your packet, there is that prepared purchase agreement for this potential property acquisition. A little bit further diving into the history of this project or the history of the corridor and that's on the next slide, please, is the upper Minihaha Creek corridor vision plan. So really kind of looking back at this and this is where Miss Wishnack I know is is uh probably tuning in and uh listening to the presentation, listening to your conversation here this evening dates back uh to 2006 when that first vision plan was created. At that time there are numerous partnerships uh part of this project and that was noted here. Minihaha Creek Watershed District, the Three Rivers Park District, Henipin County, the Minneapolis Park Board, numerous cities have been involved in this corridor such as Hopkins, Edina, and St. Louis Park. And really, if you look beyond the corridor in Minnitonka and the stretch of land that we just looked at on that previous slide, many cities between the uh outlet at Gra Bay all the way to the falls in Minneapolis, many of the cities that have that have been instrumental in this corridor have looked at purchasing land along this creek area as preservation efforts. That was further enhanced then in 2010 where the city of Minnitanka and the Minihaha Creek wershed district formed a steering committee to look at the potential site of the Minihaha Creek wershed district offices. And so that was one site that was selected. They as you know they further have constructed their facilities uh just to the uh west of the marsh on Mitaka Boulevard. But again that illustrates just the amount of conversation and history that dates back on the significance of this corridor. Uh also during those time uh back in 2011 and 2012 other creek projects were identified. Again those are noted here in the slide such as the Minnitanka Mills Park uh where as of today there's been trails there's the boardwalk bridges across this the creek in that area. Uh there's also park entrance features and a botanical garden. So again back in 2010 2011 there's a lot of thought process uh into this uh area and then also future projects were identified which is the continued land acquisition construction of additional trails and boardwalks gateway improvements and a community play lot um in that uh what's really in really kind of where I'll wrap up my presentation is really the process that's also been part of been been part of this project and that is really the going back to the community investment fund. There were hearings held in 2009 and they're very strict uh protocols for the city to utilize those funds. So in 2009, those hearings dedicated $1 million to be spent uh on projects that I just talked about. Uh to date, 6,223 has been spent. So there's remaining funds of $993,777. So at that point, there are no further hearings that are required. So council, you do have the funds available to you for the purchase of this land. Uh so we are p ready to prepare to uh go towards uh a recommended action and discussion for you mayor and councel. Again the motion is to adopt the resolution to purchase the property at 12620 Mitaka Boulevard. You do need four votes to approve that. And again I know you're familiar with this property and it's being formally presented to you this evening for action and final acquisition. So with that I turn it back over to you. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Funk. Um council any questions um on this item? I mean, we we've been quite exposed to it given the fact that we did have a close session. So, um, any comments or a motion? Council member Wilburn. Uh, I make motion to adopt the resolution to purchase the property at 12620 Minnetonka Boulevard. And a second, Council Shack. I'll second. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Right, we've got a motion by council member Wilbur, a second by council member Shack. Um, Miss Larson, please call roll. Romeley, yes. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbert, yes. Wearsome, yes. Motion carries. Item 14 C is followup on the March 24 study session. And as you may recall, um, we had 30 minutes of open time slated for our study session. and our study session went long. There was a lot of content and um and so we uh postponed this item um from the study session and so we're bringing it forward now. And so we've got about 30 minutes and I think the um there are some discussion topics that were were um provided in the um in the staff report. I'm pulling that up right now. And um and so uh we've got three council members. um Council Member Calbertt, Council Member Romey, and Council Member Kley who had items that they wanted to discuss. And so I thought we'll uh we'll just uh kind of work through that sequentially. I thought um maybe Council Member Mailing, if you don't mind going first and then Council Member Kley and then Council Member Calvert, you've got three items, so you can cover those and if we can each kind of be mindful of time, we'll get through them all. So Council Member Mey, it's your nickel. Thank you, Mayor. Um I wanted to report back. We had talked in uh previous study sessions about um kind of bringing back to uh council our um national league of cities committee meeting hearings and I am a new member of the community and economic development committee which met on March 9th um at the the national conference. Um there are 80 members of that committee and um the meeting went for approximately two hours and uh I'm sorry it was on uh the 8th of March not the 9th and the first part of the meeting was dedicated to uh welcoming the Canadian delegation from uh including the vice president of the federation of uh the league of municipalities which is basically the counterpart to the NLC in Canada except that they have 92% of all Canadian cities are members rather than I think we're at about 40% or something like that in the NLC. So very influential group. Um and they gave a very interesting presentation including the fact that for 36 states which I should note as a side note includes Minnesota, Canada is a top market, their top trading partner and 70% of the trade products from Canada that are imported into the United States are used to produce goods manufactured in the United States. Uh he noted that the United States has a $64 billion trade deficit with Canada, but that's primarily because of energy. Uh gets very technical, but basically they have a certain kind of oil and crude that we don't produce here, so therefore we need to import that. uh he expressed some mystification and and I don't want to say frustration but mystification at why um at that point tariffs had been uh promised to be introduced against Canada due to op opioids and fentinyl because uh you know kind of that coming over the Canadian border is not an issue and they had recently in fact invested $1.3 billion in border security so um you know was just bringing that forward as as you know a question for us as to whether we could answer why that was an issue. Um he did note that tariff impacts because Canada will have to reciprocate that will include United States residents including I would note min motans um because of lumber tariffs and other materials tariffs. We're looking at um home prices rising vehicles um tourism uh which obviously impacts us in Minnesota. uh municipal projects for road repairs, wastewater systems, and public buildings. That will all hit us here in Minnotonka. Um prescription drugs for our residents. Um right now we're looking at uh some Medicare drugs having been tripled in cost within the last few months. Um however, you know, many of our uh Minnesota neighbors go up to Canada to uh try to get less expensive uh prescription drugs. however um or order them uh online um but there will be tariffs on those uh starting ports. So those are all things that will be impacting us and so basically saying that they have been good partners. We are good partners here in Minnesota. We have Minnitonka companies that obviously work uh closely with our Canadian neighbors. So hopefully figuring out a way to um obviously at that point they were hoping to avoid that and look at collaboration. That was the first part of the meeting. Um the second part uh was all about funding and support opportunities um that can be provided either uh via the National League of Cities or through their partnerships. Uh the Gates Foundation has a partnership with the National League of Cities now uh on advancing economic mobility. It's a rapid grant program um to promote uh economic uh mobility in cities for uh you know people who are have been underserved or underrepresented uh in terms of economic mobility. They also have uh upgraded their housing supply accelerator um which started in 2022. It has a a playbook and a field guide to help communities organize their thoughts and ideas to address local housing supply. Um I haven't uh connected with staff yet to see if that's something that we have utilized in the past. And then they unveiled their most recent tool which is called filling the gap tool um which is part of a larger project that the national league uh is is sponsoring called uh the housing comeback pro uh project and that's to help cities identify and apply for finance opportunities to expand and preserve their housing supplies. They've got interactive dashboards and spreadsheets and things like that. Um, in terms of infrastructure, which obviously our roads and bridges and street rebuilding, all of these things that we uh do here in Minnetonka, they do have an IRA project tracker um which provides which we can also f uh feed into and and get ideas about how other people have used um the the IRA funds uh for you know basically rebuilding uh infrastructure throughout the country. The IRA was implemented during the previous administration and funds have been used to uh beef up infrastructure ever since then. Um and then uh you know many of the programs or the other things that they had us as calls to action including um advocating and communicating with our national elected um to communicate the importance of you know HUD and other agencies uh for municipalities. And so for many of the programs, everything from streets and firehouses to homelessness prevention, all of these things uh you know filter through um we get a lot of funding through federal investment in these programs that either come not so much directly to Minnetonka but in our case sometimes filter through the state um and you know sharing stories of impact. So, as uh things move forward and we see more and more impact, I'm already hearing from that from certain uh residents in my ward, um they're asking us as a city, however, to share stories of impact on uh several websites, the federal grants exchange and uh the action alert pages on the impact of executive actions. So, basically that's a really quick summary of a really long intense meeting. Um but you know again as uh essentially two major parts which was the the meeting with the Canadian delegation and then just resources that we can take advantage of as a city but also how we can um help uh the National League of Cities give information to other people and then of course advocating our with our electives at the state and the the national level to hopefully uh help the federal administration understand the importance of investing in our local communities and and keeping these funds uh flowing and uh just both for us as on a municipal level and for our individual citizens. That's it. Thanks. Thank you, Council Member Mey. Um next, Council Member Kley, you wanted to talk about land trust housing and funding. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Um well, so we had um funding for $7,500 um that land trust owners could um request if they meet the income requirement. Um I'm not for sure um how I can't really remember how we received the funds and how um but I know the funds had ended. And my question was if we're going to continue to support land trust housing. Um I was just wondering if we could continue to support land trust owners because one of the things that I think about when um someone purchased a land trust home, sometimes their income is not moving up as quick as we um you know may think that people incomes are moving up. And sometimes when they purchase these homes, you know, they have some really high-end um cost to um maybe get um roofing or air conditioning units or anything that's pretty spendy and sometimes they don't expect it. I know um we had a resident in our city who um did notice that um her I think it was her roof or something. I can't even remember. It's been a while now. That needed some work. And she before she moved into her home, she ended up mentioning it. It may No, it may be another I'm not for sure which what it was, but whatever it was, I know it was pretty spendy. And she ended up mention it beforehand. She did um get that situation taken care of through the land trust program through Homes Within Reach. But, you know, everyone's not as detailed um when they're purchasing a home because a lot of times these are firsttime home buyers and so they haven't, you know, they they don't know really sometimes what to look for. And so, um if we're going to continue to support um land trust homes, I'm hoping that we can continue to support funding to assist um folks as they live in these type of homes. So, um that's pretty much what I want to say. Great. Thank you, Council Member Kley. Yes. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. And maybe this we can talk about this when Julie's back and we um we have our housing session coming up, but um a land I mean, nothing would stop, not that this isn't necessarily what Ky's asking for, but nothing would stop a land trust homeowner from getting one of the other loans in the programs that we have. Right. So that pot of money regarding the grants has expired, but the home improvement, there's two kinds of loans, right? And they can get that. Um, Miss Thomas. Yeah, Mayor and Commissioner Shaq, you're exactly uh correct. The city has several different uh programs um loan programs that are outside of land trusts um uh that any homeowner in our community can apply for. Thanks. Um, Council Member Kley, one more comment. Um, I'm just commenting because what Rebecca, Council Member Shaq just stated. Um, it just kind of depends on um their income because when someone purchased a home, then that um creates um maybe a income deficiency. So, um that just determines if their income will meet. And um and so I'm just speaking from experience. So yeah, and and just to add to that, too, I mean, I'm I do quite a bit of work with Homes Within Reach, as you know, I'm on that board, and I know that there are home ed homeowner education um uh programming and uh things that they offer because yeah, it it it's a matter of money and it's also a matter of knowing what to do. And nine times out of 10, somebody who is a um um homes within reach homeowner or a land trust homeowner is a first-time home buyer. And you know, it's it's a bit of a fire hose. You learn a lot when you buy a house and you all of a sudden have a lot of new responsibilities that maybe you weren't aware of. It sounded great. I want to own a home. And then all of a sudden, boy, oh, I'm on the hook for this. I'm on the hook for this. So, so I mean, I think it's both education and then um resources available to u to people based on their needs. So, I I appreciate your comment. Anything else on that, uh, Mr. Funk? Uh, thank you, mayor. I just on this one, just add to council member Kley that in June, uh, we'll have the capital improvement plan as well as the economic improvement plan. So, Miss Wishnack and our community development team will will outline the upcoming 2026 plans. And so we'll have an opportunity um council member Kley and council we have an opportunity to further look at our programs and have a more in-depth conversation on what that could look like moving forward. Thanks Mr. Funk. Anything else on this? All right then, Council Member Calbertt, you have three items and you can take them in whatever order you would like. Thank you, Mayor. Um actually the the very first one is very brief. So I'm the council liaison to the economic development advisory commission. there's a new commissioner, Scott Anderson, who works in the nonprofit sector and um we were discussing um sort of things to be aware of and um needs because we got a business the results of a business survey and because he works in a nonprofit which in a way is a business. Um he just wanted to bring attention to the fact that so much of the funding for many nonprofits is kind of trickled down from federal funding and that that has essentially dried up. Um and uh he's just very concerned for the people in our community who are served by those nonprofits who really do, you know, help them do things including things like homes within reach. Um, so, uh, he just wanted us to be as creative as we can. Um, you know, creative in the ways that we were during the pandemic, um, to help our community, um, organizations and nonprofits just like any other business. So, I know that there are business supports out there. I think part of it is just getting the word out to nonprofits that they are also eligible for some of these supports, but we may need to be really creative especially in the coming days um and and weeks and months and possibly years um for that reason because the need will ste still be there whether those nonprofits are there to support our residents or not. So that's the first thing. Um and then um uh the my next two items uh or my next item has to do specifically with um a session at uh the energy, environment and natural resources committee meeting at national league of cities in March and um they they covered two very important topics. one was um there is a movement um to start behaving a little differently um as municipalities towards freshwater. So there was the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence city's initiative there and freshwater mayors which are two organizations dedicated to preservation of freshwater and um they feel that there needs to be a more cohesive n national voice on water because water is life and they did describe some things that many of us may be familiar with such as the almost complete loss of the aerrol sea which was one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world. Um the loss of many African lakes, the drying up of Lake me. Um 25% of the world's fresh water is in the Great Lakes in the Mississippi River basin. And they're what they are encouraging is communities all over the country to be more creative in their water storage along um basins such as the Mississippi River basin so that those so that the levies which have essentially made rivers shoots all the way down to the um Louis to the delta um can actually absorb water once again, which is what they originally were able to do when flood waters would just spread out. And it's the same thing in California where, you know, you have these dramatic rain events and there's all kinds of water happening and it just runs off into the ocean. So, um, they're trying to activate North America and I just raised this for awareness because, uh, we may need to sort of speak with one voice if we have some interest here. I know they do a lot of work with um St. Paul, but it's a nent movement and they're just trying to figure out how much uh interest there is in it and I know that our community would likely be pretty interested in this. So, I just wanted to bring that for awareness. And then um the other um issues uh were just giving a report on uh the other sessions within my uh committee meeting. So, um, some of the items just to pay attention to, uh, legislatively, um, are things like, um, impact of executive actions on federal program access and implementation, um, workforce reductions making it hard to get technical assistance. So, Minnetonka happens to not get very much federal money or state money or any other money. we tend to self-fund and and for the most part, but for technical assistance on things that we might need, it's getting harder to find. Um, so those were two of the big issues. And then um there was there was a wonderful um presentation um and discussion on AI data centers and I just wanted to review um you know it's a huge growing opportunity and it's challenge. We all use data. We all do it and we need data centers. But here are some of the um statistics. Data centers currently account for 4% of total US electricity demand and it's expected to rise to 9% by two 2033. Um, states experiencing rapid computing facility growth such as Virginia and Texas have seen the largest increases in commercial electricity demand over the past 5 years. Electricity demand in the US is projected to grow by 15 to 20% over the next decade. And here these are the really interesting statistics. A hypers scale data center designed for cloud computing and AI processing can use between 3 to 5 million gallons of water daily for cooling. There are currently 1,000 hypers scale data centers globally with nearly half located in the US and they are eyeing you know companies that want to develop these are eyeing waterrich Minnesota. So when they when they build a data center, it you it takes it often takes farm land out of production. It uses 3 to 5 million gallons of water per day. And um there are light pollution, noise pollution, and pollution pollution issues because they often use PAS chemicals to limit the uh danger of overheating and fires. So you al there's usually um some POS contamination associated with data centers and this is very interesting generative AI accelerates the resource demand of data centers for example generating a 100word email with a large language model using uses the equivalent of one bottle of water. So you send a hundredword email and it's a bottle of water. Um so immersion and ambient cooling placing services servers underwater or underground to improve efficiency is one solution. Closed loop cooling systems recycling water to minimize waste. Alternative water sources such as seawaterbased cooling are other alternatives. Um but the the reason this is really important is there's uh there are land use considerations including sighting requirements, building size configuration and setbacks, ancillary support facilities, noise and lighting regulations, architectural standards and screening, fire and site security requirements. And um what a lot of places are finding is that they just don't have appropriate zoning rules as well as the fact that there is a strong move to preempt local control over any kind of requirements or zoning um for these. And so it's it's going to be an inc it's not something that we personally may face, but it's something that's going to affect our water systems here and our electricity bills and the electricity grid and um our access to um power. So, um, you know, the the League of Cities is really looking to find out sort of what kind of policy incentives local governments are interested in exploring to encourage sustainable data develop data center development. And what circumstances do local governments have leverage with or access to utilities or data center operators to encourage grid resilience and avoid negative impacts and um also about preserving uh community character, minimizing disruptions or placemaking values um and also just basic decision- making if they do preempt. So they did talk about architectural standards and they did show a Norwegian data center which was a thing of beauty. Ours looked like an ugly Ford plant, Ford car production plant, you know, just kind of uh corrugated metal. Um so the the you know these are huge environmental impacts and um some of the other things that they talked about is the fact that um the data that these centers produce is it's garbage in garbage out. If you have good data you get good data. If you have bad data you're spending a lot of energy um producing bad data. So, if you have something like medical research and you do you do a data search, you're going to get peer-reviewed studies along with a bunch of conspiracy theories. It all kinds of goes it all kind of goes into the soup. And what they're uh what some people are pushing for is to make sure that there are um professional um peers that can actually review the data to make sure that we are not just perpetuating a soup of bad data. So that is what came out of that session. I just wanted to um raise that for awareness because it's going to have a huge environmental impact here in Minnesota. Um and then you had one more. Um yes. And so, um, the final topic that I just thought we should discuss is, um, I think we are all very deeply committed to making our community as welcoming as we possibly can to all of our residents and to embrace them and welcome them and make this a great place to live for everyone. Um, I think we're all really excited to get a DEI commission over the finish line and hire staff. Um, but I do I have always felt that DEI um, and was a lightning rod term and I am more interested in preserving our programs and policies. And so I just wanted to see if perhaps it might be useful for us to discuss just calling it something else. I just think it's a lightning rod term. [Applause] Thank you, Deb. Um and I think what we'll do is save save the conversation on that for followup, but um at least thank you for highlighting those and thanks for thanks for the reports. um we can talk about um you know is this um how to review you know our open time how to use it effectively and um and I think that's a a separate topic for down the road but um thank you for the thank you for that summary and I think we covered some topics that otherwise would not have got um so thanks for volunteering your your ideas and your time so um we're going to move on nothing to approve there um but thank you for every everyone and then um next item is um appointments and reappointments and um we have an appointment to the uh DEI um commission and um let's see I have a I have a report I should uh refer to on that and um so bear with me. So we did um we we interviewed an individual um who um this is we had an opening on the DEI commission and so we interviewed one individual um Alise uh Dean. We had three individuals and only one could make it um and uh she um interviewed well and is a credible candidate. So, I am um uh recommending that we as a council approve Al Lisa Dean to um join the DEI commission to fill a mid-year vacancy effective the 7th of April, which is today. So, and that's your motion. That's my motion. So, if there's a second, mayor, I'll second that motion. All right. So, I got to make that motion. Council member Sha um seconded it. And um Miss Larson, would you please call roll? Rome, yes. Kley, yes. Foster Bolton, yes. Shaq, yes. Wilburn, yes. Calbert, yes. Wearsome, yes. Motion carries. Next item is adjournment. Um, we always look forward to that item. Council member Wilburn, I move adjournment. Um, is there a second? Council member Calbert. Okay, we've got a motion by Council Member Wilbur, a second by Council Member Calbert. All in favor say I. I. We are adjourned. [Music] [Music]