of our March minutes. And then we have some uh payments, $42,155 largely uh 2025 share of audit and then some insurance premiums. Uh if there's any discussion to be had there, now is the time. Otherwise, I'll take a motion to move those on. So moved. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? None opposed? Motion carries. Uh, first thing on the docket from there is some discussion and a memo that Josh put together on future EDA endeavors. Josh, turn it over to you. >> Uh, yeah. As we discussed, now that the strategic plan is done, um, we'll kind of start working through our future endeavors memo a little bit. Obviously, as I've said, if you guys have any further ideas of things you want to add to the memo that we can add for future discussion, certainly. But today I just kind of wrote about a little bit um about the possibility of expanding either the industrial park or looking at more of a commercial business park idea which tends to be a little more office park style. Um I I would say with our industrial park we are kind of a mix out there probably closer to the definition of a business park anyway but um just putting it out there and I know as kind of as we wrap up uh and look to finally on those last two blocks. I know there have been some members of this board that have expressed interest in possibly expanding. Others have expressed hesitation on wanting to look that route or maybe go another direction. So, I figured we'd start with this one and just kind of is is expansion of the industrial park or the possibility of it something that this board would want to look at? I know I also had pulled a memo I believe Ken shared last month or the month before kind of laying out the industrial part and how it has kind of changed our taxable value out there a little bit over the last few years especially kind of where we started with nothing out there and what those values look like now I think even in we do this again three years from now where we start capturing full valuation of all and then we'll see a significant change um in those and so I think there certainly can be an argument made for building future value obviously like a private industrial developer unlike them we are not looking to make our return on the sale of the lots that's kind of when they have the opportunity to make their return our return is 10 15 20 years down the road when lots on the buildings that may not have been there otherwise. So, I guess I would just like to open up the floor and maybe hear some thoughts from you guys generally of is this something that we're open to? Is it something we want to pursue aggressively? Is it something we want to be very passive about? Something that we aren't even interested in offer the table in front of us. >> Think you guys know where I stand. I I will say >> you can pull your mic forward. >> Okay. >> I get complaints all the time. You can never hear Nick on the recording trying to >> You really get complaints that nobody can hear me. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, all Well, the complaint comes from the person who keeps your >> Okay, understood. All right. So, that makes more sense. >> Don't have any fans. >> Yeah. Nobody watches this. Uh no so for all the we have I have been through two industrial parks now and for data and feelings based reasons um the number of jobs the taxable income or the the the taxes that we bring in and the fact that if we don't do it nobody else will and our city limits has a big carveout right there for industrial land and I feel if we don't do it nobody will but I will say I like I like what you wrote up I would say I would be careful to Well, I the wording is you said we're not seeking a return on investment on the sale of the land. I think it'd be more accurate to say we have not in the past, but I don't I mean the way that the the the last industrial park filled up, you could make an argument that we could put these at retail rates and still sell them. Like I don't I don't know that it's an obvious or like it's a automatic thing that we're going to get a bunch of land and subsidize it for other people. Not not opposed to that either. It's worked very well in two ways. But if we don't have to, I wouldn't I wouldn't be in favor of that. >> And maybe I should have put the primary driver is not necessarily a full return on investment at the point of sale. But you're not wrong. Like obviously if we could, I would I would say by all means do it. I think an argument could be made if we were able to make a full return >> on sale, you you might see a private developer stick stick their nose in it just because they'd be able to. >> Well, and I would I would to to counter that, I would say we can at least take the phase at you take a retail rate for a developer who does not own the land or has done anything to it versus us doing something to it, make it ready. I think those are two very I think one moves a lot quicker than the other one. >> Yeah, true. my my opinion. But no, based on going through two of these things and seeing the success of them and what has not happened is a water bottling plant or a data center, it's all been pretty much local businesses, smaller businesses moving up to the next thing. And that was our intention years ago and that's what happened. And I think it's been >> obviously not we're trying. We have had both of those approaches at the staff level. >> 100%. Yeah. >> But in actuality that's what happened. So, I mean, yeah, it's hard to argue that this wouldn't be something at least we should be interested in as the EDA based on past experience and the data. >> Yeah, I'd echo that. I strongly support that as a direction to consider. Um, and I think Nick hit one of the most important things when you look at some of the things statewide that other uh city councils and EDAs have had to wrestle with. Um the control aspect uh is uh I think a great feature where um you don't have to worry about maybe something that's undesirable to the community coming in. Um you've got a little added dimension of control that you don't have if it's left to uh completely private forces. Um, and I also think when you look at the relationship with the, you know, we're not there yet where we're large enough that, uh, you can really look at commercial separate from residential. I I think having that capacity to continue to allow businesses that are growing and successful to have a place where they can take that next step uh maybe open up some additional space if they've been in a smaller space just kind of to allow that natural progression uh within a company's life cycle to uh play out here locally rather than having to have them uh look at neighboring communities, surrounding areas, that sort of thing is a big advantage of going that direction. So, that's my thoughts. >> Anything else, guys? >> Yeah, I think uh I think that's been a it's been a nice addition to the community to have something like that. And I mean, there's still people out there looking for spots and we're just out of them. So, I do think that's something that we should seriously look at. >> Yeah, I'd be in favor of pursuing this >> Yeah. >> tract of direction. I think without having dollars and cents or specific opportunity in front of us, it's hard to go too far down the path. But from a high level, I think it it makes sense for us as an EDA to continue down this track. >> Yep. Same here. I think high level it's a good to look at and keep on the forefront of our minds. >> Bruce, Chuck, anything to add? >> Well, I kind of s bewilderment. Don't let the comments I make uh I totally support the growth of industrial park and pursue economic development all in a long time. Um but I also have to wear the hat of a city council person trying to understand the justification of how how the money is used and is the residential person getting the bang for the buck. I do think that when we look at return on investment, we've always looked at it from day one. Job creation and then the return in tax dollars was was certainly part of it, but job creation and trying to fit into the deed requirements were kind of how looked at things beginning. So I would use return on investment a very broad definition not just the financial part because um in the beginning we were much more focused on job creation and now and in the past it's really never been a big issue unless we were applying for some kind of state program that required job creation. The chart deal we had to work hard to try to figure out if it could meet the guidelines to get jobs to But uh a lot of our subsidy of the lots and things we don't look very hard at following up. Did they actually create the jobs? They might not. A lot of these have created jobs. So it's good. But to me, because I've been around long enough, I've seen that it's not at high demand. you look at it from a real estate standpoint, you might get a lot of calls or a lot of uh inquiries about small entities or sole proprietorships or somebody's that's got a th00and 2,000 square feet looking for something or maybe wants 5,000 but in the history of this we never had strong demand for it even at low market rates. So I think we could back up that statement. Yeah, I mean I would say I mean in about 10 years like when the vent closes here it'll be about 10 years from when we started. I was not here at the time I know speaking and he had just mentioned that this is kind of from his recollection of when we started this process this is kind of what it was estimated. I think that I don't know. I said I can't speak to those exactly, but >> I guess I've never heard that before, but I I guess that was not my deal. We wanted to sell them. >> Yeah. >> But um >> but and then if you look at the and I'm not criticizing the people that are in our industrial park, but at least our view of how we looked at it might have changed a little bit where when we look at Paul Hunzels and the There's a lot of warehouse kind of uses, a lot of open space kind of uses, not necessarily a light industrial building making things kind of which I think where the idea. So we kind of stretched to help not stretched I'm just saying that the the makeup is maybe different than it was originally envisioned to be which would focus more on light industrial blue color jobs kind of things. And of course the world has changed, businesses have changed. Now we have use that's highly automatic or robotic I guess you could say. But even the use that we're just selling it for a lot of it's open spec it is spec space. So really but I I wouldn't say that is an attribute of a high demand market. So obviously we we have to look at tax dollars which is very legitimate to to make a claim that we're getting a return on what we've done so far because the development costs definitely always been underwater on it. Never made money financially on it. But if you look at the tax dollars that's the rationale. I don't know how long it's taken. Probably probably has it been 10 years to make up for the money we put into it. Guessing >> in tax dollars. >> So the city's not gained anything from maybe broke even if you look at tax dollars since we started. Maybe >> but so now maybe we're actually benefiting from stuff we did 10 years ago standpoint. The tax dollars are out there. residential standpoint. I look at residents are deserving some kind of return on the taxes they sitting there. So totally supportive of going forward what more concentration on but as are people that developed a strategic plan their comments was that's not the direction most places are going actually doing the development of it. So I'm all for it if it seems to make economic to the resial people. It's hard for me to imagine financially that we could support with the money we have the full cost of developing the land is just a lot of money even if we sell these lots how much money we're going to have million something close to a million. >> Yeah. That wouldn't even put the roads in. >> No, but there are certainly other avenues that we >> Right. And that's my next point is that I'm all for looking at it. And if it means justified by maybe getting some gr dollars or other contri potential buyers I think the home all for but me we have to rationalize at least reject financially why justify it in some way and I just think it's going to be hard to do without some kind of additional help some utilities or something some kind of dollars because I I don't feel that the city council would support adding more dollars for which it would take unless there's some other contributions. >> I'm not sure about the debt part debt would be hard to finance it. presidential test unless you have some other way. >> No. >> No. And I only I only speak for myself. I don't know if I share this feeling too, but I do recognize there's a heightened sense of awareness around property taxes, especially of late. So, I'm very interested in this because we have a track record of doing it well. Um, we are solely positioned to do it. And I think about our two current industrial parks and say, "Okay, 10 years on into our second one, am I glad that we did that?" Yeah, I think I think it was a great thing. I think I'd be I think that land would still be sitting there if we had not done it. So, I think we're solely positioned to do it, but again, obviously, I think this is a good mission, especially when you look at the other things that are potentially on this list. They are far less desirable to me, and I feel like it's not even a great fit. most of these things for this group here. So realizing that there's a heightened sense of awareness of property taxes and seeing that we're kind of uniquely positioned to at least explore this, I would I would be interested in proceeding knowing that this is a thought experiment from here out to try to see what this would look like financially to see if then there's any interest for it. >> I totally support that idea of pursuing it and thinking that kind of idea. Um, but like I'm trying to remember session that he talking about the strategic plan, but there may be other ways of using a million dollars that might still achieve what we're trying to achieve. I think that has to be looked at. I have no idea, but is it cheaper to give somebody half a million dollars and that person be the developer and commit that they do it? >> I don't know. the dynamics of it, but get dirty into the numbers. >> I I'll say even to Bren's point that the nice thing about or probably the advantage and I don't know if you can put a dollar figure on it. Maybe you could of the city doing it is the control of what would go in there. I mean, I think about some of the things that we in the past if if a private developer had been going in May and is that necessary I We can put a dollar figure on that per se. And I suppose you can try to and extrapolate potential tax dollars out and see if there actually is a tax dollar figure attached to it. But that is an advantage per se of the city getting involved. The disadvantage being is the city could sit on who knows what could happen in the future and so you are taking a risk and the city on the land forever. I I think the other thing that's important to consider along with that, and this probably gets more to our the desires of our voters and the representatives that get elected, is that we've got to remember that there is a competitive element to this. We have neighboring communities that are hitting the point where their growth rate is surpassing ours. And I think it becomes part of a larger conversation um for the voters, for the council. What direction do you want to see the city go? If we want to continue growth, I think this is very important to do that because when you look right now, we don't have a whole lot of avenues. Uh you know, we're we're short on lot inventory, both commercial and residential. There's a lot of irons in the fire there. There's a lot of things that may come that that allow the community to start growing again on the residential end of things, but if we start seeing opportunities uh where we're a consideration and losing those to neighboring communities, um that creates problems down the road for the taxpayers because some of these things you need some growth to meet those obligations as things come up just through normal building cycles. uh you look at expenses that you guys are dealing with with uh personnel and those sorts of things, those costs aren't going to all of a sudden stop growing. So, if we're not considering some avenues to facilitate taxbased growth to whatever extent we can, there's going to be issues down the road there as well. So, I think there's, you know, again, not saying that one avenue is right or wrong. I I just think it's important to put those on the table so that our voters and the representatives that we put on the council can consider them. >> Totally agree. The the challenging part in my mind and maybe others is what's the best use of the money that you have resources you have. >> Absolutely. >> From EDA standpoint, if a residential person comes up to you and said, "Why don't we have houses? I want you to stick that million dollars into residential development." So, we've got lots They can develop it now. They can have it ready in fall. Start selling houses. They can get them at a discount. We can require ten of them to be affordable housing. They have that. >> Yep. >> And this is very dy subject, but I'm going to say the word abatement. And from economic standpoint, if we put up a 40 level apartment building, the return on the citizens tax dollars are f ility payments and use of services and tax dollars than doing an industrial partner even if we give a bait. >> Yeah. >> A lot of people won't wouldn't believe that but I think financially say that. what's the best use of the dollar for the citizens >> and all creating tax capacity all of them do >> got that argument too but I totally agree with trying to establish and increase the job base that's been a goal all the way through but I think like we've talked about before the job growth isn't as important as it used to be as it moved closer to the twin cities The willingness for people to commute is not going away. And most people still by large margin work somewhere else. But I'm not saying you shouldn't try to just But I I support the idea of continuing to work out and focus it. But more >> good discussion. I had >> any other >> Well, I I agree that we should look at all options on the table. Let's just not pigeon hole ourselves into one and say we have to build industrial. That's my case. I agree with the sense of even Nick mentioned there's a lot of tension on property taxes. We kind of saw that with the police station that we kind of went through which got me into the seat I'm in today. So we understand that that is very perceived as an issue. So we have to any option we go we have to be very cognizant of that fact in my opinion. every way we go. I mean, I agree with Nick and I think we all agree that the history has shown it takes between 10 and 15 years for us to fill phase of the last two phases. Have some track record exactly how the future's going to be, we don't know. But, you know, that's the risk you have to look at when doing these analysis. any even to that point. I mean you mentioned inqu there's we have a serious look on the table. Now granted we've been having serious look since I got here and has taken years until until there's a shovel in the ground. Who knows how serious that actually is but Josh, Ken, question for you guys. You take like 20 acre industrial park versus 20 acres of residential tax capacity. Which is one more dense than the other? Are we is there more tax capacity out of 20 acres of our industrial park versus residential? >> I would argue if you maximize the land potential, then yes. Your industrial users pay about two times the tax that your Y >> um to Bruce's point, your multifamily apartments pay about one and a quarter higher. So like your single family, if you and I as a single family owner pay $1, apartments, I think it's a$125 >> one acre of land >> about two bucks. >> So yeah, one acre for just residential would be a one. Multifamily or higher density would be a 1.25. Industrial would be two. >> Okay. >> Commercial and industrial are tax out the same. They're about two. >> Okay. >> Um but that is that's assuming your lot value be maximized. If you got really small single family residential lots that that might skew them towards single family >> or no amount of single family lots will ever keep up. If you take a 4 acre parcel and you build it out to its actual maximum capacity for industrial building with a highly valuable building, that'll wipe the floor. >> Well, we probably can't point to anything within the city limits that's residential or multifamily that nears the tax capacity per square foot of industrial or commercial. >> I think I mean I guess I don't have the numbers in front of me. I know >> just just a sniff test. Yeah. >> Yeah. I know that that new uh Bohemia flats over there, they are going to be a significant taxpayer once the abatement falls off. >> Okay. >> Um it it's a they go up and that's where you start that's where the city starts making their money is the higher that building goes up. >> But you have you have to really put that in context. I mean one thing I want to make sure because a lot of residential people remind me of this when you have a resident right now I think it's 500,000 I think once you 500,000 you pay more on that extra dollar over 500 if you're res >> as a percentage of the >> it's not 1% and of course as you get up to that 500,000 you lose your homestead exemption. So those people in those dollar ranges are already paying more than they still pay 1% but paying more of their value with taxes. >> Yep. And then property assessment and follows appraisals for businesses. You have a business as bank or small. You have a lower density half of it warehouse space. You're not going to get this the same kind of value per square foot. If you have small office and everything else is warehouse. So if you have a house that's fully or apartment building where all of it's used, >> every apartment is creating an income. >> Y >> that has a much bigger bane than office with a big warehouse using up your whole lot even though it uses up a lot of the lot. >> The actual valuation is going to be much. >> Okay. >> So they're paying a higher rate on the value >> but you have to put it into context of what's being value. >> Correct. >> Now our our man makes the auto park >> uh CDF >> that is almost 100% used for that valuation probably has a higher >> yeah that's probably what you call in the planning world highest invest or maximizing the value that we're getting >> so the appraiser is going to look at that warehouse different income number when they use that >> okay >> so Yeah, it's not as easy as building lot coverage, but um >> yeah, if all if all things are equal across the board, generally your industrial users highest your multi family users are next and your single family user >> makes complete sense. I just wanted to note too, please remember that residential users have a much uh higher demand on uh public services including parks and other facilities that you don't have with industrial. >> So keep that in mind. >> Well, and that was I mean hearken back to 18 or 20 years ago when I got recruited for this. I remember one of the missions that we were given was it's very important to always consider diversifying the tax base because of the exact those exact reasons. If we can get the commercial and industrial sector to carry a larger percentage of it, they use less public services and it and it lowers the tax burden, if I use the words correctly, on the rest. So, that's always been stuck in my mind. I believe it's still true after we've gone through the strategic planning. So, with all of these things that I'm looking at, that's always been the thing that's been stuck in my head is that overarching mission for this particular group. No, no, I think one thing to think about and like you said while job creation is certainly important and we don't want to stop that. I do think even not only as a city, as a state, as a country, we are starting to grapple with slowing population increase some point kind of run out of people. I heard a really listen to a really interesting podcast a few weeks ago that talked about how China is now running into this problem, how their automation has gone through the roof the last go over there and they're just floored by the amount of automation. It's due to running out of people to actually do these jobs because of their child policies. So obviously I don't think we're there yet, but I do think that at times we may have to look more towards the tax base than the job growth knowing that not I think are that one business in particular that is becoming more robotic is a great example of the jobs they do have are very very good jobs but they're accomplishing more and more from the robotic side and automation side and that's not necessarily a bad thing and yeah so that's just And we did I think we did add that a couple years ago when we kind of revised our bylaws a little bit. We added formally tax base into something we're pursuing and not just job growth but >> well I mean you've seen that in the employment numbers over the last few years in the United States where we're hovering around technically full employment status. I mean yeah it's 3 to 4% but you know you got percentage of population that can't work worked into that too. I mean, you're reaching to that, you know, you you got the the baby boomer generation leaving and not necessarily people replacing them. And there's going to have to be some restructuring of how we do things when that reality does slap us in the face. >> Um, those numbers get pretty stark when you consider health care. Yeah, that's a portion of that, too. You can point to pretty much all the job growth nationwide. I I forget the exact time frame, but I want to say over the last two years it may have been that they pointed to the the vast majority of jobs that were created were in healthc care space. And if you move that that out of the equation, you're kind of at break even, maybe even negative. Yeah. So, yeah, that's what's happening. >> That's and like you said, it's only going to get worse. And everybody could have 10 kids tomorrow, but it takes 18 years to fix that issue, you know? So, So I guess through this kind of what I' I've gleaned is that we are not necessarily full gung-ho ahead drop all else B the industrial park but to certainly weigh opportunities as they come >> and not push it off to the side especially if an opportunity >> question because it's been a while since we've actually redone the strategic plan picked something explored it and then made some decisions um would the next steps for a group like ours. I I feel like we'd be doing a disservice to not go down a couple avenues to explore as long as we have there's going to be no skin in the game of yet. Do we do we pick a what does residential housing look like? What does multif family, what does industrial park look like? And then explore Bruce's which is okay, if we do have this pot of money, what actually is the highest and best use? Like removing any feelings from it like what is that best use of that? Is that our next steps? Picking a few avenues and then going down those for >> I mean I think that can certainly be something we can do in the background. I will say from who we're working with as a financial consultant up there is probably writing scribbling numbers down fiercely and just wants to say something real bad. Um but uh to that point I mean I think we should continue exploring the rest of the items on the list and that can be something knowing that there has been this discussion now that we as staff background to bring back to you guys just so you guys have that knowledge in your back pocket as we continue going forward and have these discussions >> because Bruce is right obviously the pot of money is only so large and how can we maximize that return for the city on that pot of money just to be clear I'm not I'm not I'm cutting some of those as examples I'm not advocating that >> make an effort to try to use a million dollars apartment building to yeah to do a housing development. I I do think we need to focus on economic development industrial because I do fall back on that kind of given up hope that we can increase the percentage commercial industrial but at least if we try to keep it to maintain >> percentage as the residential goss because it's a very that's a very challenging thing to do. Maybe we can have make the pie bigger and change the slice. >> All right, good discussion. Thanks everybody. I think we've done a good job of getting through that. Um, we can I know we did have a few BR& visits. Um, I was unable to make any of them. Uh Ken and Josh I think or Ken were you able to attend them? Anything noteworthy coming out of the discussions? >> Um we didn't have >> Starlight Production. >> Starite. >> We had the Bargain Lodge. >> Lodge. >> Yeah. I guess I would >> say for the most part um Bargain Lodge was the one that was looking for the most assistance potentially um from CDA and kind of the business advising end of things. Um start >> they weren't necessarily looking for money. >> Yeah. Just >> advising on how to expand and their third place they've been in the last few years and I think hoping to >> grab some groups and not have to keep So I know I think we were going to kind of reach out and get him connected with CDA just hopefully the business side of what he was trying. >> Yeah, Starlight was basically um you know looking for more people that would be able to give lessons and then obviously to increase their utilization of the building by providing lessons to people and uh just generally utilizing the the space for more activity. Um and there had been some ownership change with Starlight um over the past year. And then finally, the uh the Bros indicated that, you know, they're really ramping into their first full year of operation. They kind of came into it fulfilling past obligations from the former provider and um they're looking forward to getting their year done. I can't remember the exact number of events, but it was a a large number of events that they have planned through the uh remainder of the year. >> Was it like 66? >> Yeah, it was quite a large number. So, obviously mostly on weekends, but you know, Thursday through Sunday, I think, were kind of their big days. So, >> all right. Uh business updates, Ken. >> Yep. Real quickly on that, we do have uh three single family home permits we've now reviewed for the year. Uh none of them have been picked up yet, but I think with the good weather, they should be all picked up here shortly. Um again, we uh as the EDA mentioned earlier, we do have a lack of single family lots. We do have a number of discussions going on in the background uh with potential developers, but um nothing has moved forward to uh plat applications or anything at this point. But um some positive discussions going on on that front. Um regarding uh Mayo Clinic, uh they did have a closing scheduled for uh March 31st to sell off the Queens Court apartment building. I did not hear 100% confirmation if that occurred. Um, but they were swapping some land back and forth um to make sure that the Queens Court Department could add uh additional parking, kind of trading land between um Mayo and and that property to to make expansion possible. And by expansion, I mean moving away from a 55 up uh type model potentially where they don't need as much parking uh per zoning ordinance to uh potentially open um uh occupancy. So I don't have any confirmation that that sale heard, but we did approve an administrative subdivision on that uh at the end of March. >> That is one example of I think double the gain for the city owned by Mayo. They did not pay property taxes and so by being sold off they will start paying property taxes and Mayo was kind of phasing out the amount of people who lived in there. Now, if the building open, they're going to open it back up and start kind of filling up the building again. So, we were able to gain residential units, property taxes that were >> I think they had I think they indicated there was five of 38 units occupied at the beginning of the year. So, that's a lot of units to have potentially come back in the fray of our um housing market for rentals. So, 138. >> Yep. Yeah, I think Mayo seem to be kind of just drawing it down replacing them. But yeah, >> so that is kind of a double win for the city in terms of units and property tax dollars back on the books. >> Are they intending on remodeling it then? Yeah, we had actually talked with uh the potential new owner um around the first of the year and they indicated they would look at potentially adding uh washer and dryer into every uh unit because that is not how it was currently and that's kind of what a modern apartment would like to have, but uh haven't had any additional conversations with them. And again, I've not confirmed that the closing happened, but they were kind of feverishly working on that at the end of March. hoping maybe a little more updating too. >> Yeah, I'm sure they will have um some of their updating in general there, but solid building. Um overall it is obviously aging a bit, but um good property to get back uh into full occupancy. Um, we did also, this is kind of controversial, we did get a condition use permit application from Bold North Hemp LLC to locate a cannabis cultivation facility uh at the former mill uh actually in the uh we'll just say the loading dock area of that building directly north of 2F byC. Uh we are currently kind of in the data collection phase of that um staff report writing at this point. It is at this point scheduled to be on the April 22nd planning commission uh for a public hearing. Uh really the the big concerns from uh talking to office of management management and uh the police department and then other communities that have had these go in is odor is number one. Uh the biggest concern with that uh they have submitted uh information about their uh pretty intensive odor scrubbing system uh that they are proposing to put into the facility. Uh, additionally, security is a number of or security is a a big issue as well for uh, police departments and obviously um, the building owners themselves. Um, making sure that they have good security. There's obviously a lot of value in the product that they would be growing uh, in that facility and making sure that it's not a target for um, kind of bad players that are out there. And then uh I think the final portion is really um getting better information on what kind of deliveries and u traffic it would generate. It's this is not a retail facility. This would be simply um growing product um not really have any outward facing um public interaction but more with the uh um deliveries and um intake of uh different supplies to to grow the product. So, more to come on that. Uh, really by the end of the week here, um, the applicant needs to have all of that information to us. Otherwise, we may need to delay um the consideration um to our May meeting, but at this point, we're we're hoping to keep that on schedule for our April review. Um, Heartland Credit Union did open up their new location on the 30th of March, and that immediately led to a building permit application from Anytime Fitness to move into their former location at uh, the strip mall at Chalupsky Avenue Southeast. And, uh, by and large, they're just expanding room for equipment. And, um, nothing too major, but kind of a general overhaul of that facility included with that building permit. um still do not have the closing uh uh completed, nor do we have a date at this point for the closing of the last two lots in the industrial park, but um city EDA has everything signed and ready to go. Just waiting for that uh to occur at this point. Um we did get a building permit for some internal remodeling at uh Electric Pump, which is kind of in the corner of Trunk Highway uh 21 and 19 um over in that vicinity. And then finally, our Alton Avenue corridor study uh update. We had some updates this week and a discussion with one of the potential developers adjacent uh to Alton Avenue. Um, and really the main update I give to the EDA at this point is, uh, we have, uh, a pretty close mirror of the design that you have south of Main Street along Alton Avenue, um, near Cobborns with roundabouts, medians that will be uh, planned to be remaining open initially and then over time if traffic gets um to be a concern, we can close medians and close full accesses. But um, that's what we're moving forward with. There is actually a meeting tomorrow morning between SE um and the county and actually the city I should say as well, but Josh and I are not able to make that meeting uh to talk about their concept plan. And um our main concern again is making sure that we can provide viable and safe access for commercial and residential development along the Alton Avenue corridor. And that can sometimes be at odds with the county's vision of, you know, this very utilitarian uh access bypass as they look at it between Shaky and New Prague and obviously beyond the county to to move traffic and and uh you know that goal that they have. So I think we've made good good inroads on that and um hoping to have that plan completed by the end of the month. Um, and then what we're really going to do is uh agreement negotiation with the county on cost sharing and actual trying to figure out timing of when the road and phases would need to be done. So, it's it's a big deal for um our development currently. Um we're we're very limited in what land we have as we've talked in all facets, but for uh commercial development and even residential, this would open that entire east side of town. And I should note the city council on Monday night did approve um also hiring to complete a uh further study on the lift stations that would be needed on both the northwest and northeast sides of town and uh including what kind of sanitary sewer we can get under Alton Avenue uh to provide sewer on that portion of town to go along with the new road. So, um, kind of good movement and I think, uh, very relevant to the the EDA's mission again of, um, kind of giving that balanced growth and tax base. So, it's a it's a big big, uh, catalyst over there. >> Have we received any updates on developments with the post office? >> Not one word. >> Okay. Thanks. with that Alton Avenue study if it wraps up is that when you expect that potential development making some move. >> So I would say yes potential residential and commercial development need to know uh precisely where access can be provided whether it be public road uh and for designing their private driveways or if they're looking for a public road through their development. It's key for them to continue their concepts and ultimately application for a plat to have that known and in place. Yes. So, we've got a couple of parties waiting on that. >> All right. Thank you, Ken. >> Yep. >> Um, we can move past both the CDA update and the school district update. Um, on to the executive director's report with Josh. >> Uh, yeah, as I mentioned, we continue um week or so ago, we got a call from a local company looking to possibly expand industrially. So even though we don't have any land available at the moment that the other thing I'd like to note, actually kind of diving back into tax capacity we talked about a little bit. I did get the summary data from Scott County. I have not yet heard from county on the 27 numbers uh for tax capacity across Scott County side. Generally they are looking at a modest increase air under 3% in tax capacity though the vast majority of that is being driven by 8% growth multifamily sector and a 5 and a half% growth in the commercial sector. So those two sectors combined are looking at adding about 000 to tax capacity roles kind of driving the full roughly $200,000 that are being predicted on Scott County. So I've reached out to Lour County to get an update on their data. Hopefully I can get that the next meeting that full spreadsheet to that is what I've got. Uh any preference as to whether we jump into the close session now or hit miscellaneous items? >> I would hit miscellaneous and kind of close this meeting out. >> That was my thought. Uh any other items to bring before the group? If not, I'll take a motion to adjourn our public meeting. >> So move. >> I'll second that. All in favor? >> I. >> Motion carries. We are adjourned. Uh from there we will