Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names. *** **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** ...the amended version in front of us tonight. Can I get a motion to approve as amended? **[Timestamp] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** So move. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[Timestamp] Council Member Katie Wrich:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. Any comments? All those in favor say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members:** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Opposed? The agenda is adopted. Next up we have approval of the minutes. Two sets in front of us. First up, Workshop meeting minutes of August 14th, 2024. Council members, any changes or corrections? I'll look for a motion. **[Timestamp] Council Member Gary Severson:** So moved. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[Timestamp] Council Member Kari Moore:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. Final comments? All those in favor say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members:** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Opposed? And those minutes are adopted. Next up we have regular meeting minutes from August 14th, 2024. Council members, any changes or corrections? I'll look for a motion. **[Timestamp] Council Member Katie Wrich:** So moved. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** There's a motion. Is there a second? **[Timestamp] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. Final comments? All those in favor say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members:** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Opposed? And the regular meeting minutes from August 14th are approved. Next up we will move into public hearings. We have one in front of us tonight: the Helmo Station Planned Unit Development Amendment site plan. Luke McClanahan, welcome. Would you like to walk us through this? **[Timestamp] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** Thank you, Mayor and Council. So yes, for this planned unit development amendment, it is specific to the property address 390 Helmo Avenue. This is at the southwest quadrant of Helmo Avenue and Fourth Street. It's located on the northern end of the Helmo Station PUD area near the border of the Oakrun Shores neighborhood. The zoning of this site is Helmo Station PUD. Currently, the property is about three acres; it's a vacant site and it's designated for high-density multi-family development, and it does have to comply with specific performance criteria. The purpose of this specific request is brought forth by the applicant in order to amend the PUD and allow the maximum height of a multi-family building to go from three stories to four stories. This request is tied to a planned 133-unit multi-family apartment building on the property which will be considered at a later time in terms of the site plan review—the more technical review as we're familiar with. Here again, I want to reiterate: the developer is looking to receive approval for the specific PUD amendment, again going from three stories to four stories, prior to pursuing the site plan approval. I do want to note that allowing the additional story for the building would not increase the density of the site, as the developer proposes keeping the apartment building within the allowed density of the Helmo Station PUD. Just a little bit of background there: the existing three-story limit for the building for this parcel was originally intended to provide a bit of a visual buffer or a smaller visual footprint as a transitional space between the existing Oakrun Shores neighborhood and the Helmo Station area. In exchange for the flexibility for going up one more story in height, the developer is proposing to have a larger setback from the northern lot line in order to reduce the visual footprint of the building. The required setback is 30 feet currently, and they're proposing the building to be set back 40 feet. This request was heard by the Planning Commission as a public hearing item back on August 1st, and I just want to address a couple concerns that were brought up during that meeting. First, in regards to stormwater and floodplain: the developer will need to obtain permits through the Watershed District for stormwater provisions. Overall, the preliminary site design appears to be consistent with the original Helmo Station plan in terms of managing stormwater and runoff. For traffic impacts, staff has included a condition of approval in the ordinance that you'll see, and that is to require the developer to update the original traffic study that was done for the Helmo Station area. In regards to noise, this is just a bit of a reminder that construction activities related to the apartment building must be in compliance with our noise ordinance. Again, I just want to reemphasize that the request before the Council tonight is strictly for going from three stories to four stories on this particular parcel; it doesn't affect any other parcels in the Helmo Station area. Again, the developer will have to come back for site plan review and approval. With that, staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment to raise the maximum height allowed from three stories to four stories for the property in question, as detailed in the staff report on file. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to six conditions, and I am referencing Ordinance Number 929 that is in the packet. The first condition is that the apartment building shall be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the northern property line. Number two: viewshed analysis shall be submitted and reviewed at the time of site plan to understand the visual appearance of the four-story building from the neighboring residential property. Number three: the four-story building shall incorporate varying roof lines and articulations. Number four: the developer shall install additional landscaping north of the apartment building and in between the apartment building and the frontage for Fourth Street. Number five: the developer must update the Helmo Station traffic study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. And number six: satisfaction of park dedication requirements in accordance with the city's adopted fee schedule. As a reminder, this is a public hearing and the developer is here in attendance if you have questions. Otherwise, staff is happy to answer questions. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. Council members, any questions for Luke? I have a few if I may. Luke, does the PUD define or quantify "stories"? I'm a bit surprised that in the PUD we're saying four stories instead of putting a maximum height on the overall building because, I guess, stories could change—12-foot ceilings versus 20-foot ceilings. It seems like the PUD is saying regardless of how tall those stories are, four is the max. Well, that has a big impact on sightlines. So is there something in the PUD that caps or quantifies or limits stories by height? **[Timestamp] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** I'm fairly certain of this, Mayor, but the PUD does not go into how tall an individual story is. It just has that three-story limit for this particular area in properties that front Fourth Street. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** But then doesn't that condition of a site plan or the sightlines—isn't that subjective and a bit irrelevant if we don't know what the actual height of the building is going to be if it's not being defined or limited? **[Timestamp] Andrew Gitzlaff (Community Development Director):** Mr. Mayor, if I may— **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** No, I'd like Luke to answer my question first. **[Timestamp] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** Yes. Mayor, to your question, I believe that's in regards to the viewshed analysis then. In a sense, we did receive quite a bit of the information for the viewshed analysis with this submittal. There are elevations, there's the shadow study. Delaying the full-blown viewshed analysis to the time of site plan allows the developer to get a little bit more creative in terms of architecture. Staff is recommending that one condition for varying roofline articulations to help soften up that appearance of being a little bit more imposing as a four-story building, as well as the landscaping. **[Timestamp] Council Member Katie Wrich:** Okay, yeah. And my question to your point would just simply be: does state law define a minimum or maximum that a story can be? Does it clearly define what a story is? **[Timestamp] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** Council Member, I guess I'm not quite well-versed on building code. We can certainly look into that or consult our building inspection staff. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** You know, my comment to that would be, when we laid out the plan for this entire area, the logic was we wanted to limit heights along Fourth Street because of the direct impacts on the properties across the street. In hindsight, we said two stories for a different parcel to the east, but it has opened that question of "what is a story?" That can change pretty dramatically. If we're making a condition of the site plan approval—which would be the next step—that viewshed analysis seems a bit subjective if we're not saying "this is the absolute maximum that it can be." I'm having a little trouble there if we aren't putting a firm cap on it other than "four stories," which we're saying is flexible. That seems like a challenge. Maybe I'll set that aside for now, but my other question is: you mentioned that the site plan is attached to this amendment because we have a specific project being proposed. If this project does not move forward for whatever reason, does the PUD revert back to the previously adopted language, or does this amendment remain in place? **[Timestamp] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** So, Mr. Mayor, if the Council decides to approve the amendment, then this would run with the land. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Okay, so that would be the standard going forward. Okay. Council members, anybody else have any questions for Luke? **[Timestamp] Council Member Gary Severson:** Yeah, just—well, and Mayor, maybe just a comment to a comment you had made. When you talked about when we had initially looked at this and restricted it to the eastern parcel at two stories, what's hard for all of us to know when that decision is initially made is the economic reality of what a developer is going to need to do to make any project economically feasible. I'm going to be voting yes on this, but I'm not doing that arbitrarily. I'm doing it because it is important for me as an elected official to make sure that property is getting developed in a timely manner and in a way that is economically feasible for a developer. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** No, I think that's a good point. And I would just maybe ask Luke: what would be the downside in putting a maximum height on a building? I know as a city we've done it; we did it for many years when we didn't have a ladder truck that could support it. It didn't really matter how many stories it was; it was a maximum height that we could provide emergency services to. We have a long history of that. What would be the downside of applying that standard here, and then that number becomes what we use for that viewshed analysis? **[Timestamp] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** So, Mr. Mayor, I think that maybe the downside there would just be restricting the developer to a very rigid set of plans—not being able to deviate. If they found out their plans required something a little bit taller, they would have to come back before the Council again to seek some type of variance. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** But isn't that assuming that that cap is set at exactly what their current plan is? If their current plan says the viewshed is 40 feet, couldn't Council say 46 feet (a 15% variance) just to provide residents across Fourth Street some peace of mind knowing it's not going to end up being 60 feet? Because if it fits within four stories regardless of the height, well, that's what the ordinance says. It seems like that's a challenge, especially given how much work we've put into working with the neighborhoods to cap those heights along Fourth Street. I'm not saying we put it right at 40 feet, but isn't there some leeway that we can bake in that satisfies the needs and flexibility of a developer but also responds to the concerns that neighbors might have? **[Timestamp] Andrew Gitzlaff (Community Development Director):** Mr. Mayor, I suppose there could be an amendment that allows "four stories, no greater than X number of feet." **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** I believe that's what we've done in the past, and so I was a little surprised when I didn't see that standard similarly applied here. That's how we got down this rabbit hole. Is this the spot for that, or is it the site plan approval process where that would be spelled out? I might have to defer to Andy if I'm overstepping. **[Timestamp] Andrew Gitzlaff (Community Development Director):** I think this would be the time to do it, Mr. Mayor, given the PUD request is in front of you and the ability for the developer and members of the public to comment as well. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. Yeah, I mean, we've got the developer here so we're having this conversation. It'd be nice if the developer could come and speak to the height of the building and where it lands in relation to other typical buildings. Matt, welcome. **[Timestamp] Matt Yeager (MWF Properties):** Thank you. Matt Yeager with MWF Properties, 7645 Lindale Avenue South in Richfield. Thank you, Mayor Zabel and Council. It's good to see you all again. Yeah, so a four-story residential building—typically you're going to have 9 to 10-foot ceilings for a 100% residential building. It's not really economically feasible nor does it make much sense to differentiate from that much. So with four stories, that's about 40 feet, and then you add some truss space and the roofline, it ends up being about 45, 46 feet plus or minus for a four-story flat roof building. Another thing to consider is the pitch of the roof; we're proposing a flat roof building here which lessens that height impact slightly as well. I certainly understand the point about—you know, maybe if it was more of a commercial use or a warehouse that had 20-foot ceilings and they wanted to stack some on top of it, it could get thrown out of whack. For a residential building, I don't anticipate that happening. It's pretty standard because of structural standards for cost efficiency that you're going to be in that 9 to 10 range. That's where we would expect this to land. I don't have a specific number—we haven't gotten to that level of planning yet—but that's kind of what I expect. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** So Matt, if the city council said "not greater than 50," would MWF have concerns about that? **[Timestamp] Matt Yeager (MWF Properties):** No, I anticipate we could do a four-story flat roof building under 50 feet. Similar to the Tartan Crossing PUD where we developed the Oakdale Commons project, I recall there being a specific height restriction in that. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Council members, any questions for Matt specifically before we go to public hearing? Maybe I'll just take the temperature of Council if there would be appetite to add a "not greater than" limit, and then staff can work on that while we go through the public hearing process. **[Timestamp] Council Member Kari Moore:** Well, in the end, if that were added, it would still be able—the developers could come forward and propose something different, but it would have to be voted on by the Council, right? **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Correct. **[Timestamp] Council Member Kari Moore:** And to your point, if we're protecting the line of sight and the look of that community, I think that makes sense. I'd be in favor of a 50-foot max. **[Timestamp] Council Member Katie Wrich:** I would be supportive of that as well. **[Timestamp] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** Fine with that. **[Timestamp] Council Member Gary Severson:** I'd be fine with it. And you know, I would actually propose—I think you had thrown out an arbitrary number, 50—would you be agreeable to 52? I just want to make sure. It sounded like the max they would need was 46, so I just rounded to the even zero, but I want to make sure— **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** 52 is—yeah. And just say "four stories or 52 feet, not greater than." I'm going to look to our Community Development Director and City Planner as they're typing furiously back there to figure out what that language looks like. We will come back to them. If there's no more questions from Council for Luke or Matt, let's go ahead and open the public hearing. So at this time, I'll open the public hearing to comments from the audience. This is an opportunity for anybody who is joining us to step up to the podium. Please state your name and address for the record. We ask that you keep your comments to three minutes. Before I get to that, we did receive one statement written out with the request that it be read into the record. I will do that right now. *"My name is Douglas G. Nelson. I live at 7560 4th Street Lane North, which is a cul-de-sac directly across from the Gold Line BRT and the Helmo Station PUD. My home and other homes in my cul-de-sac lie in a FEMA Zone A. I am grateful that Mayor Zabel, City Planner Luke McClanahan, and the city engineering staff have provided my neighbors and I with information demonstrating that our flood risk has not increased. However, my neighbors and I do have concerns about the amendment to the city's ordinance for the Helmo Station PUD. This amendment would allow MWF properties to build multi-family high-density buildings along Fourth Street North to be up to four residential stories in height. We have serious concerns about the apartment complex being set back only a minimum of 40 feet. By our calculations, the northernmost apartment building would be only 135 feet from the southernmost twin home building in our cul-de-sac. A rectangular four-story apartment complex will dwarf our properties. We also have concerns about conditions 2 through 4 regarding the viewshed analysis. It is your responsibility to allow us full participation. Respectfully submitted, Douglas G. Nelson."* If there's anybody in the audience that would like to provide additional comments, please feel free to step up to the podium. **[Timestamp] Douglas G. Nelson:** Oh come on, I just have to say publicly: Thank you so much for hearing us. I know government is a series of compromises and things are going to change, but thank you for listening to us. Absolutely. Signing off. Thanks, Doug. **[Timestamp] Bob Beetle:** Hi, my name is Bob Beetle. I'm a former Washington County condemnation commissioner and I was in that role for over 20 years. I'm representing Colleen Briggs, who lives at 7544 4th Street Lane North. I want to bring to your attention that compensable damages you might want to be aware of include noise intrusion. These folks have backup beeping construction equipment 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. There is dirt and dust that infiltrates upon the exteriors of decks. All of those intrusions are compensable. The City of Oakdale will likely be brought to court if you can't come to some sort of settlement for those kinds of damages. I've witnessed these as a commissioner. Also, there have been current sales in that cul-de-sac area that establish value prior to the work projects. If there is a difference in value after the project is done, you will be subject to compensating that loss. I'm just telling you from my experience. The noise intrusion—I've heard you talk about it here, it's on record—it's also a compensable damage. You should consider large noise barriers. These are factors you might want to consider. I've attended 50 to 100 of these commissions and we have imposed compensation in every case that has come to our commission. I want you to be aware of that. I spoke with the neighborhood so they are aware of it. They know I know the most effective attorneys involved in condemnation proceedings. Thank you. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Going once, twice... alright, we are going to close the public hearing and bring it back for Council consideration. Luke, what did the great minds in the Community Development Department come up with? **[Timestamp] Luke McClanahan (Planning Manager):** Mr. Mayor, the recommendation for Ordinance Number 929 would read: *"Wave reading and adopt Ordinance Number 929 pertaining to the Helmo Station planned unit development to allow multi-family high-density buildings along the Fourth Street North frontage to be up to four residential stories in height, not to exceed 52 feet in height, subject to conditions."* **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Council members, any questions? I'll make a motion. [Repeats motion]. Is there a second? **[Timestamp] Council Member Gary Severson:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second. Final comments? I'll just make one: as Luke mentioned, this is just the first step. There will be future opportunities for feedback. I want to say a big thank you to the residents for engaging with the city. We take it very seriously. **[Timestamp] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** And Mayor, could I add something real quick? It’s feedback that's important to us. That 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM time where construction can take place—it was brought up that an occasional property was exceeding that. We don't have city staff driving around at 6:00 AM trying to catch someone working too early. So that feedback is really important. We appreciate that. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. All those in favor say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members:** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Opposed? Ordinance 929 as amended is adopted. Next up is open forum. Before we get to that, we have a few presentations. Acorn Awards. Each year the city recognizes properties that are well-maintained. The winners are Platinum Bank (Business category), Transfiguration Church (Public category), and the Alfonso family (Residential category). [Mayor presents awards and takes photos]. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** We also have two proclamations tonight. One recognizing Suicide Prevention Awareness Month and another recognizing Building and Code Professional Appreciation Day. To Greg Brady and everybody on his team, a big thank you for the incredible work they do in our city every single day. We are still under open forum. If anyone would like to step up? **[Timestamp] Timothy Rick:** Timothy Rick, 6617 53rd Street North. My concern is Northdale Park. I live on a dead-end cul-de-sac. 99% of that park is used by people who might not be from the city. Nobody knows where the park is and they are constantly going down our road. On a Saturday or Sunday, you're talking probably 40 extra cars going down that road because they missed the park. There’s a bad sign at that park. Maybe put a sign up in their language or a sign before the park entrance. Our roads were done 18 years ago and nothing has been done to them since. I think we can stop a lot of that if we put a proper sign out there. Thank you. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. City Administrator Volkers, could you have Public Works look at the sign pattern? **[Timestamp] Christina Volkers (City Administrator):** Yes, Mr. Mayor. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Moving into consensus motions. I'm going to remove Item A for individual consideration. Can I get a motion for B through G as presented? **[Timestamp] Council Member Kari Moore:** I'll make a motion to approve consensus motions B through G as presented. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion and a second? **[Timestamp] Council Member Katie Wrich:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** All those in favor say aye. (Ayes). Approved. Now, pulling Item A: development agreement between the City of Oakdale and Companion Animal Care. I’m pulling this to reserve my right to vote no, consistent with my previous votes on the site plan. Can I get a motion to approve? **[Timestamp] Council Member Katie Wrich:** I'll make a motion to approve consensus motion A as presented. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Motion. Is there a second? **[Timestamp] Council Member Gary Severson:** Second. **[Timestamp] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** If I could—one of the changes to this Companion Animal Care is a reduction in square footage, which meant it no longer required a sprinkler system. Is that correct? Fire Chief, how many commercial buildings have been built in the last 15 years without a fire suppression system? **[Timestamp] Kevin Wold (Fire Chief):** Good evening. I don't believe any commercial buildings off the top of my head have been built without a fire suppression system since the Council adopted the fire sprinkler requirements 15 years ago. **[Timestamp] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** And as a follow-up, the difference between a 2,000 square foot building and a 1,950 doesn't substantially change the risk to fighting a fire, right? **[Timestamp] Kevin Wold (Fire Chief):** Correct. **[Timestamp] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** Thank you. For that reason, I think I would be voting no as well if it's the only commercial building in Oakdale without a suppression system. **[Timestamp] Council Member Kari Moore:** I just want to clarify with the City Administrator and City Attorney: they are within city code, correct? They are legally within city code? **[Timestamp] Jim Thompson (City Attorney):** My understanding is the original concept plan was over 2,000 square feet, which would have required a system. But the site plan you acted on was below 2,000 square feet and therefore did not require it. The sprinkling system is part of the building code, and state law preempts these; you can't change those regulations. The building as presented does comply with the building code. **[Timestamp] Council Member Gary Severson:** It's the code. It's the law. They're following it. So what you're suggesting is taking a small business following the law and saying "no" anyway? **[Timestamp] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** Well, if I can clarify—I don't have to like the circumstance, but I'm obligated to honor the code. If it's in our code as allowed, it sounds as though my hands are tied. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** We did offer flexibility to this applicant on exterior building materials. It's not lost on me that the change was made at the last second to avoid a public safety mechanism. I don't think we have any duty to provide flexibility when the end product is a building that is fundamentally less safe for employees, animals, and public safety personnel. **[Timestamp] Council Member Katie Wrich:** Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind—Chief Wold, is 2,000 square feet something proven to be more safe, or is it an arbitrary number? **[Timestamp] Kevin Wold (Fire Chief):** I don't know how 2,000 was figured; that was done in the building code by people much smarter than me. That standard is across the board at that threshold. **[Timestamp] Council Member Katie Wrich:** So people smarter than you determined that under 2,000 feet doesn't need it. I am in support of this business going in. **[Timestamp] Council Member Gary Severson:** I literally just two minutes ago heard you, Mayor Zabel, accuse the client of something pretty nefarious. Did they specifically tell you that? **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Based on an email I received from the applicant in December 2023 asking "How do I get around this fire sprinkler requirement?" on the sole basis of cost. **[Timestamp] Council Member Gary Severson:** I think you should make that public then. I can't imagine being a small business owner and not having to make these decisions to save money. They are providing a great service. I don't think cutting cost is nefarious. It's not fair; the applicant is not here to defend themselves. **[Timestamp] Council Member Kari Moore:** I assume we've seen other development projects where they've made changes to make the numbers financially make sense. I am in support of moving forward. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** [Calls the question]. All those in favor say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members Moore, Wrich, Morcomb, Severson:** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Opposed? No. Motion carries. Finally, check-ins with advisory boards. Environmental Management Commission met. The only other was Parks and Rec, which was cancelled. City Attorney, anything? **[Timestamp] Jim Thompson (City Attorney):** Nothing specific, Mr. Mayor. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** City Administrator Volkers? **[Timestamp] Christina Volkers (City Administrator):** Nothing to report. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Council presentations? Noah? **[Timestamp] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** I want to give a shout out to Public Works for the storm cleanup last night. You guys really helped out. Thank you. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** Thank you. City offices will be closed Monday for Labor Day. Touch a Truck is September 10th. Family Inflatables is September 14th. City-wide cleanup is September 21st. Good luck to students and teachers back to school next week—please slow down while driving. At this time, we will pay the claims roster in the amount of 1.8 million. **[Timestamp] Council Member Kari Moore:** So moved. **[Timestamp] Council Member Gary Severson:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** All in favor? (Ayes). Bills are paid. Now, we will go into closed session to discuss matters protected by attorney-client privilege relating to threatened litigation over the Oakdale Marketplace PUD. Jim? **[Timestamp] Jim Thompson (City Attorney):** I requested this to give confidential advice concerning threatened litigation. The need for confidentiality outweighs the need for the public to be present. We will not be discussing the merits of the application itself, only legal advice regarding the lawsuit. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** I'll look for a motion to close the meeting. **[Timestamp] Council Member Andy Morcomb:** So moved. **[Timestamp] Council Member Katie Wrich:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Kevin Zabel:** All in favor? (Ayes). The meeting of the Oakdale City Council is now closed.