meeting Monday, June 2nd, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. Now in session, all those rise for 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. Item number three on the agenda is roll call. Scott here present
here. Jensson present. Paul present. Thank you. Item number four, consent agenda. 4 A, minutes, city council meetings for May 5th and May 14th, 2025.
4B claims totaling $599,3829. That includes E checks 3838E- 3863E and checks 140090 to check
14158. 4 C approve the sale of 2017 and 2015 Police Explorers to Timothy Tweed. 4 D resolutions to approve community garden donations and 4 E authorize hiring of seasonal public work employee
Alex Stani. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda as read? I'll make that motion. I have a motion from council member Rooney. Do I have a second? Second. Second from council member Jensen. Any
discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I I opposed abstensions. Motion carries. Moving on. Item five, open forum. Is there anybody here that is attending that wishes to
address the council in open forum? I'll ask again. Is there anybody here that wishes to address the council in open forum hearing? There is no one. Open forum is now closed. Item six on the agenda, Woodsth
Engineering 6A, Road Capitals Improvement Plan. Good evening. Is this on? I think it should be. You might want to clip it. Yep. Hear me? Yep. Okay. Yep. Kind of got to get it up
close. All right. Um, I'd like to preface this by saying there was a few things in your packet that were not directly intended for presentation. Um, a few of the items were
uh raw data tabs from our spreadsheet that we sent to the city as a tool um for budgeting purposes. So, the city might be able to investigate some of these different roads to be improved in different years on their own. They can obviously reach out to us at any time
too for assistance. but um delivered that as a additional tool for the city and a couple of the data tabs got put into your packet. So if you see anything that looks a little interesting with some highlighting and maybe the formatting is not presentable, that's that's where that's from. Um but those
tabs are vital to the actual deliverables that are in the CIP. Um, I'm going to go through the capital improvement plan executive summary, uh, for the sake of time here. Um, and feel free to stop me and ask any questions
along the way. Um, no need for me to just ramble the whole time if you have anything to say. So, um, in response to the RFP, we inventoried all the city streets. Uh pavement ratings were assigned to all of the paved roads and
we created an associated map. Uh we created budget numbers for paved roads based on the condition assessment and rec recommended improvements and timing for um each of the paved roads. We also inventoried gravel and minimum maintenance road and created a
a maintenance map. Um, we did a street light inventory mapping for the street lights and recommended street light location. Uh, sidewalk and trail assessment mapping and recommended recommendations for repair and expansion. Street sign inventory of
city-owned street lights and replacement plan. Uh, sanitary sewer inventory and recommended replacement, storm sewer inventory, and a storm sewer map. So for the paved road summary, uh we
conducted a field review for each paved city street. Uh we created a road rating list of one through five and assigned corresponding improvements to each of the ratings. Uh the majority of the city's paved roads are in the rating of
two and four. So rating one is a road that's in good standing condition today. Uh we expect to see 10 to 15 years of life out of that road. Uh five being the worst condition and we recommend a full reconstruct of that road. Um there's a
table including the estimated cost per square yard for each of those improvements. Um so there are 113 paved roads in the city for a total of 42.9 miles. um the estimated total cost to improve all of the paved roads in the
city um with a road rating of two through five. So that excludes the rating of one. Uh we did not include that in this estimate because those roads today do not see the need for any capital improvements now just routine maintenance. Um that number is $16.5
million including engineering services. uh we recommending or we recommend completing that routine maintenance on those roads of road rating one for the next 10 to 15 years and also doing spring inspections to make sure that there's no roads that are degrading
faster than anticipated. Um with the city's current road budget, uh it's estimated to take more than 50 years to replace all of the roads. Um there's a breakdown, a timeline of
the anticipated uh cost per year for a 10 and 10, 15, and 20 year replacement plan. Um, the majority of these roads are not vastly above the city's current budget, but there are a handful of them that are
higher on that rating and longer roads such as Dove Street and uh portions of Ranchett that that uh have a substantially higher cost than a lot of the other roads. Um, in the tables of the CIP, we selected some roads that fit the city's
current budget, but we also showed that there are several roads that will exceed that budget. Um and the city should plan for and budget for those roads to be improved in the future. So there is a pie chart um with a breakdown for paved roads
showing the total improvement cost per road rating. um those roads with a rating of one total 5.71 miles at 14% of the total roads um paved roads that is and we recommend routine maintenance for
the next 10 to 15 years. a larger portion of 45% for a rating of two, which would be the improvement for that type of road would be an inch and a half overlay. Um, totaling 19.15 miles with a total uh in today's 2025 construction
dollars, a total improvement cost of 4.875 million. uh road rating of three, which is a mill and inlay. More typical with roads that have curb and gutter or roads that uh have a a potential drainage issue if you were to overlay an
inch and a half. Uh some roads that have tighter um like a lot of driveways such as um North Lake View, I believe, is the road name that goes along Pelican there. Uh and then road rating of four having 28% which would be a full depth
reclamation estimated at around 7 million and road rating of five which is roads that need are recommended to need a full reconstruct estimated at uh 3.2 million roughly. Any questions on paved roads?
Questions from the council? Um yeah, just maybe a point of clarification. So the 16.5 million if the city were to improve all paved roads with a condition of 2 to 5 today. So does that amount fit into
what's identified within the 10-year plan? And I'm trying to when I think about that number and then go down to the table over the 10, 15, 20 year period. In my mind, I should come up with 16.5
million. But what I don't know is the cost. So that's the cost per year over that 10 year period. That's the cost per year over a 10-year period. Okay. Yep. Sorry if that's not explained. No, it's fine. Accurately. Um there's in the the full CIP there's a table of each of the
paved roads with their corresponding um dollars per square yard for improvement and those are broken out into which roads we recommend replacing for each year. And that that table more closely fits your current budget right now. The 10, 15, and 20 year was just
kind of an example of what our total estimated cost would be for those time frames. Uh for gravel roads, uh we inventoried 51 of the city's total gravel roads for 12.1 miles. They range in width from 12
to 24 ft with the majority being uh 20 to 22 feet. Uh city has a current budget for supplemental aggregate and dust coat and other things of $69,000. We incorporated that into the CIP, but we do not have any capital
improvement costs for gravel roads. Uh the city's current policy for improving gravel roads to paved is based on petition and due to this and with talks with this uh city staff and the streets committee, we've not included any costs for improving gravel roads to paved in
this 10-year CIP. Uh so again, there's an inventory for gravel roads there showing their um total lengths and widths. Any questions on gravel roads? Any questions from council?
So there wasn't any review or assessment done on an estimated cost of bringing gravel roads then up to a pave city standard. Um not directly. Uh they vary a lot in width and in the full CIP there is some
recommendations for the city that if a city if you were to improve these gravel roads and you wanted to maintain your current typical section standard for a road. some of these roads would have to be widened which would you know increase the cost over just paving right over
that gravel road. Um so we did we did not incorporate any cost to to um pave any of those roads based on recommendations from staff and and uh the streets committee. Uh for minimum maintenance
roads, uh there are 38 total at about 7.3 miles. Um again, no recommendations for capital improvements on those roads at this time. Uh street lights, city currently maintains four street lights. Uh there's
a street lights map and there are also three county maintained street lights and city limits. Uh we've identified five additional locations for street lights of areas of higher traffic. Um, the cost to install those lights, if the city chooses to do so, is
incorporated with those individual roads at the time of improvement in the in the spreadsheet. Estimated at about $25,000 per light pole. Um, but that cost can vary widely depending on the utilities in the area, the, you know, how close is
the nearest power that they can that they can bring over there. So, Um for street signs, we utilize GIS to store uh the data we collected. We collected data on sign age, condition, location, type, and photos for each
sign. Um, in talks with the streets committee and city staff, we went with the age replacement method and that is replacing signs, recommending to replace signs once they reach 15 years of age or more.
Um, this is a pretty typical way of replacing signs for communities like Breezy Point. Uh city has 883 total signs and today there are 256 of those signs that are 15 years of age or older.
195 that are 15 years of age or newer and there are over 400 signs that do not have an age identifying sticker. Many of those are like road signs. Those typically don't have an age identifying sticker. So those can be replaced as as seen fit.
Um we do have all of these stored in GIS and to my knowledge city does not utilize GIS um today but if the city ever were to utilize GIS that is your system to have as well. It has all the data in it.
Um, for sanitary sewer, we inventoried the city sanitary sewer system and the majority of the sewer system was installed in 1978 and the vast majority of the sewer system is 8 in PVC. Um, with the life
expectancy of PVC being 50 to 100 years, probably closer to 100 years or more, honestly, um, there's no recommended capital improvements for replacing any of the sanitary sewer system today. Um, that does not go for the, um, wastewater
treatment facility, which we are still doing the phys feasibility report on. That's for the collection system. Um, there's also a lift station inventory and uh recommended replacement plan for pumps and things in the lift station. Any other questions so far?
Questions from council? Follow-ups? Please continue. Um, inventorying the city's storm sewer system. Much of that was installed in 2007. Uh life expectancy for concrete
storm sewer pipe is typically over 50 years. Uh so no no recommendations for replacement of anything in the storm sewer system. Uh it exists on Airport Road and Breezy Point Drive and there's a series of infiltration basins in both of those locations.
Um the only recommendation for storm sewer is when the city does get around to improving those two roads of Airport Road and Breezy Point Drive that we take a further look at that time in case it's farther into the future. Um when those
when those improvements happen that would be the time to address anything that would be uncovered uh during construction there. and sidewalks and trails inventory for that. Um about 1.1 miles of batuminous trail and there's 2.3 miles of gravel or
natural trails. Um there's an inventory for those and cost estimated um cost estimation and timeline for improvements in the CIP tables as well. Um, so that's all I have for the executive summary. Uh, is there any
other questions on the CIP as a whole? Any follow-up questions from the council at this point? Anything they wish to add? Okay. No, I think you you did a nice job of covering it and giving us the overview and of course all the details are in here. So, correct. We
appreciate Woods work on it and getting this to us and it'll be a a piece that we use to move our process forward. So, let's see. Let's just move on then to hearing
no other questions on the capital improvement plan or any discussion. I think we've kind of talked about it. We need to we're going to continue to work forward on the CIP. Of course, we'll be looking with budgeting and things of that and start thinking about how we want to work with that going forward, too. So, this is just the first step
with that, but it's what we needed to kind of have a game plan or or something to look at. So, um 6B sanitary sewer extension airport to terminal. Yes. So, in your packet are the plans um for the sewer extension.
Um, these plans include horizontal directional drilling from the existing manhole on Airport Road to the proposed manhole location at on Terminal Road. Uh, the manhole the proposed manhole is roughly 23 ft deep. This allows for the
city to do any future expansion um for that depth would allow for gravity sewer um along Red Oak and Terminal Road down to the distances we provided in the feasibility study covering uh much of
Terminal Road and uh I think it was roughly twothirds of Red Oak Road. Tell there's a lot of grade change that you wouldn't be able to get it with gravity sewer. you have to have a a force main system there. So, um that depth allows for that amount of um
gravityfed expansion in the future. Um so, I guess we're requesting authorization to go for bids on this. Um was the city's desire to um approve the low bidder uh at the next council meeting. So, we're prepared to
advertise on June 11th uh for 2 weeks and then have a bid opening on June 25th. I'm not sure if we'd be able to use this location for the bid opening if these plans are approved or we could find an alternate location as well. I think we could use this place if we
needed to. Ministry Bones, you fine with that? I think this works just fine. Okay. Yeah. So, yep. Any questions on the plans? Yeah. Are there any questions from council on the plans or specifications?
It's pretty much laid out. I mean, if you took the time to look through it, it's pretty straightforward of what needs to happen. So, I guess there is, if I may, there is one other thing that we added to this. The the proposed manhole location, we moved north on
Terminal Road uh due to the amount of existing utilities in the County Road 11 corridor. Um, in doing that, our alignment for the force main cuts through the commander property and we provided a sketch and description for a permanent utility easement through that
parking lot. Um, so I've been in talks with Jerry about that. I I've had conversations with Mr. Narverson about the the easement. uh he has assured us that he will cooperate in in the
easement and and sign it and and it won't cost us anything to do that. So very good. Okay. Thank you for that piece of information. Um all right. Are there any other questions? If not, uh I'd look for a
motion to approve the plans and specifications and authorize advertisements for bids for this project. So moved. I have a motion from council member. Do I have a second? Second. Have a second from council member Moroni. Any further discussion on
this right here? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Moving on. Item seven,
approve city administrator contract for Alli Pulsfus 7A employment agreement. Anything administrator Bones sack you want to give us for information or uh
the the uh contract is prepared by our our attorney. It appears in your in your packet. Uh it has been signed by by Ally. Uh she is waiting for your approval this evening. Uh the expected
start date is July 1. Okay, great. Excellent. All right. Do I have a motion to uh approve the contract for Ally? I'll make that motion. I have a motion from Council Member Do I have a second? Second. A second from Council
Member Jensen. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Abstensions. I. Um, and I just
want to clarify I'm abstaining um due to the fact that I unfortunately really wasn't able to be a part of the interviewing process. The interview dates um how things needed to go forward did not align uh well at all with my work schedule. So, I feel like really
not having had any direct involvement, understanding of the candidates themselves, um it likely doesn't make sense for me to vote one way or another. It's certainly not a reflection of my support or lack the support for the council's decision. Duly
noted. The motion passes. So, we look forward to having Ally starting with us on uh July 1st. and I I believe that she's already reached out to our current administrator to have some conversations. So, that's good. It's good news. So, all right,
moving on. Item eight, accept resignation parks and recreation committee members 8A resignation letters. They were provided to you in the packet. Um, if we look, let's see, let me jump to those. Sorry, I'm scrolling
down. Come on. There's so much almost there. There. Okay. All right. So, we have a resignation letter from Bill Toaft dated
Tuesday, May 6th was sent to um our administrator and our our clerk and um reads committee members I believe that serving one's community is a privilege and that one should give their best for the taxpayers of that community. I've always done my research and sought out
the experts from the CEOs, CFOs to the former law enforcement to attorneys. have the greatest respect for our police force, public works department and Breezy Point staff. I also have respect for the members of our committee. I however have reached a point that two council members and the mayor do not have in my opinion the Breezy Point
taxpayers's best interest. I cannot enthusiastically be a part of any endeavor that does not honor its commitments to the voters who put them in their chairs. I hereby resigned immediately and thank you for the privilege of serving Bill to. So that was one resignation. Then we received a second resignation from a Jodie Miller
dated Friday, May 9th. It was sent to our city clerk uh and says, "Unfortunately, I will be moving outside the Breezy Point city limits July 1st, 2025, so I can no longer serve on the parks and recck committee. I will, however, continue to be a part of the Breezy Point Greer community. So, I plan
to volunteer on the park and recreated events initiatives in the future. I enjoyed the six months I was on this committee and I'm very excited about the future plans are being developed with warm regards, Jody Miller." So, those are the two resignation letters that were received.
Uh, and I would ask for a motion to accept those resignations as so submitted. I'll make a motion to receive those resignations. Okay. I have a motion from Council Member Do I have a second? Second. Second from Council Member Ball.
Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Abstensions. A motion carries. That brings us to item nine, discussion of parks and recreation
committee appointments 9A. Resolution that was signed and and uh put into effect as a 52023 was to increase parkboard members from the standing number of five to seven. Uh with these two resignations, it brings us back to
five, which was the original appointed uh group. Um, I at this time would would like to recommend to the council that we stay with the current five. If we so choose, working with the park uh committee in the future to increase it
to seven, we can do so. So, I don't think there's a need to resend the resolution, but just necessarily leave it as five at this point unless the council feels differently. That's my recommendation. Five to me is fine. I think that's what
parks and wreck would prefer. the committees. So, I mean it it's fine. I think it's fine, too. Okay. Got no strong feeling one way or the other. I think going to five makes sense. Council member Scott, any comments?
Um, yeah. I mean, it was increased to seven with the idea of inviting more uh resident participation into the parks and recck committee. Um I think there was a fair amount of hope at the time that
um interactions and communication would improve um throughout city operations and when it comes to the folks that we have volunteering for our committees and I think it's terribly unfortunate that we have
um people no longer willing to um serve on the park and wreck and Um, yeah. I I guess I don't have any definitive feelings one way or another. I mean, there's a part of me
that thinks we should keep it at seven. Um, understand out there who else might be actively willing to serve. Um, but if the collective decision is to hold it at the current membership of five,
um, I don't see that being all the problems at the end of the day. Okay. So, what I would state is that we can keep it at five. If the park committee approaches us and says, "Hey, we could really use the extra people. We're looking for other people to get involved." Then we can definitely open
it up and I can review that again when it comes time for our committee appointments at the end of the year. So, that's why I want to leave the resolution in place so that we have that ability to do it. We don't have to go back and start all over and do a new resolution. So, um, so it sounds like
overall there's a consensus. So, we will currently at this time leave the committee at 5. Uh, but the resolution stands in place. Okay, moving on. Got to get back up to my agenda number here. Okay, item 10, Edgewater Circle Improvement 10A,
Edgewater Circle Road Improvements. Administrator Bonesack, you want to give us a little update? Uh this was a um a improvement of Edgewater Circle Road was prompted by uh Pelican Township
who is a co-owner of of the majority of Edgewater Circle and has decided to do a full depth reclamation of that uh road and has asked the city if they
were willing to participate. in doing approximately a quarter of the road which amounted to about $21,000. Um that said, the council at the last meeting talked about this and
and we uh asked or the council asked us to look into the the possibility of how it fits with the u current assessment policy and whether there would be assessments. Um, I wrote a letter to the association
basically telling them that that would they would be subject to the the assessments based on the policy and because it's over 15 years of age that the it would be 100% assessed as per the policy. Um, the representative from
Edgewater called me. We had a conversation on the phone about the fact that they this was their first notification. I did inform them that they could uh request a hearing on the approvement and they have requested a
hearing. So u my suggestion is that we schedule hearing for the next council meeting. Yeah, I I would agree. will if they want to come before us to to speak to that, we can do that. Um, and we could
definitely schedule it in for the July meeting. I don't know what the feelings of the council are at this point, but I think it's probably the best best way to move forward. They want to have a hearing on it. So, we schedule in and we have the hearing and then we can go from there and we can make a decision of what we're going to do after we've heard from
them. I would agree. Okay. So, we'll we'll plan then to that. Do you need a motion or approval? A motion. There be a motion to hold a public hearing on the improvement. So, I need a I' I'd like to have a motion from the council if they're willing to give one for a public
hearing on the improvements to Edgewater uh Circle Road and the assessments that would be assessed to the property owners in the in the city of Breezy Point. So, move I have a a motion from Council Member Moroni. Do I have a second? Second. Have a second from Council
Member Jensen. Any discussion on this? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed abstensions. Motion carries. Item 11 on the agenda 11 A
park. It's item 11 is parkland dedication discussion. 11 A parkland dedication. Administrator Monzac. Um, again, this was prompted by a request from a landowner that was doing a subdivision and and felt that the uh
current policy that required 10% of the value of the land was excessive for parkland dedication as um so based on that the council uh was
sympathetic to those to that request I and did a request for us to look at at possible alternative way methods of allocating parkland dedication to
subdivisions. Uh we did a just a a short uh review of what other communities have done. We looked at Brainard, Nisma, Cross Lake, Pekquat Lakes. Um, and based
on that, they've they they al they all have an alternative that we do not have in our subdivision ordinance, which allows for a per unit assessment. Um, Brainer is $500 a single
dwelling or buildable lot. Um, Niswah and Peekquat Lakes uh have a $416 per expected resident. Um, they they base theirs on the fact that there was there's like an average of 2.3
residents per dwelling. So, that fee would be almost $1,000 or very close to $1,000 per per unit. and Cross Lake does $1,500 for each individual
lot. They they all have the 10% land dedication in their in their ordinances, which is no different than what we have. Uh but they just have an alternative for basically for small subdivisions that are based on perunit basis.
Um, when you look at that from a a standpoint of fairness, I think that's probably fair. I think if you were to look at a unit basis, it would also uh allow you to do when a
subdivision comes in with a say an apartment building, you would be able to to base your park dedication fee on on a per unit basis, which again gives you another alternative to use. uh in each case of
these their ordinances the uh the choice is the council's it isn't the land owners or or the subdividers it is the council's choice to use one method or the other but I think uh maybe
looking at a per unit basis gives you an alternative that you can use going down the the line in the future thank you for the information Jerry and for you is putting that stuff together and getting it to us. I think it gives us a some good information to be able to
look at and and decide maybe how we want to move forward. I don't know. Are there any thoughts from the council members? Anybody want to speak to it? I I know I'll just state by saying I I looked this over. I I read it over and um did some thinking about I personally think
that having an option in there is probably a good thing for us to have. Currently, our ordinance does not ours doesn't have that. We don't have anything in there. Um, but adding this to it and maybe looking at a per dwelling unit, you know, per dwelling,
uh, and setting whatever that rate is that allows us to have more than just one thing in there for situations like I think what we're looking at right now, which is not a huge subdivision where we're having multiple units coming in, but instead we're having this one small,
you know, subdivision within. Um, and maybe it addresses some of the the concerns that we're seeing and and it puts us kind of in line, I think, equitable wise with what we're seeing some of the other cities in the area doing, too. So, I don't know. That's just my thoughts, but so I thought I'd open it up, but I'm open to what the
other council I would agree. I mean, we need the alternative option per unit. I mean, in the case of the property owner, I think 10% was excessive. I mean, council pretty much agreed upon that and that's why we're here. It's we're here. it's on the agenda. It makes sense. Um,
and to Jerry's point, I think that's a good point. If we get apartment buildings to be able to do it on a perunit basis, makes sense. Yeah. So, I would agree. I know. Uh, this this this portion of the packet was one of the questions that I I do a recap with with
administrator Bones before the meetings and one of the questions clarifications was Nisa and Peekquat Lakes doing a per resident. I read it as only per dwelling and he clarified that no, they're doing it on a per resident basis, which that gets into a muddy, you know, I'm building it for myself versus I'm gonna
have a family of five here. So, I I don't like the per resident basis. Um my question though, as as hearing it over again and rethinking about which when does the council choose which one goes 10% or you know the fee per dwelling? Is
it the lesser of two? Like do we need like my my my thought process is if we do 10% for the first applicant and then we do per dwelling how is that being chosen and I'm wondering if we need language of the lesser of the
two my only concern do you understand where my concern is how do we choose which one to do to me I think in part drawing from the conversations we had last month gets to what are the issues with density being created you almost have to look at
it from a density standpoint and how the subdivision in addition arguably of more people puts added needs on our park and wreck infrastructure. So, I'd almost look at it like you you
need to you need to probably establish a standard around when when a subdivision gets into a certain level of density, then maybe you look at it on a per unit basis. And if it's of a lesser
density, you know, whatever that might be, then you look at it at maybe, you know, the 10% sort of dedication. Um, and and would you just I'm I'm listening to you. So then would it be like would we look like cuz when you talk about
density you're thinking I'm also thinking about acreage. So size of of what's there in regards to the density too. So is that have to be considered as well? Do we have to look at that? Okay. If it's a certain size or it's not as far as I'm just thinking size of acreage
and I'm thinking about our current situation. That's why I brought that up. Yeah, I get your point about the density. So that's why I was asking the question as a follow. I mean, let's let's face the reality of a community of Breezy Point, right? I mean, given the amount of land that was subdivided years
ago, right? um the density of it. We're at a far different population saturation and density than a lot of our surrounding communities like Peekquat who have much smaller overall, you know, residential
lots and a lot more multifamily. Um because really when you look at that park dedication statute, a lot of the intent behind it was as a community adds population increases density in certain
areas of a community, it creates some level of stress and added pressure on park and wreck facilities. And therefore whoever is engaging in the subdivision and and you know increasing the population in density ought to
contribute towards you know the public uh needs and improvements that that are required. So when I think of somebody coming in in my mind doing a simple lot split of 10 acres into two 5 acre parcels I mean I have a hard
time making any argument as to why a park dedication uh of land or a fee would come into play. I guess I'm just curious if some of these other communities have language in there now that is more elaborate than
what's here. Um just because if if they have in there they have the 10% land or these unit prices do they also have 10% of the fair market value like we do or do they not have the
fair market value in L of the unit fair market value they they have all three they have all three and they ask the the city in each case is deciding the city council is the decision maker okay so there should be language in for how
that's done. I I mean I just think that would help like flush out some of these questions. I mean I generally agree that if it's a larger if it's like an apartment or if it's like you know 10 houses or something like that that the dedication
fee should be more. Yep. Um if it's just a splitting a lot one person into two correct then it's very different. I mean I I think it's as simple as that. that the the one thing that I think is unique in in Breezy that probably is not as
apparent in in some of these other communities is that any new subdivision in Breezy is probably going to have at least a 2 and 1/2 acre minimum lot size. So there isn't going to be a lot
of density. Um that's I'm I'm sure that as the city goes down the the road of of re-evaluating that zoning ordinance, I'm sure that lot size
will be a discussion going forward as far as whether that 2 and a half acres is really a legitimate size that you want to continue to maintain. Um, I'm not advocating for one or the other. I'm just trying to point out that any new subdivision in Breezy
right now is a 2 and a half acre minimum lot size. Do you know what the Do you recall, Jerry, what the uh in Cross Lake the 1500 per each new lot? What did it matter on what size the lots were? Was there It did
not. It was just basically per lot. Now, Cross Lake, I know um only because I was part of that discussion earlier last year, um
they basically had a a twoacre minimum in most of the the areas and they were going down to an acre minimum lot size where you could reszone down to it an acre in size. So they were increasing the density in a lot of areas in Cross
Lake at the that that's very recent. Was any of that related to access to sewer? No. No. Well, um yeah. So we've we've got some from this comes more questions. I
think I think maybe to get us moved off center I I would this is just a recommendation again to the council and whatever they decide to do I'm I'm open to listening to as well but maybe what we should do is try to see if we can get some language drafted that kind of
addresses what we're bringing up that we can take a look at and say okay how do we want to put this in I mean I hear per dwelling I also hear the density piece Um, so maybe, you know, with those options of language in there, giving the
council that authority to make the decision of what that is because I mean I think that's kind of where we're going. I think everybody understands that we want to change it. So I think that's what I hear. That's what I'm hearing is that we need to make some changes to our current our current policy. What does that what does that
ordinance look like then with some drafted language that looks like per dwelling uh with maybe some other language added to it or maybe I heard Jerry make a comment that was it Niswah I think you said there were three three options they had so they had the they had the they
they all have the three options the three options so maybe that's something that we need to have drafted up and brought back to us to look at to see what that looks like and then we can make a decision on what we're comfortable with. I think the other thing we need to think about is what are
we going to put for a fee on that if we go per dwelling? What does that look like? So, I think we need to be thinking about that, too. Do we want to talk about that now and get something out there so that if we draft the language that's included in it when it comes back to us?
When I look at the the money, when I look at what's being done right now, Brainer's 500 single dwelling per buildable lot, you've got Niswah doing a 416 per expected resident. You heard Jerry comment, it's about 2.3 is what they figure. So that's about $1,000. You
got Cross Lake on,500 for each new lot. And then you got Peekquat with 416 per expected resident. And then they have that little thing in there about subdivision of three or more lots. So they throw that in there, too. Um, so you know, I I'm somebody who's an advocate. I think that we should have it
per dwelling as an option for us. And if I just had to put a number out there, when I look at what's out there right now, I'd say like a thousand per dwelling. And that's just throw that's just me looking at what's there and going, I think this is an equitable number. I'm not stuck on that. I'm just
I'm putting it out there for us to I think that would be a good starting point for sure. And we can we can always change it. It's the idea of drafting the language and bringing it back to us. And at the end of the day, if we've come back after we've thought about it and done more research and said, "No, we don't like a thousand. We should have it
less or more." Jerry, if you're going to amend the ordinance, which would be the the proper way to do that, yes, we can draft some language. Yep. And we can uh put x x amount in in it. That said, you
still have you have two opportunities when you look at that ordinance. You have the the first reading and a second reading. Correct. So, you're going to have two months in between where you can uh if you decide that a,000 or 700 or 66
600 whatever that dollar figure is, you can make those adjustments. You're going to have at least two months to do that. Perfect. Thank you, Jerry, for that clarification. So, so I would say hope the council is okay with this and I want to hear to direct the staff to go ahead
and draft language for us to amend this ordinance to add an option for us of a single dwelling at a th00and per dwelling and give us the other option. So, we have all three options in there. So, we have one. Let's have them draft
language to add the other two in it and bring it back to us and let's review it and then we can take it from there. Is the council comfortable with that? I agree. I agree. Okay. I'd like to see a something of considering
again population and and and density, right? So, when we have situations like I think was used as an example last month with uh the White Birch uh development going on by the golf course, right? I mean, you're
looking at a lot different density on that property. Um, different than if I'm buying a 2 and 1/2 acre parcel to build a house on, I can
probably provide for my own recreation for kids and whatever within that, right? So, we're talking about a much different density and need when it comes to park and park dedication. somehow. I I don't know how we get there. I'd like to see us consider and
look at something that puts a little bit more focus and and priority on more dedication uh a higher fee given a certain population being created and and that
amount being reduced as you're dealing with a subdivision of less and less density. Is that sort of the discretion between the three different options? though that would be left to the city. So like the city could potentially say, "Okay, if you're one person splitting
two lots, then you're going to get the per dwelling." I mean, we could choose, you know, to do per dwelling for that person, but if somebody is doing, you know, a development with 20 houses, then no, it's 10% of the land um or an
equivalent per fair market value of that land. Yeah. It just feels to me like it should be in some way kind of connected to or used as a measure as to again the number of people that are
being added to the community, right? And ultimately how that is going to put additional stress on our park and wreck services and infrastructure. Well, and I and and your point is valid and I agree. I mean, we we should add something in there. It makes me wonder
if that's why Peekquat's got that little piece in there that says a subdivision of three or more lots. But doesn't that still accomplish if we do per dwelling? Yeah. If you if you have one if you have let's let's say a 10acre parial and I divide it by four, right? That's four dwellings, right? But if I'm going to do
a smaller CIP a subdivision like White Bates and you do 20, well then that's still 20 dwellings. Regardless of how big the lot size is, there's still going to be a use potential case for who's going there. I
mean, one could argue, well, they're White Birch Estates. They're for senior community living. They're not going to use park and wreck. Well, I have a 2 and a half acre parcel. I don't need to use park and wreck. There's always going to be an argument that somebody could argue and say, "This is why I don't need park and wreck. Therefore, I don't need to
pay the fee." where if it's not if it's just based on a dwelling that it's an expected of who could potentially use our park and recre amenities fishing pier playground you know everything that's in the park and wreck boat boat launch everybody potentially could use
those services if we start getting into how big is the property is it on a lake I don't need to go for a boat launch I don't need to pay for this it starts getting muddly where I think if you do it upon a per unit it still kind of accomplishes the the potential potential
for who's going to be using it. Well, they all have all three options though. All the cities have all three options. They none of them have just one per dwelling fee. Yeah. But I mean, they must be sorting through that somehow already. There's got to be some standard
there for Well, I I would say this. Let's push it back to staff. Have them draft some language for us on three options. They've heard our concerns, all of them. We've got a couple more times to look at it. as Jerry stated it. So, it's not like, you know, we're stuck with what comes and then we can have
further discussion on at that time once we see the language. And then maybe there's also some other information we can gain from how the city's got their three options written in there to help. And I would assume staff's going to look at that as well when they look at our language and draft it. So,
would the first reading still be in July? It could be. Okay. I would say probably. Yeah. So, we can keep it moving forward. Why push it off another month? So, I would say let's shoot for July for the first reading and go from there. All right, everybody's good with
that. I'm going to move on. All right, item 12, signage, Shore View Lane. Council member Jensen. Um, I requested this item. It's kind of been going ongoing for years and gotten
a lot worse. There's a the city owns land on both the east and west side um that abuts property owners to the north and the south. Um over the years there's been a large portion of the shoreline
that's um the cattails have been destroyed uh with ATVs and snowmobiles primarily in the winter. um the winter of 2023 and last year, especially 2023,
um there was about a 12T chunk of land um about 6 ft wide uh that was basically created a hole. Um the city I mentioned it to Joe they came out with their truck
dump truck and I don't know one to two yards of gravel to fix it. Um and then last winter um guides in the area I don't believe they were breezy point guides um used it as lake access which
the city has public access. We have a swimming beach. We have overflow parking that was never intended to be a public access to the lake. Um to prevent further damage, I would like to see
signage put there that there's no lake access. Start with one sign, possibly go up to two and monitor it. My fear is the they start heading north and damaging, you know, the rest of the
shoreline, which if that continues to happen, the city needs to engage the DNR hydraologist cuz really some of that falls under their jurisdiction, too. But to start, um, I'd like to see one sign
placed there, possibly to um to preserve the shoreline. So, and council member Jensen did approach me about this as well, um, and talked with me about this. It was something that I had mentioned. Um,
however, I I I would like to get some input from our public works director with regards to that. I know Joe, you're aware of that area down there. While signage is an option, is there something else that potentially we could
do that might be a better fit? And I and I say that only because if we're going through the process to do something with it, what's the best sol, you know, what's our best solution? So, I guess, you know, we we the idea of a sign is something that often pops up and so
let's put up a sign, but they that may not be the best solution to the situation. Um, typically in uh when we're looking for noninvasive kind of a passive um way to
control people is a split barrel fencing. Um where the old Nooxy site we use that didn't require signage. Um it's relatively inexpensive. We can install it the swimming beach, you know, split
row fence. um something like that. It's under six feet. Um it's on our property. We don't need a permit. It's an option outside of signs, I guess, that I can think of. Okay. And maybe maybe that's something
that we would do instead that might work better than signs. I mean, there is a downfall of a sign, and that is if you put them up with a couple of stakes, it doesn't mean they can't go in between them. Well, stay. I even I would I think boulders over those signs.
My If you get enough snow, they'll just drive right through it. I [Music] mean, they drove right through the cattails, destroyed the shoreline because of the warmer winters. That's what really impacts it. I mean, you can
try it, but I see more defense, you're saying? Yeah. the more potential damage to the fence. Um, they're going to try to drive over it. Is that what you're thinking? Yep. You're going to sail against it. So, there in lies the problem, right? Likely at the end of the day is how do you how do you manage
access or limit access during the winter time for people onto a lake? I think it's one of those things that's as close to impossible as as you can have. Uh, signs are not going to do it. Um, unless you're, you know, fixing to put up a
20ft high fence, that's likely not going to do it. Uh, you start throwing other obstacles in the way like large boulders and things along those lines, then you potentially run into the issue of if someone damages their vehicle on
it, then how do we become liable? Because that's nothing that they would anticipate necessarily having been there. I understand the concerns. I I do. Um, oddly enough, this is an issue that I think has been recycled off and on again over quite a number of
years. And, uh, I I just don't think ultimately you get there. Um, truly, you know, managing access within city limits on any lake, whether it's Pelican or or you name it. I mean, if
there's damage, you know, to vegetation being done or to the shoreline itself, and to me that almost feels like it's more of a specific DNR related interest and issue. And I think I Steve, I think you alluded
to that to some extent. Well, to for the rest of the cattails, but then the question is how do you prevent the access? It's just going to keep going on. It's going to turn in then it turns into paddle boards. everything in the summer. It becomes a local lake access.
We have a boat ramp. We have, you know, parking lots and there's multiple accesses. Um, it's just going to get worse. Yeah, understand. And unfortunately, I think in a lot of those cases, it really
is going to result into some safety specific incident, right? Uh occurring before there's probably, you know, that end of the day kind of what's the most feasible management approach to take.
That's kind of the that's kind of the back and forth, right, with with lakes as as public amenities. you know, they they belong and are owned by all of us. And um to try to steer and suggest that people ought to access in certain ways
or only in specific ways and not in others, I don't know. Other comments from council members, council member Ball, Council I think uh I think DNR should be consulted a little bit. I mean, we're we're limiting access to a from a public
property to a public lake. I understand concerns from, you know, the improvements we just did the shore view to the vegetation. That's where I think if the DNR sees a concern from the lakeside, they should be involved and consulted. But we also have a, you know,
an obligation to protect what we just did to protect the road as well. Um, but you know, we are we are talking about restricting public access from a public property. So, it's it's just it's a fine line of discussing of how can we
properly go with that. And I think the DNR would be probably a good consult to to ask them how to properly go about this cuz we're talking two different things. We're talking public road and the improvements we did and then the
public lake. And I think that's where our jurisdiction kind of falls off. And I think there I think there's something that can be blended, but I think I think the DNR should be consulted. Oh, I definitely think the DNR should um yeah, I think they might have some good advice um having probably dealt with it before
and I do have some, as um Councilman Scott alluded to, some safety concerns with uh you know, for sure boulders. You know, I I don't know from a sign or a fence perspective, like if there's some visibility there that could be managed,
but um certainly that would be a concern. Okay. So here here's what I would say then in hearing and I understand the concerns and I see both sides of the coin and I also see the public access piece with the lake property and how the
department of natural resources may need to be involved. So here's what I would recommend. Maybe at this time we have Joe get with the department of natural resources have a discussion with them about that piece. Maybe even set up a time where you can take them down there so they can see it
specifically. Find out what they would recommend. They may have some very specific things that says, "Well, time out. You guys can't do anything because it's this and this." And if that's the case, then that may be and there is a potential there is because I do know that there are some laws that they have
in the state regarding public roads, public access to lakes or some different things like that. So maybe we can have Joe get the information, report to us back at the next council meeting on it. we can have it back on the agenda again and he can give us some ideas from there and then maybe that gives us a clear
direction of what what way we need to go. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. All right. So, I think that's what we'll do. I think that's a good thing and we can address that at that time to see just what they say and and they may because let's face it, the DNR deal with it all
the time all over the state. We got over 11,000 lakes. So, they have a lot of those issues that pop up from time to time on on things like that. So they have some I'm sure some good plans and ideas in place if if there's ways to limit the access. What does it look like? So I think that way we're on the
same page with that. Well, and I think with any lake access I mean if there's access there there needs to be parking, you know, I mean there's a whole lot that goes with that too for public access to lakes. Um so we can let's let's get some more information. Yeah, I
I agree cuz they need they should have been involved actually years ago. So, let's let's and then that's good because we have that information as we move forward. So, probably not the last time it's going to come up. All right, sounds good. Uh item 13, LS notice to negotiate
13A law enforcement labor services. Uh just a a notification that the uh police union contract expires at the end of this year and they're wishing to start
negotiations. Okay. Um my suggestion is that the u uh the issue be given to the personnel committee. Yep. They can uh start those discussions. I agree. I agree. So,
personnel committee, that's Council Member Ball and Council Member Moroni. We'll have you guys, I know you guys have gone through that process before, so you're familiar with it. And uh we'll allow you guys to start that and we'll get working on it. Of course, we'll have our legal
end of it involved as well and whatever else you guys feel you need for resource support. So, let us know or let me know. Sounds good. Okay. So, we'll we'll get that moved forward. Uh item 14, discussion security for compost brush
disposal site, 7947 Dakota Drive, 14A, compost brush dispos disposal site letter. Administrator Bones, you got anything you want to add? I think that the letter
is self-explanatory. It is. Um, Council Member Jansen was the the person who received that letter and and actually has requested that it be on an agenda. Um, therefore, it's before you. Um, I
think there's some legitimate um concern about securing that site and um, keeping it for residents only. What is the easiest method to do that? I guess we we really don't know. What I
think what was suggested here was some kind of a card system and a gate gated system. Um I would believe that that is probably a a decent
option. Uh I have no idea what something like that would cost. Um, I think we probably should gather some costs as far as a gate system and look at including that in next year's budget.
This was a email that I received as well and that was my first thought is now with enhancements coming to the our public safety building in city hall we'll have uh digital card read access we'll have IP based camera systems and so to get another you would have to have
a monthly service of an internet connection at the at the site but you would have the ability to deploy IP cameras and IP type card reader system or or gate control system that could interface with what we have and So, if we can go down that path and start
investigating those costs and potentially get that into next year's budget, um, you know, it's something that could interface well within our enhancements that we're doing to both public safety building and city hall. Well, and we discussed this at length
before as a council. And I mean, it was brought up to move it. We had directed staff at the time to look to moving it. Um the pit off of Bushman was one of the
areas, but you know, public works um because they burn it off in the winter, the location was chosen due to the fact it was the least impactful to the neighborhoods. Um you know, we need to do something. It's abused by commercial vehicles or
commercial tree removal services. I've seen it myself. Um, and the safety to the neighborhood. I mean, it is in a neighborhood and it increases traffic. We have to be cognizant of that. And this time around,
we need to do something to alleviate it for the NE, you know, traffic in the neighborhoods, regulate it. Um, it is for residents only. I think part of the problem was for years it was on Crowing County's
website and in very small print it said for Breezy Point residents only. Um but there's residents outside the community. Um and really for the neighborhood we need to get traffic under control, regulate hours.
Um, that's not to say that if a Breezy Point resident has a commercial tree service, they should be able to use it, but they'll have to, you know, give them their card however they choose to do it. Um, but budgeting, obviously, it's a
2026 item. Yeah. To Michael's point, you know, when you put equipment like that out there though, you need climate controlled, you know, boxes. And there's this one, too. It obviously can't sit outside and 30 below we have anything on
the south side of that. So I think it's a good idea. We need to solve it one way or another. Council member Ball. Yeah, I appreciate uh Joe bringing this back to us. Um we did discuss it. I don't really recall why or it dropped off and it
never came back um up for discussion. And I know the only other option for placement we talked about that we hadn't revisited was potentially over where those the ponds are which would impact you know the space we have for those the
ponds for the sewer. Um so absent moving it um you know I think putting in some sort of access is is probably the best way to go. I know there was some concerns about elderly residents and their ability to still use it if somebody else was
helping them, you know, with materials. So, we all have to kind of deal with that um during the discussion, I think, still um with that card access, but hopefully they can kind of coordinate with the person that's helping them if we have some sort of card access. So, yeah, I'm in favor of it if we aren't
moving it. Okay. Any other comments, Council Member Scott? Anything? Yeah, I mean I received this note as well and appreciate Joe bringing it forward. Um I would go so far as to say that um this probably, you know, fell prey to
a lot of other things going on last year. I believe it was potentially the year before when we were talking about this. um you know, we had quite a number of other projects going on and priorities taking place and there's only so much that realistically staff were able to
follow up with and get to the back to the council on. So, um I like the idea certainly of managing a menu like this in a way that assures to the extent possible that our residents and residents only are using
it. I I still don't believe that the site is located where it should be. Um, as I remember quite a bit of the conversation that the council had at the time was several residents in that area coming forward and expressing in fact safety concerns, speed
issues, large vehicles uh entering the site. Um, mainly I think commercial type uh vehicles and and outfits. Um, and to me, no matter how I look at it, I just don't think that access and
locating an amenity, a service to the community in a residential area is is um a good mix of use and where people live. I I would continue to support us taking a look at um what other land does this
city own where something like this could be located maybe in more of a fenced uh controlled access secure area and if there isn't availability of any land in the city then where could we potentially
see opportunity um on the edge of the corporate limits to potentially acquire land that would be removed from a residential area more sort of from an access standpoint and overall situated where it's just not going to continue to
create um concerns of safety for for residents and its use. um but very much support um whatever the approach and ID is with um managing access. You know, we had talked about as I recall at the same
time too, you know, do we hire, you know, a student or whomever during the summer to actively be down there during the majority of daylight hours? I mean, I think we all understand the challenges that come with that. you can only expect somebody to work uh just
so many hours in a day and you know you're not going to likely deter everyone that's kind of abusing the situation from continuing to access it. So, um, yeah, it's to me a combination of of
things that that really should continue to be looked into and, um, but a lot of it for me goes down to we have to we have to locate it in a area that's more conducive given the use to it and just keeping it out of
a fairly heavily residential area. Okay. Well, for me, this is for me it's new because I wasn't on the council when this all got brought up. Uh, so it's a new one and I did receive the letter as well, just so everybody's aware. So, I I thank uh thank the letter for coming
forward. I in listening to all the information because again, I'm it's for me it's the education process of of what the past was. And so, um, I I see both of them. I mean, I I understand the concept of a residential area and having
that where it's at. Um, I don't think it's something maybe we should forget about, but I think at this point, we've got it there. It's established. Are there things that we can do to help alleviate some of the problems? I think at the end of the day, no matter where you put it, you're always going to have issues. Now, I
think you can alleviate some of those issues by having it maybe in a little more of a remote area, but then at the same time, that creates problems, too. So, um, I see both sides of that coin, but I think ultimately maybe what we should be doing is looking at what is
something like this cost, how does it look, and then have staff get us that information so that it can be included in the budget process for next year. Um so that we can we can take a look at budgeting for it to do something to to
put something in place to help with that. And the concept of maybe potentially sometime having somebody there as a part-time summer person or something might be something we look at down the line. I I I would be opposed to that. But I agree you can't have
somebody there all the time every every day and 24 hours a day. It doesn't work. But that's where the where the gated system would work with the card and and having the connection back to our our better um you know infrastructure we're going to have now with the new city hall
and and some of our technology. So I guess what I would say the council's comfortable with it have staff go ahead put together a cost estimate of what it would look like for something of that nature so that we can address we can take a look at it and addressing to put
it into next year's budget and then that would come to the he can get it off to our administrator and we can look at it through the finance committee as we budget for next year. What does that look like? Put it in the budget to have it happen and and then work to have it put in place. Is the council comfortable
with that at this time? Yeah, as long as we not only keep in mind the capital costs, the initial investment, but I can tell you firsthand in dealing with site security through my work, these are very
um maintenance intensive. They they tend to, you know, give way to breakdowns and and issues with opening and closing and winter conditions. And um just so people are going into this with the understanding that it's not just the capital upfront costs. You're going to
have quite a bit of ongoing maintenance needs and and repairs and it's um not a inexpensive uh level of security to operate. Yeah. And I would agree with you 100% on that
because with anytime you build anything or add anything, you always have the cost of maintaining as you move forward. doesn't matter what kind of system it is, whether it's a building or whether it's a security system or whatever. So, I think those are some those are things we have to look at as well and think about as we go forward with this, but I
think we have to work forward and the idea of what does that look like so that we're addressing this again as we move forward based on what I'm hearing the council wanting to do. So, if everybody's comfortable with that, that's what I'll direct staff to do is to to look at getting some costs
put together that we can look at for potential budgeting next year. Maybe as a part of that, what what are some h what are things maintenance- wise that we have to anticipate and look for too. I don't know, potential maintenance contracts, right? Or something like that. So, uh to add in there so we can
kind of see what that true number is and we're not going to have it 100%, but we've got to start somewhere. So, I would say let's do that and and we can go from there. So if staff's comfortable with that. Okay. All right. We'll move forward from
that then. Uh number 15 city hall high-tech pay application number 815A high-tech invoice number eight. We have it in our packet. Is there any information beyond that that we need? Uh administrator
bones. Pretty straightforward. Actually, I could probably give you an update of where that building is at. Let's do that. That'd be a good time to do it. The carpet is in. Uh the tile has been
in the entry has been put down. They're grouting it today um and tomorrow. Part of the counter is uh has been installed today. The asphalt in the front parking and the
parking area has was installed today. Um we anticipate that the furnishings are going to come uh next Monday, week from today.
Um the fire suppression folks are are back and doing some testing. Okay, the well has been uh flushed and and tested. Okay. Um I'm anticipating that we're probably
going to be in that section uh around July 1st. All right. That said, uh the council chambers will be at least a month behind that. Yep. Uh so you're probably going to be here to
around September. Um, yeah, it's it's progressing faster than you than we we thought it was going to happen. It's it's starting to come together. Starting to look like a building. Good. Yeah, I know. I was in
last week and did a little walk through. I attended the construction meeting and it's really coming together. It's looking really nice. The carpet was going down, the walls are painted, the tiles all in. I think they were going to grout here in the next few days. They were doing all the work to lay the
asphalt. So, um it is looking really nice and it's going to be a very great place for um staff to use and the public to come and and be involved in there as well. So, um and yeah, we understand we'll be sitting here in the for a
couple more months, but that's all right. As long as Chief tolerates us a little more longer, we'll we'll be good. So, he then we'll give his space back to him and we'll go back to our place. He will tolerate it as long as you sign his check. All right. So, thank you for the update.
So, we have the high-tech invoice number eight. Um, do I have a motion to approve that invoice? So, moved. I have a motion from Council Member Ball. Do I have a second? Second. Have a second from Council Member Moroni. Any discussion?
Just um one thing to clarify. There's a change order of just over 80,000. Is that for the um installation of the well? The 80,000. Yeah, that it was a negative from the the
contract. Um the 80,000 is for the the furniture and it's a positive. So, in other words, it's a pull out. It's a pull out, but the Yeah, I know. It's it's there. It it was taken under the contract with Hi-Tech and it was bought by the city
directly. That was to alleviate sales tax, right? Sales tax and and overhead. So, yeah. Any other questions or discussion? All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. I
abstensions. Motion carries. All right, we'll move to item 16. I'm now going to suspend the regular session and move to close session to discuss land acquisition for Bushman Road with WSB.