WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=NNCgrCvOh8k

Part: 1

1
00:00:06.400 --> 00:00:37.200
As soon as we get a green light here, folks, we'll start. There we go. Well, good evening everyone and welcome to the Adina City Council meeting. It is Tuesday, July 21st, 2026. There is no month that goes faster than

2
00:00:37.200 --> 00:00:53.440
July, is there? Past the 4th of July. It's unbelievable. Um, we've got, as Director Benro said, a full agenda this evening. And we've been doing these meetings on a hybrid sort of basis, uh, during the pandemic and post pandemic. So folks may be watching from home.

3
00:00:53.440 --> 00:01:10.240
They'll be able to call in uh and address the council on a couple of different uh matters. I don't know if we Yeah, we don't have any public hearings tonight. So if they have a concern uh they want to raise with the council uh with regard to a matter that's not on the agenda this evening or scheduled for a future public hearing, they can do

4
00:01:10.240 --> 00:01:26.560
that. uh and in the audience as well. If there's somebody here that has a concern that they want to address with the council that uh deals with a matter that's not on the agenda or scheduled for a future public hearing, we'll be glad to hear your concerns. And we'll have a few of our residents, I'm sure, that have concerns independent of what's

5
00:01:26.560 --> 00:01:43.600
on the agenda this evening. Uh so, uh there's a number that if you're watching, you can call in. Uh and then we'll take people in the audience first uh with respect to the uh committee comment portion of the agenda. And having provided that information, I'm going to call the meeting to order and ask our clerk, clerk, Sharon Ellison, to

6
00:01:43.600 --> 00:01:58.479
call the role. >> Council member Agne >> here. >> Council member Jackson >> here. Council member Pierce >> here. >> Council member Risser >> here. >> Mayor Hlin >> here. Next is the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

7
00:01:58.479 --> 00:02:20.720
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> We've got a form of meeting agenda that's been published both to the general public and to the staff and

8
00:02:20.720 --> 00:02:36.720
council members. Uh, is there anyone on the council or staff that wants to amend the agenda in any form or fashion? Is there a motion to approve the meeting agenda as published? >> So moved. >> Member Jackson moves. >> I second. >> Member Agnu seconds. The adoption of the meeting agenda is published. Any further

9
00:02:36.720 --> 00:02:52.560
discussion on that issue? All those in favor of adopting the meeting agenda is published say I. >> I. >> I. Reminder, Mr. Mayor, we are starting roll call. Um, >> even for even for that, we need to do the roll call. will be done by >> I see that right here. So, we've got a

10
00:02:52.560 --> 00:03:08.720
new process we have to employ based on state law, I guess. >> And uh Americans with Disability Act to comply. >> All right. And so we'll go down the line. Council member Risser, how you vote on the adoption of the meeting agenda? >> I member Jackson >> I. >> Uh member Pierce

11
00:03:08.720 --> 00:03:24.000
>> I. Member Agno >> I. >> Mayor Z. The meeting agenda is adopted. We've got something to work from. Now we are at community comment and um if we have we're going to go to people in the audience first uh before we turn to the virtual world to see if we have people

12
00:03:24.000 --> 00:03:44.319
turning tuning in and we'll have our residents come in that have a concern they want to address with the council mayor council members my name is Ralph Sicker on May 5th member Pierce in chambers

13
00:03:44.319 --> 00:04:00.799
characterized by recent community comments as throwing rocks. On June 23rd, member Jackson in a one-on-one conversation expressed her concern that I needed to tone down my cynicism as she believed my comments portrayed a poor

14
00:04:00.799 --> 00:04:16.560
example to young people. So to those impressionable young people who've been in the audience or have listened to any of the 30 plus times I've spoken before council, everyone gets to have an opinion. Educate

15
00:04:16.560 --> 00:04:33.919
yourself on the issues that are important to you. Strive to do the due diligence such that your opinion is supported by facts and one that will stand the test of impartial scrutiny. And understand the perseverance and courage

16
00:04:34.320 --> 00:04:49.680
it may take to stand by your opinion. For my part, I believe young people are mature enough to discern what they do or do not want to emulate as a role model. And if they've listened to understand, they've seen how easy it is for

17
00:04:49.680 --> 00:05:06.800
government to hide behind a lack of transparency. how easy it is for government to control the narrative and how quickly government will shut down reasonable disscent. This month saw the passing of Doug Grow, a longtime columnist for the Star

18
00:05:06.800 --> 00:05:21.680
Tribune. And to quote one of his editors, he was never afraid to speak the truth to those who needed to hear it. End quote. Truth can be the kindest act of all for those who listen to understand, or it can be the sharpest

19
00:05:21.680 --> 00:05:38.960
cut of all for those who won't. In three years, not once has this council publicly or privately refuted the accuracy of what I've shared. As for Manager Neil, he too has been silent or on rare occasions belatedly confirmed

20
00:05:38.960 --> 00:05:55.840
what I've said. Most recently, Mr. Neil confirmed my statement that it was optics, not spending cuts, that were the major driver of the final 2026 general levy. an effort worth worthy of an F minus. Therefore, with regards to the

21
00:05:55.840 --> 00:06:12.560
two previously mentioned council members and you, mayor, each of whom have supported a culture of personal insults, if I were a cynic, I'd say things will never change. Yet, as an optimist, I believe things can change as long as

22
00:06:12.560 --> 00:06:36.960
there are people who keep sharing the truth. Thank you. Anyone else? >> My name is [clears throat] Jim Gross. >> Somebody asked for some assistance in

23
00:06:36.960 --> 00:06:52.479
locating a survey. And given all the issues I've had in the last 10 years uh in this area with happened to our property, I said, "Sure, I'd be happy to assist you." And

24
00:06:52.479 --> 00:07:08.639
I went to the, you know, website, you know, find surveys and all that. And I went to the particular property in question and there was no survey. The property in question is the Edina Country Club. given where my office is

25
00:07:08.639 --> 00:07:24.720
located and I basically stare over the country club and look at the uh back door that comes in off of Wilson Road. I see all this. There have been major remodelings. There have been hundreds, you know,

26
00:07:24.720 --> 00:07:41.360
hundreds of yards of trucks brought in over almost a hundred tandem loads of dirt when they redid this. Where's the survey? And so wondering about this, I decided to look, well, let's look at your own property. So I did and I looked at our property and I only found the

27
00:07:41.360 --> 00:07:56.560
survey from 1950. Well, there's a problem here. Uh my wife and I went through this terrible battle with our neighbor. Cost us some money and there is a courtordered survey on that property and the city has it

28
00:07:56.560 --> 00:08:13.680
because they had to sign off on it. And not only there's a court-ordered survey, it's a court-ordered survey with judicial landmarks on uh the three lots in adjacent to each other. And it's a court-ordered uh there's a court-ordered covenants that

29
00:08:13.680 --> 00:08:29.120
go along with this. None of it is posted. And my question is why uh you know this if if it's court ordered certainly it should be up there. And in terms of the country club, does it mean

30
00:08:29.120 --> 00:08:45.600
if there's no survey that the Edina Country Club got a pass on the survey requirements for a permit? Does that what that means? Um, when will this be posted and why hasn't it been posted? Thank you very much.

31
00:08:45.600 --> 00:09:11.200
>> Thank you, Mr. Roach. We'll do some checking on that for you. Anyone else? David Frankle. Last week I was over by Ardan Park in the evening when a fairly sizable drone flew overhead.

32
00:09:11.200 --> 00:09:26.160
Uh it was going from the east or excuse me going from the west to the east. The only thing I could think of it was a police related drone. One thing I'd like to remind uh the council and the law enforcement, FAA regulations apply to everybody who flies

33
00:09:26.160 --> 00:09:42.880
an aircraft in the US airspace, including law enforcement, including emergencies. I have no idea whose drone it was, but it was also flying fairly close to clouds and it was flying on a smoky day. Smoke can cause mechanical problems for anything, including small

34
00:09:42.880 --> 00:09:59.360
aircraft like a drone. There's a lot of issues with drones going on right now. And the city had a what's called the drone of the first responder program. They ran some kind of pilot in May. The website said there'll be a followup to that press release in May, which to my

35
00:09:59.360 --> 00:10:13.920
knowledge there never has been. DFR programs work, but they're extremely expensive. And if you follow the news, you'll have seen the city of Minneapolis city council just denied the Minneapolis Police Department the use of a free DFR

36
00:10:13.920 --> 00:10:30.320
pilot by one of the major uh DFR companies. It's mainly done because of the lack of public education. If this DFR program is to continue and someday in Edina, there needs to be more more public outreach. There needs to be

37
00:10:30.320 --> 00:10:47.279
discussion about what drones can and can't do and the safety aspects they they have and what privacy issues there are. There has to be more public meetings. When the United Police first started using drones, there was no public meeting as to what they were going to do with them. There needs to be

38
00:10:47.279 --> 00:11:04.320
public outreach when you use this kind of technology. It works, but it's not bulletproof. So, I would emphasize get education out there. have public meetings on any type of drone program. And again, the FAA says you everybody has to follow regulations on the

39
00:11:04.320 --> 00:11:21.360
national airspace. National airspace is everything above the ground or a building. And Edina cannot say we do not allow drones in our airspace. The one thing the city can do is say you cannot launch a drone from Edina property. The city of Adina, it's the only thing you

40
00:11:21.360 --> 00:11:46.480
can do legally. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Frankle. Anyone else? Okay. Uh do we have anybody online? Okay. Uh our practice is that uh we take the public comment and then we uh respond to it if there were questions

41
00:11:46.480 --> 00:12:01.760
involved uh by the following Friday on the website and then the city manager follows up if there were comments at the prior meeting with comments at the subsequent city council meeting and I'll turn to a city manager Scott Neil now to see if there were any uh any responses

42
00:12:01.760 --> 00:12:17.360
he needed to make to the meeting that was held now I guess before the June >> in June June 20 the end of June. >> Thank you. you took that Fourth of July week off. >> There there are two questions that we we responded to uh previously online. I'll respond to them tonight, too. First

43
00:12:17.360 --> 00:12:34.079
question is, why does the city plant maple trees? Uh and and our response is that the city prioritizes planting a diverse mix of climate adapted tree species to improve biodiversity and strengthen the urban forests resilience to pests, diseases, changes, and environmental conditions, etc. Reducing

44
00:12:34.079 --> 00:12:49.200
the overall reliance on any single tree species, including maples, remains a long time or long long-term goal. Maple trees planted near Vernon Avenue and Highway 100 interchange project are a unique example of of the city's commitment to sustainability. Rather

45
00:12:49.200 --> 00:13:06.639
than purchasing new trees, staff repurposed trees that had been originally uh been purchased as boxed trees for seasonal displays in the 50th and France district. The trees were wintered at the former public works uh site just on the other side of the of 100, reused in the city hall parking lot

46
00:13:06.639 --> 00:13:21.519
in 2025, and ultimately transplanted to their permanent location along West 50th Street. The creative approach allowed the city to extend the life of the trees while making efficient use of existing resources. A second question was around uh the use

47
00:13:21.519 --> 00:13:38.560
of Roundup in in city parks. Uh I I have a hard time pronouncing the chemical in Roundup, so I'm just going to use the term Roundup. The city uh regularly evaluates its land management practices, but it does not currently have plans to ban Roundup uh style products in city

48
00:13:38.560 --> 00:13:55.920
parks. Uh Roundup is used selectively as part of an integrated vegetation management program that also includes mowing, prescribed burns, hand removal of invasive plants. These methods work together to restore and maintain a native plant uh communities. When herbicides are used, uh applications are

49
00:13:55.920 --> 00:14:11.760
targeted and performed by certified professionally trained contractors. City staff continue to monitor best practices and research related to vegetation management while while balancing environmental stewardship, public safety, project costs, and the effect and the effectiveness of restoration

50
00:14:11.760 --> 00:14:27.920
efforts. And that's what we had. >> All right. Prompt. Any questions from council members? All right. Very good. Um I was just thinking it was seen we have an audience full of our fellow residents. Um usually I would wait till the end of the meeting to do uh

51
00:14:27.920 --> 00:14:43.600
something like this but um uh in conjunction with the World Cup about probably about a month ago the US Conference of Mayors uh and FIFA got together and they offered any city

52
00:14:43.600 --> 00:15:01.360
uh 200 soccer balls free of charge. So, here's an example of a deflated soccer ball that came in today, 200 of them. And so, give some thought to how to use these. You know, I've got my ideas with the school district and this Adina

53
00:15:01.360 --> 00:15:16.800
soccer club and Adina Give and Go and the Adina Ed fund and on and on. But, uh, if you have some ideas, send them to me, please. And I'm telling you this now because after the Wooddale matter is over, I'm sure you're all going to go home. you're not going to you're not going to

54
00:15:16.800 --> 00:15:31.760
stick around to hear the mayor and the council members talk about what's going on in the world the end of the meeting. So there it is. Um and it was it was pretty generous when I saw 200 soccer balls, you know, I ordered them right away and

55
00:15:31.760 --> 00:15:49.199
here they came in. So and it says football for schools uh FIFA on the side of it. So it's kind of exciting and uh we'll get that done. So give that some thought. Um, all right. We've got uh items on the consent agenda I think that some of the council members want to remove from the consent agenda. Here's

56
00:15:49.199 --> 00:16:04.560
what I have on my list. Council member Risser 6.1 uh council member Agnu 6.13, Council Member Risser 6.15 and Council Member Pierce >> 6.15

57
00:16:04.560 --> 00:16:23.759
and then Council Member Jackson 6.16. >> Was it Did I miss anything there? Did you did you get me for >> I did for 6.15. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. All right. Uh with the exception of uh items 6.1, 6.13, 6.15, and 6.16.

58
00:16:23.759 --> 00:16:40.720
Is there a motion to adopt the balance of the items and a single motion on the consent agenda? >> So moved. >> Council member Jackson moves. Council member Agno seconds. Roll call. Any further discussion? First, I'll say that. Okay. Member Risser. >> I. Member Jackson

59
00:16:40.720 --> 00:16:56.079
>> I. >> Member Pierce I. >> Member Agnu >> I. >> Mayor I. Those items are adopted. They're on the consent agenda. Now we'll go back to the items that were removed from the consent agenda. Uh council member Risser 6.1 is the minutes of the regular June 2nd meeting. I think there

60
00:16:56.079 --> 00:17:12.720
were some changes that you and and clerk Allison agreed on for the minutes. >> Right. And I would just like to read these and for all of you who are in the audience um this actually does pertain to what we're talking about later in terms of safety and um this is reference

61
00:17:12.720 --> 00:17:28.559
to an item that came up at the um this earlier meeting at June 2nd, but um we it was read as the council expressed concerns regarding the lack of alignment with section 24-130

62
00:17:28.559 --> 00:17:45.360
of the city code about curb cuts on collector streets and I requested it be changed to the council express concerns regarding the lack of alignment with section 24-130 of the city code about driveways intersecting arterial roads. Council

63
00:17:45.360 --> 00:18:02.000
noted code includes additional restrictions for lots in the R1 and R2 district. In these zones, no driveway shall intersect with a street designated as an arterial if the lot is a through lot. And um I'd be happy to talk to anybody after this meeting if you have

64
00:18:02.000 --> 00:18:18.160
questions about that. It it was a through lot. So there's a different access point that is not an arterial or a collector. It's Eden Prairie Road. Um so with that, I am very happy with this change. >> Right. All right. Very good. Um member,

65
00:18:18.160 --> 00:18:34.720
is anybody have any questions for member or the clerk? All right. Uh, member, would you move the amended minutes um for the June 2nd regular city council uh meeting and the work and then the work session uh minutes for June 16, 2026?

66
00:18:34.720 --> 00:18:50.480
>> So moved. >> All right. Is there a second? Second. >> All right. We got a second by member Pierce on the amended minutes as member Rissa read them for June 2nd, 2026 regular meeting of the city council and the work session on June 16, 2026. Any further discussion? All right. Uh roll

67
00:18:50.480 --> 00:19:06.400
call vote. Council member Risser, >> I. >> Council member Jackson, >> I. >> Uh, Council Member Pierce, >> I. >> Council member Agnu, >> I. >> And mayor I. Now, Clerk Allison, do you want to be doing this in the future instead of having me sit here and do this or >> certainly can.

68
00:19:06.400 --> 00:19:21.760
>> Okay. It seems to me like that would be appropriate. Then the mayor doesn't have to talk to himself. Okay. [laughter] All right. Um, let's do that. All right. We're down to 6.13, which is a traffic safety report. and council member Agnu

69
00:19:21.760 --> 00:19:40.640
wanted us to discuss that a little bit and I'm going to turn it over to council member Agnu for her observations there. >> Thank you. Yeah, the the couple of parts that I wanted to dig into um I know we had a discussion previously about um

70
00:19:40.640 --> 00:19:56.720
specifically the Pinewood Sherwood with the clinic parking and just wanted to get an update. It sounds like that's being asked for more study. Um, but I'd love to understand where are we at on that today and what more do we still need to understand?

71
00:19:56.720 --> 00:20:11.919
>> Sure. Thank you for the question. Um, u something to keep in mind is procedurally these traffic safety reports are staggered because the committee meets one month and then the commission reviews it the next month and then the council reviews it. So, um, this report is from this is the May

72
00:20:11.919 --> 00:20:27.440
report. Um, in the June report, the traffic safety committee reviewed it again and recommended action recommended to remove parking uh on the west side of Sherwood Road. Um, that that report was reviewed by the transportation commission just last week and so that

73
00:20:27.440 --> 00:20:43.360
will be coming to city council um in the first meeting in August. >> Wonderful. Thank you. So, it sounds like we will be seeing it soon. We'll have some more closure on that particular topic, but just not tonight. >> That's correct. >> Wonderful. Thank you. And then the next one that I I wanted to ask about because

74
00:20:43.360 --> 00:20:58.799
we'd received a couple of emails about it and it was the Interlockan Boulevard um the corner to Park Terrace. Um I wasn't able to see that in the report. So I don't know if we um reached out to that resident

75
00:20:58.799 --> 00:21:15.679
that we had reviewed it or if I missed it in the report, but if if you could provide an update on the recommendation that was provided for that specific request, that would be wonderful. Of course, that item uh that item is in the June report which is coming to council in August. Um so that was reviewed by

76
00:21:15.679 --> 00:21:30.720
the transportation commission last week. Uh on that particular item, staff is recommending no action. >> Okay. For that, can we also then just follow up with the resident because I think he was communicated that it would be discussed tonight at the city council meeting. So that would be >> follow up with the resident on that.

77
00:21:30.720 --> 00:21:46.720
>> Okay. Thank you for answering those questions. Um, having closed out on all of that, I move to approve the um, traffic safety report as of May 26, 2026. >> All right. Thank you, Council Member Agnu. Is there a second to that motion? >> Second by member Pierce. Any further

78
00:21:46.720 --> 00:22:02.720
discussion? >> Roll call, please. >> Council member Risser, >> I. >> Council member Jackson, >> I. >> Mayor Hublin, >> I. >> Council member Pierce, >> I. >> Council member Agnu, >> I. >> All right, the motion's approved. Thank

79
00:22:02.720 --> 00:22:18.799
you. Um and the traffic safety report of May 26, 2026 is adopted. Uh next item that was removed from the consent agenda is item 6.15. Member Risser and member Pierce both asked for that to be removed and that is

80
00:22:18.799 --> 00:22:35.440
um dealing with a slight extension proposed slight extension on the city manager's employment agreement and um I'll go to member Risser first to >> Thank you. And this is a basic I was not on the committee that um approved this

81
00:22:35.440 --> 00:22:52.080
and um which we have to we can't all be part of everything because uh some matters uh are not open to the public and we can't all be part of that and I was not part of that group. So I really feel like I didn't have enough information to vote on this. Also

82
00:22:52.080 --> 00:23:08.240
reading the um item report for this, it concludes, "For both clarity and transparency purposes, staff requests the council approve the proposed action to serve as the city's official written notice to extend the city manager's employment

83
00:23:08.240 --> 00:23:24.000
agreement to expire on his proposed retirement date of January 8th, 2027, as opposed to the very end of December 2026. And so I would ask um for clarity on what the financial implications are

84
00:23:24.000 --> 00:23:40.960
in terms of extending manager Neil's contract. I've heard from a lot of residents and there's a lot of different opinions and so if we could just get what exactly this means financially that would be much appreciated. >> Assistant city manager Ari Lind wants to address this issue I believe.

85
00:23:40.960 --> 00:23:56.640
>> Yeah. So, um I don't have the exact costs for the health insurance component, but for one week worth of pay, it's around $5,000, which is equivalent to 40 hours worth of pay for the city manager as he's an exempt employee. >> And just to be crystal clear for people

86
00:23:56.640 --> 00:24:11.840
who are concerned, this is not triggering an entire year of healthcare coverage. >> No. No. >> Okay. It's it is one week of healthcare coverage. Well, the health insurance, our actual city policy is that if an employee works even one hour worth of

87
00:24:11.840 --> 00:24:27.600
that month that they receive it through the end of the month. So, it would just be through January. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. >> Yep. >> Council member Pierce. >> Uh thanks uh Mr. Mayor. Um I wanted to to remove that um for a slightly

88
00:24:27.600 --> 00:24:44.960
different reason, but I I think it actually might be tangental uh to member Risser. Um we are in the midst of a hiring process to replace um manager Neil. Um and anytime you have the outgoing executive who is

89
00:24:44.960 --> 00:25:00.720
retiring in this case and you have an incoming executive who you've not hired yet, um it is just prudent to try to have some kind of overlap or transition between those two executives. Um, [snorts] and so, um, kind of for that

90
00:25:00.720 --> 00:25:18.000
transition reason, I just think it I thought it was, um, really important for the community to hear that, uh, we're we are thinking about that, um, so that we aren't, um, kind of left without an executive who has had a transition, who

91
00:25:18.000 --> 00:25:33.440
has now been somewhat onboarded, has gone through some of the onboarding. Um, and so I I definitely wanted to just make sure everybody was aware um that we are doing that um to ensure that we have a smooth transition. Um, and you've got

92
00:25:33.440 --> 00:25:49.520
somebody who has served uh well in that role for 15 years. Um, there's a lot that goes on with that and so we uh we definitely appreciate having that extra uh one week to make sure uh we've got a smooth transition.

93
00:25:49.520 --> 00:26:04.720
>> Very good. Other other comments? All right. Um, so this takes us really about eight days beyond the end of the year and eight days beyond the normal sort of period of time in which we would have

94
00:26:04.720 --> 00:26:20.799
been extending the contract had he not decided to retire. >> Right. And and definitely with um I mean we're the process is going well so far, but we have several uh interview cycles to go yet. And then once you've made

95
00:26:20.799 --> 00:26:37.840
that selection, you still have to have that conversation with the new candidate on the start date and all of that. And so it just gives us a little bit of of uh breathing room just a little bit. >> Yes, me. >> Apologies, I forgot another question. What is the implications in terms of

96
00:26:37.840 --> 00:26:59.120
compensation for vacation time for extending it for one week? uh in in terms of extending it for one week, uh the city manager would be um able to get the same pr-rated amount that he gets for every um every hour that he typically gets. And so there

97
00:26:59.120 --> 00:27:14.880
would be no changes than to his current policy. >> Okay. There are some places where you go into a week and then you get your entire >> Nope. We are not one of those places. >> Okay. Thank [laughter] you. I think that that needs to be clarified. Thank you. Member Pierce, would you care to move

98
00:27:14.880 --> 00:27:30.559
the approval of the proposed extension of the city manager's current employment agreement terms and conditions to expire on January or excuse me, Friday, January 8th, 2027? >> So move. Is >> there a second? >> Second. >> Member Jackson seconds. Uh the the

99
00:27:30.559 --> 00:27:46.559
motion is stated. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. >> Council member Agny, >> I. Council member Pierce, >> I. >> Mayor Hlin, >> I. >> Council member Jackson, >> I. Council member Risser. >> Hi. >> All right. Motion's approved. The uh extension of city manager's current

100
00:27:46.559 --> 00:28:03.120
employment agreement is approved. We will now extend that to Friday, January 8th, 2027. Um and thanks to U. Council members Pierce and Jackson for kind of leading the effort along with our staff, our assistant city manager, Ari Lens on the

101
00:28:03.120 --> 00:28:18.080
on the recruitment process. I think we could tell people we had what 60 some applicants originally starting and got it down to 16 and now down to six. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we'll the rest of us will join in here soon and start the

102
00:28:18.080 --> 00:28:35.760
start the interview process. So, um and some very good candidates. All right. Uh the next item and the final item on the consent agenda that was pulled uh was the uh 6.16 which is a resolution proposed resolution 2026-39

103
00:28:35.760 --> 00:28:50.559
which appoints election judges for the August 11 primary in the November 3rd general elections and uh council member Jackson I think had some points she wanted to make with respect to that those potential appointments of election judges. So council member Jackson please.

104
00:28:50.559 --> 00:29:06.080
>> Yes. Thank you. So very briefly, free and fair elections are the foundation of our system of government. We can't do it without election judges. Um this is an outstanding um panel of people who have stepped forward to make sure that we can run elections here in our city of Edina

105
00:29:06.080 --> 00:29:21.840
along with our staff. And I just wanted to say a public thank you to all those people who stepped forward to be election judges. And with that, I will move section 6.16 of resolution number 202639 appointing election judges for the August 11th primary. and November

106
00:29:21.840 --> 00:29:37.840
three general elections. >> Is there a second to that motion? >> Second. >> All right. Member Pierce seconds the motion as stated. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. >> Mayor Hublin. >> I. >> Council member Pierce. >> I. >> Council member Agne.

107
00:29:37.840 --> 00:29:52.799
>> I. >> Council member Jackson. >> I. >> Council member Risser. >> I. >> The resolution 2026-39 is adopted and the election judges are appointed. And I think it's worthwhile with an audience full of our fellow residents that you

108
00:29:52.799 --> 00:30:09.120
you talk a little bit about the process of of election how election judges are selected. Um how we try to make sure that we've got an equal number of people from both political parties and >> and uh I think just a b basic tutorial there would be good. >> Yeah, absolutely. So if anyone is

109
00:30:09.120 --> 00:30:23.840
interested in becoming an election judge, we generally go through an application process. It's a pretty simple process to go through. Um once we've gone through your um application, we're looking for party balance. So there generally is the two major parties, the Republican and the

110
00:30:23.840 --> 00:30:40.480
Democratic party. And the um election judges are assigned to polling places based on party ballots. There are some responsibilities in the polling place that requires um two judges of different parties to perform. For example, removing the ballots from the ballot

111
00:30:40.480 --> 00:30:55.840
counter. um we need to have two different parties uh two different judges of different parties um doing that responsibility. In addition to work um at the polling places on election day, I also need help here at city hall

112
00:30:55.840 --> 00:31:10.399
um for absentee voting. So if you're ever interested in helping out, um those hours are generally 8 to 4:30. Um and I schedule that based on two shifts. So, you would work a 8 a.m. to noon shift

113
00:31:10.399 --> 00:31:26.799
and then a noon to 4:30 shift. So, be sure and uh contact me if you are interested in helping out. I do have enough election judges um for this election, but I could use some help at city hall for absentee voting.

114
00:31:26.799 --> 00:31:43.600
>> I didn't think it was going to be recruitment, but that was okay. Yeah, we've got a lot of people in our community stepping up to be election judges, and it's nice that she's asked you to think about it as well. All right. Um, we're going to move on now to the uh uh next portion of

115
00:31:43.600 --> 00:31:59.120
the agenda, which is the special recognitions and presentations. We got a couple of presentations to make tonight, and um I think you'll find them both interesting. The first one is what we call the the PAX fund, the 2025 PAX fund summary report. This is the the funding

116
00:31:59.120 --> 00:32:15.440
source we use for building out uh non-motorized transportation systems in the city of Vana. Sidewalk, sidewalk repair, things of that nature. So, uh Andrew Cypion, our transportation planner, is here to make this report. >> Thank you, Mayor, members of council.

117
00:32:15.440 --> 00:32:32.240
Always a pleasure to uh be here tonight uh and uh [clears throat] talk about uh the great work that we've done with the pedestrian and cyclist safety fund. Um, so I'll give a, as always, I'll give a brief overview of the PAX fund for our audience. Um, and then go into detail about the 2025 expenditures, the projects that we constructed last year,

118
00:32:32.240 --> 00:32:48.640
and then give a preview of projects that are underway this year and planned for 2027. So, as a reminder, the the PAX fund, which stands for pedestrian and cyclist safety fund, was approved in 2012 by city council. It's generated from uh revenue from utility franchise fees of

119
00:32:48.640 --> 00:33:03.919
customers of Centerpoint Energy and Excel Energy in Edina. It generates about $1.5 million annually and this um this [clears throat] money is used exclusively for improvements to the non-motorized transportation network. Um so you can see from this picture kind of

120
00:33:03.919 --> 00:33:19.039
shows all of the uh things that fall into that category that includes sidewalks, bike lanes, associated signage and pavement markings. You might want to let folks in the audience know here to tonight that um they might have noticed this on their utility bills that small fee that they

121
00:33:19.039 --> 00:33:35.760
pay which is the uh franchise fee. You want to go into that in a little bit more detail before you proceed? >> Uh sure. Yeah. So as I mentioned um this fee is generated from or this revenue is generated from utility franchise fees. Uh so all residential and commercial customers of Centerpoint and Excel

122
00:33:35.760 --> 00:33:51.840
Energy will see if you look on your monthly bill you'll see a line item there. I don't know exactly how it's coded on the invoice or on the on the bill, but um that money uh accumulates and goes into this fund. Um the uh our utility franchise fees, a portion of

123
00:33:51.840 --> 00:34:10.879
that revenue goes to PAX, another portion of it goes to our conservation sustainability fund, and then there's a portion that goes to street light improvements, and then there's a portion that goes to um a rotary reconstruction fund as well. In 2025, we had $1.8 million available

124
00:34:10.879 --> 00:34:28.159
to spend. That includes $106,000 of funds that rolled over from 2024. Um, of that, uh, we spent almost $2.4 million on PAX items. Uh, which is an overage of about $555,000. Um, that overage is primarily due to

125
00:34:28.159 --> 00:34:44.240
projects that were either grant funded or, uh, otherwise reimbursed through other funding mechanisms. And that funding uh the majority of that funding is expected to be recouped in 2026. Um the two main projects that that impacts include the Rosen Park pedestrian bridge

126
00:34:44.240 --> 00:35:01.040
um which a lot of preliminary design uh occurred in 2025 as well as the development of our safe and equitable mobility action plan which was funded by a grant through the federal safe streets and roads for all program. Um the uh of the money that was spent,

127
00:35:01.040 --> 00:35:16.400
45% was spent on new pedestrian and bicycle facilities at a cost of about a million dollars. Um $41,000 was spent on maintaining existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Um this includes funding that contributed to our sidewalk inspection program. And then final

128
00:35:16.400 --> 00:35:32.480
payments for previous projects uh was about $300,000 for a total construction expenditure of $1.4 million. In professional services, we spent $814,000. Uh for promotional activities, we spent uh $5,600.

129
00:35:32.480 --> 00:35:47.040
Um kind of other miscellaneous costs, maintenance and supplies, that was about $10,000. And then uh my salary comes out of the pedestrian and cyclist safety fund uh at 140 uh $142,000 uh for total administrative expenditures

130
00:35:47.040 --> 00:36:06.240
of uh $972,000. Wrong one. Um these are the main projects that were constructed in 2025 uh with PAX funding. Um in a project noted with the A there is the Vernon Avenue and Highway 100 interchange project. Um the PAX fund

131
00:36:06.240 --> 00:36:22.480
wasn't the only funding source but it did contribute funds to this project. Um and that includes uh new shared use paths, curb ramps, and APS push buttons. Um noted with letter B is the president's A&B roadway reconstruction project uh in which we constructed new

132
00:36:22.480 --> 00:36:38.160
shared use paths on Washington Avenue, Belmore Lane, a new sidewalk on Monroe Avenue, and curb extensions throughout the project area. Letter C notes the France Avenue sidewalk from 60th Street to 62nd Street.

133
00:36:38.160 --> 00:36:53.760
I'm going to keep pressing the wrong arrow. Um we also the PAX fund also paid for some new bike racks at the Adina liquor store at Grand View. We bought three new racks. Um and the PAX fund also paid for um rectangular rapid flash beacon equipment at various locations

134
00:36:53.760 --> 00:37:09.040
throughout the city. Um this includes at Eden Avenue and Grand View Square, Braar Boulevard and the Mountain Bike Trail crossing and 62nd Street and Pamela Park. looking ahead or I guess looking now at projects that are uh in in construction

135
00:37:09.040 --> 00:37:24.160
or will shortly be underway. These include the Rosen Park pedestrian bridge. Uh again, the PAX fund is not paying completely for this project, but is contributing some funding to it. Um on West 72nd Street as part of a trunk sanitary sewer rehabilitation project,

136
00:37:24.160 --> 00:37:39.599
we're building a new shared use path on 72nd between Cornelia and France Avenue. Parklon Court is up for roadway reconstruction this year and as part of that we are adding new sidewalk um between uh Parklon Avenue and the end of the culde-sac. Um the Woodell Avenue

137
00:37:39.599 --> 00:37:54.720
bike lane project which we will discuss in more detail later tonight uh is related to a scheduled overlay project. The France Avenue sidewalk uh from 62nd Street to Highway 62. Um I'm particularly excited about this because this is the last segment of sidewalk

138
00:37:54.720 --> 00:38:10.320
that is missing on France Avenue. So once we complete this, we will have sidewalk on both sides of France all the way through the community, which I think is a very significant milestone. Um the sidewalk inspection program um will continue is continuing in 26 um

139
00:38:10.320 --> 00:38:26.480
including miscellaneous uh sidewalk panel replacements, grinding, curb ramp improvements and then the PAX fund uh has already purchased 10 new bike racks in the 50th and France district and I'm working with um the business association to hopefully install more here later

140
00:38:26.480 --> 00:38:42.480
this year. Looking ahead then in 2027 major projects include the olinger boulevard sidewalk from Vernon Avenue to Villa Way. This is a project that was recommended in our active routes to school plan. Interlock and boulevard is also up for roadway reconstruction

141
00:38:42.480 --> 00:38:58.240
between Blake Road and Mirror Lakes Drive. Um our pedestrian and bicycle master plan recommends uh bike lanes and shared use path as part of that project. West 69th Street between France Avenue and York Avenue is up for a batuminous overlay in 27. So, we'll be looking at

142
00:38:58.240 --> 00:39:14.160
potentially adding bike lanes along that corridor. And then the Vernon Avenue multimotal improvement project uh from Eden Avenue to Interlockan Boulevard um kind of extends the work that we've done with the interchange project to try and extend those multimotal facilities out

143
00:39:14.160 --> 00:39:30.800
to the east. Um so, we're looking at shared use paths and a potential road diet for that section. Um we have received Henipin County Henipin County funding through their cost share program. Um, but we've also submitted for uh Met Council regional solicitation funding to help cover the cost for this

144
00:39:30.800 --> 00:39:47.040
project. And then the sidewalk inspection program as always. And with that, I will stand for any questions you may have. >> Good questions. Council member Jackson and Council Member Ger. >> Uh, yes. Thank you very much for the report. And I know it's always we want to do more, but it's exciting that we're

145
00:39:47.040 --> 00:40:02.880
doing what we're doing. Um, regarding the sidewalk inspection program, I'm going to say what I remember and I'll have you correct me. Um, that this was came out of a um, public works efficiency study that we did and staffing study that the public works

146
00:40:02.880 --> 00:40:18.240
department was being interrupted constantly. Can you come fix this sidewalk? Can you come fix that sidewalk? It was very inefficient use of of staff time. And so by creating this sidewalk inspection program, we can proactively fix things but also um not

147
00:40:18.240 --> 00:40:34.880
waste that time of having to drop a project and go get it fixed. Is am I remembering that correctly? >> I I believe so. I'll I'll turn I'll defer to Director Milner if he has any clarification. But that sounds right to me. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. So this is a just a really good use of staff time to not be so broken

148
00:40:34.880 --> 00:40:51.599
up. So people have wondered what's the sidewalk inspection program? And it's really it's an efficiency program. So, and and we want to keep our sidewalks usable as well. So, >> yes, absolutely. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Council Member Jackson. Council member Risser, >> um I have questions about two bridges

149
00:40:51.599 --> 00:41:07.200
with the Rosland Park bridge. I keep looking at that image and it really looks like the cladding is hanging below the bridge deck and um Director Milner did send me images, but I still see the cladding hanging below the bridge deck. >> That's not the case. I can meet with you

150
00:41:07.200 --> 00:41:23.920
and share the graphic again, but Mindot required us to have the bottom cord of that bridge visible for inspections and the graphic I showed had the cladding above that bottom cord. >> Okay. Because it it really looks like it's hanging below the bridge deck, but thank you. I I couldn't see the two for

151
00:41:23.920 --> 00:41:40.960
the tunnel. I couldn't see the two bridges and maybe it's >> I can sit down with you if you'd like and we can look >> That would be great. um with the Grand View bridge and the changes we need to make in order to make it compliant with ADA requirements. I'm not seeing that >> that is in our CIP as as just a

152
00:41:40.960 --> 00:41:56.319
placeholder and unfunded until we hear back from the DOJ. We still have not heard back on any timing when we have to do the project. So that's a placeholder until we hear back from our legal Minnesota. >> Still no date. >> Still no date. >> Thank you.

153
00:41:56.319 --> 00:42:12.880
>> All right. Anybody else? This this required no action on our part. It was information. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Cypion. >> Thank you. >> All right. We've got another report. Uh we call it the bag fee policy report, and Marissa Bear, our sustainability

154
00:42:12.880 --> 00:42:34.800
manager, has this report for us. >> Hi, good evening, mayor, council members. is Marissa Bear, sustainability manager, and I'm here tonight to give an update on the carry out bag fee report. So, if you recall, as of July 1st, 2024,

155
00:42:34.800 --> 00:42:50.000
most merchants in Edina must charge 5 cents per carry out bag. This includes plastic, compostable, paper, and reusable bags. Businesses are required to self-report the total number of bags distributed, as well as the total value of the bag fees collected. and we have

156
00:42:50.000 --> 00:43:06.640
18 months worth of data from 74 unique businesses. During the annual sustainability update earlier this year, city council requested additional analysis on the bank fee reporting data to determine the impact of the ordinance. So to do that, staff completed a

157
00:43:06.640 --> 00:43:23.280
comparison analysis focused on three grocery stores and 31 retail stores who submitted data for both years. So, we have a more representative sample of year-to-year changes for the grocery store and retail stores analyzed in the data set. The estimated number of bags distributed per store did decrease from

158
00:43:23.280 --> 00:43:38.720
2024 to 2025. It's estimated about a 9% average decrease for grocery stores and an estimated 10 to 37% average decrease for retail stores. That smaller percentage is from analyzing just a smaller set of uh 14

159
00:43:38.720 --> 00:43:55.760
businesses as we looked at some an anomalies in the data. And what these decreases show us is there is likely some change in store operations such as prompting customers if they would like a bag and then also a change in customer behavior where people are bringing their own bag when shopping.

160
00:43:55.760 --> 00:44:12.240
I do just want to note there is a high variability in the data set which impacts both accuracy and completeness of the data that we are looking at. This data is self-reported which can be unreliable due to a bias to report the desired outcome such as a decrease in bags distributed or submission of data

161
00:44:12.240 --> 00:44:28.560
just to comply. There is a lack of ordinance enforcement which could result in under reportporting the actual number of bags of distributed where a business might not track or charge for each carry out bag. And then we also know there are fewer businesses reporting than we expected with several large retailers

162
00:44:28.560 --> 00:44:45.280
who are assumed to distribute a large volume of bags not reporting their data. As we look at the impact of the bag fee, the goal of this ordinance is to change behavior and reduce the number of carry out bags in eina. Assuming this data is directionally accurate, there is a

163
00:44:45.280 --> 00:45:02.079
decrease in the carry out bags in eina being distributed both in that grocery and retail sector. We know this bake is being retained by the businesses to use at their discretion and through self-reporting. We know that they're using it for operational costs, supplementing their own bag costs, internal sustainability initiatives, or

164
00:45:02.079 --> 00:45:17.680
just general expenses. And this bag fee is user based. If you bring your own bag or decline a bag, you don't pay. It's estimated the average family of four uses about 2,000 carry out bags a year. If all those bags are in a dinina, it's about $100 a year that an average family

165
00:45:17.680 --> 00:45:34.240
would pay if they did not bring their own bag. And then we also want to acknowledge that as a regional shopping destination, this bake view revenue is not only from residents but also regional visitors, which means we are potentially influencing behaviors beyond the city of Edina. And with that, I will stand for any

166
00:45:34.240 --> 00:45:48.480
questions. >> Questions? Yes, council member Russer. Um, I was at an Edina establishment buying a bag of ice and I was offered a bag and asked and I said, "Sure." Because I kind of wanted to see what happened and I looked at the receipt and

167
00:45:48.480 --> 00:46:05.599
I wasn't charged for it. And um, as I go and I look at this list, I'm not seeing that enterprise listed and it was the Adina liquor stores. And so I'm wondering why they're not part of this program. >> Yep. Government agencies do not charge the bag fee because it would be

168
00:46:05.599 --> 00:46:22.800
considered a tax. and we don't have authority to to issue that kind of tax. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? Yes. Council member Agnu, >> thank you so much. I really appreciate the additional analysis that you did on this because I think I think before we

169
00:46:22.800 --> 00:46:39.680
were really trying to understand is this having an effect. >> Um so I appreciate kind of the the deeper analysis that you did. Um, I'm curious, is there any way we can get at this point any data from before we put

170
00:46:39.680 --> 00:46:55.280
this fee in place or is is that not possible? >> Not possible. >> Okay. Um, and then is there anything that we can do as a council to help drive better engagement in the data reporting? Like how can we partner with you? Yeah, I think um continuing to

171
00:46:55.280 --> 00:47:11.119
encourage and the businesses you interact with either through in your official capacity as council members or even just as a resident who may be shopping um noting the bag fee. Um we as staff we do education outreach, we do reminders um but that can only go so far. So as folks are interacting with

172
00:47:11.119 --> 00:47:26.560
businesses, we just really encourage sharing that information of if they are a business that must charge the fee to charge the fee, track it and then comply with reporting when we send that request uh at the beginning of each year. >> Awesome. Thank you. And I think one thing I'd be curious too to have next

173
00:47:26.560 --> 00:47:43.920
year um as we continue getting more and more data for this or if we're getting to that point and we're getting less data like even giving us a heads up maybe ahead of time and we can potentially help um shake the trees a little bit on that. Um, but I'd be curious to almost see like a,

174
00:47:43.920 --> 00:47:59.200
you know, carbon offset reduced or whatever like that figure might be of >> here's the impact in terms that we talk about sustainability in. Um, I think what you just said too of like >> on the flip side, if a family uses 2,000

175
00:47:59.200 --> 00:48:16.160
bags, that's $100. That's meaningful, but what's what's the impact that we're having, you know? Um, so just more of that storytelling I think will be super valuable. But I think that this is really great and appreciate the additional analysis you did. Thank you. >> Yeah, thanks for asking that question. I mean, it's the one I asked last year. We

176
00:48:16.160 --> 00:48:33.920
didn't have complete data, but um I continue to wonder whether the juice is worth the squeeze, frankly. Um yeah that folks, please. Um yeah, and the reason I I mentioned that

177
00:48:33.920 --> 00:48:51.359
is because uh manager Neil said we don't charge it at the liquor store because it's a tax. We can't charge the tax. So we we can't we can't we don't receive the money. The money just stays with the grocery store or the retailer. So I think last year juries put an extra I

178
00:48:51.359 --> 00:49:11.599
don't know can you remember Marissa what it was they put in their pocket last year? Give me one minute. They did report. We have their data. I just need to find them on the list. Uh Jerry's Foods and Edina in 2024 in that

179
00:49:11.599 --> 00:49:29.440
six-month period distributed 469,730 bags for a total. Um so revenue would be 5 cents of that. I didn't put the 5 cents in my table here and I'm not good at mental math. It's tens of thousands of dollars that Jur has made off scale

180
00:49:29.440 --> 00:49:46.319
of 100,000 >> because somebody forgot to get the bag out of their car like me. >> Um, and others maybe as well. Well, anyway, I I know we continue to say, well, let's look at it again next year, but I still [snorts] I still wonder if the juice is worth the

181
00:49:46.319 --> 00:50:03.440
squeeze, and I I I don't think it is, but that's my opinion. Uh, Council Member Pierce. >> Uh, thanks, Mr. Mayor. Um, so I I struggle with this one as well. Um, because it like it feels like it's

182
00:50:03.440 --> 00:50:19.760
having an impact, right? So, the data kind of suggests that. Uh but we don't really have the we don't know if the bag fee actually causes people to bring their own bags or not because like

183
00:50:19.760 --> 00:50:37.359
remember Agnu asked for the data prior to that and so we can't really compare to that. >> Um and so then I was hoping that by now other cities would have started doing this. Um, and so far it is

184
00:50:37.359 --> 00:50:53.440
Edina, Minneapolis, and Duth does it. Um, in the the I guess Duth is in the metro area. We we we'll say metro. Um, when you get outside of Minnesota, there are other obviously

185
00:50:53.440 --> 00:51:10.720
other cities that are doing it. Um, and so the what I struggle with is I don't know that I can give any direction on how to figure out if it actually is making if the juice is worth the

186
00:51:10.720 --> 00:51:26.000
squeeze. Like I can't I can't think of what I would ask for. Um, clearly having the before picture would help. Um, so I appreciate we asked for the data. you have the data. Um, so I definitely

187
00:51:26.000 --> 00:51:45.280
appreciate that. Um, we'll just have to kind of figure out how we want to go forward. >> Council member Risser and then councel. Um, I've also heard from residents that uh some establishments are now charging 10 cents a bag or more and it would be

188
00:51:45.280 --> 00:52:02.160
really helpful to collect that data if that could be worked into um the information that you gather, you know, so maybe next year ask how much are you charging for the bag and then we could see if maybe they go to 10 cents and it has a bigger impact. I have no idea anyway, but that would be an interesting

189
00:52:02.160 --> 00:52:17.599
data point. >> We can certainly add that to the reporting form as an optional field. Council member Regel. >> Thank you. Last thing that I'll say, I just want to remind council members that we elected not to invest any city like

190
00:52:17.599 --> 00:52:32.720
additional city resources into collecting data. Um, so I just want to appreciate I know that a lot of this work you're just trying to fit in, but it was a conscious effort of let's not invest more into this. And so when we're frustrated with some of the holes in the

191
00:52:32.720 --> 00:52:50.160
data, I I kind of understand where that's coming from, but appreciate all that you've been able to pull together. >> Thank you, >> Council Member Pierce. Promise is the last thing. Um just kind of anecdotally, I was in um Eden Prairie at the Luns and

192
00:52:50.160 --> 00:53:08.640
Barley's after dropping my daughter off for dance and any diner resident saw me coming out and she said, "Ah, you're driving over here to save the nickel on the back." [laughter] So while that that might be an isolated

193
00:53:08.640 --> 00:53:24.480
data point, I mean it is on the top of people's minds as they are out shopping. So um and that does have some implied value, right? So I definitely get that. So thank you. >> Hey, you made me think about going to

194
00:53:24.480 --> 00:53:39.599
Trader Joe's and you get a real nice tall bag there and that doesn't cost anything and it's great for recycling, >> right? >> All right. Uh thanks for that report. Thanks for being here. We'll figure out what to do here, at least have a conversation about it downstream. I think we should put that on the to-do

195
00:53:39.599 --> 00:53:54.480
list to revisit this at some point in time here in the near future. Um, so we're going to go to the reports and recommendations portion of the agenda. And the first thing there is uh resolution 2026-38

196
00:53:54.480 --> 00:54:10.559
uh which uh contains some uh proposed donations to the city of Edina. And uh we have to by state law accept those donations and we have to accept those donations with a super majority of the council. So uh resolution 2026-38

197
00:54:10.559 --> 00:54:26.079
has this reporting period two donations in it. Uh is there a council member who cares to move resolution 2026-38? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Council member Jackson moves. Council member Pier seconds the adoption of resolution 2026-38 which accepts

198
00:54:26.079 --> 00:54:42.079
donations on behalf of the city of Adana. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. >> Council member Jackson, >> I. >> Mayor Hublin, >> I. >> Council member Risser, >> I. >> Council member Agne, >> I. >> Council member Pierce, >> I.

199
00:54:42.079 --> 00:54:58.559
>> Resolution 2026-38 is approved. Uh donations this reporting period were to the park and recck department and the Adena Rotary Club uh gave a a very generous gift of $14,000 for a public AED don donation.

200
00:54:58.559 --> 00:55:14.960
And then the Adena Community Foundation uh gave Grand View Square Park donated $2,870 for use over there at Grand View. Um and next on the reports and recommendations portion of the agenda is item 8.2, two, which is the student commission

201
00:55:14.960 --> 00:55:30.559
appointments, and manager Neil and Council Member Jackson have the introduction there. >> Thank you, your honor. I'll I'll give the intro and then turn it over to council member Jackson. You know, we've had a coun we've had a a student commissioner program at Adina for almost

202
00:55:30.559 --> 00:55:46.400
20 years. And this year, uh, we have, uh, we're going to make the appointments tonight. Uh the appointments are come from an interview process that uh council member Jackson and Energy and Environment Commissioner Hilda Martinez Salgado uh did completed for us. Uh uh

203
00:55:46.400 --> 00:56:02.400
they did interviews on June 4th, 15th, and 29th. Uh these are for appointments that begin September 1, 2026, and end uh September 1, 2027. We had 32 applications. There are 14 positions. And I'll turn it over to

204
00:56:02.400 --> 00:56:18.079
Council Member Jackson to tell us who they are. Yes. Thank you, man. Neil, >> go ahead. Council member Jackson, you work so hard on this and we greatly appreciate it from the uh colleague standpoint. You know that you that you undertake this work with uh Commissioner

205
00:56:18.079 --> 00:56:34.319
Martinez and so I think you did all the interviewing and you've made some recommendations. Now you have some recommendations for the council tonight in terms of appointments. >> Yes. So this will when we vote we're voting to make them our student commissioners. So, our student commissioners are full members of the commission there, except they're non-

206
00:56:34.319 --> 00:56:51.680
voting members. Um, as a former energy and environment chair, I just loved having the students. They bring the perspective of the future to our work as a city. Um, I am really optimistic about the future of our city. The students who applied, I think every year I think

207
00:56:51.680 --> 00:57:07.119
these are the best students ever, but they really were an outstanding group. Um, and any one of them would have made a good commissioner. It was a difficult set of decisions. Um but what we have to do is we have to kind of balance you know we don't want everybody to be a senior so that then you're we like to

208
00:57:07.119 --> 00:57:23.119
have one returning and one coming forward. So we have a continue there's a learning curve to it. Um and with that I am very proud to announce uh to uh nominate the following students to be student commissioners. for the Arts and Culture Commission, Marcus Tren and

209
00:57:23.119 --> 00:57:38.400
Julia Peterson. For the Community Health Commission, Anukica Gadia and Nishka Pandi. For the Energy and Environment Commission, Genevie Lassig and Alexander Taisho. For the Energ for the Heritage Preservation Commission, Olivia

210
00:57:38.400 --> 00:57:55.440
Duplassus and Caleb Edelen. For the Parks and Recreation Commission, Anna Harrington and Anno Kulp Janagal. for the planning commission, Leonor just and Zitian [clears throat] Chen. And for the transportation commission, Parth Rawat and Liam Hart, and they are an

211
00:57:55.440 --> 00:58:11.760
outstanding group of citizens, and I'm happy to put them forward to be student commissioners. >> All right. Do you move the matter? >> I move the matter. >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second. Uh, council member Pier seconds the motion to adopt a slate of uh, students that council member Jackson

212
00:58:11.760 --> 00:58:27.440
read to us in the various for the various commission appointments, art and culture, community health, energy and environment, heritage preservation, park and wreck planning commission and transportation commission. Uh, any further discussion? Uh, roll call, please.

213
00:58:27.440 --> 00:58:43.119
>> Council member Ragnu, I. >> Council member Pierce, >> I. >> Council Mayor Hufflin or Mayor Hufflin, I'm sorry. Yep. >> Hi, >> Council Member Jackson. >> I, >> Council Member Riss. >> Hi. >> All right. The U slate of candidates is

214
00:58:43.119 --> 00:58:59.480
approved. All those student commissioners are appointed with a term starting September 1st, 2026 and ending 9127. Uh, thanks for that great work again. Really is appreciated every year. Um, all right. Now,

215
00:58:59.680 --> 00:59:15.760
um I don't think we've had this many people in interested in a topic for a long long time, whether it's online or or here this evening. So, um it it's uh we're going to have a discussion about it here. Staff's going

216
00:59:15.760 --> 00:59:33.040
to make a presentation. The transportation commission is going to make their presentation. Uh and then council's going to have a discussion. I think manager Neil is going to weigh in on the matter as well uh before maybe before we get to the discussion. Uh and then so let's uh let's go now to um our

217
00:59:33.040 --> 00:59:48.079
our city engineer Chad Miller who's going to kick off the conversation. >> Thank you mayor, members of council. Uh before we get into the details with Andrew, I just want to ground the discussion and really explain why are we here. So this project is about preserving and maintaining our street

218
00:59:48.079 --> 01:00:04.799
pavements in a fiscally responsible way. Milan overlay projects provide an effective, practical, and cost effective method to extend the service life of our streets. It extends the service life 20 10 to 20 years. Uh the street base along Wooddale is sound. There's value left in

219
01:00:04.799 --> 01:00:19.599
that street. So if we replace the entire street with a street reconstruction before it's due, we're losing some of that value and not being fix fiscally responsible or we're not following sound asset management practices. So milling overlays occur when the pavements have a

220
01:00:19.599 --> 01:00:37.200
pavement condition index between 45 and 75. This street is in the 60s and 70s. And in fact, the southern half of the street was reconstructed in 2005 and the adjacent properties were assessed for that work. So we really don't want to be down there because we want to get at least 50 years. So with any pavement

221
01:00:37.200 --> 01:00:52.400
management project, milling overlays or street reconstruction, we look for opportunities to meet some of the other guiding documents and guiding principles of the city. And what we're doing here tonight is really looking at that pedestrian and cyc pedestrian and bicycle master plan. So this mill

222
01:00:52.400 --> 01:01:09.200
overlay provides an opportunity to look at removing parking and adding a bike lane to meet that that guidance in that plan. So my in my opinion the main question here tonight for the council is whether or not to remove the parking to install a bike lane. If we decide to keep the parking there are just some minor adjustments that Andrew will go

223
01:01:09.200 --> 01:01:25.520
through in detail later in some graphics. So again, I want to emphasize the question tonight is not whether we should delay this work. We have equipment rented. We have people ready and we're ready to go in a week to start this work a week or two. It's so we shouldn't delay this work and conduct a street reconstruction project. Wooddale

224
01:01:25.520 --> 01:01:40.799
is not anywhere close to needing reconstruction from a pavement standpoint. Wooddale is a municipal state aid street or an MSA street. We're severely underfunded in our MSH streets because we and other MSA cities don't get enough funding through the gas tax or the tab fees to keep up. We have

225
01:01:40.799 --> 01:01:56.799
miles of other MSA streets that should be done that have a greater need than this one. So based on our needs, if you would say do recon, we wouldn't even be here for 20 or 30 years. And knowing that the south half was already reconstructed 20 years ago, we shouldn't be there for another 30 years. We should

226
01:01:56.799 --> 01:02:12.960
be doing this pro proactive maintenance practice. So with that, I'll hand it over to Andrew to provide more of the details. And I just want to emphasize we really need a decision tonight on this matter. So thank you. >> All right. Thanks, Director Milner. Thank you. Um so as director Miller

227
01:02:12.960 --> 01:02:28.000
mentioned, this project was initiated by the public works department as part of our proactive pavement management uh program. Um the project area here is Wooddale Avenue from Wooddale Lane to Valley View Road. Um this uh corridor right now has the only north south bike

228
01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:44.799
facility in the northeast quadrant. Um you can see in this map here, it has a combination of shared and standard bike lanes which I'll go into more detail later. Um but it connects to existing bike facilities on Valley View Road and Wooddale Avenue to the north and to the south. Buminous overlay has been

229
01:02:44.799 --> 01:03:00.960
scheduled for for this summer. Um and that overlay provides us an opportunity to potentially reconfigure the roadway to meet future needs of our community. So I'll start off with existing conditions. We've broken the segment or the this corridor down into three

230
01:03:00.960 --> 01:03:15.680
segments. Uh the northernmost segment between Wooddale Lane and 56th Street is 35 ft wide. That's measured from the face of curb to the face of curb. So the the travel travelable area um travelable area, excuse me. Um this section

231
01:03:15.680 --> 01:03:33.280
includes a 5-ft southbound bike lane, an 11t southbound travel lane, an 11 and 1/2 ft northbound travel lane with shared bike lane, and then a 7 and 1/2t northbound parking lane. Between 56th and 61st Street, the street narrows to 31 feet wide. And here we

232
01:03:33.280 --> 01:03:49.440
have a 12 foot southbound lane with a shared bike lane, an 11 and a half foot northbound travel lane with a shared bike lane, and a 7 and 1/2 ft northbound parking lane. And then the southernmost block between 61st and Valley View Road, um parking is already restricted on both sides of this

233
01:03:49.440 --> 01:04:04.319
segment. Um so both the northbound and the southbound direction are 15 and a half ft um travel lanes with shared bike lanes. This cord, this section of Wooddale Avenue carries about uh between 3600 and

234
01:04:04.319 --> 01:04:22.799
6,700 vehicles per day. Uh as a two-lane urban roadway, it has an estimated capacity of 10,000 vehicles per day. So, it is operating currently well within its capacity. Um observed 85th percentile speeds range from 26.7 to 34.8 miles hour and the posted speed

235
01:04:22.799 --> 01:04:40.799
limit on Wooddale is 25 miles hour. Within the last 10 years, uh, 19 crashes have been reported within the project area. Five of those crashes occurred between Wooddale Lane and 56th Street. 14 of those occurred between 56th Street and 61st Street. In terms of severity,

236
01:04:40.799 --> 01:04:55.520
five of those crashes resulted in a minor injury. Three resulted in a possible injury, and 11 were property damage only. Um, in terms of mode, one of those 19 crashes involved a pedestrian and that resulted in a minor injury. One involved a cyclist and that

237
01:04:55.520 --> 01:05:13.039
resulted in a possible injury and 17 only involved motor vehicles. Uh as part of this analysis, staff reviewed uh available parking capacity on Wooddale and the adjacent side streets. Um I was aided in this analysis by Megan Hager Garbin, who is our our

238
01:05:13.039 --> 01:05:28.880
Minnesota Green Corps member. Um we calculated that there are approximately 129 on street parking spaces within the project limits that serve 148 adjacent properties. And then broken down by segment here between Wooddale Lane and 56th Street there are approximately 79

239
01:05:28.880 --> 01:05:43.440
on street parking lanes parking spaces between 56 and 61st there are about 50 and then again from 61st to Valley View Road there's no on street parking um a uh I wanted to make a reminder that per our city code on street parking for the

240
01:05:43.440 --> 01:06:00.799
whole city is uh limited to 6 hours. Um, and on street parking adjacent to the project area is available on almost all of the side streets on at least one side with the exception of 54th Street, Lexington Avenue, and 58th Street. Um, so the results of our analysis showed

241
01:06:00.799 --> 01:06:16.640
that for the majority of the properties on Wooddale Avenue, um, their closest for most of them, their closest adjacent side streetet parking is less than 0.1 mile away or about a two-minute walk. There are some properties adjacent to those streets that don't have on- street

242
01:06:16.640 --> 01:06:33.280
parking where the adjacent closest on street parking is about 0.2 miles away or about a 4-minute walk. Um, this project was uh reviewed for compatibility with our uh approved plans and and guiding documents. Among those

243
01:06:33.280 --> 01:06:49.760
include the comprehensive plan. Um this plan or this project supports multiple goals in the transportation chapter related to multimmodal transportation sustainability and safety within our living streets plan. This project supports uh the stated goal to balance the needs of all modes of transportation

244
01:06:49.760 --> 01:07:05.839
that includes pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit riders within the pedestrian bicycle master plan. project supports goals to increase the number of community members who choose to bike in the community uh either for transportation or for recreation. Within

245
01:07:05.839 --> 01:07:21.920
our climate action plan, this project supports goals to reduce emissions and increase public transit ridership. Um there is no transit service on Wooddale itself, but Metrotransit route 30 uh route 46 operates on 50th Street to the north. In addition, the Metro Transit

246
01:07:21.920 --> 01:07:37.680
Eline BRT service operates on France Avenue, just a half mile away from this project area. Um, additionally, a recently adopted safe and equitable mobility action plan uh identifies identified multiple segments of Wooddale Avenue in the

247
01:07:37.680 --> 01:07:54.160
roadway safety priority network as either a high priority or a medium priority. And as a reminder, the stated goal of this plan is to um work toward reducing and eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries on all roads within Edina.

248
01:07:54.160 --> 01:08:09.440
Um there were a couple other factors that we included in our design. As Chad mentioned, Wooddale Avenue is a municipal state aid road and so as part of that um we have to uh we have to adhere to um state guidance for um widths for travel lanes, parking lanes,

249
01:08:09.440 --> 01:08:26.960
and bike facilities. Um, we also looked at the uh Minnesota bicycle facility design manual which provides guidance on best practices for bike facility design and implementation. Um, as noted in the staff report using the range of observed 85th percentile speeds and traffic

250
01:08:26.960 --> 01:08:44.080
volumes within the project area. This manual recommends either conventional bike lanes, separated or protected bike lanes, or a a side path, which is an off- streetet bicycle facility. So now I'll get into the there were five options that were developed um for

251
01:08:44.080 --> 01:08:59.759
consideration for this corridor. Option one is uh would provide uh dedicated one-way bike lanes uh in both directions for the entire corridor. Um for the north segment between Wooddale Lane and 56th Street, this would mean a 5 and a

252
01:08:59.759 --> 01:09:14.799
half foot southbound bike lane with a two-ft buffer, 10-ft travel lanes in both directions, and then another 5 and 1/2t bike lane with a twoft buffer. um between 56th and 61st Street where the street narrows, we would uh that buffer is eliminated. So again, you'd have 10

253
01:09:14.799 --> 01:09:31.560
foot travel lanes in each direction and a 5 and a half foot bike lane in each direction. And same for the southernmost segment between 61st and Valley View Road. This option would eliminate all on street parking along the between Wooddale Lane and Valley View Road.

254
01:09:31.600 --> 01:09:47.120
Option 2A seeks to balance the uh impact of the bike facility by instead of having two separate one-way facilities, combine it into one two-way facility. Um so this specifically is a two-way bike lane on the east side of the corridor um

255
01:09:47.120 --> 01:10:02.960
with partial parking. So this option um preserves parking between Wooddale Lane and 56th Street. You can see here the section shows again 10- foot travel lanes in each direction, an 8 foot two-way bike lane, and then a seven foot northbound parking lane. Um, as noted in

256
01:10:02.960 --> 01:10:19.360
the staff report, this section in particular doesn't comply with municipal state aid design standards because it has the minimum for each component. And um, the only way you can get away with having the minimum component for your lane, for your travel width, for your bike facility, and for your parking is

257
01:10:19.360 --> 01:10:35.360
through a variance through MDOT. Um, south of 56th Street, um, we would have a, again travel lanes in each direction and continue with that eight foot two-way bike lane with a three-foot buffer. Um, the graphic here shows a vertical element, a delineator in that

258
01:10:35.360 --> 01:10:50.480
buffer. Um, that's an optional treatment. That's kind of the difference when we talk tonight about a protected bike lane versus a buffered bike lane. A buffered bike lane would be this example here on option one where there's just a painted buffer on the street versus a

259
01:10:50.480 --> 01:11:05.600
protected bike lane has that and a vertical element to provide separation between the modes. Um so again that option is optional uh and we would have to review um placement of those delineators given the number of driveways and intersections along the

260
01:11:05.600 --> 01:11:24.640
corridor. Option 2B is similar to 2A uh with the exception that there is no parking uh proposed on the corridor. Um so the sections between 56 and Valley View Road remain the same with the 10-ft travel lanes in each direction, 8 foot uh

261
01:11:24.640 --> 01:11:38.719
two-way bike lane with a three-foot buffer. The change then is the section between Wooddale Lane and 56th Street. Um where you would have a 4 foot southbound shoulder, 10-ft travel lanes, and then the eight uh 8ft two-way bike

262
01:11:38.719 --> 01:11:55.360
lane with a three-foot buffer. Option 2C is kind of that the rever the mirror image of option 2B where that bike facility is on the west side instead. Um, so between Wooddale Lane and 56th Street, you'd have the 8ft two-way bike lane with a three-foot

263
01:11:55.360 --> 01:12:12.480
buffer, two travel eight 10-ft travel lanes in each direction, and then that 4ft shoulder would be uh for on the northbound direction on the east side. Um, between 56th Street and Valley View Road, you would also again have the 8ft two-way bike lane with a three-foot buffer and the 10-ft uh travel lanes in

264
01:12:12.480 --> 01:12:28.880
each direction. And option three is the existing configuration. So this is uh the same as kind of an recap of of what I provided before uh where we would maintain that existing combination of uh shared bike lanes and that one dedicated southbound

265
01:12:28.880 --> 01:12:45.280
bike lane between Valley View or between Wooddale Lane and 56th Street. As part of this process uh we engaged members of the community on uh on this project and changes that we were considerate considering. Um, we solicited feedback through an online

266
01:12:45.280 --> 01:13:01.199
survey through our better together project page. Um, in the months that we had the survey open, we received 247 responses. Um, of those who responded, 38% live on Wooddale within the project area. 48% live less than half a mile

267
01:13:01.199 --> 01:13:19.199
away. 88% drive two to seven times a week on Wooddale. 53% bike less than once per month on Wooddale. Um, 27% bike one to two times a month. and 20% bike two to seven times per per week. Um 40 40 44% of respondents said they utilize

268
01:13:19.199 --> 01:13:34.560
on street parking on Wooddale two to seven times per week. 42% said they utilize on street parking less than once per month. 48% said they would be unlikely to bike on Wooddale if it had dedicated bike lanes while 31% said they are likely to bike if dedicated lanes

269
01:13:34.560 --> 01:13:51.120
are provided. 67% opposed upgrading the bike lanes on Wooddale and 72% opposed removing on street parking. We also kind of filtered these responses back looking specifically at the properties that are adjacent to Wooddale on Wooddale Avenue within the project

270
01:13:51.120 --> 01:14:07.920
area. Um so within that group we had 93 respond to the survey online. 99% said they drive on Wooddale two to seven times per week. 53% said they bike on Wooddale less than once per month. 26% said they bike one to two one to four

271
01:14:07.920 --> 01:14:24.640
times per month and 21% said they bike two to seven times per week. 84% said they utilize on street parking on Wooddale two to seven times per week. 56% said they are unlikely to bike on Wooddale if it had dedicated bike lanes. 7% said they would be likely to bike if

272
01:14:24.640 --> 01:14:40.719
there were dedicated lanes provided. 90% of respondents said they oppose upgrading the bike lanes on Wooddale. and 99% opposed removing on street parking on Wooddale. The transportation commission also had an opportunity to uh provide feedback on

273
01:14:40.719 --> 01:14:56.719
this project. Um the commission approved uh has approved three advisory communications. Um back in February, the commission uh adopted an advisory that recommended review of quote viable all ages and abilities design alternatives for the corridor end quote. Um this

274
01:14:56.719 --> 01:15:12.239
commun this advisory communication was also adopted by the energy and environment commission the following month in March. In May the commission recommended that council adopt quote a protected bike lane which includes a vertical and horizontal separation element end quote. And then just last

275
01:15:12.239 --> 01:15:28.000
week at their July meeting, the commission approved another advisory that recommended quote pausing the overlay and instructing staff to craft a road reconstruction plan for Wooddale that would widen the street and accommodate both parking and protected bike lanes. Um I'm joined tonight by uh

276
01:15:28.000 --> 01:15:42.719
Taylor Brushwine of the Transportation Commission who's going to provide uh a little bit more background into the commission's advisory communications and their perspective. >> Thank you, Mr. Cypion. Welcome, Mr. Bushwhin. >> Hey, mayor, members of council, good

277
01:15:42.719 --> 01:15:58.320
evening. Uh, thanks Andrew for letting uh me share the the views of the transportation commission here. Um, usually I'm here at the beginning of the meeting rushing into to three minutes. Uh, I'll still be brief, don't worry. >> Thank you. So, yeah, like like Andrew

278
01:15:58.320 --> 01:16:13.760
said, we've had uh we've we've been involved with this project for a long time. um way back in February. I should say I was not on the commission at that point, but that was the first uh advisory communication and we've had two since. So, I want to just talk to why we thought this project was so important,

279
01:16:13.760 --> 01:16:32.159
why we thought it was uh necessary for us to have these three advisory communications and then I'll briefly uh describe our recommendations. So, I first want to acknowledge just where we're at with our active transportation network and specifically our bike network. And so this is a map

280
01:16:32.159 --> 01:16:48.480
and scores from peopleforbikes.com which is the source for basically bikeability of cities or bike friendliness of cities. And I wanted to show this to highlight that we are not only far behind our our counterpart first ring suburbs in St. Louis Park and Richfield

281
01:16:48.480 --> 01:17:04.159
who are near the top of that list but we're also behind our rural neighbors in Minnotonka, Hopkins, Bloomington, Shakipi, Chaza, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. And this happens for all kinds of reasons. There's there's a lot that goes into this, but one of them is that

282
01:17:04.159 --> 01:17:19.760
we've missed opportunities and we've missed recent opportunities in this area specifically. 58th Street crosses Wooddale. Conquered Avenue is four blocks away from Wooddale. Those both came up in the last six years. Both had bike facilities proposed, but those were

283
01:17:19.760 --> 01:17:35.760
ultimately not approved and implemented. Um I want to acknowledge the current pace that we're on to implement our pedestrian bicycle master plan that was adopted in 2018 and at current pace we have over a hundred more years to implement that plan. So this is one

284
01:17:35.760 --> 01:17:50.880
reason that we found it important is we we had recognized this pattern of missed opportunities and so we wanted to do everything that we could to make sure that this wasn't another missed opportunity. Um, our fear is that we continue to miss these and we continue to become the island as the only city

285
01:17:50.880 --> 01:18:07.600
that's not investing in our active transportation. Another thing that we talked about um in our advisory communications, those first two, we're protected by planes. And I want to step back a little bit and say no one on the commission is a transportation engineer. None of us are

286
01:18:07.600 --> 01:18:22.560
traffic engineers. Our charge as a commission is to advise you as council as to how a project aligns or doesn't align with our city guiding documents. So what we're working from is our city guiding city guiding documents and there

287
01:18:22.560 --> 01:18:38.320
is a ton there. There's 2,000 pages and we just added what 300 with cap. So there's there's a bunch of information there and and our charge is to distill that down and and advise you on on how we see it relating to project to project. So that's where this is

288
01:18:38.320 --> 01:18:56.159
related. Um, so what we see in in all of those documents is you can paraphrase it down to one of the major goals of all of them is we need more people taking less trips in cars and using a different mode. So specific to this project, that's getting more people on bikes and

289
01:18:56.159 --> 01:19:12.719
new people on bikes. So we're not necessarily looking at the quote avid cyclists and and how we improve things for them. They're out there already and they're going to use the full lane. Um they're going to go regardless of the infrastructure. What we're looking for

290
01:19:12.719 --> 01:19:28.719
is how we get new people on bikes. So kids, families, seniors, someone going to the grocery store or the park or going to get a bottle of wine. And one of the things that we found it's it's an intuitive solution is a protected bike lane. And it's intuitive because if you

291
01:19:28.719 --> 01:19:45.760
make something safer, more people are going to feel comfortable there. More people are going to use it. It's intuitive, but it's also backed up by research. And that's all this slide wants to show is this isn't just our opinions as traffic commissioner or transportation commissioners. Um, but we

292
01:19:45.760 --> 01:20:02.320
found found some some data to back that up as well. So that's what drove our our two first advisory communications. So with those two reasons in mind, building out our network and building out a safe network, these are our recommendations. Our primary

293
01:20:02.320 --> 01:20:20.000
recommendation is that you adopt option 2B or 2C for the reason that they provide a protected bike lane for the full length. And that is the thing that will get new people onto bikes. We also recognize that you've received a significant amount of push back from

294
01:20:20.000 --> 01:20:36.960
residents in the room um that removing parking in whole is not a viable option. So we understand that that may not be a viable option for you to vote for. So our secondary recommendation is to pause and to re-evaluate and not to throw away

295
01:20:36.960 --> 01:20:52.640
the mill and overlay altogether but to pause and make sure that we have it right for these few reasons. First is the actual road widths weren't known or at least they weren't shared until June just last month. The second is this is a uniquely important north south corridor

296
01:20:52.640 --> 01:21:09.600
in some of our densest neighborhoods in the city. Protected bike lanes don't make sense on every street in our city. They don't make sense on a majority of our streets in the city, but they do make sense on this corridor because it connects schools and businesses and uh lots of important things.

297
01:21:09.600 --> 01:21:24.960
reconstruction would allow for a solution that serves everybody. I think that was something that you've you've heard that if there was a solution to save parking and provide uh safe biking infrastructure, people are are in favor of it. And this last one was one that um

298
01:21:24.960 --> 01:21:41.840
that the timing of it or the the length of it was a little bit surprising to me that choosing to do the Milan overlay now locks us into that option for 10 to 20 years. Um, if we keep the status quo, that's going to affect all the kids that go to those

299
01:21:41.840 --> 01:21:59.920
schools for the next 10 to 20 years. On a personal note, I have a two and a three-year-old. It'll affect them for their nine years at their school at at South View campus. So for those reasons, for its importance and um for its importance and for the

300
01:21:59.920 --> 01:22:16.400
the amount of people that are interested in it, we think that we need to pause, make sure that we get it right, and see if there's a solution that works for everybody. Thanks. That I'll hand it back to Andrew. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Brushwin. Uh this is my my last slide of my presentation

301
01:22:16.400 --> 01:22:31.840
here just in in conclusion going over the five options that were presented in the staff report. Um option one in the opinion of staff supports our strategic goals as outlined in those guiding documents. Um however is not favored by the adjacent property owners. Option 2 A

302
01:22:31.840 --> 01:22:47.520
is not recommended by staff because it is non-compliant with MSA design standards. Options 2B and 2C support our strategic transportation goals but they are not supported by the adjacent property owners. And option three, which is the current configuration, um does

303
01:22:47.520 --> 01:23:03.040
not support our strategic transportation goals, but it is supported by the adjacent property owners. Um so these are the five options that we are seeking direction from council on tonight. Um and with that, I will stand for any questions. >> Uh questions for Mr. Cypion. And before

304
01:23:03.040 --> 01:23:19.199
we get to that, I just wanted to uh go back to our u our engineering chief and I asked Director Milner um to restate what you said before because Mr. Brushwhin had posed this um idea of kind

305
01:23:19.199 --> 01:23:35.760
of wait and see. Let's let's analyze what we could do with the right away and and just hold this off for a number of years until we figure out if it makes any sense to do this uh in a different way. So, what are your what are your thoughts? I mean, I heard I took a note. I heard you say the work needs to start next week. Need a decision tonight.

306
01:23:35.760 --> 01:23:51.920
Anything changed since the presentations were made? >> No, I would not hold off doing work. Even if we said we're going to reconstruct it, we wouldn't be back for 20 or 30 years. And we just reconstructed the south half. How can you go in front of those residents that just paid an assessment less than 20 years ago and say now we're going to be

307
01:23:51.920 --> 01:24:07.199
back and we're going to rip it all up after they had a 100% assessments 20 years ago. When we were in front of them 20 years ago, we said this is a 50-year design. I know things change, but I wouldn't recommend pausing and I wouldn't recommend street reconstruction just from the funding

308
01:24:07.199 --> 01:24:24.000
shortages, from the assessments that we did with these residents previously and just the timing and other needs that we have. Um, one of the primary ones is Wooddale Bridge. We can't afford to do that one for three years and this is that same funding source. We think we're going to do it in three years. We're still trying to figure that out. So

309
01:24:24.000 --> 01:24:38.719
that's the kind of projects that we're up against is made real infrastructure with a bridge that we need to get replaced. We don't have funding for. >> All right. And then um when you say this was we told people that this was a 50-year design and we did this work 20 years ago. I take it you mean that is

310
01:24:38.719 --> 01:24:54.159
that is that concurrent or consistent then with option three. >> Yeah. That's why we're doing the overlay. Every 20 years we do an overlay. So, this meets our proactive pavement management program just like we reviewed the council about 15 years ago when we asked for more funding because

311
01:24:54.159 --> 01:25:11.199
our PCI was really low and we're like we got to fix our streets. So, we got that influx and now we're up in a much better position, but we are because we're doing these overlays when we should and we're following asset management practices. >> I'm going to go to manager Neil here for a quick comment before.

312
01:25:11.199 --> 01:25:27.280
You know, usually uh staff uh do our very best to to give you the technical facts of of how to build a road, how to build a sidewalk, how to build a water line, a sewer line, and we leave the, you know, the discernment about public opinion to you. That's what you're good

313
01:25:27.280 --> 01:25:44.080
at, and we're good at the technical side. Uh but there are a few projects and and is particularly uh the ones that fall into the life safety critical infrastructure like a water line or a sewer line uh where we would proceed with doing a project even if it had a

314
01:25:44.080 --> 01:26:00.800
lot of public opposition to it because it's a critical life safety project. This is not a project like that. Um I would recommend you know we've we've see the preponderance of the input has been in favor essentially of option three. Um

315
01:26:00.800 --> 01:26:16.320
I would recommend to you that option three is is what we ought to do. Uh one of the reasons I I don't favor a pause is when we pause any infrastructure project it just means we got to pay more for it even if it's just a matter of months. But the other reason not to

316
01:26:16.320 --> 01:26:32.480
pause is that pausing pausing doesn't relieve the anxiety or the concern or the fear or or whatever it is that people are feeling that live adjacent to the street. They they uh are here to seek some peace of mind from the council and I I think you ought to give it to

317
01:26:32.480 --> 01:26:54.639
them. So I'm recommending that you pursue the option three tonight. [applause] Uh shame on me. I forgot to mention at the beginning of the meeting, we try to uh keep the decorum proper here and I I understand the enthusiasm, but uh we try

318
01:26:54.639 --> 01:27:10.320
to tell folks, hey, you know, there's a lot of people with different opinions in this world and in this sanctuary of the city council chambers. We try to maintain a decorum level where we don't clap, we don't boo, we don't make comments uh that are uncalled for. So,

319
01:27:10.320 --> 01:27:26.159
uh, but I didn't tell you that. So, Mayor Kulpa and Understood. Uh, I'm going to turn to council member Agnu, then council member Risser. >> Thank you. Um, I have a couple of questions um for director Milner on

320
01:27:26.159 --> 01:27:42.400
this. Uh, the you said the south portion was reconstructed. Um, when I look at kind of the three different portions, do you know what the range of that reconstruction was 15 years ago, 20 years ago? >> The cost or the location, >> the

321
01:27:42.400 --> 01:28:00.000
limits. Um, so that reconstruction project was from 56th Street to Valley View Road. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and then the other question is you mentioned that we have the equipment rented, ready to go to do the overlay. Um, if we were to do a

322
01:28:00.000 --> 01:28:15.520
pause, are there other streets in our queue that we could pivot that work to um so that we wouldn't be losing anything out on having this equipment rented? >> Uh, probably not because we prepared two years in advance. So, we are doing catch

323
01:28:15.520 --> 01:28:31.199
basins and concrete work right now for 27 overlays. We are having Centerpoint Energy come in or the other private utilities and fix your stuff now so you don't dig through the no payment. So those areas for next year aren't ready to go yet. So it would just be a loss. And now we'd push this to next year.

324
01:28:31.199 --> 01:28:46.239
Some of those 27 ones will get pushed to 28. It's just a compounding issue of just pushing stuff. So we don't have any anything ready of substantial length for for if we delayed this and wanted to put it somewhere else. >> Thank you. Um so when we say loss, do

325
01:28:46.239 --> 01:29:02.639
you have a qu like a way to quantify um how much we would lose as a city if we did pause it? Are we out $5,000 for rented equipment? Are we out $100,000 because of wasted um I don't know.

326
01:29:02.639 --> 01:29:17.440
>> I think it's more the value of the street. I mean, the pausing is just we're not keeping up. We have a very prescriptive pavement management process and if we miss a year, we're going to see that in the numbers. So, it's scheduled now. We literally say we're going to do it year 20. We're at year

327
01:29:17.440 --> 01:29:33.360
20. Uh the rental stuff, we would just pay we would just return it early. we would have to find other stuff for our main crews, street crews to do the rest of the summer. You know, this is a major one they're working on after they get done around Cornelia School. Um, so financially probably not a big number.

328
01:29:33.360 --> 01:29:48.320
It's more of just that impact of the infrastructure. >> If I may add just an order of magnitude, so as noted in the report, this project area is over a mile long and we typically do about five miles of overlays per year. So you're talking about postponing over 20% of the work

329
01:29:48.320 --> 01:30:04.800
that is scheduled this year. >> Okay. And so if we did postpone it, continue humoring me on this, um we wouldn't spend the money this year for that. Could we not roll that over into next year and do six miles next year?

330
01:30:04.800 --> 01:30:20.320
>> Uh potentially. That's a discussion for council with the budget. Typically, if we don't spend it, then it becomes part of the surplus, and there's a discussion there on what to do with that. Um I would say we barely can do 5 miles an hour. We'd be bringing in contractors then and then it's going to be more

331
01:30:20.320 --> 01:30:36.800
expensive to do it. We try to do it all in house, but we can't do six miles in house. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Y >> council member Russer and then council member Pierce. >> Um I requested some images be shown. But this whole situation where we need an

332
01:30:36.800 --> 01:30:54.000
answer, we need it tonight. Um we knew about this two years in advance. And it is so frustrating to hear we didn't get the accurate measurements until June. And I know that's true because I walked part of Wooddale um with a proposal and

333
01:30:54.000 --> 01:31:09.760
one of the members from the planning or the transportation commission to discuss a proposal that would have kept the parking and addressed these situations. And we had the number that it was 38t wide. It wasn't. It was 35t wide. And so

334
01:31:09.760 --> 01:31:26.000
for that to happen is a problem and there's a pattern because when you go back and I really encourage people to watch the June 24 um 2021 HR meeting where the funding is

335
01:31:26.000 --> 01:31:43.040
approved for the pedestrian bridge over at Grand View over the railroad tracks and there was a lot of concern from well it was a small group of people but concerns about ADA issues When that project was first introduced, the HA

336
01:31:43.040 --> 01:31:58.560
members were told that it was going to land on the lower deck and then, you know, they it kind of got, you know, movement and then oops, no, it's got to land on the upper deck. And so that was a huge thing and now the DOJ has ruled

337
01:31:58.560 --> 01:32:14.960
that it's not ADA compliant. So this is a pattern and a problem. We need to have accurate information and the transportation commission should not be getting this in February. Uh it made me think of the process that we go through and I know it's road reconstruction and we're just talking about a mill overlay

338
01:32:14.960 --> 01:32:32.159
but it is one that has a profound impact on communities and I'm wondering if we need to set policy that if parking is going to be re re removed and that's the proposal that it really should come along with all of the other road reconstructions that are reviewed at our

339
01:32:32.159 --> 01:32:49.280
special meeting in December so that we can have a public hearing and get feedback and those public hearings are so amazing. I with the road reconstruction for B and C neighborhoods last year, what was really or two years ago, it was really fascinating because

340
01:32:49.280 --> 01:33:05.360
along 62nd Street, the proposal from staff was to put the sidewalk on the north side of 62nd Street, which would have cut across all these driveways, which are conflict points. It ended up going on the southern part, so it was parallel right next to the fence um

341
01:33:05.360 --> 01:33:22.159
along 62. So, it was an even unbroken sidewalk. Um, conflict points are something that I am almost I really think about and it concerns me and road safety is something that I really think about and concerns me. I lost my nephew to traffic violence. So, um, this has

342
01:33:22.159 --> 01:33:37.600
been something that I've been living with since the beginning of 2019 and really trying to think about what we can do to reduce the numbers. And it's so frustrating with this change, you know, to to see how consistently

343
01:33:37.600 --> 01:33:54.960
uh driveway access back and forth is it we need to be investigating it more. And if you look at your community engagement slide, um, where we're talking about 93 responders on Wooddale Avenue, to read that 99% drive on Wooddale Avenue,

344
01:33:54.960 --> 01:34:11.120
residents on Wooddale Avenue drive along Wooddale Avenue 2 to seven times a week. Like you all should be on some talk show explaining how you are not using your cars. That's absolutely phenomenal. And

345
01:34:11.120 --> 01:34:25.920
the thing is, if you look at that number and you can say, okay, there's probably people who are driving more, but that just wasn't captured. The survey only allowed you to go up to seven. You couldn't go any higher than that. And

346
01:34:25.920 --> 01:34:42.880
then, um, I talked to a resident who, and this was so interesting to me because she was saying how her parents, um, would have to walk a lot further. And I was thinking, well, why don't you just let them use your driveway? They don't want to use the driveway. They

347
01:34:42.880 --> 01:34:57.920
don't want to have to pull in and back out because they're concerned they might hit somebody. Okay. And so we needed to know more numbers about how frequently people were actually using their driveways. We didn't get that. We needed to know with this change, what would be

348
01:34:57.920 --> 01:35:13.840
the potential increase in the number of people using the driveways? uh because it's not just the number of driveways, conflict points, but it's the number of uses that are happening at those conflict points. Uh I live on

349
01:35:13.840 --> 01:35:32.400
Ashcraftoft and I do bike um down Wooddale for part of Wooddale, but I get on St. John's and I go as far as I can and then I scoot over and then I do my little Wooddale um section. But that and and what the analysis did was it only

350
01:35:32.400 --> 01:35:47.120
looked at Wooddale. It didn't really I mean the safety map does include other parts but it doesn't show what the potential impact would be to people who are using those roads. And here is a picture that I took last night along

351
01:35:47.120 --> 01:36:04.400
Wooddale. And I know people are on different sides of this issue but it seems everybody is united on the fact that we need to do better. um when we're talking about the west side of Wooddale and all of the foliage and growth that is going on there and I watched how

352
01:36:04.400 --> 01:36:22.320
bikers will actually kind of jut out and go toward the center of the road because there is stuff that they have to contend with. If we could go to the next slide. This is a there are parking signs that are embedded deep in the brush and this

353
01:36:22.320 --> 01:36:39.679
is one of those. We also received an email um from an Ed Dina resident who I was out with last night and he was measuring from the official marker uh that the county put in to try to figure out what exactly was going on with the

354
01:36:39.679 --> 01:36:55.920
fence that divides Country Club from the public right ofway and there's supposed to be 7 feet and as you go down and you walk that it changes so it's 7 feet then sometimes it's 5 feet something and sometimes it gets down to four. We are

355
01:36:55.920 --> 01:37:12.719
not and I I you know we're talking about what we need to do um maintaining our infrastructure but also just taking care of the things that we've got. That hedge has got to go. We've got to figure out what is going on there. And um we had a gentleman here talking about survey

356
01:37:12.719 --> 01:37:27.040
lines, but we need to know for sure what, you know, is there encroachment that is happening in that 7 ft space? And that sign, that no parking sign, I don't know if that went up when the parking was removed and the bike lane

357
01:37:27.040 --> 01:37:44.480
went in, but once upon a time, that was grass. That was not all of this growth. and we keep having to pay to have it trimmed back. We need to take that out. We need to work with the country club. We need to figure out, you know, what is happening there because that public

358
01:37:44.480 --> 01:38:00.480
right ofway on that side, that's important and that needs to be maintained. But I do want to say for anyone here who is really concerned about bike safety, it's not just missed opportunities. It's also not following

359
01:38:00.480 --> 01:38:17.360
state statute or excuse me, our um city code. And that was what I was commenting on with the minutes that was were being changed because we do have section 24-130 and this pertains to Vernon Avenue and all of you maybe you're not as familiar

360
01:38:17.360 --> 01:38:32.239
with the keys site but there's a huge number of people who showed up. We've had six commercial proposals for the keys site. Every single one of them requires the driveways along Vernon remain. Okay. But if we were enforcing

361
01:38:32.239 --> 01:38:48.560
our code from the get-go, uh we would probably not have pursued any of those because it's a through lot. It's guided for residential development in our comprehensive plan. If we did that, it would just open onto Eden Prairie Road.

362
01:38:48.560 --> 01:39:05.199
And think about Vernon. It's a 30 m and uh 30 mph road. If you could stop that driveway access, you would have this huge span where you could have a barrier and you could protect that bike lane.

363
01:39:05.199 --> 01:39:21.360
And you know, I the way that we allow really super small um lots to be developed is very problematic. All of those projects far exceeded the legal buildable area. And in the Wooddale Valley View neighborhood, we had that

364
01:39:21.360 --> 01:39:37.119
happen with uh 4404 Valley View Road on Valley View. Again, both of those sites were former gas stations. They're tiny little triangular sites. And by allowing these developments that are oversized to

365
01:39:37.119 --> 01:39:53.840
go in and continue to drive, have access off of collectors and arterials, that's presenting a real safety issue. Okay? And so we need to really, you know, look and try and make sure. So I hope those of you who are really promoting bike

366
01:39:53.840 --> 01:40:09.360
safety, keep engaged because there probably will be a seventh commercial plan for the Keys site. Uh but you know, I am frustrated by this whole process. I feel as if we needed to have more

367
01:40:09.360 --> 01:40:25.520
information upfront. We need accurate information. We need to know how wide the street is. We also need to know more about the use that is going on, the impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. Uh there was I and I wanted to support

368
01:40:25.520 --> 01:40:41.920
this and when it first came out, I was thinking, of course, this is a no-brainer. You're adding more bike infrastructure. It makes so much sense. But I don't have the data in order to back that up. and I am very concerned

369
01:40:41.920 --> 01:40:59.679
about safety and conflict points and the lack of information that I need in order to understand exactly what the risks are. So for me this has been incredibly frustrating and I do think I can understand the um

370
01:40:59.679 --> 01:41:14.880
philosophy or the idea behind pausing this and you know making sure that what we do do makes sense and is well researched and you know not something that we're just kind of following through because we're told we need an

371
01:41:14.880 --> 01:41:33.239
answer tonight. And I have been so focused on are we going to have parking or not parking versus what do these projects, you know, possibly look like. So anyway, I'm very frustrated and thank you. I am done for now.

372
01:41:33.920 --> 01:41:52.320
>> Council member Pierce. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Um I So I had a ton of notes. Um, this wasn't quite the sequencing that I thought we were going to do when I was was thinking about my uh comments. Um,

373
01:41:52.320 --> 01:42:10.480
and I will I'll try to be brief. Um, two thank yous. One to everybody who responded. I we probably got 200 emails if not more phone calls. Um and so

374
01:42:10.480 --> 01:42:27.760
always appreciate the level of engagement. Um thanks to the staff. Uh when you really look at what was originally proposed and director Milner talked about this, they were trying to be opportunistic. We have this project.

375
01:42:27.760 --> 01:42:44.400
Um we have this master plan. you know, maybe we can advance that in this particular instance because we have this project sitting in front of us. Um, and so I uh applaud um staff uh for trying

376
01:42:44.400 --> 01:42:59.840
to be innovative or know opportunistic in in getting something done, making our dollars go a little bit further um than they would on their own. Um, as I walked uh Wooddale

377
01:42:59.840 --> 01:43:15.920
uh several times, um, the thought that I had was to really do this right, you need a shared use path, uh, probably from Valley View all the way to 50th. And the only way you're going to really be able to do that is with street

378
01:43:15.920 --> 01:43:31.840
reconstruction, right? You can't do that with um, paint um, and just a resurfacing project. Um, and so that's kind of where I was was leaning. Um, so that would have been pausing, but uh,

379
01:43:31.840 --> 01:43:48.639
appreciate the way we started by clarifying, well, if we pause and we do re re street reconstruction, here's when that would likely happen. Um, [snorts] so I appreciate the clarity there. Um I will acknowledge uh member Risser

380
01:43:48.639 --> 01:44:06.560
in that um some of the data uh was not as accurate or clear but that's I think every project that I've ever worked on whether it's in the private sector or um in the city as things move forward

381
01:44:06.560 --> 01:44:23.040
things change and you have to adjust to the information that you have. Um, and so one of the things that I will mention, um, I don't respond to every email, especially when you get 200 of them. Um,

382
01:44:23.040 --> 01:44:41.040
but I, um, kind of randomly will select. And so I don't know if people that I responded to were here tonight or not, but one of the things that I said is when you think about this, you think of it as um, a project. Our decision is

383
01:44:41.040 --> 01:44:58.159
about parking on Wooddale. Like you kind of see the sign save parking on Wooddale. Um and to me was project was never about parking or not parking on Wooddale. It was really about um so I disagree with Director Milner here. I

384
01:44:58.159 --> 01:45:13.760
thought it was about um safety and how can we figure out a way to have safe pedestrian pathways down Wooddale. So, that's kind of how I I thought about it. It would be hard for

385
01:45:13.760 --> 01:45:30.159
me to answer that question by saying a segment of homeowners can no longer park in front of their homes. And so I say that because no matter what the decision is tonight, if um and I

386
01:45:30.159 --> 01:45:46.159
support um manager Neil's suggestion, but even if we don't do anything, we still have four problems to solve. And so we can't just make the decision, vote on it, and then we go about our

387
01:45:46.159 --> 01:46:03.119
merry way. That's not how city government works. we still have the same problems that we have to solve. This is just not a solution that we're uh comfortable moving forward with. And so the four problems I see um if we

388
01:46:03.119 --> 01:46:18.320
postpone or just continue with resurfacing um we still have to figure out how to advance uh the pedestrian master plan and provide safe uh pathways u in our

389
01:46:18.320 --> 01:46:35.679
city. But for sure on Wooddale that may take some other solution, but we still have to solve that. Um, street reconstruction. I do think that that is probably the way to do this. Um, to be able to put a really nice shared

390
01:46:35.679 --> 01:46:51.119
use path all the way from Valley View. There's a sidewalk there. there's space to do that, but it's 10 times more expensive than um resurfacing that street. [snorts] So, we still got to

391
01:46:51.119 --> 01:47:06.639
figure that out. Um parking on Wooddale, I still think that will change if we somehow come up with a solution to add this bike lane. Parking might be on the other side of Wooddale versus where it

392
01:47:06.639 --> 01:47:23.760
is today, right? So things will shift, things will change. And then the last one, accurate and clear data. The one that member Risser mentioned, u making sure that we have the best data at the most opportunistic time that we're trying to make a decision is something

393
01:47:23.760 --> 01:47:41.320
that we can continue to uh refine as we go. But after the decision tonight, we will still have to solve that challenge for the next project that comes um before us. Um, and so I

394
01:47:41.600 --> 01:47:57.600
agree with the um, recommendation. U, but I still will be asking us how are we going to make those four things that I just mentioned? How are we going to approve improve on all four of those? So, thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Jackson.

395
01:47:57.600 --> 01:48:14.400
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I also had a lot of notes that I'm not going to read through. Um, I just want to say that change brings out both the best and the worst in us. And on both sides of this conversation, I want to acknowledge the best of us. I

396
01:48:14.400 --> 01:48:31.600
think this was a very innovative idea to advance a city goal and every everybody I've talked to except for maybe one or two people and I've talked to thousands and tens of thousands of people if not more in this city. They want to make it more walkable and bikable. and our staff

397
01:48:31.600 --> 01:48:47.119
and our transportation commission came up with an idea to advance that and I thought it was creative and it's looks at what we're doing and how and looking at a practical way to do that. On the other side, I've had lots and lots of very good conversations about the lived

398
01:48:47.119 --> 01:49:03.920
experience of Wooddale Avenue and I really appreciate it and they were thoughtful. They were neighborly. They were everybody listened to each other and it really brought out the best of of the neighborhood feel. So, I want to acknowledge that on both sides, change is hard and I really appreciate the good

399
01:49:03.920 --> 01:49:20.159
dog uh conversations. You talk about you have a good dog and a bad dog inside of you, right? And we we heard a lot of the good dog talking and I want to acknowledge that in each and every one of you. Um, you know, one of the comments I want to say because everybody's making good

400
01:49:20.159 --> 01:49:37.520
jokes tonight is that when uh Wooddale Street was designed, Amazon was a river in Brazil, right? and it's not that now. And so we have trucks, delivery trucks that we didn't couldn't even begin to imagine in 1935 when when this has all

401
01:49:37.520 --> 01:49:54.639
begun. Um, and I want to acknowledge the change in the use. Um, I came up with uh option four. Um, and so Mr. Scipion, if you could bring that up. Um, and I think a member, your pictures are are very moving. We have a

402
01:49:54.639 --> 01:50:10.880
weed control ordinance in in Edina. I think we should use it um and clear off those those hedges where it's on the rideway or it's imposing. So option four um is basically option three but widening the um the bike lane on the

403
01:50:10.880 --> 01:50:27.440
northern part of Wooddale Lane. Um it's very dangerous. I when I was driving down to a neighborhood meeting I saw a lady and she was on the white line the whole way because she couldn't navigate what is called the bike lane now. And I think this is a very simple solution to just add a little distance to that and

404
01:50:27.440 --> 01:50:44.639
get out our our you know weed control. Either send a letter to the country club, cut your hedge back or we will cut it for you. Um because it's really impeding people's ability to ride um their bikes. So I would like to see option four be our option. Like I said is ex it's exact same as option three

405
01:50:44.639 --> 01:51:00.400
except the bike lane from Wooddale to 56th is widened. Um it's a it's it makes a little difference. The final thing I want to talk about is stewardship. So we have four core values that we look at in all the decisions we make in our city

406
01:51:00.400 --> 01:51:16.560
and it's sustainability, um equity and inclusion, health and all policies and stewardship. And that means financial stewardship and I cannot in good conscience um tear up a perfectly good street um at this point and put off

407
01:51:16.560 --> 01:51:31.360
other streets. You know look at 70th Street. If you have driven down 70th Street recently, it desperately needs to be redone. That's MSA dollars, our municipal street aid dollars. 70th Street would be pushed back and we would be tearing up a very good street on on

408
01:51:31.360 --> 01:51:47.520
um Wooddale to do that. Um and so, you know, I take the use of public money very seriously and I I can't in good conscience. The other thing is if you have the protected bike lanes, we'd have to buy new equipment to clean the uh

409
01:51:47.520 --> 01:52:04.800
snow off and that's another expense that's unanticipated in doing that. So, while I really do want to make this a walkable, bikable city, and I applaud people for coming forward um with ideas to do that, I just can't in good financial conscience um approve that

410
01:52:04.800 --> 01:52:20.480
because of the the loss of of value of the existing street. Do you favor option four, but are comfortable with option three as well? >> I I don't see why we couldn't just do option four. It just t widens the bike lane. It doesn't do anything different.

411
01:52:20.480 --> 01:52:37.440
It's just a matter of paint. >> If I may provide some additional context. So, member Jackson, you're correct. This is essentially it's a combination of option three and option one. So, the [clears throat] middle section is between 56 and 61st Street remains the same as it is today. The

412
01:52:37.440 --> 01:52:59.360
north side. Can you bring it back up on the as you talk through it? >> Bring back option three or four on the screen. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Option four. Yeah. >> Um, so again, that middle section between 56 and 61st Street would remain

413
01:52:59.360 --> 01:53:14.719
the same as existing. Parking would be maintained. The north section between Wooddale Lane and 56th Street is essentially the same. The difference is that the southbound bike lane instead of being um five feet becomes six and a half feet and we take that foot and a half from the southbound travel lane. So

414
01:53:14.719 --> 01:53:30.480
we're we're achieving some traffic calming by narrowing that southbound travel lane to expand the bike facility. The other difference is the very southern block between 61st Street and Valley View Road. Um this is the same as option one where because parking is restricted here already, we have the

415
01:53:30.480 --> 01:53:46.800
opportunity to narrow the travel lanes and add the bike lanes. >> Thank you. Why is parking restricted on from that on that segment from 61st Street to Valley View Road when the road dimensions the same as it is from 56th Street to 61st Street? >> I I don't have the reason why that

416
01:53:46.800 --> 01:54:02.800
parking restriction went into place, but it's it's been in place for several years. >> And that's adjacent to the commercial, right? Town station, the Snuffy. So, it's feels like there was a commercial. There might have been a turn lane that was needed. You're not in front of residential property. So, the parking I think was not needed there, but we don't

417
01:54:02.800 --> 01:54:20.960
have the history. >> Uh, there's the commercial building there, but there's there's several houses from 61st Street to Valley, too, I think. Anyway, um, did you Yeah. Are you still remember Jackson? >> Um, I I propose option four.

418
01:54:20.960 --> 01:54:37.119
>> Yeah. I'm going to go to council member and then I'll come back to you, member Rouser. >> Thank you. Um, and again, thank you for the work that everyone put into this. Um, I do think that this corridor is a great option to have a dedicated bike

419
01:54:37.119 --> 01:54:53.360
lane. Um, and I do want to see it happen and I think building off of what council member um, Jackson was saying, I think that there are a lot of ways in which that can happen. And so I wouldn't [clears throat] say that necessarily means uh we need to go out and buy special equipment, but is there a future

420
01:54:53.360 --> 01:55:10.560
in which it's a grade separated shared use path? I think that there are a lot of options out there. Um investing into a protected bike line or or shared use um corridor here really supports our city plans. We went through all of that

421
01:55:10.560 --> 01:55:25.520
and this is one of those really great north south connectors where I would like us to invest into better pedestrian and bicycle safety and I don't want to do that if it removes parking along the entirety of

422
01:55:25.520 --> 01:55:42.639
Wooddale and the reason for that is my priority is safety and my fear is that if we take parking off of Wooddale and we push it onto those side streets and those side streets today don't have sufficient sidewalks through and

423
01:55:42.639 --> 01:55:59.280
through. I'm worried about the downstream repercussions of impacting the safety of those pedestrians with additional parking along those streets. Um I also think about, you know, pillars of our community looking at the church and knowing how little parking they have

424
01:55:59.280 --> 01:56:16.000
today. I don't want to do something that would impact them. Um, and I think at the end of the day, right, thinking of these options that remove parking asks a small group of residents to absorb, I think, a disproportionate impact um to

425
01:56:16.000 --> 01:56:32.560
the benefit of the the broader community. So, personally, I'm okay pausing because I still feel like we have a lot of questions here. We have a lot of questions of if we do decide just to do the overlay, which I'm not saying we shouldn't do, which one do we end

426
01:56:32.560 --> 01:56:48.880
with? How do we slice up the the bike lanes? And I feel that because of some of the measurement um snafuss that happened um and and just how things were layered in, I feel pressure, right? And I don't like having this pressure of we need to make a decision and it needs to

427
01:56:48.880 --> 01:57:07.040
be now because I think that it would be rushing what is an imperfect plan when if we spent more time identifying now with all of this additional information that we have, what could that downstream better plan be? And I'm not suggesting

428
01:57:07.040 --> 01:57:24.000
we rip up Wooddale and do a full reconstruction next year or even in the next 5 years necessarily, but what I want to understand is when would we do it or when is the northern portion up for reconstruction? What does that timeline look like? And it just feels

429
01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:39.360
like I still have so many unanswered questions that I'm not very comfortable moving forward with something that is an expense that doesn't progress us towards all of the stated city goals that we have according to those five plans that

430
01:57:39.360 --> 01:57:56.639
were listed out. Um >> thank you. >> Thank you. Member Risser following comment. um that I I believe the lack of parking um from 61st to Valley View is because there is a turn lane and there is all that commercial activity. But it

431
01:57:56.639 --> 01:58:11.760
is really interesting. Um when you're biking along Valley View and you go up and you come along that curve and you're getting on to Normandale, the bike lane just vanishes. >> We're on Wooddale. >> There's no or along Normandale. There's no bike lane anymore. You go and then

432
01:58:11.760 --> 01:58:29.599
the bike lane vanishes when you go into the Wooddale Valley View intersection and you are turning to go east onto Valley View and there you're going right by View 44 which was given an easement

433
01:58:29.599 --> 01:58:46.000
into the public right of way. Okay. So those plantings and the steps coming down from those porches, that's in the public right ofway, which means it's very hard to expand that 5-ft sidewalk. It's hard to have a boulevard wide

434
01:58:46.000 --> 01:59:02.880
enough so you can plant an oak tree. Okay. So it we need to stop um allowing the public right ofway to be, you know, disrespected. I I think that is disrespectful to allow that to be taken

435
01:59:02.880 --> 01:59:19.840
away. And I I do want to come back to those conflict points and allowing driveway access when our code says we shouldn't. And the rationale was, oh, with Vernon it it's a county road, so we don't have to apply our city code, which

436
01:59:19.840 --> 01:59:37.760
is really frustrating to me. But I I do really feel um as if I'm on the same page with Commissioner Agnu just because this is rushed. If it feels as if we don't really know what we're doing, but at the

437
01:59:37.760 --> 01:59:52.719
same time, if we don't do it, we fall behind and we have got to have a process where we don't put elected officials in this position. and I'm not running again. So, I have about five months. But

438
01:59:52.719 --> 02:00:12.000
this really I hope whoever wins my seat is not put into this kind of position. And I think this wasn't us receiving a grant and there was a little tiny period of time to work with this. We had more time. And I I do think we need to really

439
02:00:12.000 --> 02:00:27.840
button down those things that we're going to do in order to make it a more bikable, walkable community. Um so there's things that we can do. Uh we could start following the code. Um we could, you know, not allow it really and

440
02:00:27.840 --> 02:00:43.520
we need to talk about things that cause um cra where where the crashes occur, where the conflict points are. And it was also frustrating to look at the data and not have that, you know, were these crashes that happened because somebody

441
02:00:43.520 --> 02:01:00.480
was backing out. I I all of that information was out there and I know we've talked about data already, but um it it is important for us to have that if we're going to move forward in a meaningful way. Thank you. >> Thank you, member Brer. Um,

442
02:01:00.480 --> 02:01:16.800
yeah, I think this this proposed uh notion has been in our lot all all of our heads for many months. You know, I I took my wife finally talked me into going on one of those Viking river cruises in early June and we got to Vienna. [clears throat]

443
02:01:16.800 --> 02:01:32.800
We went to Budapest and up to Danub to Vienna. Got we got in on a bus in Vienna and I'm we're driving along and I'm looking at how they're all set up there. I mean, it's unbelievable how they separate cars from um from pedestrians

444
02:01:32.800 --> 02:01:48.000
and anybody has non-motorized bikes, too. They spent millions of euros on these systems retrofitting these ancient cities. And so then I thought, well, how many people in Vienna own a car? You know, well, it's 42% of the people in Vienna

445
02:01:48.000 --> 02:02:02.639
don't own a household, don't have a car. So, they they've got to put their emphasis in different ways. Uh and when you look at the uh number of cars per household in a diner, it's two, you know. So this idea that we're we're going to somehow escape this car centric

446
02:02:02.639 --> 02:02:21.040
society of ours. Uh it's I don't think it's realistic. So like like council member Pierce, I appreciate all of the input. Uh, and I wish we could do something like Vienna, but we, you know, like our uh, our engineer told us, director

447
02:02:21.040 --> 02:02:38.320
Milner, uh, we promised people when we did the street reconstruction 20 years ago in the system, this was a 50-year plan. So to think about pausing and going back and then redesigning something that tears the whole street up to do something like it's a miniature version of what they do in Vienna,

448
02:02:38.320 --> 02:02:54.560
it's it it's unfair to those people that have already been assessed once to me. So I appreciate the input on the issue. I mean, think about all the people we've heard from, the residents, cyclists, church members, church leadership, country club patrons and leaders, delivery. I don't know if we've heard

449
02:02:54.560 --> 02:03:11.199
from delivery services or not, but in in in in doing my analysis, we probably should have, although they maybe we didn't have time to stop. Uh I tried to distinguish between interests and positions because the positions expressed have been we need a protected

450
02:03:11.199 --> 02:03:27.040
bike lane and then the other position is we cannot lose parking. Uh but when you look at underlying interests they were cyclists want to feel safe. Residents want reliable access to their homes. The church wants a the congregation to be able to attend services and not walk too

451
02:03:27.040 --> 02:03:43.199
far because they don't have any dedicated parking. The country club wants overflow capacity during uh events. Uh the city wants to reduce speeds. And incidentally, that was one of the top things that we heard was that let's think about reducing speeds. And I think council member Jackson's on to

452
02:03:43.199 --> 02:03:58.480
something there because when I did some research, you look at those 11 and 1/2t lanes from Wooddale to 56. I looked at the National Association of City Transportation Officials data uh and it said you can safely reduce lanes

453
02:03:58.480 --> 02:04:16.960
of travel to 9 to 10 feet and it has a direct correlative effect on a reduction in speed but it doesn't increase the crash risk. So I think you're on to something there. It's what something I've been thinking about too is that could we go to 10 feet

454
02:04:16.960 --> 02:04:32.639
uh and and address the speed issue that so many people raised because we're just talking about paint here, right? And then you you expand the size of that, the width of the bike lane on the west side, deal with the the um the hedge

455
02:04:32.639 --> 02:04:50.239
issue uh and you get something that's wider. Uh so that's another thought. Um, so for me, as we've listened to staff and and absorbed testimonies from interested parties, uh, and and I still wish that we would have had talk about data, uh, you know, current bike counts,

456
02:04:50.239 --> 02:05:04.719
projected bike use, all that. Maybe it's bill that they come, but I didn't see any of that. And while I believe we can all agree that protected bike lanes generally increase both actual safety and perceived comfort, this street has experienced only one reported bicycle

457
02:05:04.719 --> 02:05:20.960
crash in a decade with with an uncertain possibility of an injury, which begs the question, can we achieve a meaningful improvement in safety and comfort without eliminating parking serving residents, the church, and the country club.

458
02:05:20.960 --> 02:05:35.840
So a common concern as I mentioned earlier was the speed on woodill and that caused me to think about hybrids and from a broader perspective the question was for me well what's our objective here and somebody else mentioned that too achieve the highest level of bicycle comfort and safety or

459
02:05:35.840 --> 02:05:52.159
achieve the overall greatest improvement in safety and mobility and while a fully protected two-way bike lane may provide the greatest comfort for cyclists and safety it comes uh at a cost of eliminating all the on street parking used daily by residents and at least

460
02:05:52.159 --> 02:06:06.719
weekly by a church with no off streetet parking and a country club with significant events. Uh and so the council to me should consider all of that. And for me personally when I weighed that on balance I I came down

461
02:06:06.719 --> 02:06:23.920
to maintaining the status quo. Now, I I say that with the notion in mind that because speed was such a factor, I do think because we're only dealing with paint on the road, expanding that existing bikeway to the east a little bit and shrinking those lanes of travel

462
02:06:23.920 --> 02:06:40.239
could reduce speed uh and should reduce speed based on the data that I read uh and not increase the risk of accidents. So, that's something to think about in terms of option four. I don't know if I like everything about option four, but it's something to think about. Uh I want

463
02:06:40.239 --> 02:06:57.920
to go back to director Milner because this when did the uh the uh Dina transportation commission get information? Was it February that the streets were data was put together? >> Um so this project has been in our capital improvement plan um since I

464
02:06:57.920 --> 02:07:14.800
can't recall when exactly the current CIP was adopted, but so this plan was a project in there. um staff started to evaluate it at the beginning of the year. Um the transportation commission solicited a presentation from staff to learn more about this project at that time back in February. Um I was in the

465
02:07:14.800 --> 02:07:32.560
very early stages of developing it. So it didn't have a lot of information beyond what what was in the CIP. Um so that's how the transportation commission involvement began. >> Okay. And when when did all that start? >> February. >> February. Yeah. >> And the CIP was adopted two years ago.

466
02:07:32.560 --> 02:07:49.199
So December of 2012. >> So this the data has been out there since at least February on the on the road widths and >> adjustment. So it was winter time. We did some with aerial photography versus in the person. So there was some slight changes like was mentioned >> in those measurements.

467
02:07:49.199 --> 02:08:05.280
>> Um so talk to us again a little bit about uh the decision- making process and why you think it's important to make a decision tonight. I don't think we should delay the proactive pavement maintenance.

468
02:08:05.280 --> 02:08:22.480
We have a plan. We need to follow it. I don't know what other options we would have. This has been analyzed for almost two years. I mean, member, >> you got four options. Oh, you're saying make a decision. >> To meet state aid standards, there's really not many more options out there unless we recon. >> At its heart, this is a pavement project

469
02:08:22.480 --> 02:08:38.079
um that provides us an opportunity to look at the uh roadway configuration. So again, we are trying to be opportunistic in looking at what are the possible options available to us. But at its heart, this this project was driven by a need to proactively maintain the

470
02:08:38.079 --> 02:08:53.840
pavement to extend the lifespan of the street. >> And if we're not moving curbs, we're going to come back with probably the same kind I mean, it'll be a half a foot here and there, similar to option four, right? Just tweaks. It's not going to be chang big changes. >> What about option four? >> That was a tweak of a foot or two here

471
02:08:53.840 --> 02:09:09.679
and there. That's the only thing we can do because we still got to meet state aid standards. >> Yeah. Council member Jackson, go ahead. >> Yeah. So, one of the things that when I was talking with Mr. Cypion about this um for the what's called a sheros where the see you see the arrows in the middle

472
02:09:09.679 --> 02:09:25.760
of the street for the bike that has to be 12 1/2 ft. Is that correct? There's no requirement in MSA guidance or in state statute for how wide that has to be, but generally um you want to keep, you know, um some guidance says between

473
02:09:25.760 --> 02:09:42.079
12t to 14 ft. Um but that also kind of works counter to the idea of narrowing the travel lane for traffic calming. Um, so the in this option here, for example, where on that north section between Wooddale Lane to 56th Street, um, I wouldn't recommend going narrower than

474
02:09:42.079 --> 02:09:57.920
that 11 and a half foot northbound lane, um, to provide enough space for a car and a bike to navigate more safely. >> Yeah, I I thought about that, too, as I was looking at that 10 foot in each direction might be a little bit difficult on the east side where you want to accommodate parking and and

475
02:09:57.920 --> 02:10:13.280
bikes moving on that side too. That width is generally not >> people getting and people getting out of cars. >> Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. That a 10 foot width is generally not recommended for a shared bike lane. >> Council member Jackson. >> I think I've made my point. I just

476
02:10:13.280 --> 02:10:30.079
wanted to point that out to you. Um that that's why we landed on the the widths that we did. >> Okay. Yeah, I think it's I think it's helpful, you know, in terms of bike safety and it preserves the parking on Wooddale, which I think is important. So, um, Council Member Eggno,

477
02:10:30.079 --> 02:10:46.159
>> thank you. Do you know when the last reconstruction was done between 50th and 56th? >> Uh, to my knowledge, not uh 1954. And we're going to be doing that north half when the bridge comes. We're going

478
02:10:46.159 --> 02:11:01.920
to be doing Wooddale Lane to 50th because that all needs to be done as part of the bridge when we get that scheduled and funded. So, there's just a few blocks in between there. 56 to Wooddale. >> So would we do that at that time as well or you're saying no? >> We still think the pavement's in good

479
02:11:01.920 --> 02:11:19.440
shape. The underlying subgrade is not showing major failures and I think we can get another 20 years based on what we're seeing in the field. >> Council member Pierce, what are your thoughts about option four? >> Um I I am comfortable like with option

480
02:11:19.440 --> 02:11:35.199
four. We kind of talked about it a little bit. Um, member Jackson and I. So, I I think I'm okay with that. The only comment I'll make like I don't I don't feel rushed. I think we do need to

481
02:11:35.199 --> 02:11:50.719
make a decision so that we can move forward. Um, and the reason I don't is because I I think to really have a shared use path that has a protected bike lane for the length of Wooddale

482
02:11:50.719 --> 02:12:06.480
requires street reconstruction and we could pause for the next 45 days and we still aren't going to have street reconstruction. Um, and so I think whatever option we come up with is a, you know, kind of a tweak of paint here

483
02:12:06.480 --> 02:12:21.599
or there. And I remember uh Director Milner saying this um the first time this came up. All we really are talking about is resurfacing and paint. Um so I don't I don't really feel like

484
02:12:21.599 --> 02:12:39.440
postponing and waiting um actually gets us anything. >> Council member Jackson, then I've got another question on bike safety. >> Yes, thank you. So, uh, Director Milner, how much does it cost approximately to

485
02:12:39.440 --> 02:12:56.159
reconstruct, uh, a mile of or one block of City Street? >> Typically, we say about $2 million a mile. This length is 1.36. >> It's I would say when we're But that's just the basics. If we're doing shared use or bike or parking or everything,

486
02:12:56.159 --> 02:13:11.520
you widen it goes more. >> Okay. >> So, this is it's multi-million dollar to reconstruct the street. >> Okay. Thank you. And then we've got the inflation factor. It probably wasn't that long ago when it was a million and a half a mile >> potentially. Yeah. >> Well, and that's roadway cost alone,

487
02:13:11.520 --> 02:13:26.880
which during a reconstruction, we would look at upgrading the underground utilities as well. We didn't do that assessment for this project because it's just a surface overlay. >> What are what are the pros and cons? Let's talk about option four here in that that 6 and 1/2t south foot

488
02:13:26.880 --> 02:13:42.079
southbound bike lane. Um, you know, in some of the schematics that you see for bike safety, they have a a bike lane and then they have a buffer and they've got, you know, a big wide piece of paint that creates the

489
02:13:42.079 --> 02:13:57.599
buffer. It's it's not a physical separation like a Ballard or a grade separation, but uh how would you how would you do that over there? If we had if we adopted option four and we had a 6 and 1/2 ft southbound bike lane, how

490
02:13:57.599 --> 02:14:13.599
would you try to maximize safety for people using that bike lane when we're when we're only using paint on the road? >> Thank you for the question. So because given the context of it, given where the where the curb uh where the seam and the curb is along there and given the the issues with the hedge that have been

491
02:14:13.599 --> 02:14:29.440
mentioned adjacent to the country club, I wouldn't recommend putting a buffer in this section. I would just stripe it as a 6 and 1/2t bike lane so that cyclists can use that full uh that full width of the facility. >> Okay. >> Giving the most space to reduce

492
02:14:29.440 --> 02:14:45.840
potential impacts with the cars. >> Council member Jackson, >> thank you. Can we paint the bike symbol and the bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike bike lane too so people don't because sometimes they look like all over the city that the signaling is different. Sometimes it's a bike lane, sometimes it's a parking and it looks identical.

493
02:14:45.840 --> 02:15:01.599
So if you could paint the bicycles in the bike lane that'd be great. >> Yes. So part of this project uh part of this project would be to uh install you know if for the sherrows that are there existing if you approve this option we would replace those in kind and then the

494
02:15:01.599 --> 02:15:18.159
current southbound bike lane would be replaced with uh bike pavement markings >> and and the same then from 61st at Valley View Road as well. There'll be pictures of bikes in the bike lane. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. I will say on that section there will need to be some it won't be exactly this for the entirety

495
02:15:18.159 --> 02:15:34.639
of that because we have to transition to the north and to the south to or to the south to the traffic signal and then to the north there'll be a transition from that dedicated bike lane to a shared facility but it'll essentially be this section. >> Okay. Thank you council member Russer.

496
02:15:34.639 --> 02:15:51.119
Is this conversation on option four helping you at all think get comfortable with option four or you still >> feel like you have too much uncertainty? >> Um I I feel like I I I wish I had known about option four

497
02:15:51.119 --> 02:16:09.560
before I showed up here. >> Well, that's why I packet. >> Okay. >> You got it on Friday. >> I got it on Friday. >> Voted on Thursday. >> Thank you. Okay. I appreciate that. Um I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place and I would be I think

498
02:16:10.239 --> 02:16:27.119
um I am more comfortable with option four because delaying it and just knowing the amount of work that gets pushed back but I am not thrilled to be in this position and I do see a pattern. You know this happened with the Grand View Bridge. There were so many pieces

499
02:16:27.119 --> 02:16:44.000
of information with the tunnel under France that were problematic and we just Anyway, I've Yeah, I think I can vote for four. >> Okay. Council member Egno, this conversation helped you at all. Uh I'm sure it did in terms of uh understanding

500
02:16:44.000 --> 02:16:59.439
it more, but I don't know whether it caused you to change your mind or not. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I I think for me it's really helpful just to understand when those alternatives are because I I still think for me what I want to see is probably a grade separated shared use

501
02:16:59.439 --> 02:17:15.280
path. I think that's the ideal. Um but if if the street quality is so good and if we're literally talking that's 20 years out that we can still get life of that street, I was thinking of that northern section like in some cases we're going to have to do this

502
02:17:15.280 --> 02:17:31.920
peacemeal, right? And so even if we were having the northern section be reconstructed before I could deal with some peacemeal nature of that but hearing that that's still I don't even know years out of even needing that potentially 20 years with

503
02:17:31.920 --> 02:17:47.599
the life of this overlay I think it it makes sense to to do the option that at least advances some of our goals. The one part that I'm wanting to make sure that we follow up on is this has raised concerns on um the Buckthornne or

504
02:17:47.599 --> 02:18:03.920
whatever it is along um the country club. So, we need to have a plan for that that I think is outside of what we do with the overlay. Um and maybe it's something we can bring up on subsequent city council meetings. >> I can reach out to the country club. We pretty much do every month and every

505
02:18:03.920 --> 02:18:19.840
summer. It's time to trim it again. They trim it. It's time to trim it again. But I'll have a broader discussion with them to see it's time to look at maybe removing it. But >> yeah, because I've also heard from residents that they're trimming it and that that doesn't seem like a a good use

506
02:18:19.840 --> 02:18:36.399
of our community energy. >> Thank you, >> Council Member Derer. >> It it can't be just trimming it and continuing trimming it. We have got to get rid of those trees. They have to come out, especially on our property, the city property. I think that's

507
02:18:36.399 --> 02:18:52.240
putting us at risk. It's got to they have got to come out. It can't just be trimming. >> Well, they might not be on our property >> part. Well, there's definitely the right of way that is at least up to five feet and it would be good to get clarity on where this

508
02:18:52.240 --> 02:19:08.479
>> Yeah. Um >> we'll take a look at that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, we'll figure it out. Okay. Yeah. Thanks for that. That that that was good. Great discussion. Uh so is there a motion directing staff to um implement um option number four for the roadway

509
02:19:08.479 --> 02:19:25.040
reconfiguration operation to implement as part of the 2026 by 2uminous overlay project on Wooddale Avenue from um what is it? Wooddale Glenn all the way to Valley View. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. We got a motion by member Jackson, second by member Pierce to uh

510
02:19:25.040 --> 02:19:40.479
adopt option four, which would direct staff on which roadway configuration option to implement as part of the 2026 buminous overlay project on Wooddale Avenue from Wooddale Glenn to uh to Valley View Road. Uh any further

511
02:19:40.479 --> 02:19:55.840
discussion? Roll call, please. >> Council member Risser, >> I. >> Council member Jackson, >> I. >> Mayor Hublin, >> I. >> Council member Pierce, >> I. Council member Agne. >> Hi. >> All right. The option four is selected.

512
02:19:55.840 --> 02:21:43.319
We're on the way to getting Wooddale re redone overlaid. >> Thanks. Thanks everybody for being here tonight. Don't forget the soccer thing. Yeah. No, I appreciate that.

513
02:21:53.200 --> 02:23:49.359
>> Right. Right. That was great. Listen to the woman. Hi. >> Curious. It was a beautiful day. >> Nice day. >> Just before we got here.

514
02:24:18.000 --> 02:25:19.200
That's exactly Yes. Thank you, mayor. Uh members of the council, I'll just do a quick introduction and then Steve Beni of DA Homes will make the full presentation. So the proposal here is to tear down an existing duplex. This is at the intersection of 52nd and Grand View

515
02:25:19.200 --> 02:25:36.560
Lane, and they would build four uh town home units. The property is currently zoned R2, so a reszoning would be required. Um the comprehensive plan guides this site for between four and eight units an acre. The proposal is for

516
02:25:36.560 --> 02:25:52.399
about 14 units an acre. So this would require not only the resoning but a comprehensive uh plan amendment to highdensity residential. Um so those would be the two big requests. This was reviewed by the planning commission back in I believe it was April. It was generally

517
02:25:52.399 --> 02:26:10.200
wellreceived. Um they were comfortable with this being a corner lot and the site adjacent to the east is highdensity residential as well. So with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Beny to provide the details. >> All right, Mr. Beny, welcome.

518
02:26:12.720 --> 02:26:29.600
>> Oh, yeah. You better have something that uh I can talk loud >> causes you to be recorded. >> Yeah, I have to do that kind of a thing. >> And the transport in the planning commission. I couldn't hear what you were saying. >> Okay. Yeah, it tends to drop a little bit. It gets a little heavy, but no, great to see you again. And uh this is a

519
02:26:29.600 --> 02:26:46.640
project that you've seen in the past in a different uh configuration. Um the landowners are continuing to try to improve their property. So as Carrie pointed out, um they have a duplex uh on the corner of 52nd Street and Grand View

520
02:26:46.640 --> 02:27:04.000
Lane that they've uh owned for well over 25 years. Uh the building was built in 1955. It is in such disrepair that one of the units has not been leased there. It's currently rentals. One of the units has not been leased in over 5 years. Uh with

521
02:27:04.000 --> 02:27:20.160
that said, uh sort of kind of run you through the details here. Um as we pointed out, it's four town home units, one four-unit building. Um, we obviously have uh a track record of this kind of project throughout the

522
02:27:20.160 --> 02:27:37.600
metro and also just around the corner. Obviously, the town homes on Hankerson sold out as fast as we built them. Um, we're currently building the single families that were previously approved by council uh just up the street from that.

523
02:27:37.600 --> 02:27:54.479
Um, yes, the adjacent properties are R1, R2, PRD3, and PRD4. I will point out that the predominant zoning around this area is PRD3. They are all four and five story

524
02:27:54.479 --> 02:28:11.439
apartment buildings that hem this in. um the adjacent uses are predominantly medium to high uh densities and there's you know so this area definitely is ripe for for change. Um the project

525
02:28:11.439 --> 02:28:28.080
essentially tries to utilize current setbacks of the of the adjacent buildings to demonstrate where the building should sit. Uh it acknowledges the significantly larger rightaway of 52nd Street that we also discussed for

526
02:28:28.080 --> 02:28:43.359
Grand View Town Homes. It's a 80ft rightway instead of a 60. So there's an additional 10 ft on each side of the road. Um so the distance to the curb is not the same as you would have otherwise expect. Um, we do want to uh honor the

527
02:28:43.359 --> 02:28:59.200
front yard setback of these streets so that hopefully as the rest of the uh block redevelops um we are establishing a fairly significant uh streetscape line. Um and then because of this corner lot um and

528
02:28:59.200 --> 02:29:14.240
it isn't the only corner lot in this in this on this block, we do have the ability to remove the garages from the front of the building and provide a common drive for the building at the rear. Um, it uses it would basically be the same as the existing building which

529
02:29:14.240 --> 02:29:31.040
currently accesses uh 52nd Street for its garages. Um, as I pointed out the surrounding uses, you know, we have four and fivetory apartment building right behind this building. We essentially have it in front of the building and we also have

530
02:29:31.040 --> 02:29:47.200
it to the south. Um the transition does seem to be pretty pretty strong right along 52nd going to the north, but there are there is an R2 also on this side which is the group home. Um and we we do

531
02:29:47.200 --> 02:30:05.600
we do see that there is an issue with 52nd Street and that it essentially doesn't go anywhere. It is essentially a short connector between other streets in the city here. Um all in the Brookview area. Um current density is 6.7 units an acre.

532
02:30:05.600 --> 02:30:22.080
So it is it even now it is not really quite low density even though it's currently uh guided that way. Uh the project density is I mistyped that. It's actually 13.4. The difference is not significant but we're

533
02:30:22.080 --> 02:30:42.560
only adding two units to the area. Um we would be requesting the resoning and updating the comprehensive plan. Uh the total hard cover would be 67.5 and that's comparable to what we had with the Grand View Town Home project and we did handle the extra storm water

534
02:30:42.560 --> 02:30:59.680
management and things effectively there. Um everything's underground. It's all uh maintainable. Uh 9M Creek loves it. Uh the neighbors love it because they're not looking at rain gardens or something else that is in the yard. uh the struct the building hard cover is

535
02:30:59.680 --> 02:31:17.200
uh 48 44.8 but our current coverage is just under 30. Um I pretty much already reviewed that. Um, I think the key to this whole idea is that we're trying to present the same

536
02:31:17.200 --> 02:31:32.479
kind of a streetscape that we did that we were able to succeed with for uh both um Grand View Town Homes right around the corner on Hankerson as well as the Hankerson tingle families. They're all utilizing the alley and we're essentially creating a short private

537
02:31:32.479 --> 02:31:47.359
alley for this project. Uh units would have full full size twocar garages. Um there wouldn't be any parking outside the garage. So you're basically putting your cars inside and then there is on street parking just as

538
02:31:47.359 --> 02:32:04.960
there is uh currently. Uh we would be building two stories. Uh there are other twotory buildings on block. Um some of them have a single story adjacent to a twotory or a split level type twotory. Uh but the but the twotory

539
02:32:04.960 --> 02:32:21.760
above a finished above a above a garage does already exist on the lot. Um, as of right now, you know, we would typically offer them as finished basement later if you want us to finish them. Price is comparable to that. Um,

540
02:32:21.760 --> 02:32:37.600
units would have up to three bedrooms, up to four bedrooms and three baths. Uh, and and that is consistent with the kind of client that the McDonald's are currently getting for the one unit that's

541
02:32:37.600 --> 02:32:55.160
available. And previously with the two units that were available in the duplex, they are looking at uh renters that are long-term that have some families. So the need for the multiple bedrooms is definitely indicated in this area.

542
02:32:56.319 --> 02:33:12.000
Building was built in 1955. One unit's leaseable. Peter will address some of the other concerns that they've had. Uh the other unit has had multiple plumbing issues. uh they lived in that unit for years and dealt with the uh maintenance

543
02:33:12.000 --> 02:33:29.840
and uh repairs and what they're with right now and he can address more how what what that means to them but it's the repairs to bring that into a livable condition are are fairly large. Um, we noted that the staff report listed an assessed value and clearly if you have a

544
02:33:29.840 --> 02:33:45.840
unit that's not livable, it the assessed value that comes across in the county records really doesn't mean anything that the building has the value. You know, essentially the the one unit is lot value only. Um,

545
02:33:45.840 --> 02:34:02.000
in reading the staff comments, um, there was a comment about the significant deviations from PRD3 and how that presumably made this project not appropriate. Well, as I brought up before in front of this body

546
02:34:02.000 --> 02:34:18.560
and planning commission, I think it's more of a comment on the PRD zoning versus a more typical town home zoning. This building is being looked at the same way a large scale apartment building would be because right next

547
02:34:18.560 --> 02:34:34.080
door we have the PRD apartment buildings uh PRD3 as a matter of fact. The setbacks required for a building like that should not be applied to a building in a residential scale like this town home building is. So

548
02:34:34.080 --> 02:34:48.960
acknowledging that the deviations are needed is simply an observation that probably PRD3 is not a great zoning classification to put this building in, but it's the only one we have available in the current city ordinance.

549
02:34:48.960 --> 02:35:03.920
Um, we note that the site is well located within the uh city of Edina density study that uh University of Minnesota provided for the city. I know it's not a formal document, but it definitely has some direction that was offered to the city, and we saw that

550
02:35:03.920 --> 02:35:19.520
that uh the higher density and the and the transit um are both um indicated as helpful to the city's carbon neutral um goals. And uh you know, the residential scale

551
02:35:19.520 --> 02:35:35.280
of these units, I think, is obvious compared to the apartment buildings behind them. Um they they it is a better fit for a residential neighborhood than something more dense. As Carrie noted, um planning commission said, "Hey, how about you try to put six units in

552
02:35:35.280 --> 02:35:54.399
there?" I I saw that. I do have a way of doing it that probably wouldn't be as obvious as you think it is, but we're fine with this and we believe that it's the correct number. Um and and again I I really wanted to focus on this whole thing about how this

553
02:35:54.399 --> 02:36:09.520
this little enclave, you know, this current enclave is really surrounded by the the PRD um uh uses and is definitely kind of overwhelmed by them. Um

554
02:36:09.520 --> 02:36:25.680
there was also suggestion that the the reason that the zoning along this street um might have been due to the street configuration because the apartment buildings access directly off of Vernon but this block accesses directly off of Vernon

555
02:36:25.680 --> 02:36:42.439
53rd Street Grand View Lane. It's no different than the apartment buildings on either side that have private drives accessing Burden. So, the access into this area is the same as the apartment buildings. Um,

556
02:36:44.319 --> 02:37:00.319
I'm really focused on the aerial photo. I mean, it is such a it is such a key descriptor of what happened here. Um, clearly the buildings that are there preceded the apartments to a degree and the apartments basically surrounded

557
02:37:00.319 --> 02:37:23.120
them. Um, if there's a spot along Vernon, I think that is appropriate for density, higher density, modestly higher density, this is probably one of the best ones because of what surrounds it. Yeah, climate action plan. Um, you know,

558
02:37:23.120 --> 02:37:39.760
it's pretty clear that one of the go big goals with the is especially with what was just being discussed is to try and help, you know, with the carbon uh the carbon neutral and it's very clear that we have an area here that is very approximate to um

559
02:37:39.760 --> 02:37:55.920
very approximate to transit, very approximate to a walkable retail area. Again, that that is the exact kind of uh area that a product like this is perfect for and the um the density study

560
02:37:55.920 --> 02:38:14.319
elaborated on that quite well. Um I'll stand for questions actually. Peter, would you like to talk a little bit about the building itself or would you rather Okay. Well, why not stand for questions first? >> Yep. Yes. Thank you. Uh questions. Yes.

561
02:38:14.319 --> 02:38:29.600
Council member Russer, >> can you go back to the image that was the aerial showing? >> I've got several. So, >> yeah, it I figured we'd want to talk to it. I want to make it easy. >> Okay. I'm trying to Okay, so in the

562
02:38:29.600 --> 02:38:44.960
compliance table, it says the proposed setback for the front um is 17. What am I missing? Okay, so you're doing 30 ft. Oh, okay. I got that. Now that makes sense. Yeah, the front is here. >> Okay.

563
02:38:44.960 --> 02:39:00.399
>> And it's 35, but the block is 30. >> Okay. >> The 17 is is on this side. >> And it's because we have side setbacks that were done before the zoning code or as the zoning code was coming into

564
02:39:00.399 --> 02:39:17.439
effect. And the side setbacks then were not handled the way they are now. And so what you're asking for is a comp plan amendment, but the building coverage is greater than the city standard

565
02:39:17.439 --> 02:39:34.399
>> again because Yes. >> Okay. Um I have issues with that. I also um it it's really interesting and thank you for putting that affordable housing um the combined assessed value of this two-unit property is 712,000 which

566
02:39:34.399 --> 02:39:51.760
equates to 356 um 350 per unit and that exceeds what is considered naturally occurring affordable housing um and the information from the MC council it can only be 306,000

567
02:39:51.760 --> 02:40:08.240
so it's it's kind kind of weird because we've seen different numbers for what constitutes affordable housing and this is much much lower than at least what I remember seeing. But >> yeah, >> and and the assessed value I think addresses the age of the building.

568
02:40:08.240 --> 02:40:24.160
>> Okay. >> Whereas and I think this is something that Peter could address directly if you had specific questions about why they are having such trouble with it. >> No, actually it was just a comment on like what constitutes that. >> Sure. Um, and when I look at the zoning

569
02:40:24.160 --> 02:40:40.080
map, and I see your point because there is PRD4, but uh, when you look at this, it's got its back toward the R2, and it does kind of there's some deviation in terms of the grade. And so, it doesn't

570
02:40:40.080 --> 02:40:57.280
really feel like these are large buildings looming over these um, double dwelling units. And but it would be interesting to just see if there's a big height differential between how tall your building is going to be and the

571
02:40:57.280 --> 02:41:12.640
property right next to it. I do think this is one of those rare areas in Edina where houses do homes continue to be more affordable and it is in such a perfect spot because you can get the bus, you've got the grocery store and

572
02:41:12.640 --> 02:41:28.479
you've got all of that. And while you do have PRD to the east, PRD4 and PRD3 to the um east and then the north and the south. If you go to the west, you've got

573
02:41:28.479 --> 02:41:45.040
more R1. And so, you know, it kind of just depends on what you're looking at. I think I um know we need to move toward higher density, but I I feel like doing a comp plan amendment for this one

574
02:41:45.040 --> 02:42:05.280
parcel is problematic for me. And so, I think I'm just going to stop there. >> Thank you, Council Member Rejection. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I've got two questions for you and one for Mr. Teague. Um, so the height of this building is a st would be the same as a

575
02:42:05.280 --> 02:42:21.680
standard two-story single family home. Correct. >> Built to today's standards as opposed to >> right >> and and the distinction I'm making is that we tend to have 9 foot main floors now where we had 8 foot stand. We tend to have thicker floor systems because we

576
02:42:21.680 --> 02:42:37.680
have duct mechanical systems contained within the floors. And then generally the roof pitches are steeper today than they would have been back in the '7s ' 60s. It was a lot of 412s and

577
02:42:37.680 --> 02:42:53.920
612s. Now there's more eights and 10s. So the buildings have tended to grow, but this would be 30 ft or less. So it meets the it meets the current zoning requirements that way. >> Okay. So, just as a personal request, it the more you can make it feel like part

578
02:42:53.920 --> 02:43:09.680
of the neighborhood, the better. Um, that's just my request. >> I I understand that. Um, but of course, we've built more than a hundred houses in Edina and we've seen the neighborhoods change. >> Yes. >> And they do. >> And that's what I'm addressing. >> Okay.

579
02:43:09.680 --> 02:43:25.840
>> I don't like it. [laughter] >> But that's just I'm just I'm just throwing it out there. You'll build what you're going to build. But but just just as a data point, the other question I have for you is when you are tearing this down, you talk about wanting to address the climate action plan and everything. One of the things that we

580
02:43:25.840 --> 02:43:42.880
asked builders to do is to do um green deconstruction. So I'll just throw that out there. >> I do have a comment on it. Um we moved the house off the single family lot. We we're moving the one off of that one. Both of those homes were

581
02:43:42.880 --> 02:43:58.800
deteriorated, but in good enough shape to do so. >> Yeah, >> this home has mold. This home has rot. There are other issues here that are going to preclude doing some of that. If not, I mean, there might be a floor. We We'll have to

582
02:43:58.800 --> 02:44:14.960
see. And we'll typically leave that up to, in this case, the owner. You know, he'll know the house. If there's oak floor that can be taken up, then maybe he'll decide that's what he wants to do. >> Yeah. Well, and I remember you did that with the single family homes and I appreciated it when you did that. So, just throwing that out there. So, my

583
02:44:14.960 --> 02:44:30.720
question for you, Mr. Teague, uh isn't really about this, but about our process of upgrading our zoning code. Um will the proposals that we've been looking at have a better way of um zoning town homes? >> Yes, that is the goal is to create this

584
02:44:30.720 --> 02:44:45.600
missing middle type zoning district. >> Okay, terrific. So, um yes, >> I have one thing about that. Yes, please. >> We've been here for eight years with town home style projects and we heard

585
02:44:45.600 --> 02:45:02.319
we've been hearing we'll get to it and we'll get to it. So, we need to be able to proceed with some of these projects >> um while you're continuing to do your work. We understand you need to do your work, but we need that, too. >> Well, I thought you raised a very good

586
02:45:02.319 --> 02:45:16.880
point about how awkward our zoning code is, so I wanted to make sure that we made a note of that. I I totally get you've got to do what you got to do and you're moving forward. I don't have any objections to that, but I want to make sure we're learning from this experience. >> So, thank you. I I think this is a good

587
02:45:16.880 --> 02:45:34.160
idea. Um, you know, I would love to have them be eventually up for sale. Um, you know, as as an ownership opportunity. I appreciate the density um and and I appreciate you preserving the green space on the front of the house. So, I I think this is a good program. I just had

588
02:45:34.160 --> 02:45:49.680
to to throw a couple of my own personal opinions in there. >> Always appreciated. >> Council member Agnu. >> Thank you. And I'm going to build off of council member Jackson's last question. Um because I was so just so everyone knows, we are currently actively going

589
02:45:49.680 --> 02:46:03.840
through this process through the planning commission to do some resoning or zoning adjustments. And it was just a couple of months ago now that we received our most recent update. And I was using this like storyboard experience where they kind of show what is the zoning today and what will the

590
02:46:03.840 --> 02:46:20.720
zoning be. And it looked like um uh Director Teague for this site in particular, I don't know if we just hadn't gotten to it yet, but it looks like it's the same zoning in the future as it is currently. So, can you speak to right now how you're thinking how the

591
02:46:20.720 --> 02:46:36.000
the team is thinking about this direct area and what potentially based off of our approval the new zoning recommendation will be for this site in particular? >> Yeah. So, we're still working through the, you know, we we know we want to

592
02:46:36.000 --> 02:46:53.359
create a zoning district for this type of use. We're still working through um specifics of it. you know, the setbacks, the the lot coverage, those kinds of things. And as we were thinking about this area, it was part of the planning

593
02:46:53.359 --> 02:47:10.399
commission discussion. You know, this is this entire block we want to study as part of the comprehensive plan. This plan could set the stage for, you know, if we think this is a good idea, maybe this is something that we continue to allow along this block.

594
02:47:10.399 --> 02:47:27.200
>> Okay. Thank you. And then I was trying to look since we did the the Hankerson and I think that was first voted to be approved in 2020ish. Uh have there been any other tearown

595
02:47:27.200 --> 02:47:43.439
projects within this direct vicinity? I know we've reviewed a few, but I don't recall if any of those have moved forward. Uh there's [clears throat] the the the subdivision that's just north of the um

596
02:47:43.439 --> 02:47:57.520
of the Grand View Town Homes. I don't believe any of those have been built on yet. >> Yeah, we have one under construction. >> One under construction. >> Yeah. And the second one will be coming in for permit shortly. >> Okay. And so where is Can you point to that on this map?

597
02:47:57.520 --> 02:48:13.279
>> Um it is off the screen uh over here. >> Okay. So, as you go up from Hank 52nd turns and goes north on Hankerson, you have the two town home buildings. Then you had two single families. Those were those were or are going to be removed

598
02:48:13.279 --> 02:48:28.640
and right now we have three three homes that are going in there. One of which is currently under construction. >> Thank you. That is what I was remembering and I couldn't see it on this map. >> Right. >> Um I I mean I would say generally I I don't have an issue with this. I like

599
02:48:28.640 --> 02:48:45.200
the incremental increase in density. Um I do want us to and I know director Teague that the team is working on it and it's just it takes a process. Um so I appreciate the work that the team is doing and I appreciate the the dedicated focus on this area in particular during

600
02:48:45.200 --> 02:49:00.880
the comprehensive planning process. Um because change is already happening. I just want to make sure that that we kind of get in front of it as best as we can to understand is that in alignment with the the direction that we want to see. Um but based off of kind of the recommendation of the planning

601
02:49:00.880 --> 02:49:17.680
commission and and not seeing really any any big concerns coming from that, um I don't have any concerns on this either. Thank you. >> Um and so it's just a question. I think you've probably covered this multiple

602
02:49:17.680 --> 02:49:32.240
times, but so the proposed is PRD3, >> correct? >> But because of the proximity as opposed to the other twin homes on

603
02:49:32.240 --> 02:49:50.640
that duplexes on that street are R2. Is that >> That's correct. Yes, these are all duplexes along Gran View Lane, >> but those are R2. Correct. >> And this is PRD3 just because of the proximity to the

604
02:49:50.640 --> 02:50:04.960
apartment complex. >> This would the reszoning would be from R2 to PRD3 and R2 >> just the the closest zoning district that exists today in the >> Okay. Yeah. So, uh based on the

605
02:50:04.960 --> 02:50:22.960
proximity Okay. Thank you. >> Member Pierce, it's not from the proximity to the apartments. It's that it fits this building type. >> Oh, fair. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um, so when I walk through there,

606
02:50:22.960 --> 02:50:40.720
the um it just when I look at your rendering, like it feels like it it fits with that street in my opinion when I walk through there. like I don't see uh um

607
02:50:40.720 --> 02:50:58.640
nothing sticks out to me. Um I agree with member Agnu like we're [snorts] in a position where we have this vision of of what we think works in a space increasing the density

608
02:50:58.640 --> 02:51:15.200
um that missing middle. And we have these [clears throat] challenges within our code that um not just allow it but encourage that type of development. Um but we can't

609
02:51:15.200 --> 02:51:31.120
like like we can't just sit and wait for that to happen. Um and so for me this is was directionally uh what we're looking to accomplish. And so if there's a way that we can um

610
02:51:31.120 --> 02:51:47.920
enable it, I'm like I'm all for it. Um [snorts] I also agree with member Jackson as we do this and this happens all over the city. As we do this, making sure things kind of reasonably

611
02:51:47.920 --> 02:52:06.080
fit within the community. Um that's really important that we have developers that we can trust that understand that um and can really work to make that happen. Um I I that is a a really

612
02:52:06.080 --> 02:52:23.520
important point. Uh we see it all over the city where there's a you know there's a 1950s um ranch or or basement [snorts] or a TW uh split level. >> Mhm. >> And then

613
02:52:23.520 --> 02:52:40.960
house next door goes down and uh what looks like a threetory house goes there. It's not three stories, but it seems like it could be. and it just kind of um starts to change the the makeup and the look of the the neighborhood. And we

614
02:52:40.960 --> 02:52:56.800
can't control that as a council, but in some of these instances where like this uh where we're trying to reshape a community, um we have to trust developers that are going to go in there, understand our intent, can apply

615
02:52:56.800 --> 02:53:13.120
the comp plan, and um make that happen. So, I I agree with member Jackson's um points as well, but I am definitely uh supportive of what you're trying to accomplish. >> May I ask

616
02:53:13.120 --> 02:53:29.680
>> Go ahead, Mr. Thank >> I have to thank Paul and Chad for the I mean the decades that I've worked on them. When we started doing this, one of the things I suggested that we do was to be conscious of how the homes [snorts]

617
02:53:29.680 --> 02:53:46.880
fit in the neighborhoods and they've allowed me the design freedom to try and do that. So, I I hope that as you drove drive through the neighborhoods and see some of our houses that that is what you come come away with. So, thank you.

618
02:53:46.880 --> 02:54:02.479
I you know I'll just I'll mention this. Um I don't know this has probably been three years or so since you and I had a conversation about this. Um and back then I was just in general talking about well

619
02:54:02.479 --> 02:54:20.479
how do we come up with housing that fits the middle a missing middle at the right price point that doesn't look like right it fits with uh other homes in the neighborhood. until you can kind of mix these together. And um the comment that

620
02:54:20.479 --> 02:54:38.000
you made was we've been doing this forever, so I'm sure we can figure out a way to do it. Um we just need to the support of the city to help enable it. And so, um that was 3 years ago, right? And so I think what you're hearing is

621
02:54:38.000 --> 02:54:54.880
that this isn't a direction that we want to go. >> [snorts] >> We do have to have both things aligned at some point and so we're moving on the zone challenge and we want to keep going on the other side as well.

622
02:54:54.880 --> 02:55:11.920
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Well, you've gotten me more comfortable over time thanks to the good work you guys have done in that neighborhood. uh this patchwork quilt of zoning that exists over there because of the variety

623
02:55:11.920 --> 02:55:27.600
of housing that went up over time. Uh it's it's it's really interesting. So over on Hankerson, is this now is this maybe the fifth project because you did the did you do the eight town houses in two stages >> and then you did the two houses to the north, >> right?

624
02:55:27.600 --> 02:55:43.920
>> Or you took down two and moved maybe moved them and then >> moved them and we have one up under construction and another one coming. >> Yeah. And now this one. this one. >> So, you're slowly um reinventing that neighborhood and and bringing it up to modern standards and and creating

625
02:55:43.920 --> 02:56:01.520
housing that looks really good. People want to live in it, live in them. They it seems like you sell them right away. And it's uh it's good. It just it's hard to have these conversations with you because we realize that it's

626
02:56:01.520 --> 02:56:17.200
it's a funky neighborhood and you you're doing the best you can under circumstances and you're doing a good job of explaining why uh we need we should be thinking about doing what we're doing and so um I'm [snorts] I'm you know I didn't

627
02:56:17.200 --> 02:56:31.920
the design the way it fits on the lot I know it's uh a little bit tighter you know I'm not seeing anything that gives me pause when I think about how much of an improvement this is over what's there and how it'll improve the overall overall neighborhood. So, thanks Mr.

628
02:56:31.920 --> 02:56:49.359
Banky. Thanks Mr. Dun for being here. >> Very good. >> Hey, you're done. >> Thank you. [snorts] >> We've got one other sketch plan review tonight and uh of course we approved a a plan for that Macy's Home Store site. We

629
02:56:49.359 --> 02:57:06.240
talked about this recently. Uh, and now they're back for sketch plan review for some proposed variations from the plan that was originally proposed and um,

630
02:57:06.240 --> 02:57:22.479
Director Teague has this matter as well. >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. I will tee this up and the applicant will uh, work through the details. So, we're looking at this is the the old Macy's furniture store site on France Avenue. We're looking

631
02:57:22.479 --> 02:57:38.960
specifically at the northwest lot. The approved plan called for a sevenstory 124 unit apartment with just over 13,000 square ft of office and about 6,000 square ft of retail. This project is

632
02:57:38.960 --> 02:57:56.319
also seven stories, but it's made up of 138 units. This would be a age restricted 55 plus um rental uh project with just over 7,000 square ft of retail on the main level. There'll be two levels of parking. So, the footprint has

633
02:57:56.319 --> 02:58:11.920
gotten bigger compared to the original plan and the lot to the south uh gets reduced. Um so, this would require a zoning ordinance amendment to amend the the PUD and a site plan review. This did this was reviewed by planning

634
02:58:11.920 --> 02:58:27.680
commission. They did have some concerns with it. In particular, the uh the east west pedestrian connection through the site. They didn't like how this shifts to the south and doesn't line up with the project across France concerned with

635
02:58:27.680 --> 02:58:48.080
some of the views uh to the prominade and just the the general size of the building. So with that, uh Evan Doran is here from Doran Companies and they will present the details. Good evening, Mr. Dorne.

636
02:58:48.080 --> 02:59:39.680
>> Good evening. >> Carrie, do you have our earlier the other presentation from this after earlier today? >> This should be it. >> No, this is a different one. Oh. to this afternoon. I can get started uh if that's all right with everybody since it's it's late

637
02:59:39.680 --> 02:59:57.120
tonight. Um thank you all for the time. Uh as you'll recall and as uh Carrie mentioned, we were here a couple weeks ago to discuss uh at the HA meeting uh the project. We did end up getting a little bit into some of the site planning stuff at that meeting, but we've we've tried to revisit that and we'll we'll keep that uh the focus of

638
02:59:57.120 --> 03:00:13.040
today's meeting uh here. Um I want to start with just talking about kind of taking a step back towards the broader vision uh here. Um when we started engaging with Enclave on this site, uh it was clear to us that there had been a lot of time and energy spent on

639
03:00:13.040 --> 03:00:29.279
developing this overall PUB vision around this connected prominade or pedestrian walkway uh connected to the larger Centennial Lakes uh uh prominade as well as sort of the greater Southdale design uh district. Um and so we wanted

640
03:00:29.279 --> 03:00:45.600
to enter that uh framework uh and bring a slightly differentiated housing project uh which ultimately begat this um Thank you Karen. That's great. Perfect. Uh begat this uh active adult age restricted project uh here on the

641
03:00:45.600 --> 03:01:01.040
northwest parcel. It's again it's a I'll remind um everyone here. You probably don't need reminding, but the project substantially is similar in uh uh sort of density from the last originally approve approved PUD Northwest parcel.

642
03:01:01.040 --> 03:01:18.479
Uh we went from 124 units with a mixture of around 13,000 ft of retail uh office and about 5,000 ft of retail to now 132 units. So eight uh roughly eight or 10 units uh higher um with 7,500 ft of retail and no office. Um, a couple

643
03:01:18.479 --> 03:01:33.520
things to just note again as we think about the the bigger picture here is we are bringing uh residents here that are ages typically average age of move in seven in the early '7s. So these are folks who are spending their daytime hours in this site and in this prominade

644
03:01:33.520 --> 03:01:50.479
and in this vicinity uh all throughout the day. Uh this is not a sort of am pm you know user. Um, and so we think that provides a good opportunity to really continue to enliven the prominade space in particular with that all day user demographic. And so combining that with

645
03:01:50.479 --> 03:02:07.840
the retail users, uh, we think this actually provides even further uh, retail use. I'll get into some of the site planning elements of that as well in a moment. Um, but provides some of that same kind of 24hour kind of activity uh, that I think the original uh, plan was really targeting. So again,

646
03:02:07.840 --> 03:02:24.319
what we tried to apply is the same greater Southell district uh design guidelines including the sort of grid uh walkable blocks grid program, a human scale kind of the large 60-oot prominade again retains on the site um substantially similar to the programming um that we that has already been

647
03:02:24.319 --> 03:02:41.120
approved and sort of implemented uh on the design. Um again focusing on the pedestrian this east west uh you know traveling uh across the site which I'll get to a closer up review of that in a minute. I think we retain a lot of that element. Uh in fact actually there's more crossover between the east west

648
03:02:41.120 --> 03:02:57.680
corridor within the confines of the site than there had been previously. And again it provides a little bit of a differentiated project. Um the site does get bigger. Uh and a lot of that is driven by two primary reasons. Uh one of which is the uh kind of market demand in

649
03:02:57.680 --> 03:03:13.920
this age restricted demographic skews towards bigger larger units. Um, and so there's more demand for two bedrooms, wider kind of wider units. They take up more glass, more more frontage of the building. Um, and so we have that that program sort of working, you know, uh,

650
03:03:13.920 --> 03:03:29.840
in our favor. Uh, but it does it does require the building to expand as well as the parking requirements to service those users and the additional retail. Uh, I think ultimately conforms the building to a a better overall program. The original building um for reference had about 5,500 square feet of retail as

651
03:03:29.840 --> 03:03:46.080
Krie noted uh but about 19 or so stalls on the on the ground floor like publicly accessible level um and we have 40 uh in this in this configuration the amenity space um in our building which again I'll get to up close in a minute but just talking about this page in

652
03:03:46.080 --> 03:04:01.040
particular we've really tried to retain this sort of central node or kind of nexus of activity um enclave uh if you do recall back back from their plans uh predominantly kind of entrances and and leasing and amenity space activities predominantly concentrated in these

653
03:04:01.040 --> 03:04:16.880
portions of their building. We mimic that same concept here in ours. Um pushing kind of amenities into the inter interior of the site to create that that activity node in the middle um while retaining retail along the side. And you'll see that here in a minute. Um a couple notes on the planning commission

654
03:04:16.880 --> 03:04:33.279
and I won't like dive into all of their comments and certainly we can we can talk through them if if that's helpful. Um I think there was uh concerns about the building F. Um we were able to clarify kind of how that calculation was being done and we were making a mistake in terms of including some of the parking in that um calculation um that

655
03:04:33.279 --> 03:04:48.560
should not have been. And so I think with Carrie working with you and making sure that it, you know, we're all agreeing on the calculations. I think the FAR concern should be moot because we'll actually be generally under the FAR average for the site. Um, and then there was some discussion about sort of

656
03:04:48.560 --> 03:05:06.160
building form and make block or breaking up some of the significant massing. Um, and I'll show you some some images around what we're thinking about that. But this kind of Hshape uh building here is partially designed to break up the kind of monolithic north side of the of

657
03:05:06.160 --> 03:05:21.680
the site um with a little bit more of a kind of narrow facade on our uh H caps for lack of a better word. Um so again uh I think we believe this really conforms with a lot of the original vision. Uh there is the change to the

658
03:05:21.680 --> 03:05:38.240
east west configuration and location of the prominade but again substantially speaking uh same vision applies. Um this is a closer up view of the old uh plan and the new plan. Uh again for reference um the original uh northwest parcel building and the original

659
03:05:38.240 --> 03:05:56.000
southwest parcel building uh there was this offset in the original prominade. Um and then again uh we have adjusted the prominade in our site. Uh the overlay between the two the sort of visual distance is actually slightly greater in our parcel uh on our

660
03:05:56.000 --> 03:06:12.080
configuration kind of east west. I think as Carrie noted, there was some concern in the planning commission about continu continuity of view from across France Avenue um at the the setting uh uh apartment and the Craftsman office building. And I think the reality is um

661
03:06:12.080 --> 03:06:28.160
that may have been a factor when the underpass was in play, but I think the evolution of the underpass solution uh or or scenario has changed that dynamic. And the reality is that sitting at the craftsman uh on the ground level there, you're looking across eight lanes of traffic on France to a building to a

662
03:06:28.160 --> 03:06:43.520
site that is then elevated by roughly five or six feet by a retaining wall which essentially is the still will remain the graded elevation. So I think there was some concern about can you see into the prominade you know that exists today on the far east side and I think

663
03:06:43.520 --> 03:06:59.040
the reality is um you really can't see that today and you wouldn't see that in either configuration because of the sort of distance and elevation change. Um and we can kind of again get into that down the road but um I wanted to address that concern because it was it was a notable

664
03:06:59.040 --> 03:07:15.040
one. Um, a couple just quick things. Again, setbacks or we're staying within the confines of the existing PUD approval. Um, so all the sort of same setbacks apply. We're keeping all of those all the same sidewalk, you know, landscaping on the uh west, north, and

665
03:07:15.040 --> 03:07:30.640
east faces are basically the same. Uh, we literally took the existing PUD and essentially replicated it here. Um and then again the prominade uh again remains the same just moves location pro programming I'll just spend a quick

666
03:07:30.640 --> 03:07:46.000
minute on um this is our current sort of concept again uh internal circulation and parking in the uh for the retail users and guest parking for any sort of residential prospects. We do have a couple private kind of garages for what we envision to be walk up kind of town

667
03:07:46.000 --> 03:08:01.279
home units along the prominade. This is a reflection of Enclav's uh current planning to have kind of town houses on their sites as well. So, kind of keeping that like pedestrian um priority and access. Um I think just as a note like candidly, this this particular walkup

668
03:08:01.279 --> 03:08:16.880
unit may adjust andor be lost in a greater emphasis on having retail, particularly a restaurant potential user with outdoor activation in that corner. So, that's kind of again TBD. Um but this retail stretches the whole face uh of this west side which I think was an

669
03:08:16.880 --> 03:08:33.840
important element um from originally uh to keep that space activated and we believe in investing that I think can attract some good some good users there. And then like I mentioned previously we are keeping the amenity access points um here on this interior uh node. Note that this is not the only amenity space in

670
03:08:33.840 --> 03:08:48.319
the building. There will be amenity space on the second floor as well. Uh that would be adjacent to our pool kind of pool deck area. um it's just not configured quite yet. Okay. Uh quickly just sort of some underground parking. Again, that's not the most exciting

671
03:08:48.319 --> 03:09:05.040
thing to see in the world, but um it's there. Uh quick overview of sort of current thinking about unit mix, which we can talk about further if you all like. Um and then I wanted to spend just a minute addressing sort of scale. So uh again, we have taken uh this is not by

672
03:09:05.040 --> 03:09:21.520
the way per the exact drawings from Confluence and Stantech. This is an inspiration. Um using those we plan to generally mimic the uh the prominade that exists today. Um we will not be building that as part of our project nor will be it be on our parcel. Um but we

673
03:09:21.520 --> 03:09:36.800
wanted to just reflect a little bit on the planning commission comments make sure that we under that we are responding to the street activation with the retail as well as sort of the human scale orientation and the sort of breaking up of the massing here. So, um you can see the Enclave project, you know, sort of slightly uh further uh

674
03:09:36.800 --> 03:09:53.920
east in this, uh spot and then again, um the potential southwest building, which is a little bit TBD, uh but uh happy to answer what questions I can on that front as well. Um I think I've addressed predominantly all the planning commission elements. Um, I'll just go back to the beginning and just reiterate

675
03:09:53.920 --> 03:10:10.000
again. I think we are trying to take the spirit of the original design and vision, take the guidance from the Southdale district, make sure that we're talking through connection points, prominade connection points, 9M Creek connection points, those all still exist, um, in this configuration. And

676
03:10:10.000 --> 03:10:25.120
so, uh, looking forward to your your comments and feedback. And, uh, I'll stop there given given the time of night. >> Yeah, thanks Mr. Dorne. I I appreciated that. um west elevation that I think it helped us a great deal. At least it

677
03:10:25.120 --> 03:10:42.359
helped me with you when you were here before was starting to worry about the massing on the in the west and the north and uh but I'm going to turn I'm going to reverse here and I'm going to go to council member first for her comments.

678
03:10:42.560 --> 03:10:56.720
>> Should have given >> I think I caught her by surprise. >> You did. I was I wanted a warning on that. Um, well, thank you for for coming back. If you could, I know we we really got a like brief overview of this at HRA

679
03:10:56.720 --> 03:11:14.240
last month. Um, could you speak to what changes you've made since the HR meeting when we reviewed it last? >> Yeah, certainly. I think a lot of the um changes we've I would say been exploring as we went through planning commission last week too. we wanted to take their

680
03:11:14.240 --> 03:11:29.760
feedback has really just been about rethinking through how we're connecting to the pedestrian experience. Um, so I think re sort of introducing how this is being visualized, communicated. I think I think it was you, Mayor Havland, who

681
03:11:29.760 --> 03:11:45.600
had suggested that, you know, there was a strong desire to keep the retail along the west face as well as retain some level of, you know, uh, pedestrian features or walkability on the south's face. And so we've retained some of the the, uh, walk up units on that space.

682
03:11:45.600 --> 03:12:01.040
Um, and I think the planning commission uh had some thoughts about uh access, including sort of trash access, trash staging, movein trucks. That has not been implemented and sort of into this plan yet because uh we we just met with them last week, of course. Um, so we're

683
03:12:01.040 --> 03:12:16.960
kind of continuing to work through the operational uh space planning of that, Council Member Agnu. Um, but I think really thinking through kind of elevation side of things is going to be the next big part of our process here. Okay. So, there haven't been any changes

684
03:12:16.960 --> 03:12:34.960
to the overall footprint of the the >> That's correct. Not changes to the footprint. No. >> Okay. Um I I remain just really concerned that we've increased the size of this that we've brought the pedestrian experience further south. Um

685
03:12:34.960 --> 03:12:52.000
and I've just I'm not excited about seeing that. So, those are that's my initial reaction. Um, I I like walk up units. Like, that's nice. Um, having more of the retail, that's nice. But I I just really don't like seeing the shifting in the massing and the the

686
03:12:52.000 --> 03:13:10.560
overall evolution of where that pedestrian experience is. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Um, and thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll piggyback on on member Agnu. Um,

687
03:13:10.560 --> 03:13:27.920
and like maybe I'm I'm I missed something today or maybe the last time, but as you talk through it, I don't understand why. Like, what's wrong with what we've already approved? We all say we all liked it. I I don't

688
03:13:27.920 --> 03:13:44.720
remember how [laughter] how those conversations went, but obviously it was approved. And so even as you're talking through her today, it's like why are you here? I build what we asked for. That's what we approved. And so if

689
03:13:44.720 --> 03:14:00.479
we're not doing that, and to member Agu's point, some of the things that we liked about the other one, you're changing. I I have to know why because you're asking me to do something different

690
03:14:00.479 --> 03:14:16.479
and to give on something that um I liked before and I I don't I don't understand what's in it for me like why is this better >> than what we had before. So just very

691
03:14:16.479 --> 03:14:33.840
much from a pragmatic perspective I don't get that. >> Can I Yeah. Can I uh try to answer that question? I don't want to interrupt if you have more, but uh >> yeah, I think I think two things are happening at the same time here. One is the original Envision project included a

692
03:14:33.840 --> 03:14:49.359
southwest parcel that had a essentially a tower element, right? It had a high-rise component with for sale units plus office plus structured parking. And the reality is like that's just it's likely not feasible to build that today.

693
03:14:49.359 --> 03:15:06.080
Um, the office component is hard to come by. The craftsman across the street, you could say, disproves that. But it's also taking up and absorbing a strong chunk of office users in at least in this immediate area. And the condo portion, I'm not a condo builder, so I'm not a

694
03:15:06.080 --> 03:15:22.239
condo expert, so I can't speak to the exact economics of that, but it's it's not happening uh in that space today. Um and so we had envisioned joining in on the northwest side because we think that there's some potential or there's some

695
03:15:22.239 --> 03:15:38.319
positives to that site as well including adjacency to Luns uh Berley's for our residents that we liked. Um, and so when we were discussing kind of how this these these two pieces could come together, reality is the Southwest site sat on a smaller a footprint that was

696
03:15:38.319 --> 03:15:53.279
slightly bigger than what we're proposing, but it was a much differently conceived project than is probably realistic today. Um, and so I think that just opens a question around what is it that we're mutually trying to achieve here because I think that we're not it's

697
03:15:53.279 --> 03:16:08.319
unlikely that we're going to be able to build exactly what was approved uh in the original PUD. uh for better or for worse. Okay, then I I would

698
03:16:08.319 --> 03:16:23.760
and maybe you feel like you're doing this so I and it's late so I apologize. Um, so you're saying the project that we approved, you can't build that and there's

699
03:16:23.760 --> 03:16:39.120
financial reasons. You can't get it funded. I'm saying I mean, yeah, I'm not a condo builder, so I I wouldn't build it. Uh, but I I don't think that there has been interest to my knowledge uh in condos on

700
03:16:39.120 --> 03:16:56.720
that site. Uh and so in in the configuration that existed with the sort of higher density sort of tower component. So um again the the northwest parcel uh that previously existed uh was a sevenstory apartment building

701
03:16:56.720 --> 03:17:14.239
>> functionally right. Um so I I don't necessarily think that we are deviating significantly from that vision. Um, it just so happens that in order to make the project sort of economically work, uh, to get the the the the

702
03:17:14.239 --> 03:17:31.439
55 plus sort of age community, uh, who wants the bigger units types, uh, to play in this space, we needed some more space, candidly. Um, and so it's the demand driver of the age restriction and the lack of demand driver for the southwest kind of high-rise condo

703
03:17:31.439 --> 03:17:46.479
element that is ultimately pushing towards this as this is the market market solution at least that's available today. >> Okay. I'm not excited about it. Thank you. >> Council [snorts] rejection.

704
03:17:46.479 --> 03:18:03.279
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So what the first thing you should have seen when you looked at the Southdale plan and the comprehensive plan is that this is guided for community activity center. It is not guided for housing. The only thing that I really liked about

705
03:18:03.279 --> 03:18:19.279
this entire project was the condominiums and I believe I said that at planning or at H. Um I am not going to approve uh senior housing on this corner. Um, we had a sketch plan for a boutique hotel across

706
03:18:19.279 --> 03:18:36.319
the street and the argument we made was it should really be on the other side of France. I would love to see that boutique hotel with with a um activ not activity space but um but event space. Um

707
03:18:36.319 --> 03:18:54.000
I understand I've heard this you know for 20 years that we can't build condominiums. They uh Enclave came to us and said we can build condominiums. Um I feel completely misled by that. Um like I said, the only thing I really liked about this was the tall skinny tower

708
03:18:54.000 --> 03:19:10.479
with condominiums in it. Um I don't like the blocking of this. Uh I I love the shifting and massing. Um I don't like the massing of it. I don't like shifting the um the east west prominade. Um, it's a big building that's going to have a

709
03:19:10.479 --> 03:19:25.600
lot of seniors. I don't know what the world's going to look like in 20 years when the tiff is done with this, but I know that the a lot of baby boomers are going to be dead by then and we're going to have a shift in population. And so to invest public money in something that is only going to

710
03:19:25.600 --> 03:19:42.880
really be relevant for probably 20 years and then we'll have a completely different population. Um, I don't like that either. So, I would love to see that boutique hotel come over on on the west side of this uh development. Um, and I I do not like the idea of senior

711
03:19:42.880 --> 03:20:00.479
housing in a great big building like that here. Council member Risser. >> Um, this is a $80.1 million TIF district and when it was created, there were three

712
03:20:00.479 --> 03:20:17.520
separate TIFF agreements for each of the developments. So, you're coming forward with a market solution. And I need to know, does that mean we can get rid of the TIFF for the Northwest parcel since it's a market solution?

713
03:20:17.520 --> 03:20:33.680
>> No. No, I mean I think just like the Enclave buildings to the east are market solutions, but they have affordability components. Our building would likewise have affordability components and have parking to satisfy the the needs of the the broader community uh in the area. And so there is a tiff element uh for

714
03:20:33.680 --> 03:20:49.600
the project uh just like all the other components have have done to date. >> Okay. We need to have a real clear conversation about what our affordable housing policy demands because at our last HA meeting um I came away with the

715
03:20:49.600 --> 03:21:06.080
impression that the buyout option has always existed which surprised me because it didn't make any sense given the history. So, what exactly does our affordable housing could they do the buyout instead of

716
03:21:06.080 --> 03:21:24.720
actually building the affordable units? >> I don't want to speak for city council or city attorney, but my understanding is that yes, that option exists. Uh we are not pursuing that option to be clear. Um but that option does exist in the current policy to my understanding.

717
03:21:24.720 --> 03:21:41.920
>> Okay. So, you would build the units, let them be affordable, but they would be paid for by TIFF. >> Uh, I mean, that would be one element that TIFF would be supporting. Yes. >> Okay. Um, I appreciated your comparison

718
03:21:41.920 --> 03:21:58.960
of the number of of um residential units with the original plan and the current one. Um there is a huge disparity between the amount of space for office and retail. With your plan, it's 7,400.

719
03:21:58.960 --> 03:22:15.439
With the original plan, it was nearly 20,000. So that's a big difference. And I have issues with that. I like my colleagues have issues with shifting the prominade and I'm wondering I don't think we can just say TBD for the southwest parcel.

720
03:22:15.439 --> 03:22:32.479
Um, it could be something that is estimated to have a value that is a fraction of what the tower would have been. And again, this is a 80.1 million dollar tiff district. So, that's a problem. Part of me wants to say make the dog park go away from the prominade,

721
03:22:32.479 --> 03:22:48.000
and I would be more supportive, but you don't have control over that um norththeast parcel. Um, I do want to, and I've said this before, I

722
03:22:48.000 --> 03:23:03.680
have a lot of issues with the um, design guidelines that really encourage developers to have to carve up their parcels into these squares and put in roads. And I know that's expensive and I think it is problematic. And I really

723
03:23:03.680 --> 03:23:21.279
hope that that's removed from our comprehensive plan. That's a slightly different issue. But I feel as if we're kind of if we supported this, we'd be painting ourselves into a corner. Um particularly with the Southwest parcel and I I just feel like that would be

724
03:23:21.279 --> 03:23:38.640
um a failure to act as a good steward, especially because, you know, I don't have the numbers, but I don't know how much of the tiff financing was supposed to go to that. So there's that. I do think um if we are going to make changes that are

725
03:23:38.640 --> 03:23:55.520
so huge, we need to totally start from the beginning and really relook at the tiff district particularly um given the issue with the tunnel because that was supposed to be 20 million of tiff and I do have to say I

726
03:23:55.520 --> 03:24:11.840
have heard from probably well more than four residents who have just come up and said oh well now that the 20 million isn't going for the tunnel. Um, it's going to go to, you know, another development project on the parcel. And so there's there is a lot of concern

727
03:24:11.840 --> 03:24:26.640
about what that 20 million which was supposed to go to the tunnel will actually end up and I don't know the validity of that, but I just want you to know that that's something that I am hearing and the pressure on that. So

728
03:24:26.640 --> 03:24:44.880
I I can't support this. It's not what we signed on for and I didn't approve that any way. But thank you. I think it's really uh tough to be the

729
03:24:44.880 --> 03:24:59.840
person that first tries to follow a project that was approved and then failed. You know, it's uh I don't even know what to use as an analogy, but I feel like

730
03:24:59.840 --> 03:25:17.279
It's it's just a awkward spot to be in. And so, first of all, I want to thank you for trying to take it on here. I was prepared to not like much about it either based on our HA conversation, but I I don't see that much that's different

731
03:25:17.279 --> 03:25:33.439
about this one versus the other one. I'm kind of with you on that. I mean, you got a little bit of a jog in that prominade. you you got a bigger building, but it's the same basic occupancy level. What I was most concerned about was the interface with

732
03:25:33.439 --> 03:25:51.520
France Avenue, which I think is so critically important. Then you've got retail all along the front there. And so it has some activation. Then you're thinking about a restaurant on the corner. I think that's a great idea. Uh it does give me pause. wonder I wish

733
03:25:51.520 --> 03:26:10.319
we could analyze both the parcels along France Avenue at the same time >> so that we knew how they were going to work together you know like um because they're going to come now with something else and and then

734
03:26:10.319 --> 03:26:24.960
I don't know if if we've encouraged you or discouraged you but uh it's it could imp it could impact positively or negatively your ideas based on what Enclave comes forward with

735
03:26:24.960 --> 03:26:39.840
for that southwest corner. I was always skeptical about that southwest corner, frankly. I mean, I love the idea like member Jackson did of condominiums, but the company they had involved. I just thought they they don't have much

736
03:26:39.840 --> 03:26:59.439
that much financial strength and and they disappeared like a leaf in the wind. Um, it is it is fair to be disappointed with Enclave and all the all the sort of political capital that we stuck out

737
03:26:59.439 --> 03:27:16.160
there to support that project and the and the concerns that that we tried to address with neighbors nearby and and uh how we how we took it on I think on the chin for this project. And now this has nothing to do with you,

738
03:27:16.160 --> 03:27:31.920
but I'm getting calls from people saying, "Why did they cut all those trees down along the prominade? Whose property were they on?" I mean, it didn't look like it was on Enclave's property, but instead of working around those trees back there, they just cut them all down. It was a nice looking

739
03:27:31.920 --> 03:27:48.800
stand of trees. So, you may have an explanation for it, but it's going to be pretty poor explanation in the in the minds of everybody that lives over there that's stopping over there now and calling us >> and saying, "How did they how could they do that?" You know, why didn't you try

740
03:27:48.800 --> 03:28:05.279
to figure out a way to to to do that work on those apartment buildings without having to take those trees down that look like they're on city property? I'm sure they're not, but it was really quite a disappointment. And now you're not even taking care of the site back there. People are calling us and saying

741
03:28:05.279 --> 03:28:20.399
the wind is blowing, the dirt's blowing around. It's blowing across the prominade. Bikers are coming by and it's dirt in the air. So you've really been a disappointment for us to work with here uh on this

742
03:28:20.399 --> 03:28:35.520
project so far. Um those two apartment buildings along the prominade are kind of a no-brainer, you know. I mean, those are that's where people are going to want to live. And now here comes Mr. Dorne with some ideas about how to do something in the in that

743
03:28:35.520 --> 03:28:50.960
northwest corner. Thanks for trying to work with Enclave. And I I' I've kind of concluded I don't I don't have a problem with it. I just wish I knew what was going on with the southwest corner because if it if it's something that

744
03:28:50.960 --> 03:29:06.720
doesn't have any activation to it, uh, and it's just another apartment building along France Avenue, it's not going to be very appealing. Um, at least Mr. Dorne has tried to activate the retail side of it on the west side and and

745
03:29:06.720 --> 03:29:23.279
depending on how you use podium height or you use the in and out to to make sure that it's not on a single plane. Um I think it could be okay. I think in fact I think done right with your design team it could be really pretty special.

746
03:29:23.279 --> 03:29:39.760
I thought you made a good point about what you see there. Yeah. I thought you made a good point about what you see looking from across the street. I don't I don't to me that's not a big deal anymore. Um the tunnel idea is gone. Um

747
03:29:39.760 --> 03:29:58.479
this is a nice view down through the down through there and the fact that it has a little jog in it might be actually make it a little bit more interesting. And to your point, the other one had a jog in it, too. So, um, maybe you're like the guy who just

748
03:29:58.479 --> 03:30:16.080
started going out with the girl who got jilted by a 20-year boyfriend or husband. I I don't know. But it just it doesn't feel good for you. >> There is a saying about you don't nec. You don't want to be the second one cuz most people like the third one. Uh so

749
03:30:16.080 --> 03:30:40.720
hoping we can avoid being the the smited third one. Um I appreciate everyone's comments. Uh I mean I think I think what we have continued to struggle with is that in our view I think we can still devel. Um I understand the concerns about the jogging and the movement of the

750
03:30:40.720 --> 03:30:57.120
prominade. Uh at the end of the day, the prominade is going to be an amazing amenity for the community at large kind of wherever it is. Uh candidly and I think most people outside of this room and in this process um will not see or feel a differentiated product at the end

751
03:30:57.120 --> 03:31:14.960
of the day um based on where the prominent is. They're going to see this as a connection to France Avenue or connection into the Centennial Lakes Prominade um and all the like amenities and attractions that that trail has. I walk that trail most weekends with my own family uh from from Target and uh so

752
03:31:14.960 --> 03:31:31.120
I think the ability to create and sort of meet that vision still exists. Um we appreciate your feedback. Um I I won't speak again for for Enclave, but I think they are making headway in identifying potential user uh for the Southwest

753
03:31:31.120 --> 03:31:46.960
parcel that they will likely be in front of you all on shortly. And I think we will we as as you will eagerly sort of want to see how that process unfolds because candidly we have a vested interest if we are to move forward in making sure that the whole thing works together. Um we also don't want a vacant

754
03:31:46.960 --> 03:32:03.279
parcel uh or a undeveloped or underdeveloped element here and we uh >> or a non-compatible element >> or a non-compatible one and I think we have been very clear in our position with that with Enclave. they have been very receptive to that feedback as well and so I think they are uh invested in

755
03:32:03.279 --> 03:32:19.520
trying to make sure that this all does come together. I think it will be extremely challenging to get some of the features that were existing here originally with the tower component. You just you really just aren't just not seeing that in this market um today unfortunately or not. Um but I think there's an opportunity for them to

756
03:32:19.520 --> 03:32:35.040
deliver something great uh on the southwest parcel and and I do think we can deliver something special here as well. Um, so I I hope that we can convince you of that. Uh, and we'll look forward to further dialogue. >> I'm I'm thinking that, you know, I know

757
03:32:35.040 --> 03:32:52.239
this is all an investment for you, but I think what would help all of us would be to see the see better elevations here, you know, and get an idea of what it could look like so that >> we're not sitting here imagining what could have been, but we're excited about

758
03:32:52.239 --> 03:33:08.160
what could be. Um, Council Member Jackson. >> Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, yeah, as I was thinking about this, and I think member Pierce put it, what do we get out of it? So, something that's architecturally significant would, you

759
03:33:08.160 --> 03:33:24.000
know, change things a lot, but it really I I feel like we're just not getting anything from this. >> Yeah. Now, maybe you can talk him into putting a hotel next door like Council Reacts. >> Yeah. I am also I'm also not a hotel developer so I cannot speak to the

760
03:33:24.000 --> 03:33:40.319
viability of that either. >> Whoever puts up a hotel in a dinina is going to be busy all the time just like the west. >> Yeah. Well, maybe the maybe the Mortonson guys can do that at Galleria. Um uh but anyway, the uh yes, we um acknowledging fully that we want uh to

761
03:33:40.319 --> 03:33:57.120
provide some further elevation guidelines. we just didn't um candidly didn't uh develop those fully because we wanted to understand sort of site issues and what other planning commission or uh planning commission issues that might have come up. So um yeah that is the next big effort uh on our team's part.

762
03:33:57.120 --> 03:34:14.239
>> I think I think it was council member mentioned you know they had the they had the walkups along the prominade. I think I think to to that that's a great way to help create a sense of neighborhood and and place. And so I thought that was real wise thinking on your part.

763
03:34:14.239 --> 03:34:30.720
>> Uh kind of like you have over at the 66th in York. >> Yeah. Correct. Yeah. That's >> on the back side on the Xerxes side over there. It has a really nice residential feel to it and that's what I see see you trying to capture here. But I think

764
03:34:30.720 --> 03:34:47.120
Council Member Jackson's making a great point. the architecture and the materials could be really persuasive, you know, and help us help us getting over feeling jilted. >> Yeah. >> Well, we are open for we are open for suggestions on materials, but we we will

765
03:34:47.120 --> 03:35:02.960
uh we'll be working on developing that and bringing that back uh at a future future time. >> Stone, wood, metal, glass, that's what we like. >> Yeah, I I know. We we're we're trying to make sure that we complement Enclave, but we don't want to look like the Enclave buildings because again, this is a different product with a different

766
03:35:02.960 --> 03:35:18.560
different clientele. So, we are we are working through that process now. >> Okay. Okay. Yep. Thank you. >> It didn't help me in the last uh act. >> We literally couldn't find seats, so we had to hang out for a little while. So,

767
03:35:18.560 --> 03:35:40.960
anyway, thank you all. >> Okay. And get that enclave group going there, Ben. >> Get them paying attention to stuff. Yeah, come on up. >> Ben Landhauser with Enclave. I just I appreciate you giving the attention to Doran. That's part of kind of the

768
03:35:40.960 --> 03:35:55.920
arrangement that we've struck with them. Obviously, um wanted to speak a little bit to the level of disappointment that was acknowledged. And just also appreciate the fact that we weren't sitting here trying to pull a fast one on the council. I appreciate the

769
03:35:55.920 --> 03:36:11.120
political capital that was mentioned as being part of the approved plans. Um similar just a very brief backstory. Um we had a partner on the southwest parcel when the project was originally

770
03:36:11.120 --> 03:36:25.760
contemplated. When we came to closing day, that partner didn't perform. Um, so what we've been uh left with is trying to find that right fit, that right partnership of being kind of that that component that Enclave was not initially

771
03:36:25.760 --> 03:36:42.800
intending to develop on their own. Um, we feel like we found a very complimentary interested developer in the Doran group, which is why we've had them step forward and start talking to you about kind of what their plans are. As was mentioned, we do have another party that is now actively working on

772
03:36:42.800 --> 03:36:58.399
the southwest piece. We anticipate to bring some information about that forward in the very near future so that as the Doran group continues to contemplate a more formal application not sketch plat you'll have all the information like you've been mentioning

773
03:36:58.399 --> 03:37:14.960
a desire to have as their proposal would move forward so we can understand how the the entire development works as one again in the spirit of what originally was approved with a few modifications that meet kind of the realities of we don't have that original partner that we

774
03:37:14.960 --> 03:37:30.160
had at the table with us during the initial approval. So I know that's at some level disappointment, but we are working to try to replicate again the same type of place that was envisioned initially.

775
03:37:30.160 --> 03:37:47.279
>> Why don't you tell us why you took those trees down? >> Yeah. >> Why you're not controlling the site and the dust on the site? >> Uh I I don't know. This is the first I've heard about the dust control, but we have had crews out there trying to control them as part of our um

776
03:37:47.279 --> 03:38:03.120
construction contingency plan um during demolition. Uh so I'll follow up with our construction team on that. The trees were marked. They've been part of the plan since the inception that they were going to be removed um simply because of the amount of infrastructure that's going on that east side of the project

777
03:38:03.120 --> 03:38:19.359
where we tie into sewer. We have all of our storm water management plan that accommodates the entire redevelopment that's been imagined all funnels towards exactly where those trees were. Um, so it wasn't that we had a better option of how to do that and still meet the

778
03:38:19.359 --> 03:38:40.399
objectives of basically repositioning the entire site to support the the contemplated redevelopment. >> Well, I can tell you that uh this it's not going to cost you. It's going to cost us. >> That's right. >> They're not going to, you know, they're just viewing you as a developer. They're

779
03:38:40.399 --> 03:38:55.120
viewing us as the body that failed to protect those trees. >> So, we paying we're paying another price. >> Yeah. Well, I appreciate you bringing it up here and I it won't go without notice that our our team will be on top of it

780
03:38:55.120 --> 03:39:11.680
moving forward. And I apologize um that you even had to take any of those comments to begin with. Well, when it comes time to replace those trees on the lot line, make sure that you put in stock that worthy of replacement. >> Fair enough.

781
03:39:11.680 --> 03:39:30.560
>> All right. [snorts] >> Thank you. Okay. Um, manager comments. Thanks everybody. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Jordan. >> Thank you, your honor. I've got a couple tonight. Um, one is to note that uh we

782
03:39:30.560 --> 03:39:47.680
will have uh closure of city hall and uh public works tomorrow from 8:00 a.m. so opening to 100 p.m. uh to accommodate our our big once a year employee event. Um so we'll get be getting all of our employees as many as we can together at

783
03:39:47.680 --> 03:40:04.399
u the performing arts center at at the school. uh we have a program there and after that uh lunch at Dave and Busters and after that people go back to work. So uh that's to note. Uh second is we got we have a couple of budget

784
03:40:04.399 --> 03:40:21.680
responses. Uh one to some questions that uh uh council member Risser raised about interest rates and fire debt service etc. Uh we'll share all of these with council members and we have another one on station 3 uh operating and uh capital

785
03:40:21.680 --> 03:40:40.000
costs that uh that council member Agnu raised and we've got prepared u responses for all for both of those we'll share those with council. If there's other things that you've been thinking about let us know what those are and we'll get to work on those too. Um, finally, uh, Dave Venny, who has

786
03:40:40.000 --> 03:40:55.920
been a participant at these council meetings, oh, every once in a while over the last, uh, five, six years, is going to retire. Um, >> Dave Vinnie. >> Yeah, Dave. In just 2027 sometime, right? >> January 15th.

787
03:40:55.920 --> 03:41:11.840
>> January 15th, he's got a date. All right. All right. All right. >> So, no, it's hard, but it's real. It's time. >> Yeah. So, thanks, Dave. Not January 8th, 2027. The city manager, you're just going to wait an extra week. >> He is. Yeah. All right, that's all I

788
03:41:11.840 --> 03:41:28.720
have. Thanks. >> You got anything? >> I do. Um, it's July 21st, which means there's one more week to file if you want to run for city council. And so, I just want people out there to be aware

789
03:41:28.720 --> 03:41:46.319
of that. And um it's exciting to see that people are stepping up to run and I really do respect people who toss their hat in the ring. And if anybody is thinking about it and hasn't done it yet and wants to talk to me, I'd be happy to meet with them. But you've got seven days left to go

790
03:41:46.319 --> 03:42:03.840
and it's just a $5 filing fee. So think about that one. Anyway, thank you. >> All right, Council Member Jackson. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And it I believe Sharon, you have to bring a check for the $5 fee. Is that correct? No, it's

791
03:42:03.840 --> 03:42:19.760
cash. Okay. Cuz I remember I brought the wrong thing the first time. So, it's cash. $5 cash. Okay. Thank you. And and you go see Clerk Allison. She's your contact person. Um, so I've got a a bunch of stuff. Um, I'm sorry to have a

792
03:42:19.760 --> 03:42:36.640
lot tonight, but I want to thank the taxpayers of Edina for sending me to the League of Minnesota Cities Council uh conference. It was fascinating. Um this year the theme was very much on um civility and uh Luke Fischer, the executive director of the league, uh

793
03:42:36.640 --> 03:42:53.359
kicked it off saying who are we going to be and how are we going to treat each other and that was the theme that was running through the entire um conference. Uh civility has dropped dramatically in cities across Minnesota and across the country. Our first speaker was Tim Shrivever who was chair

794
03:42:53.359 --> 03:43:10.239
of the Special Olympics. So he was in town for the Special Olympics and came down to Rochester to speak to us. Um he talked about how uh social media is a two trillion dollar contempt industrial complex. I loved that phrase. Um and the new issue is how

795
03:43:10.239 --> 03:43:26.000
do we treat each other? He talks about the um scale from dignity to contempt and that contempt is the biggest barrier to free speech that's out there. And I think that's important. And I Mr. Mr. Mayor, I know you always treat everybody with such kindness and

796
03:43:26.000 --> 03:43:42.239
dignity and uh whether you agree with them or not and I very much appreciate that and I think we all can learn from that. Um and the other takeaway was uh from the um heart research found out that Americans are hungry to participate

797
03:43:42.239 --> 03:43:56.479
in positive change. I thought that was a good phrase as well. Um, we heard um from Metro Cities an update on the legislative um big thing is about um safety at the polling places. I thought

798
03:43:56.479 --> 03:44:14.239
was an issue that was uh raised. Um let's see. Oh, I went to a um presentation on drones. We've been getting a lot of conversation about uh the police using drones as a first responder and Minnotonka who was the first in the state to adopt this program

799
03:44:14.239 --> 03:44:31.439
gave a presentation. Um and they also had another city that's I believe along the river. So they've got some No, it was down um in Chanhassen uh where the development is hard to get to. So they're able to send drones out to look and see uh what kind of erosion

800
03:44:31.439 --> 03:44:48.080
is happening and they can do erosion control. um as much more efficient than sending somebody down there. They can go immediately after it rains. And their um advice was to add an aviation section to your city. So, it's not really about equipment. It's about the purpose of

801
03:44:48.080 --> 03:45:04.399
having the drones. I thought that was a good um way of looking at it. So, to have um uh let's see um and then the Minnotonka really did a lot of community engagement. They talked with the ACLU

802
03:45:04.399 --> 03:45:20.319
about privacy and data retention and what they can be used for. Um, and I think if we are going to go forward with a uh drones as a first response, they've done a very very thorough job of that. And um, >> is that a pilot program or is it an actual

803
03:45:20.319 --> 03:45:37.520
>> It's a it's a first in the state to do it. They've adopted it. It's up and running. Um, and they they did ex extensive work on that. Um, but it's a program, not equipment. um they all said that and I thought that was a really important way of thinking about it. Um

804
03:45:37.520 --> 03:45:53.520
let's see and then our final speaker uh was talking she was a futurist and um she said that the rate of change that we're all going through is unnatural to humans and it's really overwhelming and that we're never going to really know

805
03:45:53.520 --> 03:46:09.680
everything. We can't be repositories of the answer because the answer that we knew this morning isn't going to be the answer when we go to bed tonight. And so that the way to deal with that is to continue to be curious. And those are my notes from that.

806
03:46:09.680 --> 03:46:25.600
>> And the city manager has a tag along on your >> I just wanted to respond to the to the comments about the the drone uh discussion. We are planning for your August 5th um your August 5th work session a discussion about flock cameras and drones. So kind of tech innovations

807
03:46:25.600 --> 03:46:42.000
in the in the police department. And so we're I just want you to know we're queuing that up. >> Terrific. >> In a session at the US Conference of Mayors on drone usage in Yria, Ohio had and Cincinnati too. They you know they they said their average response time

808
03:46:42.000 --> 03:46:57.520
now to an incident was a minute and a half. I think one of the cities in Washington too, Redmond maybe was using them effectively and was also using them to do things that were infrastructure in nature like inspecting

809
03:46:57.520 --> 03:47:12.640
their water towers to see if they needed painting and instead of sending some guy up there at high risk. >> Exactly. And that's why they talked about having an aviation program >> um to look at it across the silos. Um and member Pierce, you may want to speak

810
03:47:12.640 --> 03:47:28.880
to this as well, but would you like me to give an update on the um city manager search? >> Okay. So, we um had our first round of video interviews. Um so, we've looked at their cover letter, their resume. Uh they had five questions of two minutes

811
03:47:28.880 --> 03:47:44.720
each that videos, got a real sense of our 16 um candidates that we had narrowed down. And they also filled out a work personality index. And um I have to say uh deputy city manager RA Lens has just been brilliant in in teasing

812
03:47:44.720 --> 03:48:02.479
out what these things mean. And she and Perry Veter have and and Acid have been our um uh city management fellow [laughter] um have been very good at guiding us. But really the decision has been with with James and I and they've been

813
03:48:02.479 --> 03:48:17.920
resources for us on on the job. Um, the five areas we looked at were leadership and executive presence, governance and relationship building, strategic and organizational leadership, operation and financial management, and alignment with

814
03:48:17.920 --> 03:48:35.040
Edina's current priorities. And so those were the things that we looked at in narrowing 16 down to six. I think we have six extremely strong candidates. We're going to do in-person interviews for the next round, so we get to see them in person. Um, two of them are coming from out of state, so they will

815
03:48:35.040 --> 03:48:51.439
be we will be reimbursing their travel. Um, and that's what I have for tonight. >> Yeah. Great. Thanks for that update on all those things. Um, council member member Pierce. >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. And I'll add to that this next round,

816
03:48:51.439 --> 03:49:07.199
um, there's I think two groups. One it will be staff. the other group um member Jackson and I will be with community members that um were selected to be part of the process. Um and so I just I think

817
03:49:07.199 --> 03:49:24.160
it's it's good to mention that um because we are trying to get um broad perspective on these candidates and so so far um I think it's it's been great. Um it has been probably more work than I

818
03:49:24.160 --> 03:49:40.160
don't know what I thought before, but it has been a lot of work. Uh but um I agree with member Jackson. Um the way it's being managed I I think has been been good thus far. Um and then the only other thing I will

819
03:49:40.160 --> 03:49:57.840
mention I um was um lucky to get invited to meet with Senator Clolobashar. So it was a um small group of uh um very group of leaders uh some elected officials

820
03:49:57.840 --> 03:50:14.720
um some entrepreneurs in the community. So it was a pretty broad group of folks um and um talked about a myriad of topics, housing, um how to invest in and having more small businesses. We talked

821
03:50:14.720 --> 03:50:32.000
about AI, um, regulations, policies around AI, um, how do we strengthen our schools, and then bringing more investment into Minnesota. Um, and so I I thought it was a a really

822
03:50:32.000 --> 03:50:46.560
interesting conversation and, um, uh, Senator, Minnesota Senator, uh, Bobby Joe Champion kind of coordinated it. Um, and so that was, um, I found that to be good

823
03:50:46.560 --> 03:51:02.319
from the perspective of listening and hearing from other leaders in the community that some were elected officials, some weren't. Um, and you got to get this kind of broad perspective of how some issues impact um, different

824
03:51:02.319 --> 03:51:19.840
communities in different ways. And so that's it. >> Thank you, >> member. >> Thank you. [clears throat] Um, so I just want to appreciate um, manager Neil as well as the rest of you for the engagement on the conversation

825
03:51:19.840 --> 03:51:36.000
we had earlier on child care um, in partnership with the school board. I thought that was a really good conversation and I can I look forward to the continued partnership and exploration of of ways that we can work together on that. Um, I know we left with a a couple of immediate follow-ups

826
03:51:36.000 --> 03:51:51.199
and then I assume we'll also be reconnecting at a certain point um depending on some of the outcome of those um open questions that we have. But just want to appreciate um you manager Neil and pulling that together. I think it was really nice. And uh I

827
03:51:51.199 --> 03:52:07.199
think that is all I have to tonight. It's late. >> Okay, good. Well, it's been so long since we've been together. It was before the 4th of July and that's right. It just I think everybody had the same reaction was that one of the best parades we've had in years. Couldn't believe the level of attendance and all

828
03:52:07.199 --> 03:52:25.120
the kids that were there and the kids you got to watch them like a hawk because they'll run out underneath the car tire for a piece of candy. So you got to shush them all back all the time and you don't have candy. They look at you like you're a total deadbeat and they're a forlorn and but the kids Yeah,

829
03:52:25.120 --> 03:52:41.040
it was really it was really a great parade. Um, we we gave Dick Crockett a good send off a week ago, last Thursday down at Westminster and then again on Saturday up at Lake Pelican up near Detroit Lakes.

830
03:52:41.040 --> 03:52:57.359
And let's see, finance and commerce event this coming Thursday night. Fire chief and I are going uh and it looks like we might is that is that for certain that we're >> Yeah, we won. We were winning we're getting an award for fire station number two.

831
03:52:57.359 --> 03:53:12.800
>> Oh, wonderful. >> For finance and commerce. Uh and uh I had to back out of going down to Newm where we were getting where the MLC was going to get an award from Carolyn's former employer, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, which is

832
03:53:12.800 --> 03:53:30.239
quite remarkable too because there it's nice to have a good relationship now. [laughter] >> Wasn't always true. It >> wasn't always true. >> We weren't getting the words from him before. Um, and then when you talked about AI, it made me think I just was just visiting with somebody the other day and

833
03:53:30.239 --> 03:53:45.676
they said their 90-year-old mother was talking to him on the phone and she said she was starting to use that A1 [laughter] >> and she said, "Well, what's what is that? What's A1? What's A1?" You know, she said, you know, in the computer that A1. >> So,

834
03:53:45.676 --> 03:54:01.199
[laughter] and Jennifer, welcome back. >> Yeah. Okay. And I got one thing to talk about to you about before you take off. It's I think you know what it is. 2 4th the the Independence Day thing.

835
03:54:01.199 --> 03:54:18.720
250th birthday thing. Anyway, from one of our residents is concerned about something. Um okay, that's it for me. Anybody else think of anything else you want to talk about? >> All right. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Got a dead tie on that. Give it to

836
03:54:18.720 --> 03:54:34.640
>> member Eggnu moves. Member Jackson seconds the idea that we adjourn. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Council >> member >> I. >> Council member Jackson. >> I. >> Mayor H. >> I. >> Council member Pierce. >> Hi.

837
03:54:34.640 --> 03:54:40.359
>> Council member A. >> I. Journ.