City Council - Regular Meeting

We got nothing but time. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm going to let Maggie get organized for a couple. couple seconds.

Looks like a light agenda. So, I don't think we can break a record cuz Sean says he's had a couple things uh on his miscellaneous. So, the dog. So, okay, we've done the pledge of allegiance. First thing is to approve the regular agenda as presented. Uh, does anyone have any questions or any concerns on any item on the regular agenda? So moved. Not. Okay, I'll take a motion. I got Rick and I will second that. So I have a motion by Rick Siler, second by Chuck Nikolai to approve the agenda as presented. Other questions? All in favor say I.

I. Any opposition? Okay, passes 5-0. Next, the consent agenda. Does anyone have [snorts] any questions or any need any clarification for anything on the consent agenda? I have a couple things. Uh Josh, the uh center or the uh rooftop furnace, I can't recall what that was about. Do we have to replace our furnace?

Uh yes. So, actually the furnace that hangs out over the police station down here. Um we've been putting band-aids on it for years now. And uh was it last week, Tim, it went out or the week before? Um, we were finally told there were no band-aids left in the box and so it was time that we had to do something about it. Uh, I don't think we're we're not replacing it for exactly what was there. I know when Matt and his guys went up there, it was way over furnished and air conditioned for the space over there. So, I think we are actually able to downgrade a little bit um for that, but that's what that particular replacement was. It was more an emergency replacement in the last couple weeks. [snorts] And then on the financial statement for it has [clears throat] a with the government building. [snorts] Is there something different going on there that were what appears to be substantially over the plan? Are we under the plan? I guess I'm trying to

That is under page 19. [clears throat] Correct. Yeah. So we're substantially under plan. Uh, no. We can't be we No, no, that's you. No, you're right. It's over. Um, I will have to check. I know it's possible that something got dropped into there just because we didn't have another place to put it. Um, but I do not have that off the top of my head.

Yeah, this statement is from November. So, I'm not sure if it's a well, it wouldn't be a timing thing because compared to our annual our budget balance were were negative. So we over spent that account. I will get that information to you guys.

And the same thing is true for unallocated. It's not uh it's a bigger number as well. Do you have a feel for how we ended the year? [snorts] My feel for how we ended the year was actually generally pretty good. Um overall, um if you just take the bottom line across the board, um yeah, like I said, we were able to save some money in some areas and other areas we weren't. So, um but I think we ended pretty well. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions or concerns on the consent agenda?

If not, I guess I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Second. Second by Rick Syler. So if there's no other questions, all in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0.

You can see the city projects. There really is no change from uh the last month's meeting. Um due to obviously the winter months, uh we were not going to have probably a lot of activity any [snorts] of our street or city projects. So, next uh on the agenda is our public forum. And I just kind of want to clarify uh we kind of talked about it uh the last meeting, but um [snorts] this is an area where the public is will can address the u council on any topic. Uh and the council can do some interfacing asking questions, but we are not going to get into the point of making any decisions on that because if it's uh to a point that we need more information and that stuff, we would probably uh recommend putting that on a future agenda to address it uh after uh there was research done on the topic and any questions and that stuff that needed to get. So, at this time, uh, I got Brian Pollson, who is on the list to speak. [snorts]

Thank you, Brian. I know you guys are gonna be tired me talk about it, but um so uh just in the packet real briefly and first of all Tim um and Josh have heard me say this many times so I appreciate you guys' patience with this. Um but I kind of tried to go up the the chain of command of going with the chief and then with Josh and then finally with you guys. Uh but there's my speech in the front just to make sure I say everything properly. Um and then I have the new PRA transparency portal below that. uh example the Wyoming Police Department transparency portal. Uh the next page is uh two or three pages from the data practices office on ALPRS automatic license plate readers. And then the the last uh couple pages there is the state statute. Um so I'll just kind of go into it here. So I'm here oh excuse me Brian Paulson 2064th Street Southwest. Uh I'm here to urge a simple step towards better transparency with our flock automated license plate readers. Uh the city is already already has a flock transparency portal. You see in the second page there uh this is [clears throat] hosted by flock surveillance not the city. Uh it automatically publishes policies, what's detected, prohibited uses, uh aggregated stats like 27,000 uh vehicles scanned in the last 30 days, 167 hot list hits, um and retention info fulfilling part of [snorts] Minnesota statute 13.824 public log requirements um sub um paragraph 5. As a side note, uh I noticed it says that people are not detected, but I go to the southside park. the point to zoom cameras, not ALPR. Uh they will follow me and walk and track me as I walk around. Not exactly comforting feeling when I'm trying to play with my kids. Um however, the uh public search audit feature is not enabled. On the third page there for Wyoming Police, you can see what an example looks like. Uh this is a downloadable log showing individual

searches, dates, reasons from approved categories, case numbers, and other details directly [snorts] supporting the public audit trail and uh section seven of the statute. You can see the example in the very bottom of the first page of my speech. I have an example from Wyoming. That's that's what's included in the public search audit. Uh one of the most important things that people would look for in these logs is whether every search is tied to an active criminal investigation uh with a documented factual basis and a case number as they're explicitly the law explicitly requires not hunches, personal reasons or unauthorized use. Enabling this feature would let residents see the system is being used strictly within legal limits. Something uh audit logs have helped uncover in other departments when misuse has occurred across the country. [snorts] Uh, it's an updated automatically every night on a 30-day rolling basis with no ongoing staff work, a one-time enablant. Uh, other Minnesota agencies like Wyoming or Farbo or Stillwater, Chicago County have this feature on, providing a self-s serve access without manual requests. It costs nothing extra, reduces delays like the two weeks I had to wait for my first request, which was long story short, I had to put in a new request uh today uh to get these logs. uh and it uh demonstrates proactive compliance ahead of the March bannual audit. There's no good reason not to enable the public search audit on our portal. It makes transparency immediate and easy for everyone while showing that searches meet the law's strict standard. Uh I urge you to direct the police department to enable the public search audit feature immediately. Uh it's a loweffort way to strengthen accountability and public trust. Uh thank you.

Thank you. Uh there's no one else on the list to speak at the public forum this time. Uh so I will move on to the next. No, I I want to have some questions about this. Okay, let me just gather my thoughts here for a second because there's a lot of info throwing this here. But um so we had talked Tim I think initially uh when how long has it been? I don't even know when was it last fall that we got the flat cameras? Yes.

Okay. And we were going to do like a six-month review or something because I know there were some people that spoke out against it, few that spoke for it. Um but um I think at that time we had promised um the council had promised them that we would double check this to make sure. So I'm kind of curious is there and I know you can't divulge specifics, individuals, whatever, but uh can you give us a report? Has it helped? Is it has it assisted in some arrests of bad guys here in town or Yeah, absolutely. Where are we just collecting data that uh

Yeah, no, we've used it um for several cases. Um I didn't bring the report. We're tracking things that we're using it for to give you a report. I was thinking like a year to have a year and then when we got to the end of our contract, we could say here's what this has been used for. Um we're coming up on our audit in March. uh our bianual audit that's required by the state um to do and then that gets reported and published. So there have been several cases that we've used it for and um some other agencies as well. They just arrested a really bad person last week. Okay.

Use of that. So, um I I just know that and why I was thinking about it as I saw in the news that there's some cities that are using [clears throat] it that are afraid that ICE gets a hold of it and uses it to track certain individuals and whatnot. I'm not saying I'm against that at all. Um matter of fact, you know, I mean, they're just enforcing the law as far as I'm concerned, but um uh but I know that there was some concern to that and I'm just kind of curious if What's the question that I want to ask? It's um if it's following individuals um that aren't committed any crimes or have not committed a crime or are not wanted.

Well, it doesn't they don't follow people. Okay. Like the but it registers them each time they drive up and down Main Street or something. Right. Is if a vehicle travels past the camera, it captures that license plate. Okay. So, in order for us to go in and look at any of those vehicles, we would need a reason. So, what we do then is we pull an incident report as to why we're looking at that. And then that is logged as our reason for going in, which is similar to what you're seeing here with a ICR number and a and a user ID. It shows like

missing person, stolen vehicle, um NCIC hit, wanted person. um you know, if one of those hits on a wanted person or a a sex offender or something like that that we're looking for, that would be a reason for us to go in and look. And each one of those is documented as to why we're looking at that. Okay. So that all that is tracked. Okay. Um, so I [clears throat] this came up in a discussion last weekend in some fish houses, but so let's say like my uh in my household I have four vehicles for my kids, my wife, they're all registered in my name.

So let's say I had a revocation or something, driver's license revocation in my car. But let's say my kids are driving down Main Street, it pops up that Shawn Ryan owns this vehicle or whatever. The car is registered to him. Theoretically, would they make a stop on that? Would No, we don't we don't track traffic violations. So, Okay. So, it's not traffic violation. This is like felony level or Yep. These are these are bad people that we're looking for. So, people with warrants, missing persons, um stolen vehicles, um wanted persons. If if it hit because you had uh

you know it would if you had a warrant for not paying like if you had a ticket for driving after revocation and you had a warrant for that that would hit because that's entered into the state system and that would because you're a wanted person at that point. How would you discern that it's me driving that vehicle though or would the stop be made and that every time my wife or kids went down Main Street it was getting it would be it would be a hit. So, we're not watching this like there's not somebody sitting in front of this computer watching this 24 hours a day. So, that would be an alert

and we would say, "Oh, it looks like a revoked driver." Well, not a revoked driver because we don't we wouldn't get a hit on that revoked driver on the warrant. So, we could say this vehicle drove by. The registered owner had a warrant. We would then need to verify that like if we can't see who that is like if you're driving this way right and we can't see you then we can't verify that that was you. If you're driving this way and we can see that you're driving the vehicle we can say yes at this time that person was driving the vehicle based on the driver. Okay. So and I'm just a little So there was 167 hot lists in the last 30 days. I think I don't know

I don't have what you were looking at. Oh, January 20th. Transparency portal. I Oh, that's just today's Yeah, and we didn't verify. I You know, Brian could have got this from wherever. I don't know. But um but does that mean so the hot list hits uh in the last 30 days 167? That means serious criminals, felony level criminals that were it might have been one individual multiple times, but and not that means they're here in town though. The baddest of the bad, right? Like this could be a person with um a warrant, um a denko violation, uh OFP, those are all hot lists. What's OFP? I'm sorry. Order for protection. Oh. Oh, okay. All right.

So, those are things that are entered into the state website. So, that would pop up if we ran your license plate. If we were similar, it's not mine. Yeah. No, I'm saying, but you use yourself as an example, so I'm just following. No, I see what you Same thing. If we were behind a vehicle and we entered that plate or they drove past us, the same information would would pop up there. Okay. So, but again, like that shows up as an alert and there isn't someone behind a computer 24 hours a day, seven days a week managing all of these hits. This is for us to review when we get the hits. say, "Oh, this person came into our community last night or this person is here. We want to know about that."

Okay. So, I I guess my other question would be if there's I saw it in here somewhere, but eight cities that are allowing people to access it, why wouldn't we allow or to just follow what the police are doing? Why would we not have that? There's, I believe from the state of Minnesota, there's 94 or 95 agencies that use ALPR data or they use ALPRs. I think six or eight of those have that public search audit enabled. Um, but that's not required by law even though

it's not it's not required by law. The in fact the transparency portal right now is not required by law. Okay. I think agencies that are getting audited are being recommended to do that, but not every agency even has a public a transparency portal. We felt that was important, so we we did that right away. Um, all of the data that gets recorded in this public safety audit that is being referenced is public information and can be requested. That information is also part of the audit process that happens bianually. So we are essentially creating the data twice. Okay. So we're going to do this audit on our anniversary.

Yeah. In March it'll Oh, even before. Yeah. So by Yeah. Every six months basically we're required to do it. Correct. Oh by annually. So every other year. Oh. Oh that by Okay. So bianly. So every other year we do that. So, we're going to align that with our our body camera audit and do those together because the same people do those rather than have someone come twice, we're going to have them come and do at the [clears throat] same time. Okay. All right.

So, that's part of the public that's that's part of that audit which we have to report to the state and gets reported to the commission and essentially the Senate reviews those all of those logs and those audits that go in. So, anything that's not being done gets caught in that audit and make sure that and that's why it's done that way. Okay. So, like I said, those hits that doesn't all of a sudden flag an officer that no, so and so's okay. So, you'd follow up on that on a later, right? There's just some misinformation out there and people are going back. And there is you're you are correct. There is some misinformation out there. And and just [clears throat]

real briefly, like I just pulled up fars as we're sitting here. Fables is not enabled to your point. Their transparency or their public search audit is not. I'm looking at it right now. So,

okay. That that was all. Yeah, that just that's incorrect. So, okay. Jim, can you just uh explain to me or if you know what is included in the audit? Is part of the audit include that we're in compliance with state statutes? Yep. uh state statute policy, how we're using it, who has access. Um and then they'll pull they'll take a look at did we did we track things correctly? Are we using this system? How the state statute requires us to do that. Well, my primary interest is to make sure that we have somebody looking to make sure we're in compliance.

Yep. And and we've done that with our we we know who do who does these audits. So being proactive, we said, "What is what is looked for in these audits? What are you coming into audits?" So we have everything set up the right way. So when we do get audited, we're able to just provide that information and be in compliance with everything that we're doing because let's do it first so we're not behind the eight-ball and now you need to do this, this, and this. We're just going to do it all the right way from the beginning. So we conduct the audit, but then we send the results to the state for review. The auditor does. Oh, the auditor. Yep. It's an independent auditor. Yep. Independent auditor does it. Oh. Oh. So, we Somebody comes in from outside and does this audit for us.

Oh. It's nothing that we we assist them and give them they ask for certain things and we say here's this and here's this and here's our policy and here's here's our data and then they do the audit. Okay. Is there a cost to that? There is. Yep. Okay. Do we know what that is? I'm just um Is it in the your budget or Yeah. Yep. It's with the with the uh body camera. Oh, all right.

I I'm not familiar with the state statute. The description of the public log seems to be a little more comprehensive than what's the audit that's on the software system. Seems to be more stuff in the requirement for that public log, but know if that's true or not, but it seems that way. Say that again. I'm I don't understand. Not sure. I haven't looked at the statute, so I'm just going off of Brian's information, but the stat the reference Yeah, I think the statute that that he's referencing would be similar to the public public audit log.

So, as an example, it shows public log requires you to put the license plate number, but on the the audit search button on that system doesn't give you license plate numbers things, right? It does not. So it seems like those are two different doesn't seem like the public audit search fulfills your requirement to maintain a log. Well, it the public search audit just would allow for public information. So in our log when they do the audit, they would get the the private data which couldn't be shared, but they would make sure that our policy and how we're using it aligns with the state statute.

Okay. Well, it's certainly more complicated, I think, than on the surface as far as what you can because there's confidential information. There's different require it touches different bases here. So,

right. And and the long and short and how [clears throat] we use this is every time we go in, we have a a reason to do that. We're doing a criminal investigation on something. Whether that be an accident, a hit and run, a missing person, stolen vehicle, whatever that is, there's a reason for us to go in and and look at that data. And we document that with a an incident with that can be linked back to why we're doing that to a case that we're currently working on. Okay. I guess it' be interesting to hear the results after the audit. Yeah.

See how how we're doing it and uh if we need to evaluate more on that. Uh so that would be available in like a or May, April, May. Yeah. We've never been through one so I don't know how long that process takes, but with the the body cam it uh they came in and did it it was about two to three weeks after they were here that it was available. So, I wouldn't imagine that it would take a long time to get get it the results. And Sean mentioned that the discussion about six months or something, but you're you're thinking you're going to do a kind of a comprehensive review, not until August then or something.

I was thinking, yeah, I would like to look back a year and say, "Here's what we've done over the past year, knowing that our our um our grant cycle is lasting for three years." So, we'll take a look at it each year and say, "Here's what we did with it this year, this year, this year." And I'm kind of confused on the timing because I thought we bought these in spring. I don't know the I would have to look exactly if you remember right

because we we bought them and then there was a a very there was a delay in getting them installed. So from the time we signed the contract and and actually said yes, we're going to go ahead, there was some delay in getting them installed. So the actual purchase date and the agreement and the actual install date are probably four to six months different. So did we lose that time period in our contract of use then? No, I I we we talked with them and they credit us that that time. So it's the day we went live three years later is when we Yep. And and you feel that was somewhere around August? I think so. I'd have to look back. I don't I can't speak to that real currently.

Can I speak to that? No. It was uh it was contract was signed in December 15th, but I think they went live like March 2025 I believe is about the time, give or take a month. were the first ones. Were they all installed at the same time or different times? Probably different times. Now, you install them or does the company No, the company comes out and installs them. Oh, they do? Okay.

They own everything. So we if it if it breaks, if something breaks, malfunctions, they just come out and repair it or put a new one up or we don't have any requirement for maintenance or batteries or anything that way. So it's all it's all on them to fix and maintain, but it's up to you where you actually put them or where you want them. Correct. Okay. Yep.

Okay. I just want to make a comment that this is an example that we probably shouldn't be addressing it. You know, we could have questions. We talked about just getting questions of clarification from the person presenting the information, but I don't think we needed to go into it with Chief Applin because he didn't have he wasn't prepared for it and all that stuff. So, I'm just telling you, Sean, that's not the intent of the public forum. So, no, but there's plenty of places that No, I know four hours or go till midnight because every they'll listen to all 75 people there. And if I had a question, if Brian wouldn't have come up and spoke, I would have asked a question.

Right. But we but we talked about it the last meeting. I'm not trying to put Tim on spot. I'm trying to gather information. Policy was that we would could ask questions of the person presenting it. Yes. And then if we felt that it needed to go further, then we would put it on the agenda for further deal. so that Tim would have time or whoever it was would have time to gather information to prep present to us rather than say, "Oh, I don't have the contract in front of me and things like that." Yeah, that was the intent of the public. Chief Applin in the hot seat and that's not the way this should go down. Held on to you. We just kind of went across the line of our

You think that was a hot seat? because I had some questions that came up with 30 guys from New Prague that were up fishing this weekend and it was the hot bed topic. Where's the damn cameras? This is not right. Don't Hey, don't scold me first off. Don't if you want to get going home, you go. I'm sorry if I'm keeping you here too long. No, but I wasn't trying to put anybody in the hot seat. I'm not saying that but that was against what the public forum you did exactly cross the line of what we talked about last meeting

that well then we've had a total misunderstanding because I think if anybody wants to come up and discuss something and even though we might not be able to answer them we can get the what information we can get and that was that was certainly not a hot seat that was not my intention to be on a hot seat I wanted questions that I can give people that I was with this weekend that live here in town okay but put it on the agenda. Yeah, that's that's what we're saying. The reason is now you have Tim, he's doesn't have remember all the information, the contracts and all that stuff. You can tell your 30 people up there that, hey, we addressed it. We will get information. I got the answers. Tim gave me the answers.

I know, but it wasn't taken away from the the concept that we talked about last meeting. Then we had a total different All right, that's fine. If that's the concept that you guys thought, then when that comes up, I'll what I'll just put it on the agenda. I could have called Friday night from up at the lake and told Tim to Josh. I might not made it on that agenda. I mean, if you can't tell your guys, your 30 guys up at a fish house. Yeah. That it's going to take a week or it's going to take a month or two months. Well, then so be it.

Here's part of the issue, though, too. We hardly had anything on our agenda. We're going to be out of here in another 10 minutes. Who cares? So, I thought this was a perfect time to ask a few questions. And I still have another one that's not on there. Do I have to put that on the agenda, too? No. Under miscellaneous, that thing that's a little different. Okay. But this is what exactly we talked about when we talked about our policy.

Well, this isn't what I meant. I meant that we could talk. I we were I thought we weren't going to be able to we might have [clears throat] to tell the the constituent that has a question. We might have to say we're we'll gather more information. And when we have that information, either the city staff will contact you and get you an answer or we'll bring it back for a formal discussion here. That didn't mean that they can't come up and I can't ask a few questions which I was going to ask anyways. It just so happens that one other guy here wanted to bring it up, right? But we were going to you could maybe I should have brought it up during this the miscellaneous. Okay. Okay. But the deal was we were going to talk, you know, if you had the reason we did it is if you had a clarification that you needed Brian to clarify

and say, "Brian, what do you mean by this?" That was the interaction we were talking about because we didn't want to get into what we actually just went in through. We put Tim in a uncomfortable position because he didn't have the data to present good answers for you. That's amazing to me because I just asked some very basic questions and if he couldn't have answered them, it would have been very easy saying, "Sean, I'm sorry. I don't have that contract." But he seemed to know the answers that I asked. But that wasn't the point, Sean. Okay, whatever. I misunderstood where we were at. If I want to go, I'll wait till miscellaneous from now on and then I'll bring it up there or I'll call Josh and just put it on there and it might be two seconds or it might be two hours.

Right. M Mr. [clears throat] Mayor, may I I just want to reiterate, I know we've talked about it before, if you do have any questions, whether it's Monday at 3:00 or Friday at 8:00, like if you can get me the answers beforehand, um it may not be a formal item on the agenda, but we may be able to prepare information for you to be able to share even that evening on like a miscellaneous. So certainly don't feel like you have to wait until a council meeting to ask the question if you guys have one.

Okay. Next on the agenda, public hearings, we have none. Ordinances for introduction, we have none. Ordinance for adoption, we have none. Um, resolutions, none. General business, none. Miscellaneous. Rick, do you have anything? None. Bruce. Um, no. Maggie, I do not. Okay. Sean, do you have Yeah. The other question I have, hopefully it doesn't cause as much issues, but uh could you explain Josh? I was hoping Ken was going to be here because he might know a little bit more. Uh but maybe Chuck and um uh Bruce can too because it's come up in the EDA meeting

and um if it's uh uh could you tell me what the yellow tree program is with their new proposed development? And then I have I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I have a couple other questions that came up.

So I will say we have not heard from Yellow Tree for almost a year now, I think. Um I know that uh [clears throat and cough] I believe if you look [snorts] in the what was it a few couple meetings ago, we had a bill paid uh regarding Yellow Tree. Um that was from the last time we talked to them uh from Ellers. they had sat down and helped us through that process and they were kind of waiting to see if anything would ever come of it and um yeah I we haven't spoke to to Yellow Tree in over a year. Okay.

Now [clears throat] now I I believe you may be referring to because Ken had mentioned during the EDA meeting that we have an application for an annexation and zone change over there on the east side of town. Is that what you're referring to? That is exactly what I was referring to. So um first off that isn't Yellow Tree. That is not Yellow Tree. Okay. It is the applicant is Java Companies um is who is the applicant on that application. Um basically they're looking at a commercial development on the northeast corner of Alton and Maine right there. It's about an 8acre property currently owned by Mayo um that they are going through the process through. So I think the assumption can be made that they're looking at potentially buying it. Okay. [clears throat] So and that was in his um Friday recap.

Yeah. I didn't read that yet. So, and just to be that was up north just to be clear the that's the property on the east side of Alt and the property on the west side of Alt and there's no application actually been made but the concept is out there that that would be housing correct on the west side and I think that yeah in our comprehensive plan that's guided so we don't know what that is or well Ken said I thought we we is that not didn't think that refer to it as townhouse like

I believe he did yes but Yeah, no formal application has been submitted for that side yet, unlike the east side where the commercial is. Um, an application for annexation and zoning has been submitted. But yes, I believe Ken did mention um that yeah, a concept of a townhouse style development over there. But as far as any kind of application for tiff [clears throat] tiff or abatements or anything incentives or we have no spoken that was that was my third question was was there talk and somebody thought it was at this point I can confidently say we haven't talked about it so it hasn't brought been brought up. Okay.

All right. So because the application's in, we don't know how many units or how big of a complex that's going to be. That none of that's been discussed.

Um so townhouse concept, we're talking very similar to uh what would one be? Um very similar to the kind of town houses was that first third kind of third avenue there. Um just north or I'd be just south of Coburn. You got kind of that town houses all along there. That's so we're not talking apartments. We're talking more of maybe like duplexes or smaller single family detached houses in there um along those. Yeah. So, but in terms of the number of units that are in there yet, no, we don't because there no application, it would just be speculation as to how many they could possibly fit in there at this point. Okay. And so, we would we don't even have a timeline when that might happen. Correct. Yeah. I mean, yeah, they could turn it in tomorrow. They could turn it in four years from now.

The comprehensive plan would allow uh multif family in that area though, wouldn't it? I would have to go look. I don't know off the top of my head. I mean that's normally the transition from light and or business to multif family to single family. Normally you'd see that from main street out the density gets smaller and smaller. Correct. Lower and lower. Yeah. I think generally that would be unusual for the first Yeah. Planning practices generally put some sort of multif family between commercial and single family to almost act as a transition, right? If you will. Okay. All right. Well, good because there obviously is some concern or misinformation out there too. Yeah. In terms of Yellow Tree, we have not talked to Yellow Tree and no and no tax abatement or TIFF. Correct.

Okay. Which we know Scott County doesn't participate in and the school district shown no interest in. So then it would fall all on the city if that were what on the baitment or on the if there was a tax a request for a tax abatement. Yeah. Tax abatement at this point. Yeah. And county will only do it for child care or senior citizen facilities right now. And Right. And but this is Scott County. That's why. And they've already told us when it was yellow proposed Ravenstream that they had did not want to participate in it. So perfect. Nope. That was it. That was my last question. Nope. Okay. I don't have anything. Tim, you want anything? Add anything? Josh?

Uh just two quick updates for you guys. I know during the uh kind of budget process we talked about um through the facilities study there were other things that kind of came out such as possible improvements that would be needed to this building um just to stay in it. I will let you know staff is currently trying to put together some just rough quotes of things like HVAC, tuck pointing, windows, roofing just so you guys have that information. I know we talked about talking about that sometime here in the first second quarter of the year. So, we are working on that right now. I also want to let you know, and I think I put it in one of my updates um that I send out every week that our formal application at this point is into the state for using that SEDP money um on City Center. And so, we are just waiting, we're waiting to wait at this point for that. So, um hopefully we hear good news on being able to use some of those funding, some of that funding. Otherwise, they would want it back basically. So, And that's for the pond.

Yeah, that that'd be for the pond and then some of the other improvements around that site um that we'd be looking to make around the pops like sidewalks and parking and that sort of thing. Okay. Anything else? That is all I've got right now. Are you good? Oh, can I just follow? Yeah. If we're going to have a discussion on the feasibility report involving this building, I [clears throat] would like as part of that discussion at least that we reaffirm that we're going to use this as our long-term facility.

Yeah. I think that as part of that discussion we have the whole discussion about the original discussion I think u we had thought that the next step over here would be demolition. So are we still on the same thought pattern that we before

and that was kind of my idea for the discussion as to what would the demolition of the park building park garage area be? Is it worth it at this time? Yeah. that kind of kind of restarting that discussion. Not saying that something's obviously going to happen in the next six months or even what when it may happen, but just so we can certainly start having those discussions and um all the chips are on the table. So, at least we know you guys are all aware of what's going on and where we may or may not be going with it. So, I appreciate the quotes and having all that information be valuable information, but I think that's kind of secondary. I think the first discussion has to be

committed to this site and this building and is it our long-term home before we stick a material amount of money into it. Yeah. So, anything else? That's it. Mitch, you're good. Brian, anything else? John? Okay. I don't have anything. So, I guess I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second by Rick. All in favor say I. Any opposition? Okay. Thank you everyone. Still almost record. Yeah, Rick says it's like 17 minutes. Mine is Yeah, it's He said he did it in 17 minutes. And I wasn't here to