Committee of the Whole Meeting 4/13/2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN5w8bQg9oM
Automatic captions; not audio-verified.

[4:53] for the city council of Highland Park, Illinois. Committee the whole. It is April 13, 2026. Will the clerk please call the role?

[5:01] Council member, present. Council member Barkman here. Council member Ross here. Council member.

[5:07] Council member Lber here. Council member Bloomberg may here. We have a quorum. May have a motion to approve the minutes of the

[5:14] regular meeting of the committee of the whole from March 30th, 2026. So moved. Second. All in favor say I.

[5:22] I. Thank you. Our first item of scheduled business tonight is concerning the flood plane.

[5:28] Thank you, mayor. Good evening, council members. Yes.

[5:30] Um so the first item as the mayor indicated is a flood plane um assessment study and a recommendation that we have.

[5:38] Um I just want to recognize a couple of individuals. Ron Bannon is our director of public works. Um everybody knows him.

[5:45] Um Anna Stski is our city engineer. Uh Anna joined us a couple of months ago.

[5:50] Um just want to make sure everyone has a chance to meet her. And then we have representatives from CivilTech Engineering. they have been working closely with us um on this project as

[5:59] well as they do um significant work and coordination with our staff. Um so I want to introduce Tom as the uh director of water resources and then if I could

[6:08] bring up uh Joy Abramson um who's going to lead us in the presentation. We have a brief staff report um that's included in the packet

[6:16] that outlines a general overview of the city's uh local flood plane that we have and the regulations and what exactly

[6:23] that means for the public. We also have um federal, state, county regulations um that we adhere to as well. So, we're

[6:32] going to go through an overview of general how flood plane management works and then um outline our recommendation and the next steps.

[6:44] Thank you, Gita. I might use this little pointer so keep it handy.

[6:50] So, thank you for having me and us. And uh again, my name is Joey Abramson. I'm with CivilTech and I'm going to present.

[6:58] And so the first first slide here, we'll we'll start with the bottom line up front is the recommendation is to discontinue the city specific flood

[7:06] plane limits. And we'll get into all what this is. Um and with that the the

[7:13] FEMA IDNR and the other regulations such as Lake County Stormwater Management Commission, watershed development ordinance, everything will still be full in force.

[7:23] And so kind of starting back at the beginning to explain things, the purpose of the whole evaluation where we were brought in was to look at what the flood

[7:32] plane limits are in the city, what the effective FEMA flood plane limits are, what the city specific limits are, and

[7:40] if there's anything else in terms of regulations between the the two of them or any other regulatory body. And so we

[7:46] wanted to get first of all get a handle on what's being applied out out in the field. And so this first slide shows

[7:54] just a snippet of the purple is the flood plane and I'll get into the definition of everything in [snorts] a second as well. But the other big

[8:01] purpose is to assess whether the old studies are still relevant given that there's updated FEMA studies that are

[8:08] using the more recent rainfall and land data. And so it's also the city is under

[8:16] jurisdiction of the Lake County regulations for their storm water management commission.

[8:22] And so I always like to use this colorful slide. Uh my brain kind of works like this. I guess now I realize it kind of looks like a maybe a rainfall

[8:29] kind of thing. But what it's showing is in the red it's higher land and in the blue it's lower. And so generally I

[8:37] don't think I can even reach but uh generally in the center of the city is as you can see more blue. And actually I want to point out the the ravines, the

[8:46] sort of scraggly lines is actually a pretty cool um feature of the landscape.

[8:51] We're not really focusing on that, but in general there are three flood planes in the city and it's the middle fork

[8:58] north branch of Chicago River. That's the west end. It's basically the border with Deerfield. And then in the middle, the big wide blue area is the Skoi

[9:06] River, also formerly known as the east fork of the North Branch Chicago River.

[9:11] And then Lake Michigan. And again, we're ignoring Lake Michigan for the purpose of the study as it's not a a riverine flood plane that's that's under review

[9:19] here. And so, taking another step back, what is a flood plane? Just to sort of level the the field here, is that it's

[9:27] an area in space where if I step over here, there's going to be water on my toes. And if I literally step over here

[9:34] on the other side of the boundary, no water. And it's basically for a very specific storm event. It's for the what is commonly known as the 100red-year

[9:43] storm, but more it's be it's really known and really computed as the 1% annual chance storm. So if you average

[9:52] that out, it's about one in 100 years, but people say, well, we already had one. It doesn't really work that way. So that's a big picture. What is a flood

[10:01] plane? And so what that's what we're looking at and that's what these studies look at. That's what FEMA looks at. The 1% annual chance storm. And so what is a

[10:08] BFE? You might hear that it's the base flood elevation. It's how high the water gets in the flood plane in that in that

[10:16] storm and it's above sea level. So we're going to be talking, you know, if you see 600 or here 600 or somewhere around there, that's the elevation. And then

[10:25] what is a flood way? And I I didn't point out you are here, we're here. And then the flood plane, this is just a snippet of it. And so the blue on the

[10:33] outside is the actual flood plane. Also though, this this shaded the hatch section is what's called a flood way.

[10:40] It's it's part of the it's it is the flood plane. It's also flood plane, but it's a more specific type [clears throat] and it's where the water

[10:48] flows during the flood. And so if you imagine you're on an inner tube, I wouldn't recommend it, but inner tube would be moving in the floodway and

[10:55] ostensibly just sort of bobbing on the flood fringe, but they they're regulated differently. How are they mapped? They

[11:03] are mapped using hydraologic and hydraulic models which is seeing the rainfall and seeing where and how it flows on the land and they develop

[11:12] profiles for these waterways and whatever elevation the water gets to is then extrapolated or mapped

[11:21] [clears throat] onto the landscape with either survey or most of the time it's LAR from planes that gets your your elevation data. And so what does it mean

[11:30] for properties? Generally, if you're in a flood plane, obvious just statistically, you're at a higher risk of having water come up to your property

[11:38] at at the 1% annual chance. And it also at at a federal level, FEMA requires

[11:46] property owners to purchase flood insurance if they're in the flood plane and has other regulations that I'll get further into, but those are the general backgrounds.

[11:56] General the baseline requirements at a state level. FEMA delegates its authority. The IDNR is [clears throat]

[12:03] the statewide jurisdiction for applying the FEMA regulations. But at a basis,

[12:10] the insurance is like I said, it's you're required to purchase insurance. I mean, technically, you don't have to, but if you have a federally backed

[12:19] mortgage, it's you your funding is contingent upon that. And then there's development restrictions as well.

[12:26] storage. As an analogy, if you get into a bathtub, the water rises and you can spill out of the it'll spill out out of

[12:34] the tub. You are the fill in that situation. And so, if you're adding a hill or or you're grading or you're adding a material in your in the flood

[12:43] plane, you're displacing where the water can go. And so, there's a regulation that you have to take out as much as you put in. And then freeboard, I just

[12:51] looked this up today. It's came from a nautical term. It's it's how high above the water line you need a an opening to be if you're building a new property.

[12:59] And so there's actually no restriction or no regulation. It's just encouraged at the baseline level. Floodway in the

[13:07] middle. Again, the moving part is there are restrictions for building because that's that's a more critical part of the flood plan. It if you're blocking where the water's moving, it has wider

[13:15] implications for the spread of the water.

[13:18] Lake County Watershed Development Ordinance. So, the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission is the governing body for many of the storm

[13:27] water uh regulations that are applicable and the city of Highland Park is a certified community. So, the city

[13:35] applies all these rules and has adopted these rules uh in in the city ordinance so that they are applicable.

[13:43] And the Lake County WDO, the watershed development ordinance has extra protections beyond what the FEMA

[13:51] baseline are. And those primarily are the extra compensatory storage. So not only do you have to offset anything you

[13:58] fill in the flood plan, you have to do it 20% more taking out to in a way make up for past sins if you will or just to

[14:06] actually help in general. And there's also extra freeboard requirements at the at the county level that are applied and that's two feet above the water. So if

[14:15] you build a house it has to be two feet the door opening or the low window opening has to be 2 feet above the anticipated flood. So now to the the

[14:23] crux of this conversation. Highland Park has a city specific flood plane and the Skoi River larger in the center of the

[14:31] city. It was a study in 1990 and it was remapped in 2019 based on new topography. But the study, as you can

[14:38] see in this uh in this visual here, the blue on the outside is where the city's flood plane limits are. And you can see it's it's more expansive. It's wider.

[14:49] Whereas the yellow is what FEMA is.

[14:51] Yellow is the baseline that that's not going away. But as you can see, we can get into the specific [clears throat] numbers. It actually is a lot wider and

[14:59] affects a lot more properties and a lot more area. As for the Middle Fork North Branch of the Chicago River on the west

[15:06] side, there was a study done in 1971 that had a a profile that showed differing elevations. And I'll take a

[15:13] quick step back too is that both of these were driven by flooding events that happened. The 1991 was as a result,

[15:20] as far as I'm able to glean from the 1987. I mean, technically was born then.

[15:26] I don't remember it for like I want to say it wasn't that long ago but it you know [laughter] but it was a huge uh rainfall that

[15:34] flooded many many communities and so that spurred this this study and but again it is now 1990s 36 years ago

[15:43] middlefork one even longer and it was remapped in 2025 we actually did this remapping and I'll go through what that meant and really it there was an old

[15:51] profile that actually in 2014 they took the 1971 model took all the paper, all the results and and mapped it onto a

[16:00] profile like this. And this is just looking you're looking at the side of the river. It's the top lines are where the water would be. And you can see there's a like flood of record on there.

[16:11] One of these lines is a flood of record 1938. And then one is FEMA and one is the Highland Park specific which was

[16:17] based on updated modeling from 1971. It was updated at the time. And what we did was we took those elevations at every

[16:25] point along the middle fork north branch and then with updated topography, we said how far will the water spread at

[16:33] every point along the river. And where it was different, we actually took the more expansive one where where if the

[16:41] teal as shown here, which is the new or the 1971 profile, was further out, we would count that. But if the yellow was

[16:50] further out, the FEMA, then we'd count that. And so you can see the impacts were pretty marginal in the middle fork

[16:57] and about 10% increase in impacts over the board. We we split it out into parcels, buildings, and area, meaning what is currently impacted by the flood

[17:06] plane, what is overlap by it with the FEMA, and what would be the increase with the uh adding that new profile on the west side.

[17:16] However, the Skoi River is a lot more impacted by the the profile, the city specific profile and flood plane limits.

[17:25] And as you can see, it's about 50 to 150% increase in the parcels, buildings, and area that are impacted. Meaning,

[17:34] previously, only the yellow big slot in the middle is where these regulations would be applied. Whereas if you're in

[17:41] the blue and this is the Sleepy Hollow neighborhood, I think we we did a project over here that was a backflow pre and and that neighborhood is is

[17:50] close to the to the river there and it's it's generally lowlying, but the mar the increase in flood plane that was applied

[17:59] with the city specific was as you can see these little yellow dots are extra and actually every single red outline is

[18:07] a parcel that is impacted by the city specific. and not by the FEMA um flood plane limits.

[18:16] And so what we found was as we're talking about we'll we'll start from the top here. The expanded flood

[18:22] planes restrict development and really cause the you know applying these regulations on

[18:30] about 600 extra parcels especially mostly concentrated in the Skoi River Valley area and there's as far as we're

[18:39] aware there's no known systemic flooding and I'll take a I forgot to mention this at the beginning but there is a there is a difference between a flood plane and

[18:47] what we're talking about flood planes these are riverine flood planes meaning where the river is going to coming out and a parking lot flooding or a yard

[18:54] flooding or or even an intersection flooding that those are different and th the the latter the intersections the parking lot storm sewer is generally not

[19:03] covered by FEMA flood planes and so when we're talking about flooding this doesn't mean oh there's never been a flood in these areas more so that the

[19:12] flood plane that we're talking about has not been known to spread this far out and in these expanded area the flood the

[19:20] city specific areas. And then the third bullet there is there's there's administrative complexities with the

[19:27] application of these varying um varying regulations. And there's some exposure to the potential of misapplying them if

[19:36] you're confused about which one actually applies. It's just it's u enforcement complexities and adds another layer of

[19:44] of uh complexity there. And it's also redundant with the storm water management commission. That's the Lake County wershed development ordinance and

[19:53] so which is again already above the base level of FEMA and it's beyond what is what is required at a minimum.

[20:00] And then lastly the basis in the old studies there's not a great uh well there's no regional precedent of of something like this that we could find.

[20:09] And there was a couple communities in southeastern um Wisconsin, but nothing in northeastern Illinois or or even the

[20:16] Northshore where they their own flood plans and and the communities instead adopt the more restrictive Lake County requirements.

[20:26] And George, let me let me just kind of wrap up in terms of this last slide, which you know, we started with the recommendation and kind of ending with the recommendation. And I just want to

[20:34] emphasize a couple of points that were made. So, as we reviewed this from a staff perspective, I mean, very important is we wanted to make sure that

[20:42] any action in this regard as it pertains to our recommendation does not negatively impact any Highland Park properties. And so, as it pertains to flooding, that would not be the case.

[20:52] The second point is as [clears throat] we take a look at increased efficiencies um for operations as as we manage as

[21:01] well as for the staff. This legislative action would do that because right now having these additional local

[21:08] regulations on top of all these other regulations does create confusion. It creates additional costs um for

[21:16] individuals as part of their applications. Okay. So, this does um align with kind of our attempt to streamline and make things more kind of

[21:23] understandable, especially as residents, for example, are working with contractors that if they have to understand Highland Park and Highland

[21:31] Park is different than Deerfield or these other communities. Um, so those are kind of the two primary policy [clears throat] considerations that we

[21:38] just want to make sure that you're aware of. Um, in terms of next steps, and we'll certainly entertain questions, um,

[21:46] but in terms of next steps, if the council was supportive, um, we would work with corporation council, um, and our team, and we would put together

[21:54] formal action at the next available city council meeting and, um, and also do public communication in that regard as well.

[22:01] Great. Thank you. Thanks, Joey, for a great presentation. Um, I'll just share that I represent Lake County and the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

[22:10] and at our board meeting last Wednesday, we literally were talking about flooding and flood planes and floodways and all that. Uh, couple of questions that I

[22:18] have. Um, you know, we obviously have seen an increase in speed and volume of

[22:24] water with climate change. Is there any chance that in the next few years you're going to come back and say, "Guess what,

[22:33] guys? It's actually way more than we thought like you know and I obviously you can't predict the future but are

[22:40] there trends that you're seeing maybe elsewhere that we should apply here? I'm going to give you three questions. So there's that one. The second one is um

[22:50] have you done any coordination with what's going on in Wisconsin in terms of the increased development up there and then the downflow of water because of

[22:57] the increase of imperous surface that's coming. We know that that's impacting us tremendously when they're taking up all the land and setting their water down.

[23:08] And then my last question is if we go with this more restrictive approach to what is construed as flood plane

[23:16] floodway, are there any liability exposures to the city in terms of people then saying, "Oh, you know, we didn't

[23:24] get insurance and now look at us kind of a thing." So, so a lot of questions.

[23:29] Yeah. Well, you know, to the first Thank you, mayor, for the question. to the first point about their, you know, are we going to come back later and is that

[23:36] well, actually, it's it's there's no question that that things are changing and that that the hundredyear storm is

[23:42] now happening every 3 years and and even with all of that being true, the fact that it's still based in a an outdated

[23:52] model and and didn't also mention that the the FEMA models were updated in 2013 at the latest considered outdated

[24:00] the earliest and right even but the the current FEMA model is 2013 in many areas and a big swath of the city is actually

[24:07] in 2023 that to still to rely on the uh the most current data is is the most

[24:15] responsible I mean it's hard to I don't want to give too much judgment to the word but that you're actually aligned with the best technology and the best

[24:22] modeling you have um and then to that point oh to the second question about the uh Wisconsin no I I haven't I I

[24:31] haven't looked at that's a good question in terms of like regionally are they sending they're sending more water down through absolutely wagan and all and coming down all the

[24:39] way that's uh I myself have not um been involved in that but you know you can tell them to stop

[24:49] but but I want you to know that that cap I raised that question with cap as well and it was like you know obviously the

[24:56] border has no impact on the flow of water downstream so how do we address this really fast and

[25:03] rapid development up there and the impacts on Can I something something about that B that's I know that storm water

[25:11] management committee commission was doing a separate study to evaluate some of that specific to a specific development in Wisconsin right

[25:19] um yes and they they had done a separate study to evaluate like what the impacts would be downstream from that I've not

[25:28] seen the results of that but I know that's something that storm water management commission was taking a look at specifically to see. I don't know if

[25:36] that's publicly available and it's something we could I think it is. I think they ended up not doing the project but I think I think the flow was the impact on downstream

[25:46] flooding was something that at least Illinois was squawking about. So for sure for sure and like I said I I know that storm water like I said SNC

[25:54] did a separate study just for that. So there's there are and you know as the storm water management commission does

[26:01] studies then we we can obviously work with that latest available data with that too because that'll be incorporated in the ordinance as they update their

[26:09] ordinance as well. So I think that's a good way of kind of keeping up with the current standards and current studies to having adopted the wershed development. Right. Yeah.

[26:19] Okay. Thank you. And then my last question was about our liability if we if you Yeah. If you're No, you don't have flooding. And they go, yeah, we do.

[26:28] Right. Right. And it it it's, you know, there's a matter of maybe it's a communication is that nothing we do today is going to affect

[26:37] what actually happens in the world, but that if you're looking at [clears throat] what the best information we have about where this

[26:44] flood plane will be. What's an interesting sort of ties back to the first question is that in there was one

[26:51] study that that's it's very progressive but they're saying actually you should adopt the 500year flood plan as your new

[26:57] 100year and and that's that's that's going to be that's restrictive for a lot of ways. I mean, yes, that's

[27:05] that might be getting you ahead of the curve. And in incidentally, the the expanded flood plays flood planes for the city even. It might just be a

[27:13] coincidence because it's not based in any model that we would run today. I mean, we would that's a whole other thing. You could model it again and find

[27:21] out what it would be, but it actually incidentally sort of aligns kind of cleanly with the 500year flood plan.

[27:27] Oh, wow. to give like a perspective on that, but that there's very few communities just because of the restrictiveness that that would impart

[27:35] or that are adopting as far as I know the the 500 year as the new 100year. Thanks, Corporation Council.

[27:42] Yeah, I just want to add to that terms of um city liability and put you at ease somewhat. uh to the extent that we are

[27:50] um making approvals, reviewing um proposals based on existing data based on existing data that's considered to be

[27:59] credible. Um we would be able to assume the protection of the Illinois Torm Immunity Act. um if we were ever

[28:08] presented with a challenge uh that our decision uh about our decision. Now this may be a situation where educating ourselves more puts us in great a little

[28:17] greater jeopardy but I I still think I we every this presentation has has confirmed that we have a basis for reasonable and good faith reliance.

[28:27] Okay.

[28:27] Um so I I I'm not concerned as your attorney.

[28:31] Great. Thank you. I mean, we've been talking about housing and we've been talking about how do we deal with the gap in housing? Our 600 [clears throat] parcels are impacted. On one hand,

[28:40] here's an opportunity. On the other hand, the very people that we're trying to help are the last people we should be saying, "Hey, by the way, no worries." You know, that little puddle, don't give

[28:48] it another thought kind of. So, that's where my concerns come.

[28:52] Annette, so that was exactly my question. You're Can you pull up the map with the 600 and the red lines? That's

[28:59] not covered by anything. So I mean on the one hand I would like to say we should rely on better information and

[29:07] use that in decision making. Um but on the other hand if there are parcels that

[29:14] this doesn't cover and our guidelines specifically look to our neighbors don't we have a responsibility

[29:23] like in that it for those 600 parcels I mean we're on alert that they're not covered by this. So, from a legal

[29:31] perspective, it worries me that because we know it's not actually covered.

[29:37] Um, so for the most part, it looks like this is all built already.

[29:44] It's already built. Yeah.

[29:46] I mean, and I know all of those from what it was like, well, no, the houses are built higher. So, the road is supposed to flood, but the houses aren't and you're

[29:55] just like, how's that a thing? So, so I guess that's the question. I mean, is it something that in granting variances and doing any kind of work,

[30:03] are we at risk because we know they're not we're not looking at them in the same way as we used to um under Highland Park guidelines.

[30:12] But insurance is driven by FEMA. It's not driven by Highland Park. Right. Right. That is correct.

[30:18] That is that we don't determine um the insurance. our our special map has no impact on their ability to get or not get insurance.

[30:28] Okay. So, as long as they're covered, they can get coverage irrespective of whether or not FEMA. Yeah.

[30:35] Well, they if they're in the FEMA, but those 600 aren't in the FEMA. So,

[30:42] Ron, sorry, I was going to say anybody can purchase flood insurance if they would like to.

[30:48] and people that are currently in the Highwood Park flood plane but not in the FEMA flood plane, they could feel free to continue to to pay for that insurance if they if they would like to. Okay.

[30:56] I think like to your point, mayor, about development, you know, we have all these parcels where people would be restricted under the H park rule. Um, but we would

[31:03] potentially be lifting that and letting them develop their property beyond it because the current data does not show that they are really at risk.

[31:10] Right. So, in a way, we're making their properties more marketable because they're not in the FEMA flood plane.

[31:17] On the other hand, if there's some issue with flooding at some point, yeah. Well, they would be in the FEMA flood plane will remain. It's the

[31:25] Highland Park flood plane that that is changing that is being right. But it's these parcels, sorry, that are outside of FEMA in Highland

[31:33] Park that have a status change, if you will. Get discontinued.

[31:38] That's my question. Now, some people what we find is people because we're we're pretty unique in having two sets of flood planes, right? So, most people

[31:46] don't even know to look for an additional flood plane because FEMA is the standard.

[31:50] So, so but in those cases, if someone's doing their due diligence and says, "Well, hey, they're actually in this Highland Park, the special Highland Park flood plane." Uh, yeah, I mean, that

[31:58] could be detrimental to them selling the house. Is there any way we could do some form of education or as we transition

[32:07] like a mailing to those 600 homes for example just to say you know we're doing coverage under FEMA nav were no longer a

[32:15] part of this flood plane however at one point you know in ancient history because it is an old

[32:22] map so maybe they really don't need the coverage but don't you think just to protect us we should perhaps at least

[32:29] give them notice that they're no longer part of flood plane or is that opening a can of worms?

[32:35] Yeah, it may be people that don't understand the difference uh between city and and FEMA. The point I was going to and so that's up to you that I I don't know

[32:44] that um it may be open up a political can where it's not a legal one. Um I was going to say I don't know of any I I know many municipalities that have um

[32:53] flood planes that are different than greater than FEMA, but I don't know of any insurance company that looks to the local government flood plane. they look

[33:00] to the FEMA, which I think was the answer earlier.

[33:05] I know I'd feel better if we were letting people know, [clears throat] right, that is changing that it's a change and right, that's the

[33:14] only thing I would kind of bring.

[33:16] I mean, there's no reason to not be transparent with people about the change status, right? You know, especially if we're saying in a sense your property values

[33:25] could increase, you know, if they talk to an insurance company or whatever else. But just to tell them there's a change, I think is important, right?

[33:32] Yeah. I'm glad you got into the marketability piece of it, right?

[33:36] Because I think net, this is, if I'm thinking about this correctly, it's probably a net positive to the people

[33:42] who were uh in this Highland Park flood plane because they can still insure it if

[33:50] they'd like. If not, great. They're saving premium cost and they're not restricted mark in the open market. When somebody's like, "Are you in a flood

[33:57] plane?" They don't have to say yes anymore. Right. Right. Right.

[34:01] But they can still take steps for their property to make sure their discretion. That's all.

[34:05] Ya. Um, so I think you mentioned this, but I wanted to confirm. Did you say so neighboring communities um they don't

[34:13] have a local ordinance or do they? They don't they don't have a lo they don't have a uh an actual flood plane separate map

[34:23] separate from FEMA. They some may have additional requirements within the actual FEMA flood plane or other development requirements, but not not

[34:32] that we're aware of that has their own separate set of maps.

[34:37] Okay. Which is why I think this is a great idea, but because we're taking it back, we need to tell That's my point. Director Fontaine.

[34:45] Yeah. And for what they were saying um you know folks when they apply for various permits they don't know about

[34:54] this and they generally the design professionals need to then do revisions as opposed to getting it right the first time. It's not that we don't have this

[35:02] information available invariably folks are not designing to the high court but because it is such a kind or atypical thing.

[35:14] Any other questions? Oh, I just wanted to, if I may, respond to your point about the, you know, taking

[35:22] something away or it appears to be that we're taking away protection and that in the end we're the full force of the Lake

[35:29] County development or wershed development ordinance is still protecting the properties. And there is even is a provision in the Lake County

[35:38] ordinance where if you're close to the flood plane, the freeboard can also be applicable. So that even if you're, you

[35:46] know, you're building a new structure over there, if you're not technically in the flood plane, they'll look at if the flood plane is, you know, close enough

[35:54] to be able to raise these new buildings and provide added protection beyond just saying that you're in a technical flood

[36:01] plane and and have these other uh development restrictions. And so not only that, but the the adding impervious the negative impacts of adding

[36:10] impervious and other development activities are also regulated at a higher degree than than the base level required by FEMA.

[36:18] Thank you. I guess me.

[36:21] Sure. Um going to just ask uh the

[36:27] as far as I last heard um the area on on

[36:32] the map gets flooded. Um and I mean I I

[36:39] are we can we get an update on that on where we I know we've worked with other agencies [clears throat] around the

[36:47] flooding. Uh is is is it possible to I know neighbors have been concerned about flooding. Um, can we get an update on

[36:57] where things stand? I know that I'm sorry on what exactly though.

[37:02] Oh, I'm I'm sorry. I if I'm looking Yeah. No, I I am correct that that there's certain areas on that map that

[37:09] get regularly flooded. I It's a separate question.

[37:13] Um, just but it triggered my memory to to ask about uh I know that uh state rep. Bob Morgan has worked on the issue.

[37:22] Um, and I I I just don't know the latest uh about what residents are facing.

[37:31] Well, the residents that do face that are in the FEMA flood plane and so uh so we continue to to to work through that,

[37:39] but there are just some because they're in the flood plane, right?

[37:42] Yeah. We we've done several things including what he had mentioned we put in back door preventers uh which uh you know stop the sewers from you know from

[37:50] overflowing when there is a rainfall event. Uh we've done that in and around the the north branch in this in this neighborhood. Uh so we've done what we

[37:59] can do from from our side to try to minimize that. But eventually if you're in the flood plane and it over tops the water goes into the flood plane areas.

[38:07] It's based on elevations as he was explaining the base flood elevation. And so those low areas will continue to, you know, continue to fill with more.

[38:17] I mean, I've heard stories of people waiting with garbage bags through, you know, trying to get their kids. We've been with them.

[38:23] Oh, yeah. We've been in We have video of ourselves walking door to door and trying to And you'll not public works is very close there. So we Right.

[38:32] But that's not unique to our community, too. And I guess you should know that.

[38:35] Yeah. So we have, you know, we do meet regularly with our neighboring communities. So there's um you we regularly provide public education to

[38:43] the community for these areas that are in flood planes, what steps that they could do to help minimize water from

[38:51] getting on their property during heavy storm events. We've got our public works crews working, you know, throughout the night clearing storm drains um and uh

[39:01] you know trying to just make sure that water, if anything, is collected on the street and does not go into residential

[39:09] properties. And so there's different proactive work that we're doing. And then um and then the council may recall that we have the agreement with the park district as it pertains to the preserve.

[39:20] And so there is a provision in that agreement that if there is regional

[39:25] storm water management um uh detention or retention that is advanced then we have the ability to use the preserve

[39:34] property to increase the capacity of um holding water on that site. And so that's just another step that we've

[39:41] taken over the years to to help with this issue. But to Director Bannon's point, um,

[39:48] again, they're all in the FEMA area. I mean, generally these residents know that their properties are susceptible to flooding.

[39:56] Yeah, we also changed the law in terms of if people are adding on to their homes, adding impervious surface as part

[40:04] of a development that they're now required if they pass a certain threshold to store that water on site, as you know. And so that also I think

[40:13] has helped to mitigate even though it seems like little steps, it all kind of has been adding up.

[40:19] I don't know if we've answered your question.

[40:21] It uh I might reach out to people I know there to hear if you know they what they're experiencing what they're experiencing.

[40:30] I can give you names. [laughter] Absolutely. the the uh uh I know it it

[40:37] it while they recognize that you know it's not the city's fault um they you

[40:43] know still hope for relief and um yeah so I think part of it is what can we impact and what can't we impact yeah

[40:52] and so to this extent um we want to be transparent we want to say this is what was this is how things have changed but I think we also need to keep an eye on

[41:01] it given what we were just talking about with increased in climate change. Yeah.

[41:05] Using the 500year versus the 100year and recognizing the reality of the situation. So I think it's important to kind of move forward with our policy

[41:13] decision making but to also keep an eye on if things are changing coming back and having a a different conversation if that makes sense.

[41:23] Yeah. Any other questions? Bill, are people comfortable with the recommendation? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. And then the public education.

[41:31] And then the public education piece.

[41:33] Absolutely. And then we'll do this and hope it doesn't break between now and

[41:40] Awesome. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming tonight. Thank you.

[41:45] Um our next item is regarding Ravenia Festival and um recommendations concerning the special license agreement

[41:53] and decoupling operational matters from the current amended development agreement. There's a lot of verbiage in here, so I'm gonna turn it over to Gita.

[42:02] And I want to thank Jim for coming from Ravenia to be available for any questions we might have.

[42:07] Great. Thank you, Mayor. Um, and I do want to introduce and recognize uh Megan Cherry. She's our management analyst in the city manager's office. Um, and so

[42:16] we'll put her on the spot, but Megan has been doing an outstanding job representing the city, working on a variety of different projects. um she volunteered to take on this initiative

[42:25] as we took a look at all the different development agreements that we have with Ravenia Festival. So this was a big lift project. Um certainly as you can tell

[42:33] because we included a summary of all the agreements in the packet. Um we have a recommendation that um we move forward

[42:41] with a special license agreement. Um, so we keep the development agreement and the PUD in place as it pertains to major

[42:48] development issues, but we are recommending um some modifications to general day-to-day operations and we're

[42:56] recommending a special license agreement that we would have some of those provisions reflected therein. Every year

[43:03] we work very closely um with Ravenia Festival and I do want to recognize Jim Schmidt's uh chief director of operations. Um so with Jim and his team

[43:12] as well as Jeff Hayden who's the president um we work with them in advance of the Rivina Festival season um they provide us information and updates

[43:20] as it pertains to their organization and management of the property and then certainly um our interest is um you know

[43:29] ensuring that the impact does not negatively impact our residents and businesses in that surrounding area. So everything as it relates to traffic

[43:38] management throughout the area, the hours of operations, the uh the noise levels and so forth. Um and then we also

[43:46] have a meeting postseason as well and we kind of recap the season and then we look um in terms of the future ahead.

[43:53] So, in preparing for the upcoming season, Megan's going to walk us through just highlights of the current agreements, um what our recommendations

[44:01] are and then subject to your approval, um similar to the last presentation. If you're comfortable, we're recommending [clears throat] that we do have a formal

[44:08] special license as well as an amendment um to the development agreement on the next available agenda that would formalize what we are recommending. if you're comfortable. Okay.

[44:21] You All right. Good evening, Mayor and

[44:28] Council. Thank you so much for having me tonight. Um so, City Manager Newkerk uh mentioned, I will be providing a overview of the current agreement between the city and Ravenia Festival.

[44:39] Um and then along with some highlights of the forthcoming special license agreement. So, a little bit of background first.

[44:47] Um, the city and Ravenia Festival have had a professional and productive working relationship for more than 122

[44:54] years. So, it is quite a long time. And as you can imagine, there have been items that have come up over the years as it pertains to the operation of

[45:03] Ravenia Festival. So in light of that in 2006 the Ravenia Festival and the city entered into a development agreement and

[45:11] the purpose of that development agreement was to really codify and document the many understandings and agreements and procedures that govern the use of Ravenia Festival.

[45:22] Since 2006 that development agreement has been amended eight times with the last amendment approved in 2024.

[45:29] And in the agenda packet, there is an executive summary of all of the ordinances and resolutions that pertain to the development agreement. So that is

[45:36] there for your reference. Um before we move on, I just quickly want to touch base about the municipal admissions fee because I understand there might be some

[45:44] curiosity as it pertains to revenue. So the Ravenia Festival pays a municipal admissions fee to the city in lie of

[45:51] taxes. Um and so that is 5% of their gross admissions revenue. And so annually that's about $800,000 to about

[45:58] a million. Um and for reference in 2025, Rivvenia Festival paid $1,11,334

[46:06] to the city. Um so the terms of the current municipal admissions fee actually expire January 1st, 2029. So is that still a little bit away? Uh we

[46:14] aren't going to be reviewing or discussing those terms this evening. Um but we will be revisiting that topic in 2028.

[46:24] Can I just make one clarifying point?

[46:26] Um, so the admission revenue is in lie of an amusement tax. Um, a revenue festival does pay other taxes as well.

[46:34] Food and beverage tax, business registration, sales tax. Correct.

[46:38] But we're not but we're not talking about that, right? But just for the record, it's not in it's not in lie of general taxes. That's not on the list for today.

[46:47] Correct. Yes. Because that doesn't come up till 2029. Okay. Got it.

[46:53] So back to the you know bookmark right until exactly. So back to the development

[47:00] agreement itself. Um so the reason we are reviewing this agreement now is because the development agreement grants

[47:08] festival the non-exclusive use of the special license area. And so as outlined in the development agreement which was

[47:14] approved in February of 2006 that term for the special license area uh is for 20 years. So that means as of February

[47:22] of this year that has expired. So it's the driving force behind why we're reviewing this agreement now. Um however we are always looking for opportunities

[47:29] for efficiencies. So uh we actually began this review last year um in advance of this kind of expiration of

[47:37] the special license area. Um, additionally, uh, the Ravenia Festival is approaching their 125th anniversary, which is very exciting. Um, and they're

[47:45] going to be embarking on some strategic planning associated with that milestone.

[47:49] So, it is also a great time to review everything, just make sure that we're all on the same page.

[47:58] Okay. So, when I me mentioned the special license area, what exactly is that area? So, it is a strip of the public rightway. Um, and as you can see

[48:06] in the visual there, um, the special license area is the red parts on that visual as well as the green. The green is specifically the entry plaza, but

[48:14] that is, uh, part of the special license area. So, that is the strip of public right ofway uh, that encompasses the Green Bay Trail and the Revenue Festival uses that for their historic main gate.

[48:25] They've got a few box offices and other structures um, that are in that special license area.

[48:34] So, as city manager Newkerk mentioned, uh the recommendation is to negotiate a special license agreement uh with Ravenia Festival. And so, basically, we

[48:42] would be decoupling operational matters that pertain to the special license area from the development agreement, which really kind of covers zoning matters.

[48:50] So, that way moving forward, um we can amend the standalone special license agreement if we need to make changes to the use and term of the special license area.

[49:04] So there are some current practices that we recommend be included in the special license agreement. Um so we will go

[49:12] through those and then there are some new items as well that we'll discuss. So in terms of current practices, Ravenia Festival currently has a designated

[49:19] smoking area for patrons along with an enclosure for refu and recycling and so that use of the special license area is

[49:26] recommended to be included in the agreement.

[49:30] Additionally, there is a security gate at the intersection of St. John's Avenue and the Green Bay Trail. Now, Ravenia

[49:37] Festival [clears throat] hasn't utilized this security gate, but it is important to document its existence uh in the agreement.

[49:44] Ravenia Festival has also restricted unauthorized non-motorized traffic within the entry plaza. And then more

[49:52] broadly, they've restricted unauthorized motorized traffic within the special license area. And so the city would

[49:59] recommend that that be included in the agreement. Um Revvenia Festival would be required to post signage regarding those restrictions. And additionally um that

[50:09] they would provide the city a list of sign locations and language for the city to review and approve approve um before those signs are erected.

[50:18] Um the staff report did mention the establishment of a public demonstration area. Um, but based on some feedback,

[50:26] this will not be formally included in the special license agreement. Um, but we do want you to understand that the

[50:32] city and Ravenia Festival do meet and discuss and identify safe areas for this kind of activity to occur. Um, and that

[50:41] is part of the annual uh operations planning each year.

[50:46] Um, and then finally, there are times where the city either plans or approves special events that do take place uh within the special license area. So,

[50:54] this agreement would formally document the notification process um that the city would will take to notify Ravenia Festival of those events.

[51:05] And again, that's just a summary of current practices that would be recommended to be included in the agreement.

[51:11] So now we have a few new items that we would include in the special license agreement. Um an important one is the term extension of the special license

[51:19] area itself. Um so as I mentioned that did have an initial 20-year term that did expire earlier this year. So the

[51:26] special license agreement would extend the non-exclusive use of the special license area to Ravenia Festival in perpetuity. However, the city can

[51:36] terminate that use um provided that the city gives at least six months uh prior notice to uh Ravenia Festival um in

[51:43] advance of termination or as otherwise approved in the event of an emergency or unforeseen circumstance. And I just want to note that uh typically when there is

[51:52] a special license area uh the city doesn't typically have a term um for special license areas. So this is in alignment with uh current city policy.

[52:01] Um the special license agreement would also stipulate that Ravenia Festival is responsible for the routine and regular maintenance of the public right of way

[52:10] within the special license area. Um and in addition, Ravenia Festival would be responsible for restoring the public right ofway should the city undertake

[52:18] any utility work. Um and so typically when the city performs utility work, the city is responsible for restoring that area to standard and normal condition.

[52:27] However, over the years, Ruvenia Festival has made a lot of improvements to the special license area. So, there have been gravel paths that they've

[52:34] improved with PA bricks, concrete, asphalt. Um, and so that responsibility to restore the area would fall to them.

[52:41] Um, in addition, giving them that responsibility to restore that area um would allow them to really have the flexibility to do that restoration work

[52:49] on their own timeline so that there's minimal disruption to their programming.

[52:55] Um, additionally, Ravenia Festival would like to install some security cameras within the special license area. So, that would be included in the agreement.

[53:03] Um, Ravenia Festival would be required to provide the city a list of where those locations are. And then in

[53:10] addition, they would erect signage um, basically [clears throat] stating that there are cameras within the special license area. And again, they would

[53:18] provide a list of those sign locations and language to the city for review and approval.

[53:23] And then in a similar vein, um, Vinia Festival would like to erect some operational signage just for the benefit of their patrons, their employees and

[53:31] contractors. And so we again would request that they provide a list of those sign locations and uh language for uh review and approval.

[53:42] Finally, Ravenia Festival would like to make some improvements to the sidewalk within the special license area. So,

[53:49] there's about 713 ft of gravel pathway on the Green Bay Trail that they would like to improve um into a asphalt

[53:57] sidewalk that's about 6 ft wide. Um and so that would be included in the agreement. And in addition, they also have some temporary safety ballers

[54:06] within the special license area. They'd like to upgrade those to be crash rated.

[54:09] So, that would also be included in this as well. Uh subject to review, approval, and issuance of a public rightway permit.

[54:20] So in terms of a financial impact, the special license agreement will have a financial impact to the city. As a

[54:27] reminder, Revenia Festival does pay for all police, fire, traffic management, and transit services um that are provided by the city and all costs associated with those services.

[54:40] So in summary, uh we will be embarking on a special license agreement with Ravenia Festival that will incorporate the listed current practices as well as

[54:49] the new items that we discussed. And so in terms of next steps, a corporation council will be drafting uh that special license agreement that'll be on an

[54:58] agenda at an upcoming city council meeting for your review. And then there will also be an amendment to the development agreement. Uh just formally

[55:05] documenting the separation of the special license agreement from the development agreement.

[55:12] And that is the special license agreement uh overview if you have any questions.

[55:17] Great presentation. Thank you. Super clear. Appreciate how you took so much and distilled it down to the critical parts. You did a great job. Thank you.

[55:27] Council member Tapia.

[55:28] Yeah. One clarification. If you go back to the nonmotorized um bullet. Yes.

[55:35] What is that restriction? Where is it?

[55:38] So that is within the special license area. And let me kind of pull. So like the green trail.

[55:44] Yeah. So there would be restriction in the entry plaza which is that green portion but then also more broadly in the kind of portions that are in red.

[55:53] And that's the special.

[55:54] Wait. So non-motorized. So that' be bicycles.

[55:58] Yeah. Yes. But we're restricting bicycles. Bicycles on the bike lane.

[56:02] Yeah, I can speak to. [laughter] All right. I got you, too.

[56:05] Jim, can you come up to the

[56:08] [clears throat]

[56:09] Hi, Jim.

[56:10] Hi. Thanks for having me. Um, the idea here is when we're in operation, um, and we have several thousand people trying to cross from the west parking lot

[56:19] through the green portion of the special license area uh, into our park. There's bicycles. There's people walking dogs.

[56:25] People that are, you know, entering as a patron of Ravenia have been gone through a metal detector. They've been searched and scanned. Pedestrians just traversing

[56:33] a trail have not. So, we're not asking to close the rightway or say for this the entirety of this evening. Nobody could ride their bike or walk down here.

[56:40] We're we're saying, can we hold the pedestrian traffic for a few minutes while our traffic passes and then we could let them continue on their way. Uh

[56:48] it's more of a um an operational, you know, can you give us a few minutes to clear this? Then a a restriction is probably too strong a word to use, but

[56:56] it's traffic management, pedestrian traffic. It's a security kind of concept.

[57:01] Yeah, exactly. We would be doing it with you, but there I'm agreeing with you 100%. It's a serious concern. It's a security.

[57:09] If you think about un un um people who haven't been through security could potentially get Yeah. So if you're going on your bike

[57:17] and you're just going to have to wait a couple minutes somebody's who's going to stop.

[57:20] You would have ravenia security in their you know security uniform. No not Luna [clears throat] our in-house um security. We have a contractor uh

[57:29] called Perar who's now helping with some of this entry scanning. But I like to handle this in-house because we have more control over the behavior of our own staff rather than a contractor to

[57:37] say, um, can you hang on?

[57:39] Can you Yeah. Can you slow down and hang on and let us clear our crowd and we'll let you go on your way. That's also the nature of some of this signage we're contemplating is, you know, event in

[57:47] progress. Please slow down. That kind of thing. Okay.

[57:49] They do that at um Wshrine Arena when the team is coming in. They will put up like literally straps and you just wait.

[57:56] They come in and but but the difference is this is our property. Normally we regulate traffic with our own traffic devices on our

[58:05] property. Here we would be allowing a private entity to regulate our traffic on our property. That

[58:12] on our bike just on our bike put and and alternately I would say we are restricting traffic too. This will

[58:21] work both ways. If we have a large crowd coming and there's a bunch of bikes zooming by, we'll hold our people and say, "Wait till the bike comes by." It's it's a little bit, you know, in the

[58:28] moment, but yeah, we're going to do our best not to say, uh, you know, all of these people walking down the trail with their strollers and their dogs and and their

[58:36] families, give us 20 minutes to let the parking lot fill. We're not going to do that. That's not what we're supposed to do. Right.

[58:41] I think it's a good compromise, too, because you don't want to restrict it restricted, but you do also have Yeah, that's I reacted to restricted.

[58:48] Yeah. Okay. And then another followup.

[58:50] Can you the sidewalk? What can you show exactly which sidewalk we're talking about?

[58:55] Yes. So the best way to do this point since I'm tall um from here which is the entry plaza going through the underpass

[59:03] from the west lot starting at this red box and going down to the end where the buses drive off uh drop off I should say on the west side of the existing uh

[59:11] roadway. We're asking for six additional feet of paving. And that is to line up people who are waiting for buses at the end of the night so they're not standing in stone and gravel and puddles and dirt

[59:20] and mud issue. You have you have asphalt and you have gravel next to each other. So widthwise six feet

[59:28] six feet wide 6 ft wide t by the entire length of this that 713 odd feet that uh that point.

[59:35] But will the rest still be gravel from from uh to the west of that additional six feet towards the tracks the gravel tracks? Yes. because people

[59:44] run there and walk there the rest of the year and if it's all paved that's not what we have heard from our residents.

[59:53] There's still about I think it's it's inconsistent but 3 or 4 feet of of gravel to the west of our what we're proposing which that dimension was

[1:00:01] chosen based on um where the railroad right ofway starts. There's also a fire hydrant in the way and some other utilities that we didn't want to we didn't want to mess with. It's just wide

[1:00:09] enough for somebody, you know, with a cooler want a cooler weight in life is what it is.

[1:00:14] Yes. So I I know it's outside of what you presented, but I'd like to take advantage of this opportunity to say, can we talk about the pathway from the

[1:00:23] end of that red line all the way to the Ravenia business district? business district because there's that is dark

[1:00:31] and and especially after a concert we have so many people walking there and they're walking in the dark and sometimes it's muddy because of and I

[1:00:39] would like to see how we collectively between the and also to raceide station because that's where theoretically Uber is supposed to be picking up

[1:00:48] but how can we then use take advantage of this conversation to also address those issues because it's about access I

[1:00:56] mean it's in the spirit of here. It's just extending beyond what you marked here. And u you're interested in having lights or some sort of dim light.

[1:01:06] Yeah. And nothing elaborate, you know, just lights at the ground level that can illuminate where the path is like ballard lights that Exactly.

[1:01:13] is that um Yeah. Thank you, Council Member Tapia. So, we had um we had lights on

[1:01:20] the path as a capital project. It was not funded, but it was reflected in the capital plan as a priority, too. So, just a note kind of in there. It was not

[1:01:29] funded to advance forward. Um, we actually completely removed it from the capital plan because we had heard from it was

[1:01:37] reviewed by the bike walk group. Um, I think our transportation advisory group and eventually the city council is removed. So it's not to say that we can't add it back, but as it pertains to

[1:01:46] Ravenia Festival, so at the time, you know, and again, most recently, um, you know, their the number of concerts where

[1:01:55] they have customers really using that path are about 20 days a year. Um, so, you know, we wouldn't really look to

[1:02:03] them to say you pay for all the lights along the path because it's mostly our guests and, you know, our public that is using. But if it's a priority, then we

[1:02:11] can talk about adding it back to the capital improvement. But wasn't it like a $4 million? I mean, it was expensive. $4.5 million.

[1:02:19] And that's why I don't think I don't want to put words in your mouth that you're asking for a $4.5 million project. You're asking for a simple lighting that might help us.

[1:02:29] So, so I appreciate the spirit of this conversation. Given that we need to have close session before we go into the city council meeting, I'd like to ask us to

[1:02:37] put this in the parking lot for the the capital improvement plan. I appreciate you seizing the moment. Um but I think we Yeah, but I think there's a place though.

[1:02:45] I mean, put it aside, right? Very looking access.

[1:02:51] I think it's a fair thing to say, hey, can we expand the conversation and and involve Virginia in this conversation and see if there's some more collaboration not for the capital plan for Virginia?

[1:03:01] Yeah. Not the capital project.

[1:03:04] So again, I'm going to ask that we hear from our colleagues first and if we still have time, maybe come back to this and if we don't have time, come back to this.

[1:03:11] Yeah. I just want to make sure you didn't misunderstand what I was saying.

[1:03:14] Yeah. That wanted the capital conversation. I wanted you want to have Ravenia participate as partners in keeping the path safe.

[1:03:21] Gotcha. Thank you, Marissa.

[1:03:23] Uh so that was actually my question about the restriction for the um non-motorized.

[1:03:28] Okay. Uh, and then and then just one followup though, that that's going to be communicated, I'm assuming, to all everyone that goes to Revena and to this

[1:03:36] other city so they know, oh, we might have to hold for a couple seconds here. Sounds like signage.

[1:03:41] Yeah, our Yeah, the immediate area, we were thinking about doing that with signage. So on the approach, you know, but if there's another way to communicate this, maybe at our preseason community meeting or something like

[1:03:50] that, which we absolutely we we dipped our toe in this a little bit last year informally just to say that, hey, we're going to be looking closely at this and we brought it up in that meeting with

[1:03:57] the community and there were questions um and I think we satisfied the concerns then, but I'd be happy to present that again if that's a good uh forum.

[1:04:04] Yeah, thanks. You might also want to let the biking community know if people are doing, you know, dusk rides down the

[1:04:11] trail if they're going to have a little bit of a hiccup when they get to this point. Good. Thanks, Annette.

[1:04:18] So, I had a No, no, it's Annette and then it's you and then it's John. Thank you.

[1:04:23] Thank you, mayor. Um, so I had um two questions. One, thank you very much for taking out the public demonstration

[1:04:31] thing. Yeah, I think since we took it out of our own the last thing we want to do is have anything to do with yours.

[1:04:37] Again, under the first amendment, they can stand on the sidewalk.

[1:04:40] That's your business, but I don't want to be regulating it. So, thank you very much. Um, so that was number one. Um, my

[1:04:47] second I don't like the word perpetuity and it means forever. And, um, while I know there is a cancellation clause and

[1:04:55] I understand that, I really like it when things align. And I have no problem with the fact that for example Rabinia's agreement is due for discussion in 2029.

[1:05:06] So we're going to be looking at a lot of things anyhow. And even though this is now its own agreement, assuming we move

[1:05:13] forward, which I have a feeling everybody's very inclined to do because this is a very logical thing to do. I

[1:05:20] would rather than saying all our license agreements are in perpetuity or whatever. I'd rather have Ravenia main

[1:05:27] contract, license agreement, development agreement, whatever it is, everything aligning. So, one thing is a suggestion

[1:05:35] that we have it come up and be consistent with the development agreement. And the second thing is I

[1:05:42] wanted to know in terms of cancellation right now it is the six months to cancel this agreement. What is our policy with

[1:05:51] the development agreement? If it's 90 days, if it's two years, I'd like to see consistency between everything.

[1:05:59] Respond. We don't have our development agreements are not drafted with termination provisions. They're drafted with provisions that allow us to revoke

[1:06:07] if there's a violation. Um, and we can do that rather quickly. Okay.

[1:06:12] Um, rather quickly being 90 days, 30 days. I mean, we have to provide notice of the um a perceived violation

[1:06:19] and if they fail to uh remedy a repair, we have the ability to revoke. That's how we've drafted development agreements.

[1:06:26] So, would you want it to be parallel to that? Because that sounds Well, those do have a term on them.

[1:06:31] Well, 30 days is pretty extreme, but um so no, I agree with you. I think that's too extreme, but I do think it should have a term. I don't like the idea in perpetuity.

[1:06:41] So, just and and certainly we can do that. Yeah, I mean the council can set the policy. Just in terms of our rationale, special license agreements,

[1:06:49] for example, we allow homeowners if they put heat coils in their driveway, for example. We give them a special license agreement. Those don't have terms.

[1:06:59] [clears throat]

[1:06:59] So, what happens is we're just giving them a license to use our public right ofway. If we need if we have a water mane break, that license agreement

[1:07:08] outlines [snorts] how it happens in terms of what we do for restoration. So that's what we were aligning it because the items under the special license

[1:07:16] agreement align more with how we do other special license agreements. That's that's kind of part of the rationale. If you want to keep it the same, it's

[1:07:23] certainly one partner agency. We can, but we were being consistent in our practice in that regard.

[1:07:30] And and that makes a lot of sense. And it's also different when it's an individual homeowner and it's, you know, there there's so many that there would

[1:07:39] be too many license agreement termination dates to keep track of. It would be crazy for sure.

[1:07:44] But that's why I would rather have every agreement because in this case, I think it's exact opposite.

[1:07:49] We have a great partner. It's a big partner. We don't have another partner like this. So, let's keep all of their

[1:07:57] agreements on the same time frame schedule so we know what's up rather than having it going on in perpetuity.

[1:08:03] So, it it's not about mistrust or distrust. I just think that I'd like to make sure we're reviewing all aspects of

[1:08:11] our relationship with a partner this great and this large on an ongoing basis. So, that's why I bring it up. Support for legal elegance.

[1:08:19] Yes. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? No. Okay. You me?

[1:08:23] Thank you. And I am glad that council member Ludau went before me. Uh my apologies. Uh okay. Didn't see that

[1:08:32] because uh it was good to hear your comments and I agree the words in perpetuity jumped out

[1:08:41] at me as well. I wasn't comfortable with that terminology. Um and I just thought to add that. Um, and to council member

[1:08:51] Tapia's point, the mayor, uh, he and I were at the Ravenia business district business forum where a business owner spoke to the problem of getting from the

[1:09:00] restaurants on Roger Williams to Ravenia. The darkness and um, apparently the bus service doesn't stop. I I'm not

[1:09:07] sure if that's true or not. Does it It doesn't stop at Ravenia station. It it it sounded like No, it comes from the Highland Park station and goes to the Revenia bus.

[1:09:17] there's just issues with getting people from their meal to to uh Ravenia Festival and and um they spoke about

[1:09:26] that and I thought it was a good point and and also the um lighting the path I agree with whether it's capital plan

[1:09:33] combination of working you know together with Ravenia I think that'd be a great idea to light the path um my question that I originally raised my hand about

[1:09:42] is uh about the district 112 uh organizations like the District 112 Education Foundation fund run and I

[1:09:49] think it's after um No, I don't think it is after the last Ravenia concert. It is. Oh, it is after. Okay.

[1:09:56] Intentionally. intentionally um because walkers and runners fill that special service area and um the the

[1:10:07] signage would not inhibit anybody from um yeah just to give a little more background and context on that

[1:10:15] particular event. Uh we've been hosting hosting um the district 112 fun run. You said the west parking lot. Uh a little bit of the interior plaza public

[1:10:23] restrooms for maybe 15 years plus or minus um as a community outreach kind of a favorite of them. We charge them very

[1:10:31] little like $500 for some staffing costs and other than that we just we just let it happen. We coordinate on schedule with them every year. We staff it with a few people make sure that they can get

[1:10:39] in and out barricades, traffic cones, whatever they need. So, it's a partnership we have with them, but nothing we're contemplating here would get in the way of that. We're happy to help.

[1:10:47] It's not going to make them feel like, oh, well, I operations won't be happening for two for a couple reasons. One,

[1:10:54] they're not doing it during a concert, right?

[1:10:56] And also, if it's after, I think my concern was I mean, signage is not coming down. The signage is going to stay, but they put up their own signage.

[1:11:03] They'll say, you know, here's the signup table and here's the I I I just wouldn't want people to think, oh, I can't go down. Uh we have yet to to address the specifics around

[1:11:11] signage, but my feeling is that whatever we do should be seasonal.

[1:11:14] Put it up for the summer, take it down so there is no confusion in the offseason. I don't want to leave it there and have people, you know, contemplating whether or not they should be going down the trail. So, thank you. Right. That's great. Great.

[1:11:24] Thank you, John.

[1:11:25] Yeah. Yeah, I mean I already kind of touched upon it and it was really more in response to council's question, but I got sort of the rundown from Jeff on on

[1:11:33] site and and pictured myself there and understood the challenges of all these people going through security and then

[1:11:41] how easy it is for somebody to kind of infiltrate that. So, I'm really happy to see that that policy as part of this. I think it's super important.

[1:11:49] Thanks. Where are you in perpetuity?

[1:11:52] Um I I I think Council Member Little brings up a good point and it's good hygiene um to have it uh co-terminus

[1:12:03] with other Yeah.

[1:12:07] [laughter]

[1:12:09] Andre perpetuity. You okay what he said? [laughter] I was fine with how it was laid out, but

[1:12:18] um as long as we had the six months if we needed to cancel or change anything, but um that's how I felt. But it seems like the majority wants the the term.

[1:12:26] I'm with you. But if it is important to people, then we can do that. So, okay.

[1:12:31] Um so, are people comfortable moving forward with what's been proposed? Yeah. Great.

[1:12:38] So, we'll we'll go back and we'll look at lighting options. Um but I guess you know we'll come back and we'll share the

[1:12:45] information with the council. I guess e either way it's a capital project.

[1:12:50] Yeah. And and because they're going to do construction we rather than a peacemail approach. Oh did this and then we came up with the lighting plan and

[1:12:58] the lighting plan and the path doesn't quite work with the sidewalk either functionally or or aesthetically. We should think about a a design that sort

[1:13:07] of brings it all together. That's my worry. We often do things peacefully when they go, "Wait, these things are quite fit because it came through two

[1:13:15] different channels." We may also want to look at doing it seasonally as well. I can just tell you from the dark sky crowd without the

[1:13:23] leaves on the trees and people not walking when it's 30 below zero. Do we want to have a path that kind of, you know, so I think there are some alterations.

[1:13:32] Yeah, that's great. So, okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. [laughter] Awesome.

[1:13:40] Thank you. With that, I am seeking a motion to go to close session under 5CS120

[1:13:49] C11 and six. Uh and six.

[1:13:52] Thank you. I was going to do it, but you got it. Okay. Second.

[1:13:56] Uh no, you need to make [laughter] what she said. Fine. The motion stated on the record.

[1:14:02] The motion to stay on the record. Is there a second?

[1:14:04] Second. Thank you. We'll declare all the vote, please. Council member center. Hi.

[1:14:07] Council member Bman. Hi, Council Member Ro.

[1:14:09] Hi, Council Member Tapio. Hi.

[1:14:11] Hi, Council Member Lower. I 65. We will go into close session.