This evening we have some special guests --------- with us as as well. And um first order of business um a reminder and I need to remind myself turn your cell phones on silent um so that they don't disrupt the meeting. And soon as I do that we can
stand and say pledge of allegiance. I aliance 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.
>> So, um, again, welcome everyone this evening, um, as well as those watching on YouTube later on. I'm going to start out with some introductions. I'm Lisa Whan. I'm the mayor. And to my left are council members Kathleen Refkin, Peter Vickery, Claudia Lesey, and then Brian Govern. And on the end, we have our city
engineer Allison Falsky with WSB. Then we have our director of public works, Gary Peters. And then we have our assistant administrator, Paula Bowman. To my uh right, I have um our city administrator, Jasper Krugal. Brian Grim is our finance director. And next to Brian, we have David Ael, who is our
community development director. And then on the end we have our chief of police uh Craig Squires with that. Um and then do we have anybody remotely participating? >> Yeah. Uh >> and Meerhoff and Meerhoff is taking
notes. She is our city clerk. Sarah Sansa >> and Sarah Sansala is our um city attorney. They are both um participating via um internet, whatever it's called. All right. You can tell how old I am. All right, with that um we'll move on to
approval of the agenda. Are there any changes or you wish to make otherwise um is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> So move. >> Thank you, Mr. Revkin. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Govern. I'll give it to you.
>> Mr. Govern, all those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed? Motion passes. So, next we move on to our special presentations. Like I said, we have some special a special guests here this evening. Marge Beard is uh from Three Rivers Park District. She is our district uh commissioner. Uh welcome,
Marge, and thank you for coming. >> Thank you very much for the warm welcome, Mayor. I appreciate being here. So, I am Marge Beard with Three Rivers Park District. I represent I'm serve as a commissioner on the board and I represent district 1 and and district 1 includes the uh residents of the city of
Minatrista. So, it's my pleasure to be here tonight. >> Do I just click Oh, look at that. Here we go. Okay, so we're going to start off a little bit of background. Who is Three Rivers? So, Three Rivers was um it's a park district
that was established in 1957 by the state legislature. So, we are a standalone local unit of government. We are run by a board of seven commissioners. We have five elected commissioners and two appointed commissioners. And I serve in one of the
elected roles. We have over 25 parks and park reserves, 27,000 acres of land, which is over 36 square miles, 175 miles of regional trail. And regional trail is typically that trails, the trails that are outside our parks
that connect our parks together. They're easily identifiable because they're paved and they have a yellow dash line. So, if you're riding around anywhere and you see that yellow dash line, you can pretty much count on that's a Three Rivers Trail. In addition, we have another 300 miles of trails within our
parks. And those may be paved, but many times they're uh dirt trails or grass trails or somewhere if you want to put on your hiking boots and get out there, we've got a place for you. We get 16 million visitor visitors a year, which is quite
significant because that's more than twice our state's population just in our three rivers parks themselves. >> Three times. So what's happening at Three Rivers? So the most exciting thing that has happened to us in really a long time was our uh opening of our Mississippi
Gateway Regional Park. Uh the Mississippi Gateway Park is on the Mississippi and Brooklyn Park. And you may have known it years ago as the Rapids Regional A Rapids Dam Regional Park. We changed the name and we embarked on a a a significant effort
to really redevelop that park. There was a ton of community um community input on that and I'm happy to share with you a couple of highlights. The first on the left is the gateway center. So when you approach uh the gateway center really serves as a visitor center as well as a nature center. There's a lot of
classrooms inside. There's a downstairs area for us to move boats in and out to move kids and school groups in boot wind boots to get them out in the river. The whole purpose of having a park on the Mississippi River is to get into the river and get people exposed to the river. So, we're very excited about the
opportunities there. In the upper left, uh if you go to the park, you'll see a uh area we call the mini Mississippi, and it's just that it is a reconstruction of uh looks like a river. It has water that flows through it, and it really the target is the young
toddlers. They're really too little to get into or really close to the Mississippi. and it has proved to be a very exciting place for them to be. I'm I'm glad we we built that. >> Is it as muddy as the Mississippi? >> No mud there. No mud yet, unless it's brought in from somewhere, but it it's
really been a hit with the little kids and the parents. >> And then on the bottom right is our treetops trail. So, it's just what you imagine. It's a a a elevated walkway that connects to our gateway center. Comes out the gateway center and you're elevated in the trees as you um you walk
around and you come out go out to a vista where you really overlook the um wetlands and it's the I've heard from the birders that they really like being able to be up there and closer to the birds. So, it's been a great success for us.
closer to Minatrista. One of the big projects we completed is at Lake Minnetonka Regional Park and it was the restoration of the Schmid farmhouse. Um the um Doug Schmid approached us, his
greatgrandfather Frederick Schmid. Uh this was his farm and his farmhouse and we uh embarked together on a project to restore that. It's self-guided and it's available and open now. So, next time you're cruising through Lake Minnetonka Regional Park, uh you know, take a stop
and take a walk through the park. There's some historical markers in there. It's very interesting. >> The next uh project closer to home here is the improving of the water quality at Whale Tale Lake. And Whale Lake is the lake just over yonder um associated with
um Gail Woods Farm. And we um have done an alum treatment. And alum is this substance. I'm not a water expert, but a substance that binds to the phosphorus and makes the phosphorus land on the bottom of the lake and it clears the
water of the lake. We've had great success with it. Right now, our numbers are looking good. We have another alum treatment scheduled for um spring of 2026. And if the lake can hold the numbers we have now, we would be able to in two years be able to take it off the
impaired waters list throughout our state, which is quite an achievement and it's hard to do. So, it's something we're really working on here locally. The next project also sort of natural resources based uh is at Carver Park and it's a partnership we have with Ducks
Unlimited. There's a shallow lake. I do that. Oh, there's a shallow lake um that would drain and it it's ideal for a water foul ducks. Okay. And um we installed a water control mechanism that allows staff to control the flow of
water into this very shallow lake or you might think of it as really like a wetland that you can you can see the difference. On the left is the project once it was complete and on the right is what it looked like in the spring. So it quite filled in and you can see that um
ducks would just love that. But today I'm here for the excitement to make sure everyone uh in Ministrista knows about Fall Fest. That's this weekend. That's October 11th and 12th from 10 to 4 at Gailwoods Park. It is a free event. It is outstanding. It is one
of our um highlights of the year and it's a great way to showcase the city of Minatrista as visitors come come through your city on their way to to Gail Woods. There will be free. Um the barns will be open, the animals will be out, there'll be music, there'll be food trucks. Uh we
also have um sheep hurting dogs. There's sheep hurting trials. It's fantastic. It's very interesting. I went to that last year. I didn't really know anything about it. It was quite quite interesting. And it's just a great day. Hopefully the weather will be cool but hold out uh nice. I drove through Gail
Woods on my way here and I see they've already got the uh parking all lined up like staff have been working really hard >> and the sign sign is out. The sign is out. I saw the sign. I saw the parking. They're, you know, getting ready to go and it's going to be quite an event. There'll be vendors there as well. Everything is free.
>> What's the time? 10 >> question. >> It is. Thank you. Very good lead there, council member. Um so it's this weekend the 11th to 12th, 10 to 4 at Gail Woods. I encourage you to stop by and uh bring a neighbor or two because it's going to be a great time. >> Thank you.
>> So, and with that, Mayor >> March, I just want to make one comment. Um so, the Whale Tail um actually the project there was a um partnership between Piner Creek WHED and the city of Minatrista. So just um wanted to point that out that we uh love the work that
you're doing out there and it's a great partnership because we really appreciate um as you know whale well you might not know whale is wholly um incorporated or wholly surrounded by Minatrista. So it's wholly within Minitrista. So we really appreciate those partnerships. >> Yeah, for pointing that out.
>> Marge, can I ask you a question? >> Sure. >> How does someone reach out to you regarding like the >> what did you call the lake whale lake? You called it a I'm sorry. You said it was on a certain list. >> So, the impaired impaired. How does
someone reach out to you about a lake they think is impaired or or a body of water? Do they just call? >> So, you can certainly call me or send me an email. I won't have the answer, but I certainly know the people who do or they know the people who do and we be would be able to get you an answer. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah, it's it's our pleasure. Um, we pride ourselves in partnering with our cities and other organizations to really um, we can't make things happen on our own. So, >> yeah. Thank you so much. >> Get that answer for you. >> Thank Thank you, Marge. Any other questions? So, I'll see you Wednesday
night. >> See you then. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, so, um, I don't think we have anybody sign up under persons to be heard. Um, so we'll move on to our consent agenda items. Are there any we have to remove? I I did have a couple
questions about item D. >> D is uh approved claims. No, the adopt certification ABCD unpaid >> adopt certification for unpaid utility fees. You want to remove that for discussion? >> Uh >> we can do that. >> Okay. Yeah. Be a brief discussion, but
>> All right. Um so otherwise we have A approve work session meeting minutes from September 15, 2025. B is approve city council regular meeting minutes from September 15, 2025. C is a resolution to approve claims. Then we'll move on to E. E is a um resolution to
support the acquisition of 6801 County Road number 15 by Three Rivers Park District. F is a resolution to approve the front yard and Lakeshore setback variance at 3275 uh County Road 44. NG is a resolution
approving the Minnesota the Waca wetland replacement application for West Tanka High School improvements. and H is accept the grant agreement for funding of a ballistic shield and transport bag. Is there approve um a motion to approve consent agenda items A, B, C, E, F, G,
and H? >> So move. >> Thank you, Mr. Vicky. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Miss Refkin. Any other questions? Hearing none. All those in favor signify with I. I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion passes. 5. So, um, Mr. Govern, you had a question
on the adoption of the certification. >> Yeah. And uh so I was just reading through it and uh I see that there's a 5% peranom uh interest rate that goes in there and a $30 administrative fee and I just wanted to raise is do we feel like
that is sufficient because I know the prime rate's about 7 and a quarter 7 and a half right now and it looks like about half the I half the properties on this list instead of looks like they're just paying their bills this way and I assume that we want to discourage that. Um,
yeah, council member Governor, we've the 5%'s been a pretty common. I mean, with the rates being where they are, I mean, I guess depending on, you know, if you're looking at the prime rate or more like a Fed funds rate or something, I mean, somewhere, you know, obviously between four and, you know, like you referenced 7%. I mean, so I think we the
5% interest and the $30 admin fee seems to be pretty fair in what we've charged annually, I guess, as far as for these delinquent accounts. I mean, they these accounts have already been hit with, you know, late fees. Yeah, correct. >> So, this would be on top of that >> be on top. Yeah, basically it's just the
time that they're paying then with their property taxes through because it's going to be certified there. So, then the interest is just for another 14 months through the 2026 property taxes. So, >> but they have to pay all of this this amount. It's not spread out over 20 years or anything like that. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's one Yeah. basically a
one-year assessment or whatever to get it caught up next year or >> Okay. And then the and the county doesn't charge us anything for that collection. >> Um they have like a small like nominal fee they they charge for special assessments for the list we send down,
but it's it's pretty much that's sort of what the admin fee covers some of that plus some of our staff time. So >> Okay. >> Okay. >> That was all I had. >> All right. So then would you like to make a motion to approve the um item number D, which is adopt the
certification for unpaid utility fees. So move, madame mayor. >> 2026 taxes. Okay. Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Miss Refkin. Any further questions? Hearing none. All those in favor signify with I. >> All those opposed. Motion passes 5. So
next we'll move on to business items and we have um consider approval of the auth of the authorization of a 16th police officer. Is that number one? Yes, it is. >> I'm gonna hand this over to Craig. Craig. Uh chief. All right. Uh, madame
mayor, council members, uh, as you know, we have an officer out on long-term leave, and we expect to have another officer out on child leave early next year. Uh, with the upcoming Family Leave Act, employees will be able to take up to 20 weeks of leave in
situations such as child birth and serious medical conditions. As a 247 police department, we would like to prepare for this act and just as importantly for future growth. uh from this from basically the above uh the
16th officer conversation was started. Uh a 16th officer would help us cover these long-term absences, prepare for growth, and allow us to have at least two officers working in the road at all times when we were fully staffed and not accommodating sticker vacation time.
This would of course increase officer safety, patrol coverage, and make our response times even faster. but also allow us to distribute added duties that police officers have across the board. Uh onboarding a police officer can take months. So adding a 16th officer
position will help us strategically stay ahead of any unforeseen shortages while still increasing coverage. So I thank you and I'll stand for any questions. >> Thank you, Chief. Um so I guess a question I would have and maybe you would bring this back since this is an
unbudgeted item. Um, could staff then bring back where we would and we can't increase the levy. So, I'm I'm in favor of this because I think safety is is well worth it, especially in a large community, a growing community. Um,
where would we get the money from? So, you have any idea of what that would look like and where it would come from? >> Yeah, I think um finance director myself can kind of tag team this. I think tonight what we're what we're looking for is just to see what the appetite is.
um to authorize a 16th officer. What that would then allow us to do is to post the position um and see if there's any candidates out there because, as you can imagine, they've been here for three and a half years. We've had a long time >> pull up uh you know, personnel at the
police department for three weeks out of those three and a half years. So, we've it seems like we've always had a police officer um queued up to be hired. Um what the 16th officer authorization would do would be allow us to post it now. um and and see what is out there for candidates. Now, as far as the
funding mechanisms, I mean, we really have kind of three levers that we can move around. Um and this could be in the form of a budget amendment in 2026 since, as the mayor alluded, we can't move the levy up. Um but what we'd have to look at is potentially using fund
balance, potentially reducing the street CIP or the equipment um levy allocation. So, those are the three ones that are, you know, have funding in there that maybe we can move down the road, but keep in mind, anything you do related to this, we're going to have to make up for
it in 2027. So, we're going to have to uh include that in the full 2027 budget. So, um we don't know who's out there. We don't I don't think um Chief Squires has any candidates out there, but um in the meantime, it would it would be nice to
be able to post the position to be able to see what's out there. And then if we do get close, then I think we could have conversations about where city council wants to get the funding from. Um because we can't really the only thing we could do in 2026 right now would be to um move some of those things around
which might be premature because that candidate may not actually exist. So, I just wanted to make the um council aware that we'll have to do some shifting if if we would like to go down this path, which I really would recommend we we consider. As you know, before when we
tried to hire, it took us what a year. I mean, it it takes a long time. So, we might not even get anybody on board. And that's why I think u Mr. Krugal is suggesting that we first see if there's candidates out there and then we address um the budgeting of it. But keep in mind
roads CIP or fund balance might have to be impacted or maybe a little bit in all three. >> The only context probably on fund balances we know through the budget process this summer we're already projecting to be at our minimum per city council policy in the general fund. So I don't know if that's the best option
really either I guess or council would have to yeah >> have discussions I guess or >> yeah so we'll >> just to know that we'd be going going below what we >> is there perhaps a chance maybe even that this officer that is on maternity leave may not come back
>> there's two different so the maternity leave is a husband >> okay >> um the other one is on extended leave >> yes so so yeah madame mayor members of council So, the the second person on leave won't be on leave till probably
around January. Um, but the first person on leave, yes, correct, is on long-term leave and we're not sure. >> They might not come back. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Right. I think we have to start looking for >> Okay. >> Ryan, you're okay with that? >> Yes, I am.
>> Okay. Is it possible to push some things into the next year to raise money and instead of >> well digging into a balance if >> that's why I think we are looking we could shift some funds from the um um CIP and into a street
>> push it off into >> No, I think it's a good idea to start looking too. >> Okay. Okay. All right. So, just just to be clear, um you will likely see a job posting >> for a police officer and uh
>> so it won't be a surprise to you. And then if we start getting a candidate, then we will start talking about um what this means because it could be >> months, who who knows? Um but we'll we'll keep communicating um and working through the personnel committee to to keep this moving along. So, you will see a job posting here probably in the next
week or so. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, so next we'll um consider work out on duty policy. I think that's the chief again. >> It is. Yes. Thank you. Uh, madame mayor, members of council, uh, we we had kind
of talked about this at a a work session before and then, um, uh, brought it before committee with some really helpful suggestions. Um, but overall the the Minotaura public safety department places a high value on employee wellness which is the foundation of why we're
bringing this policy before you. Work on duty is not only good for physical and mental health but it's also an excellent retention tool as most of our surrounding hip county agencies have such a policy. In creating our proposed policy, we
reviewed work out on duty policies from West Henipin, Weisetta, Maidina, South Lake, Eden Prairie, Plymouth, and Hopkins police departments. And we also had our policy reviewed by the city attorney. An accompanied waiver was also uh reviewed by our city attorney. This
policy takes public safety first and foremost into account. The policy states that only one officer on duty can work out at a time. If two officers are working out and it it basically means if two officers are working out, the one
officer in the gym still has to be in uniform. Obviously take his vest off and um take some of the gear off, but it's going to be right there in the gym. Um and there must be no calls in pending. All paperwork needs to be completed before working out and the radio must be
monitored at all times. Any time spent in the gym is deducted from the officer's existing paid lunches or breaks. So there'll be no additional break time or lunches given to the officer in this policy. If officer chooses, they can use some time to work
out and some time to eat. But anytime they're working out is already time allocated to them per our contract. A policy like this allows an officer to gain health benefits rather than watching TV or whatnot during breaks >> or eating.
But yeah, they can eat quick protein shake. Uh officers can still work out after duty, but with trainings court and 12-hour shifts, this can be difficult to do and still get proper rest. While there are some risks to working out and getting hurt in a gym, law enforcement
leaders feel the benefit of working out do outweigh the outweigh the risks. So, I'll thank you and stand for any questions. >> Thank you. >> So, the personnel committee, we had this for two meetings. We asked lots and lots of questions. Um I had chief go back um with regard to work comp and our
exposure on that. Uh we will have exposure for work comp. Um if they do allege an injury um even if they sign the waiver, it's still there. Um the big so I believe the consensus was we're going to do it or we recommended
approving it um on a trial basis and then having chief come back to us in about six months with who's using it, how often they're using it, and if anyone is abusing the policy. Sounds good. >> Okay. So, um you need a motion to pass this policy.
>> We do. And and also just a a point of order. We'd like a motion on the 16th officer, too. Um and >> Oh, you Okay. >> So, you can do you can do them. >> We'll do both. >> Yeah. >> All right. That'd be fine. >> Um Okay. So, I'm looking for a motion to approve the authorization of a 16th
police officer and to um consider the workout policy on the workout on duty policy. Is there a motion to approve those two items? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss Lacy. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Govern. Any further questions? >> We're looking forward to healthy police
officers. >> All right, with that, all those in favor signify with I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion passes. So, next we're going to move on to our water treatment plant. We received uh three bids. We have Aaron Wulmer here this evening with us uh to go over that and
some discussion, I understand. So, what we're going to do here, there may be some people that have some that are here this evening that might have a few questions. Um, Erin is going to go through his uh presentation. The city council can ask him questions and afterwards I will give a brief um if
anybody has some brief questions. Uh you can uh come forward and ask those at that time. So, with that, Erin, take it away. >> All right. Madame Mayor, members of council, uh I'm back again. Um I don't really have much of a presentation. It's really mostly just uh providing the
results of the bid opening from last week. So actually two weeks ago, sorry. So we'll we'll review the bid results. Uh we'll talk a little bit more about the bid alternatives that were included and then some other considerations and discussion. If you can read that, but uh we received
three bids from contractors in the industry. We did have four contractors attend the pre- bid. So, one contractor decided not to bid, but uh we did get three. Um so, we were happy with uh the three that we received. Magny Construction was the low bid. Um and and
all contractors provided the correct paperwork for for the bid opening. Um so, Magny uh their low bid was $21,329,000. Um they provided a so there was two two bid alternates. Bid alternate one, which
was that quick uh removal of the clear well. So we have about 400,000 gallons um outside of the building footprint below ground that provides finished water that we would
pump into the distribution system. So bid alternate one was to remove that from the bid uh and just build the facility with a smaller clear well that would be inside the footprint of the facility. Um, so the results for that, if I'll back up,
>> how much is the um, Clearwell inside the facility? It's >> about 200,000. Okay. >> I think total I think it's actually 660,000. >> I think it's 650 or something total. >> So um, >> so it's about 200,000 250,000 in
internal to the facility. Um, so to remove that, uh, Magne Construction offered a $1.65 million deduct to the contract. there was a bit of a discrepancy when they entered their bid. They entered it as a positive number and we instructed them to enter it as a
negative number. Um, so it's not great, but we could work through that if we needed to, but uh at this point we're not recommending that we move forward with awarding bid alternate one at all anyways. We would just keep the base bid. Um,
>> so the the base bid is 21 329 including that includes the clearwell. Yeah, we >> don't want that. we would, you know, we would reduce the price by 1.6 million. >> Uh, bid alternate two was the additional architectural treatments on the outside of the facility. Um,
that so this is what the uh additional architectural treatments would look like. Um, and uh, so this was 281,000 I believe for bid alter number two. That would be on top of the base bid cost that we would pay in addition uh to add
the the larger bumpout on the upper portion and change some of the texture and coloring uh to the pre-cast. So that was 281,000. >> Okay. >> So our engineers estimate was 20 million. So I was wrong unfortunately.
Um I don't like being low but it does happen once in a while. Um, so the the range between the three bids was really pretty good. Uh, 21 uh.3 million up to 24.7 million. Um, so we're we're happy with the the spread on the bids, which
essentially means it was a good plan set. They were able to accurately bid it. Um, but we were slightly lower than the three contractors. So overall, jump back.
Erin, are you seeing project estimates coming in higher than you expect? I mean, is is this unusual? Is it >> projects are hard? Underground work is >> starting to get a lot better because of the slowdown and some of the development, but um but facility work is
still there's just not that many contractors out there that do this work. >> That was my next question. Um because we you had four contractors, one decided not to bid it, so we have three. Have you ever worked with Megan Construction before? >> Uh yeah, actually we're finishing a
project with them right now. So they're building a 10 million gallon per day. >> Okay. >> Plant uh very similar to yours. >> Okay. >> Uh that they're currently in the process of finishing. >> So they're going it's a little behind schedule, but overall they're a very good contractor. We've worked with them in the past.
>> Great staff. Like likely the staff that finish Ramsey will will transition >> over here. And then when you talked um with them uh or I'm assuming when you talk with them um what are you proposing for a start time? When would they be starting? >> So I we have not been able to get a
clear uh schedule from Magny yet but but I did talk to Rice Lake Construction who is number two and they they indicated that they they did not intend to start this fall. They plan to start in the spring in the spring. Um, and given how close we are to winter, unfortunately, I
I don't think maybe it would start this this fall either. So, >> so they would start in the spring. >> Likely we'll spend this fall and winter ordering equipment, getting our paperwork in order, reviewing submitts uh so that they can start um strong in the spring.
>> Okay. All right. What does that do to the overall time frame? >> Uh nothing. It was included in the So, we are very clear about substantial and final completion dates in the bid documents. That hasn't changed. We actually we got we shifted it out one month because of the bidding delay. Gave
them credit for the the bid opening delay. Um but they're able to start it as soon as we issue a notice to proceed. >> So when do you think this plant would be online up and running? >> So the current substantial completion date I have a schedule towards the end I
can flip to. Um just >> so our our revised uh substantial completion date is January 30th of 2028. So that winter uh with a final completion date of July 1st. >> Okay. >> So substantial essentially means it's of beneficial use to the city. So it's able to operate in previous water. So we
would have it available for uh the summer of 2028. >> Okay. So then another question um if we we have some other uh developments on the horizon potentially um have you been
made privy to those and um um how are we how would we be doing in terms of water um quantity um for those developments? So, um, you probably can't read this, but >> no, we can't.
>> On the left, the chart on the left are the projections that we used to develop your long-term kind of water supply planning effort. >> Um, and I can read it. You're currently our current your current estimated population in 2025 was about 4,500
people. Um the development >> that are in water that are want to make that clear that are in water >> are connected. Um the development that I've been made of aware of is about 400 homes. >> Okay. >> Um so at a 2.7 per capita uh per unit that's about a thousand
people. >> Okay. >> So that would if we add those additional thousand people that would put us at about our 2030 water demand projection uh based on on our original projections. So,
>> no, but I'm thinking if they come online or start coming online, obviously before then, they're not going to be completely built out by 2030. But when they start coming online, we'll have sufficient um water capacity >> if you build the water plant. Correct. >> Okay.
>> If you don't, uh I would recommend uh reconsidering the So, uh frankly, um wells four and five are are not heavily used wells. uh your water your current water plant is
already stressed on in summer demand. Uh we have wells eight and nine that we've drilled but they're not connected and they don't have the ability to pump into the system. So uh really your system is is essentially maxed out without this water plant. >> Right. And and sometimes I know that
Gary is tearing out his hair because he's worried that Yeah. So um yeah. And then um just kind of for um public information um this will remove me maganese and iron and we'll be able to meet the um Minnesota health standards.
So okay um council any other Okay. So the other thing I want to point out is um we have been trying to get um bonding money from from the state and we've tried and tried and tried and um we haven't been successful for various
reasons. one reason this past year they did not pass a bonding bill. So, um so if um if you wanted to wait um and um try and get money from the state, we would have to wait um quite a while and
probably have to completely rebid this and and then and then here's the here's the catch. um we would it might be more expensive because it probably would be more expensive because then we have certain obligations that we have to follow um based on state statutes. So
there's a lot of other steps you have to go through and then you also have to buy um there's a lot of different purchasing options and or or requirements. So it might actually drive the the cost of the U project up. Um there have been
projects where they have requested bonding money and they've received the bonding money but because of the requirements it didn't make any sense to actually take the bonding money because it actually put put the project up higher than what the money was that they got. Um if that makes any sense. So, um
I don't think we should wait because if we wait, it's going to put the project out yet another year, >> um or two. Um and we don't know what the U market will do and what pricing will do. So, >> and there's no guarantee we get any
money, right? >> Can I add one item to that? >> Yes, please. >> Uh so, regarding the bonding, uh so, so uh state bonding, there's state bonding money and federal, >> right? uh federal we would have to bid the project in a unique ways and we didn't do that because we weren't
eligible uh in in state bonding money uh actually Ramsey the project we're finishing with Magny right now they they awarded it without state money they can they started construction and then they actually applied for state money after the fact okay >> and they were awarded I think it was about $3 million
>> um and as part of that we actually change ordered in prevailing wage requirements to the project to allow them to accept that funding Okay. >> So, and Magny was the contractor that worked through that with us. >> So, um essentially, >> um we can continue with this project,
award it >> and you can still seek funding money >> and if you're lucky enough to receive it, we can work with Magny at that point >> and we can see how much money that they're going to that we're going to get. We might get 1 million, which might not even make sense at that point. But you're right, we should we'll continue.
you can continue and you just have to modify the contractual requirements of the project to meet state requirements. So you have to meet prevailing wage requirements which this project does not because it's >> city funded. Um
>> going off of memory the change order >> uh additional cost to the project to to modify it to achieve prevailing wage was about $600,000. >> Okay. So the 3 million >> was worth it to them to make that modification. And that was about a $32
million water plant. So if we roughly scale it, >> this is 22. So we're talking four or 500,000 probably. >> Okay. >> Um >> so >> so we'll keep trying. And I know um I've been contact and Jasper has been in contact with Senator Anne Johnson Stewart and with our representative
Andrew Meyers. So and I know they're very supportive of it. So we'll we'll continue. We'll keep trying if they have a bond. I think they're talking about a bonding bill. So, >> yeah, it's Yeah. Um, if you don't, if council is okay, um, I'm going to ask the audience if they have any questions
and then, um, and then we'll bring it back to council. Um, is there anybody that has a question regarding the treatment plant? If you do, >> I just want to make a comment. >> Okay. Can you please, you're going to have to come to the podium and just state your name and address for the
record. I'm Jim Worththingington, 4634 Newcastle Curve. Strange name, a curve. But anyhow, we moved here from Oklahoma a year ago. And we were very concerned about the original proposals and we talked to Gary and Jasper. We had a meeting. It was nice to see you respond.
Okay. Did we get everything we wanted? I don't know. But it's nice to have it happen. Okay. Because some places you get shut out. You get don't get to hear from anybody. So, we just want to make that comment. We hope you proceed with it. And when we get all the burm up and all the trees up y >> people will say what is that building? I
can't tell what it is. It's behind those trees. >> So that's all I want to thank you. >> Thank you. And uh yes uh we do we do listen to our residents. So um we don't always you don't always get everything you want but uh we we tried our best and I think uh this is a really really good
solution and I think um I think you'll be happy you'll be happy to get really good clean drinking water too. So, um, so let's talk about the Oh, anybody else? Okay. >> Kelly Arens 4654 Wolfberry curve. Uh,
I'm curious, the until 2040 sticks out to me like, and then we acknowledged it could only last us until 2030 with additional development. So, would we potentially be having to build another one of these? >> Okay, I'll let Aaron know. I think
>> 30 is without this. >> Yeah. Maybe Erin could answer this. I He's talking about the um storage capacity. Okay. So, storage capacity without the external storage capacity, it's called a clear well, the external one. Then we
would be out of storage capacity in 2030. And then and then we would have to start thinking about building um a another tower somewhere. So, and that and again, Erin, you can correct me if I'm wrong. We're probably looking at somewhere between three and $5 million
for at that point probably for another water tower. >> Okay, more. Sorry. Um so, uh we're we're thinking the 16 $1.6 million is a pretty good deal and this will take us out to
2050 50. But again, it depends on development and how much comes and and we'll be keeping an eye on that. But it should take us out into at least 20 240. And in the meantime, we also will be rehabilitating
the old Kings Point water tower. I should mention that. And I think I I think it's on our schedule for 2028. Is that correct? So if we can do it sooner, we'll do it sooner. So, is there that this parcel of land where this plant is
going has space for that new tower that will eventually be needed? And would this be a site where it would be built? >> No, cuz that's why we're putting the clear well in so there's not a tower in your backyard. >> So, so if we do nothing today
>> Okay, hold on. I'm going to ask you to sit down because if he has to come he has to come to the microphone so it's it gets on um Yeah. Go ahead. >> So So if we if we do nothing today and we just provide let's say we put another well in and we pump water into your
system, we will need additional storage to accommodate water use in 2030. If we build the water plant as we're proposing with the the clear well and the additional pumping capacity, that will push this need for storage out to
at least 2040. If we can reduce our peaking factor, it'll push it out even further. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um the water plant is sized for 2100 gallons a minute. You can see on that graphic, again, I apologize for the small text, but the the green shaded area is the additional treatment
capacity that this water plant provides. The gray shaded portion is what Kings Point can provide. The blue line at the very bottom, that's your average day demand. That's how much you guys use on a winter day. Uh, and then the green line that kind of goes up diagonally, that's what you use on a peak day, the
hottest day of the summer. >> So, as you can see, we're starting our our peak day is now above what Kings Point can provide. And Woodland Cove Water Plant will uh provide enough water to meet your peak day demand. Um, and
actually as if you look at that green shaded area where the green line intersects the top of that green shaded area, that's so we're able to meet your peak day demand at your projected growth rates until60. >> Um, as far as additional storage once we
get to 2040, if you would need additional storage, we would likely not put additional storage at that park site. Um, we we don't typically want to put elevated storage near a water plant. you put it as far away from water plant as possible. So maybe that's good news, but um so
>> bad news for somebody else. >> Go. We're hoping we wouldn't need anything until 2040 and it will be in a distant portion of the city. >> Well, I think Erin, correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't we talk about doing an elevated storage tower um in the central
area here? I thought it was over >> We did um up just right over here. And we we've also talked about um underground storage as well um just to avoid the >> the community conversation about a water tower, >> right? So that again it's in the future, but >> and it would not be on the Woodland Cove
site. >> No. Okay. >> So >> All right. All right. >> Uh for what it's worth, I think the aesthetic uh you called it addition number two or something formal that I don't remember uh would be well worth
it. I think there's um homes going in that will not be protected by the trees and burm. I'm personally very appreciative of the trees and burm, but there are a lot of houses that are being built looking headon into this thing and um until the trees get big enough. I
think it would be a meaningful to the community to not have to look at the original proposal. >> Thank you. All right. Thank you. Um anybody else? >> Anybody else? All right. So, um, council, let's talk about the, um,
aesthetic, the, uh, 281,000. I'm gonna I'll start out because, um, I'm not in favor of spending another $281,000. Um, I did talk to Aaron about doing some
other type of aesthetic improvements and we could talk with the um with Megan and see what options we might have if it's the same architectural features that is in the original one, but maybe the colors or the stone or something is
slightly different without any extra cost or very very slight extra cost. Um, Brian did a I think you did a ran some numbers and it's like $21,000 a year. 21,000 a year in additional annual payment. And we just got done talking
about just an $11,000 additional payment for um for uh salaries and stuff that we didn't we thought was too expensive. So this is a very very expensive um endeavor in my opinion and we are really the water users are are going to have to
pay for it and um the current users as well as future users. We're going to do everything in our power to make it as feasible or as nice as possible. But to spend yet another $281,000 in my opinion that's just strapping the
water users with with higher with even even higher fees than what we already have to do. and we're going to have to raise our fees. So, that's that's where I'm coming from. I think we can make it look nice, acceptable. It it's a building. It's it's an industrial
building and um I think it will look okay as an industrial building. We'll soften it up with with some landscaping um and maybe some other colors or we'll see what what we can get for for the base price. That's just where I'm coming
from. I think just the darker colors in this version just make a big difference. Just the paint color can make such a big difference than the I think the first one we saw was white or cream or something. >> Well, it's creamy, right? >> Very creamy, right? It's darker really. Just And that's what I was talking to
Aaron about. If there's >> if there's color options for the for the bricks that are shown here, then maybe we can go with the darker one or whatever. So, we can look at look at those to make it a little more attractive. >> I agree. Especially when you consider
that the $281,000 is actually $426,000 over 20 years. And since I'm going to be paying for that, I'm a No. >> I was going to say it's not 200 something. It's 400. >> It's $426,000, which is, you know, my house.
>> I I respectfully disagree with my colleagues. >> I uh >> we like the respectfuls. It's uh I see it's basically a 1% increase in cost to do right by a neighborhood that's going to have this building in their u
basically field of view forever. Um I so I think it's uh it's worth it uh to for the small incremental cost to make it uh look homey as part of the neighborhood. >> Oh. >> Okay. So, if we could do it without 281,000,
like, you know, if we could change the color and make it a little warmer with >> Well, I wish we could have all the people from that community in here and say, "Okay, are you all okay with the 400,000 over x amount of I mean, well, >> well, I think the big thing is the
project's already over budget. This would be great. I mean, if the project was under budget, yeah, no problem. It's over budget. Odds are it's going to use the contingency fund. AE2s went over budget on the first round likely, possibly probably possibly going over
again. Like there needs to be cutbacks and yeah, that's pretty, but the one that's on Kings Point Road now looks just fine. And as long as it works, we're going to put trees in. They're going to grow and we will Gary's going to make sure they continue to grow and they don't look dead like the ones on Woodling Cove Parkway and Wooding Cove
Boulevard. And it's it's a water treatment plant. It's not a school. It's not a home. It needs to function. >> Come on up, Peter. Hold on. No. Sorry. No, no, no.
Sorry. I can't help myself. Hold on. Um, Peter. >> Yeah. I it's an industrial building and it always will be and uh I would rather put money into shielding it with more plantings and things like that that uh you know long term
will make it disappear. Uh but I think you know this really doesn't do much for for the aesthetics of it. So >> it still looks industrial. >> Yeah, it's that's just what it is. So I think shielding it is a much better
route than spending money on facades. >> All right, one more comment. I think this gentleman here and >> Yeah. >> My name is Dave Carl. I live at uh 4622 Wolfbury Curve. I don't want to go over bridges we've already crossed. It's not
a good use of anybody's time. So before my comment, I'd like to say thank you to Jasper and Gary. You guys have always been responsive, been very helpful. We appreciate it as a neighborhood. Thank you. You're a asset to our community. The one uh comment I had because I know
we're talking aesthetics and it is more money and it's really I'm I'm I don't I won't see the plant from my house, but I know my neighbors will and none of us anticipated it being there. Again, that's a bridge we've crossed. But if you would consider the money that we
saved by not putting in the road, going through the wetland, building it up, doing all that, instead going a shorter road, there has to have been some savings there. >> There really wasn't. >> It was like $60,000. So, it's it's not as much. >> So, we we had to go >> 60,000.
>> Yeah. We had to go through um more um engineering >> and and that was a cost. And and there's still a cost to to change that role, too. So, by the time everything is said and done, there was maybe a 50 I thought it was 5050 $60,000 savings. So, we'll
but like I said, I think we'll look at the um the coloring and see if Erin, can you bring up the other one, the plain one, because and I don't know that you could put this up there, but if you had coloring like this on the other one, I
think it would make a huge difference. at the very end. >> And that's why I'm saying rather than spending the 281,000 um we could probably see look at if now just if you can imagine that lower part
is darker. um the whole thing would just change and and look um much much more um less a little a little less industrial. So if we we'll work on that
>> I guess um if I may kind of provide some some thoughts the because the alternative architectural was bid as a bid alternate if we want we we have to make a decision tonight on base bid and the alternates and make
that decision we can't go back and award >> right right exactly >> um if we like pieces of the alternate but maybe we want to scale that back and find a middle ground between bid alternate and the base bid. It would be best to award base bid plus the alternate and then we work with magny to
to do cost reductions from the from the bid alternate. Um if we award the base bid and then do additions based on the construction contract, we'll have to work through markup and things like The only thing Aaron is with
the alternate there's a lot more bumpouts and that's more architectural versus just so would they they would have to go back in and do I mean it would have to be built different? >> I mean like the base bid does that say
what color it is like what the concrete and the brick look like? >> There are general color selections because we're not sure what manufacturer we're getting from the pre-cast. We don't finalize that yet but we have a general range. So, I mean like the general range can be there's wiggle room
in the general colors. >> Yeah. And again, at this point, we we have a better idea of who our manufacturer is actually going to going to be. So, we would need to sit down with them and look at what real options do they have. Um, so I don't know how
dark we can or can't get with the base bid manufacturer, but we would need to have those. >> Where's Go ahead. Go ahead, Mayor. Um, if you just showed this in the exact two colors of the other option too, this paint, not saying I mean the other
option is just darker brick and darker paint. >> Sure, >> this shouldn't be more for just a color change on this. It might depending on on what's available is what he's saying, but we can look at that. >> There's only a range of standard colors typically. So, if we go with something
that's non-standard, uh, it I I'd have to ask, right? I don't want to overpromise what we can and can't do. So, >> okay. Um, >> well, worst comes to worse, can't we just spray paint it? >> Yeah, >> that's what I was going to say. >> And you can paint pre-cast. So, a lot of the, um, >> a lot of the large big box pre-cast
buildings you see off the highway, >> it's it's a gray panel that they paint. >> Yeah. >> Um, and mostly it's for speed of construction. You can paint pre-cast. Just keep in mind that's now maintenance down the road. Yeah. Um, that's why sticking with a concrete color really minimizes your long-term maintenance.
So, >> just my two cents. >> Well, if we go we don't do the alternate bid, we can still look at colors. And if we don't find anything, then we could still look at painting, >> which might not be the best alternative,
but it's better than >> 280, >> not 280,000. So, all right. I'm good with the base bit. >> All right. So, um, we want to award, uh, do a question,
council. Do you want to award the treatment plant bid to Magan Construction? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. So, do I have a um a motion to award uh the water treatment plant bid to Magny Construction
without Wait, hold on. You have to know what we're going to be um with the um alternate one but not alternate two. >> We don't want alternate one. Alternate one takes out the clear. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. It's the plus and minus thing. Okay. I'm sorry.
>> Just the base bit. >> So, the base bit and um not not removing the clear and not doing alternate two. >> So, moved. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Is there more discussion?
You feel like you're in deep thought, Claudia. >> Well, I stop thinking I'm done. >> I'm done. Brian think Okay. >> So, Madam Mayor, if I may, there's a resolution that is set up for you. >> Okay. >> With that combination, it's it's res
>> It's page page 101. It's resolution uh 85-25. >> No, it's not 101. >> It's If you're on the one If you're on the new one, >> 68. No, that's not I think it's um >> but it's um it's resolution uh number 85-25
and that's what what that does is >> um awards the base bid without alternate one >> and alternate two so 21 329 >> okay >> great >> as you said okay so the motion was made
>> approve resolution number 8525 for the base bid without alternate one or without alternate two Okay. >> And second. >> Second. All right. Any further questions? Staff, we're good there. Okay. All those in favor signify with I.
>> I. All those opposed. >> Motion passes 50. And we will work on the aesthetics. We'll work on that. >> All right. There you go. Um, so now uh we move on to we have to call for a public hearing on our street reconstruction bonds. This is a little
different than what we've done in the past because we've always done the 429 uh bonds which are um then you have to assess at minimum of 20% of the pro of the project costs. These are bonds where we're not some of the bonds are not going to be um assessed or there's not
going to be assessments. So um do you want to >> Yeah, madame mayor and council. So yeah, this is um yeah, unpack it and there's a a resolution um associated with that uh resolution number 8725 that basically states uh you know through the chapter
475 bond process we're doing for the 2026 street projects um we need to call for a public hearing on our street reconstruction plan and the date that's been selected for that would be our council meeting on November 3rd at 6:30 p.m. Okay,
>> we publish that in the paper here to uh notice that and and have that on that that date. >> All right, thank you. Any questions? Hearing none, then is there a motion um calling for the public hearing relating to the adoption of a street reconstruction plan and issuance of the
bonds uh for November 3rd at 6:30 here at city hall. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Mr. Governor. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Miss Refkin. Any other questions? Hearing none. All those in favor signify with I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion passes 50.
So next we're going to move on to install a four-way stop at Lotus Drive and Sunset Lane. Is that you, Miss Bowski? >> Yes, Madam Mayor. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor Whan, members of the council. Um, so staff has received numerous uh complaints and requests uh
for a four-way stop at the intersection of Lotus Drive and Sunset Lane to the north, Wolf Bur Curve to the south. location is shown here on the map. Um on the next slide, uh it shows some of the issues that we're encounters encounter.
So this is westbound Lotus Drive as we approach uh Sunset Lane and and Wolfbury. So there are three monuments within Lotus Trail there. Uh that's impeding some of the uh the sight lines. And then on the next slide, we show
eastbound Lotus Drive. So, as you're coming around the curve there, um, Sunset Lane will be to the left, Wolfbury Curve to the right, and, uh, pedestrians and vehicles are having difficult time seeing this eastbound Lotus Drive traffic through this intersection. And here's another, uh,
perspective looking, uh, from Sunset Lane. So, this is looking to the to the west on Lotus Drive. So, we see there's some the trees, there's some decorative grasses. So there's a number of items um that are impeding the site distances and the the curve of the road is is also
hindering the site distances. So we had a traffic engineer uh take a look at this. Uh the the traffic engineer did recommend that a four-way stop be installed. So there's already a stop condition on Sunset and Wolfbury. Um, so the proposal for uh council this evening
is to consider installing the stop conditions on Lotus Drive in both directions to make it a four-way stop. In addition to that, there would be some advanced warning signs uh two permanent ones. And then we'd also have um some temporary signage uh to alert drivers that there's a change in the traffic
control ahead. And the cost of these signs is uh just over $500. And then there would be public works time to go out and install the signs. So, uh, we are included in the packet is a resolution, um, should the council, uh, want to, uh, have those stop signs
installed. >> Thank you. And then, uh, so we discussed this at the work session and I also recommended or asked if we could also do some crosswalk, um, striping, um, so that people can so that drivers can be aware that pedestrians may be may be
crossing. So, um, any other questions or comments? >> Just striping. No flashing lights, right? Just striping. Just striping. It It just makes a a a vehicle more aware that there could be pedestrians crossing and it'll just make it safer.
>> If I may have a point of clarity on that intersection, if we have it up there, do we want four crosswalks on there? Um, >> you only have two. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Not direct pedestrian crossing. >> Yep. >> Traffic into a grass area with no landing >> with no ped ramp or or island there. So,
just so you know, I wanted to point that out. So Gary, you would go from um the east side of Sunset over to the west side and then from the west side or where? >> Correct. That's the only two directions you can go. You cannot put a crosswalk into an area with no landing.
>> You just connect the sidewalk. >> You connect it where the sidewalk connections are east west and then the north south. >> Okay. Okay, that's fine. >> That you can do. >> Okay. Yeah. All right. Um any other concerns or questions? Okay. Otherwise,
we're uh looking for um um a motion to approve the installation of the four-way stop at Lotus Drive and Sunset Lane and Wolfbury Curve. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss Revkin. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Govern. All those in favor signify with I. I.
>> All those opposed. Motion passes. I didn't ask for comment, but I'll take one quick comment. We didn't think you would oppose. >> No, thank you. Thank you foring this. My name is Venus Williams and I am at 4542 sunset lighting. Um, so yes, I really do
appreciate this. Just curious, how much more would it be to do the lights at the crosswalks? Is that significantly more? >> I'm not sure, but that's not on our docket and it's tonight. You got more
than what you asked for. So, all right. All right. >> Don't push you up. I'm just kidding. All right. Um but yeah, and there um and we can look at that at a later date, but um I think right now we're going to put in stop signs. There's going to be lights
on the stop signs. There's going to be crosswalk striping and uh we can look at um further enhancements at a later date. So, all right. All right. So, next we'll move on to uh staff reports. >> Um thank you, Madam Mayor. I I don't I
don't really have anything. Um, we are going to continue working with um, uh, Representative Meyers and Senator Johnson Stewart and I've reached out to both of them today and um, Senator Johnson Stewart is looking to potentially meet next week and um, Representative Myers, it's kind of an
ongoing constant conversation about bond bonding. So, we'll continue that. Hopefully, it sounds like they're looking at a billion dollar bonding bill is what we're hearing right now with 600 million going to local government. So, if that actually happens, there might be a chance. So, um, one thing I will note,
I think I sent emails out about the LMC open house, the Lake Mitonka Conservation District openhouse. If anybody's interested in that, please let me know. If we end up having more than or three or more people there, we just got to notice it. Um, same with the Gillespie Center. Um, 25th anniversary. >> The 25th.
>> Um, it's on the 25th of >> Are you going to be there? >> I am. >> Okay. I can't. I know. If there's anybody else that's go that that is going to attend that um just let me know and we can notice it accordingly. That's all I have. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um any other staff? Do we have um
planning commission meeting this? Okay. Um anybody can can somebody go? I can't. I will be out of town. It is the 28th. Monday the 27th. I can do it. >> Okay. Kathleen can do There'll likely be
a parks commission before that too. >> Okay. >> So, which is at >> 6 o' 6 o'clock. >> That's fine. >> Okay. >> As long as we can get a forum, we we will do that to do our CIP and Right. Well, the annual stuff that >> Okay. Y So 6 o'clock and um then 7
o'clock. So Kathleen will be there. Thank you. Thank you, Kathleen. Um reports. Ryan, anything? >> No, madam mayor. >> Thank you. >> No, madam mayor. the Gillespie 25th anniversary on the 25th. >> Okay. >> Tickets are $25.
>> All right. Should be a nice event. It should got a liquor license now. >> All right. >> And >> no reports. >> No reports. And um Peter and I attended a personnel committee meeting about police officer, the work crowd on duty,
the wages, and then you, myself and Jasper attended the fire partnership meeting and we discussed the pension and that was basically just a broad overview and then we will be
discussing it more on the October 21st meeting which I will be attending. Yep. >> Yeah. So, it's um >> slow moving. >> So, what we have to do is or what has to happen before we can even continue any more partnership fire partnership
meetings is we have to um figure out how to um they're slightly different. The two pension plans are slightly different and so they have to be the same. So, we're trying to figure out how to make them equal and you know it can be done. It's
just um going to take some time and some um some maneuvering. So um we're we're still working on that. And then um yeah, I attended the Minnesota Mayor's Association annual um fall get together and it was very well attended and um
very interesting. Uh we had uh the speaker was um about um if you have issues on your council or you have issues with residents, how can you um kind of come to terms I guess is the
best way deescalate a situation. So but I said we're pretty good here. So um we don't have to deescalate very often. So um but that was a really good meeting. It's a good networking opportunity and so on. and then um fire partnership
meetings and and I will be um out for a little while. Um have to take care of my 93y old mother. So um that's all I have. So I guess that's it. If there's a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved.
>> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Vicky. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. You miss Part: 2
uh 2025. First order I'm going to um say who's all here. We have uh Chief Squire's here, David Ael, Brian Grim, Jasper Krugal, myself, Lisa Whan, council members Kathleen Refkin, Peter Vickery, Claudia Lacy, Brian Govern, um Allison Falsky then and also Gary Peters
and Paula Bowman. And then we also have Renee Newman. Hey, I got that right. And and Angela. Angie. Do you call Angela or Angie? Okay, Angie Bull. So, with that, uh, we have a number of items on the agenda. We
have the 26 salary discussion, the water fund budget discussion, hard scrabble update, and then, um, the four-way stop at Lotus Drive Suns uh, Lotus Drive and Sunset. I'm going to hand this over to >> myself, >> Jasper first, and then after Jasper, if
you have any questions of him, but I'm going to hand it back to um, Kathleen. she wants to make some comments and then we'll have discussion and so take it away. >> Yeah. U Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh members of city council, uh this is an item that was uh discussed a couple
times at the personnel committee and as a reminder from the personnel committee is uh council member Ruffkin, council member Vickery. Uh so we had some good discussion. Um the assistant city administrator was also in I think on the second one of that one. So, um, but what we were discussing is, uh, just
basically our pay plan in general, um, and more specifically to the 2026 budget is the cost of living adjustment that city council controls in that 2026 budget. So, in the memo, um, you can kind of see a brief history. In 2022, we
adopted a pay plan um a compensation plan um that had a gradeep schedule very similar uh to some of our comparable cities. Um and and all the employees that are non-union are placed into that uh that grade step plan. Um you can kind
of see how it how it works. There's 12 grades, 10 steps, and then based on the steps um each step is either between 2 and a half and three and a half%. Um the idea with that was to incentivize longevity um some of our more senior
employees to incentivize getting to that 7 8 9 10 step. So um that's in the packet for you to look at. The one that you see in there is the 2025 um what happens in 2026 just so everybody's aware is uh whatever the cola is that
the city council adopts all these numbers in this grid move up that percentage and then that's what the new new pay plan is for 2026. Uh what's in the budget? I'll um one more thing about the pay plan. uh the
the target uh of where we want to be within our market. It was 90 to 110% and and part of the reason that we have 110% is because we have some um long long tenur employees that um we indicated that we wanted to you know make sure
that the the pay plan got to that level so that they would be able to fit into that pay plan well um when we adopted it in 2022. Um the the one big aspect that we kind of or one metric that we look at uh as far as the annual review of the
pay plan is where our employees fall within the market. And that's that kind of the average market or what percentage of the average market. In 2022 when the plan was adopted we were at 103%. So, that's looking at all of the employees that are non-union,
where they're at compared to the other um comparable cities and comparable positions. Um, and that's basically been flat since then. Um, in 2025, it's we're at 102%. So, it's a little bit lower, but uh pretty much flat.
Um, let me just kind of go through this. Uh our comparable cities if people are are looking at this um are generally Corkran, Dayton, Deep Haven, Madina, Mound, Orno, Shorewood, Victoria, Wakonia, Delano, and Weisetta. Um you
kind of see they're kind of centralized in this west western metro kind of exerb area. Um with a couple exceptions, you know, Weisetta's a little bit in a little bit more and Wakonia's out a little bit, but they have their own kind of little economy going on over there. Um
some of the data that was requested for you know us to us the developer find um is basically a little bit more of a deep dive into what other communities have on our comparable side as far as pay plans go what they're looking at for cola in 2026 and what they're looking at um for
the step increases. Um, so I in in the packet you can kind of see that Corkran, Shorewoods, Spring Park, Dayton, Weisetta, Wakonia, Mound, Madina, and Minatrista are all kind of showcased here. All of those cities including ourselves have the gradeest step plan
and all of them have um some sort of cola adjustment annually. And you can kind of see in here the differences um between those cities um kind of varies you know a little bit between you know 5 1/2 to 8 and a half or 9 and a half% something like that. Some of those like
Wakonia I'll just point out have some market adjustments in them too. So um but for the most part it's a pretty pretty similar pay plan to what we have. Um also included is a piece of information that uh Brian got when he was at the GFOA conference. ABDO, a
financial um institution that does kind of consulting for uh municipalities and other things. They they do a survey themselves. I've included that that has a lot of some of the cola stuff that that we've discuss that we're discussing tonight um from not only Henipin County communities, but kind of all over the
state if you're kind of interested in that. It's just more more information. Um, I want to say the 3% cola that that's proposed has a cost of about I'd say what did I say in here? 63
$3,000 to total of which about half and half is between enterprise funds and the levy. So just if as you're talking about this um you kind of know what those metrics are and those levers that you can you can use. So, um, Council Member
Refkin also included some some data that, uh, is in here kind of from the the spreadsheet that we use ourselves to kind of do the analysis. Um, I don't know, you can explain it probably better than I can if you want. So, that's that's basically the data that we we
provided to the personnel committee. Um, from our perspective, you know, our general analysis year-toear, it's pretty much the same as last year. The recommendation is just to to keep it in that um keep the play pay plan going the way it is. Uh because of just where we're at in the market. It's pretty much
where we are were in 2022 um and we're following. I'd say if you look at the data maybe a little bit behind some of the other communities that we compare ourselves to. So that that's all I have. That was the information that I provided to the the personnel committee. Um >> okay. >> And then yeah, there's some additional
information I think council council member Ruffkin would like to talk about. >> Okay. All right. Um, so just overall, like I think Peter and I both agreed, like instead of calling it a cola, we should start calling it a market adjustment because it's really not a COLA. >> Yeah. Um, second, just so everyone on
council's clear on this, like everyone, no matter job performance, anything, they get a step increase in July, unless they're already at step 10, and then they get a market adjustment January 1. That's how the pay plan's set up. It's not based on performance, longevity, and anything.
It's just you move up every year. Um, I'm not recommending any changes to the actual pay plan. The steps, all that is the same. I'm not recommending any of that. Um, the reason that I started looking at this was that Jasper brought up some concerns about wage compression. And so then I started doing a deep dive
into it. I looked at comparisons. I looked at all the information that I continued to ask Jasper for. Um, the biggest thing is if you look at the wages that since the pay plan has been implemented in 2022, they go up approximately 20 $200,000 per year without adding staff, which means by
2028, we will have added over a mill almost a million dollars in payroll without adding new staff. And I have for everyone the email that Brian sent me, which breaks that down. And I threw out obviously 20 the 24 to 25 was higher because we added it. But
if you take out the new salaries, it's $200,000 per year without adding staff. That's a lot. I mean, that's that's a lot of money for a city our size with that it's all paid for by residents. um when you're looking at neighboring
communities, that's great, but it's not really helpful because it's it's ours and what affects us. And if you look specifically at our pay plan, which starts on page 12 of the packet, we we're we're high. Um, all of the
positions are within neighboring community ranges except for maybe chiefs, the director of public safety. But even those numbers are slightly skewed because some of them don't have a range like the low for say um South Lake or that's what SL is, right? South Lake.
>> Y >> yeah. So their low is 84. So they don't have a range. So the scale just has the salary for both of those. So even that is slightly skewed. And in fact, a few of the positions such as the director of finance, the community development
director, um, deputy chief, public works, senior planning, etc., they keep going, all exceed the max range, which if you look at starting on page 12, just for ease, the what I did is if you want to I don't know if you want to pull it
up there so they can see it too, >> but um, so like for the first one for Jasper's actual wage is $83. The range for the average is the bottom line and I added a 3% cola just to blank it because some are doing less or more or whatever it might be. So that's the new range.
And if you do a 1 or 2% cola to Jasper salary, he's still within the range. And that holds true for every single position. And it would hold true even with a 0% adjustment, which I'm not advocating, which I'm not saying. I'm just using it as a point of reference
that everyone is paid really well over market in several positions and we can't sustain this long term. That's that's the big takeaway. We we can't keep we can't sustain it. Um the page 21
in the packet is where I broke down the differences. So um the current page pay scale 22 is a 1% market adjustment. Page 23 is a 2% market adjustment and then page three would be the 3% market adjustment. Um
I I think we need to take a hard look at whether or not we can afford to keep doing a 3%. I I don't personally think we can. When I saw the numbers that's when I told Jasper I'm like we need to bring it to council. It needs to be on a work session. Everyone needs to look at it and everybody needs to see what it is. Um, and then I did so which isn't in
the packet because I just did it today because my brain just doesn't shut off. If we do the 3% if we do the 3% cola so Jasper like just the top grade 12 step 10 it's currently at 88.85 85 if we do a 3% that's what
would be Jan one then in July with another with step increase assuming it the top salary just the bottom corner one goes up to 9151 like that it's it's a lot of money and it it's just compounding. So it's not
about the levy it's not about the $21,000 it's about the compounding of it as it keeps going and $200,000 a year in salary increases. I don't know, Peter, you want to add some because you've been privy to all of my ramblings at the personnel committee.
>> I don't know if I can comment quite such detail, but appreciate you doing all the detail. Um yeah, I mean I I think uh the last few years there's been um quite a u increase in inflation and so uh wages
have gone up quite a bit and um I think that uh we responded very well to that that I think um years past we behind uh and now I think we're solidly uh there in fact as you point out we're maybe a
little ahead of the game. So, um, so I I feel like we're in a good spot now. Um, but I I think, yeah, if we continue at this rate, we are going to, uh, incur just costs we can't afford and and, um,
I think we'll actually be ahead of, uh, uh, everyone else. So, um, so I that's my my concern that it just, uh, that if you compound at 6% a year, that that's just point out. Well, let's let's do
this because um you're looking, you know, 3, four, 5 years ahead. Um I think um and these are a lot of numbers and I don't necessarily disagree that we can't keep doing this, but what we have to look at is the current market and where
are we at in the current market? In the current market, we're at 101%. So, we're right No, let I get to finish. I get to finish. Um um so we need to look at where we're at in the current market and where is our competition and who are we
who so if we have an opening in in in one of our departments who are we up against you know because there aren't as many people applying for these jobs that used to be. We used to get, you know, 20 years ago, seriously, when we had a job
opening, we would get 15, 20 people. And I see Paula, you understand that this is how it used to be. You'd get 15, 20, 25 people applying for the same position. And of those people, you'd have five or 10 people that were qualified, uh, you
know, wellqualified. Today, we're lucky if we get two qualified people. And we just went through this with with Alli's position and we ended up with you know a number of uh applicants and of those applicants we really only we narrowed it
down to two and that's what our choice was. So we need to be careful that we don't uh position ourselves outside of quality and I'm going to emphasize quality employees. I don't I think what
we should do is I think we need to look at our steps and our step increases versus our cost of living or what whatever you want to call it, our market adjustment because I think that's where you can maybe uh do some
some negotiating if you will. I think this year we should do the cola the 3% because when I look at every other community in the area Henipin County and across the state most about 90% of them are doing 3%. But I do think we could
take a look at our steps. Maybe we want to maybe we the 2.5 is extended to 5 years or six years or I don't have it in front of me. Um and then the the 3% is extended up to eight years and then the 3.5 is just for the last two years or
adjust it some other way. But we c we need to stay current because number one most important I think we have a fabulous staff. We really do. our department heads all the way from from uh you know Darcy at the front desk to
to David and and and our department heads and and Gary and and we don't see what they put up with every day and we don't see the workload that they do but I know that they do a fantastic job and we can't >> very well they are and and that's not
going to change if if you adjust the cola today but if we take a look at the step increases and make make some adjustments there. You're going to actually save more money, but you're still going to give them the cola and you're still going to give them the
steps. It's just not going to be the same as what it is today. We need to stay We need to stay in the market. I think if we adjust it too much, we're not going to be in the market anymore. >> So, just one comment on that because I did look at step increases. I I have You
can ask Jasper. I probably have like 10 different spreadsheets with different steps and different increases on that. that's more of an impact to their salary and keeping them in the range. The the easiest way or not the easiest the less impactful
way to keep us still in this 90 to 110% range is to decrease the market adjustment in January instead of redoing all the steps. Because if you do the steps then someone who thought they were going to be making
someone sorry. Um so like you have someone who thought they would be making like um Darcy. We'll take her. So she's at $32. Next if okay this this she doesn't have the cola in it but so next year she'll
go up to $33. Now, if you change the scale of the 2.5 and push that longer, now that pay doesn't go there. That your end amount gets lower and then they're going to see that more. So, that's that's more of a hit to the employee
instead of a one time 2% market adjustment instead of a 3%. And then we look at it again and go, look, we're still in this 90 to 100 10% range. Everyone is still paid well. And the biggest thing that I saw when I did that is if we do less than 3% almost everyone
is still within the min and max range of all the neighboring communities. And as we saw with Paula, our scale, our steps are good. They line up. The min and max range for the most of them are great. They don't have to be adjusted. They're fine. But what you're doing is you're
penalizing those individuals that have been here a long time and that have reached their max. Now they don't get the 3%, they only get 2%. And we all know, we all know that inflation is far more than 2%. And we also know that
those individuals that have reached their max do a fantastic job. >> They do a fantastic job though. If I may, I yeah, I I think that is a a problem with this uh pay scale uh that we need to solve too, right? You have these long-term employees are extremely
valuable and and yet they're not getting these step increases uh you know that they've maxed out that and so to your point, you know, they're just getting the u market adjustment. So I I think that's something we need to address too to to make sure that we keep you know th
those people and so the kind of the other side of the discussion I guess is uh how do you keep longer employees incentivized? >> Okay. Um Brian >> I just had did one math question. So the raises are split between the cola and
the step. So like on page three where it adds them just adds them up saying like 3% cola plus 3% step is 6% increase. It's actually a little bit more than that because you're getting a raise on the previous raise. >> Good point. Um it's yeah simplified for
this because it varies depending on how much the wage is too a little bit. Um but yeah it does compound. Um, yeah, one I think you guys have all had really good points. Um, I think, you know, I'm I'm fairly new here. I can still kind of say that at three and a
half years, but the employees that we've had that have been here a long time are something that I think we have to treat as a treasure, you know, because um you know, it would be I don't know, we we've seen it. I think we've seen it a few times where somebody leaves um we end up
hiring somebody paying more for less experience and that's kind of the cycle that we want to avoid. So that's, you know, how much do we want to um emphasize that retainment piece of our pay plan? And it's really hard to like as Peter alluded to, like we we, you
know, we don't want to disincentivize that. That's kind of why we have the pay plan structured the way it is, but how do you you know keep them interested in being here long continue to be here, right? They might not want to and they might want to go to a bigger city or something like that. we can't offer those kind of wages. But, um, that's
really h the the the um tough thing to crack is, you know, how do you make it equitable to all people that are in the pay plan for the non-union side? >> And this may be a silly question since I've never uh worked in government, but um are merit raises in a government
setting not a thing? >> Not a thing. No, you can do it, but it's not >> it you you you can do it. Um so where I came from previous to this we had merit-based pay. The biggest challenge with that is you have a department with
maybe one person in it and you say okay department head you have this much to give to your you know kind of like the private sector you can divvy up but you only have one person so that one person knows they're going to get whatever the average is whatever you know so it ends up being very similar to what we do
right now. Um but and in areas like with Gary where he's got multiple employees. They're union. So it's a different contract. So we're really only talking about n about 19 people. Okay. >> Um for the non-union side. So that even gets that group smaller for the merit based pay. You know, theoretically, yeah, great. If you do a great job,
we're going to pay more. But at the end of the day, if we only budget, you know, 5 a.5% for merit and cola, well then you just get five and a half% if you're the only one in that department or less. You know, you could get less. So it's effectively not merit in just a >> it's hard to do in a small organization.
>> But the other thing we're not looking at is the step increase doesn't come in until the m midy year. So you're not getting 3% or 3 and 1/2% or whatever that step increase is 2 and 1/2 or three and a half you're not getting that for the whole year. So basically if you were to spread it out for the whole year
you're only >> you're only getting out you're only getting one and a half or one and a quarter. So for the year for the whole year. So, I mean, that's the other thing to look at, too. But >> so, it's somewhere between if it'd be five and a half to six and a half, it'd
be somewhere between there total. Um, it wouldn't be exactly one of those. So, >> yeah. >> Um, so I think, so here's the thing. Um, I think we need to look at um the salaries
annually, but I do think it is extremely important and I'm just sorry to pick on you, David, but we need to keep people like David and and Nick because of our grow growth and development and they've been here a long time and and they know
the city and they know our ordinances and and they know the developers that want to come here. That's invaluable. And I don't want to um say, "Well, you only get 2% because you're already at the top of your your range." They may be
at the top of their range, but they are worth it. And I I I honestly I mean, I can't tell you how I I I was here when we didn't have such good city planners, and I can tell you it it caused
problems. And we've had some good ones over the years, but right now between Nick and David and and Robert and um okay, what Gary, whatever. Ryan. Okay. Um we have a fantastic planning department. I mean, there's no doubt
about it. I get calls from people saying, "Oh, I talked to Nick and they were he was just fantastic. Oh, I talked to David. They were so helpful." So, please keep that in mind. And I can't tell you how much I appreciate Gary. I
mean, he we were just talking about the that give him a lot of lot of grief and you know, so keep keep that in mind. And you know, and I just I just if we have to pay them a little bit more than the going rate or than the than maybe what
Mound pays them, um I I for this year, I really think it's worth it. I don't disagree that we need to take a look at at the overall thing overall um way we're doing it and there's some changes I think could could
occur. Um, so if I could suggest we go with staff's recommendation for 2025, we give this back to the uh personnel committee and they come back with with something that we can have more time to
digest and and that they address some of these issues. I agree. We can't sustain maybe 250,000 every year. I agree. So, let's figure it out. Let's figure out how we can stay um in the market and how we can um reward our our good long-term
employees and how we can also manage the budget a little bit. >> Just again, I'll reiterate this. This solves this problem. It keeps us in the market. They're still going to get a raise. It It's not >> But like David is only going to get 2%.
>> Yes, but David, no offense again, David, he's already paid over market. We can't keep paying. >> You know why? >> On over market because in >> years I was paid under market. >> Yes. >> Exactly. >> Exactly. Yeah. And not only that, but he's being paid over market because we
wanted to keep him. >> I understand that >> we needed to keep him. >> But we have to look at the overall finances for the city. >> But we are we are okay. So we haven't heard from Claudia. you know, as a newer council member, I
and as a person that looks at every dollar. Um, again, it's like a little bit of an uncomfortable situation. You just said something that was meaningful. You were underpaid for years. I I didn't know
that. Um, is do you is that correct? >> That's 100% correct. >> Well, thank you for saying that. because it's information that I didn't have 10 seconds ago. Um, but again, that's a lot
of money for this council, for this city to be coming up with every year, but we want to How much does it cost to and time and effort to hire new people? I hear what you're saying, mayor. Yeah, >> thank you. you've been here a long time and you know so again but everything
that Cath Kathleen says makes sense I mean is this something we it's always going to be uncomfortable to talk about this um do we bring this up every year and look at each year we're doing well as a city right now
you know uh I I I this is tough I don't know >> it is a tough decision and I understand um Kathleen's position about in and your position looking at every dollar that we spend. I absolutely do. >> Sorry, may may I add one more thing,
mayor, just really quickly before it falls out of my head. Um not everybody gets a raise every year or you know not everybody gets a cost of living increase every year. I mean >> well other but we have to compare ourselves to other cities you know because
>> um again as as we know um people are offered jobs from other cities and and if they want to leave they're going to leave if if they don't feel appreciated and they don't feel that we're paying them. No, I'm not I'm not disputing that that David or that that others there are
a few other people I know there's Lori that gets that's also if you will say overcompensated, but it's because they've been here so long. That's one of the things. And so all I'm saying is I would rather pay them more and cut in
other areas so that we can continue the a high level and quality service that our residents demand and want and deserve. That's where I'm coming from and that's what we can do. >> Where would you give me a few
suggestions as to where would where cuts would come from? >> Well, first of all, what you see what staff is being proposed is in our budget. Okay, that's already there. So, we wouldn't really have to maneuver money around, but we will have to when we talk about the 16th officer and
that's and so I've already talked to um staff about that and they have to come back and tell us where we could maneuver some funds around. >> So, but for this purpose, it was already budgeted. Maybe just for one more piece of
context, we have had wage freezes here in my time and Angie and David, there has been where we've gotten zero or 1% before. So, we haven't been immune to that in the government sector at City Ministrista. >> Thank you for that. >> So,
>> I don't agree. I think we should do a 2%. >> Okay. All right. And so, what will um I think that's fine. I mean I I understand. Um where do um Brian? >> Yep. >> Yep.
>> No additional questions. >> Okay. Um any >> I think we should do the 2% too. I also think we need to think about the long-term employees and see if we can maybe change the plan to, you know,
address their their continued growth. So >> okay, >> uh >> we have like 20 options. We can have a really long personnel committee meeting. >> Looking forward to >> I would say 2% as well, right? >> I guess it's plurality already. Uh I I think your argument is compelling that
um you know, we probably need to look at this with a a fresh lens. Um I mean, if it's budgeted, it's budgeted for that. And uh I guess I would rather make sure that we're taking a long deep look at it rather than kind of shooting from the
hip if that makes sense. >> So if we've uh we've budgeted for this year, I I think the what is budgeted is is sufficient for this year, then we'd revisit it next year with a more um a longer deeper thought of it.
Well, I'm for the 3% and I'm for revisiting or or doing a deep dive next year so that we can come up with a a really good plan to address a deficiencies um in with the current plan, meaning
also the deficiency of maybe trying to figure out how we're going to continue or not continue with the huge increases. So, that's kind of where I'm coming from. So I think this is on our regular agenda or will it come back? >> It is and we're just we were just we're
looking for direction so that you know as the budget continues to move forward in in December we have something that we can plug in. Um one question I have is if there's an appetite at all to do any sort of um you know pay plan
compensation study. One thing I will note, we do have four union contracts coming up next year that need to be settled before 2027 that will be part of the 2027 budget. So, there's that piece, too. Um, kind of stemming from the original conversation about wage
compression. That's um on the police side, that's one of our biggest concerns is the compression between the sergeants, the deputy chief, and the chief. Um, there's substantial overlap between the sergeants and the and the deputy chief. That's up to like 80% overlap between those two positions and
they're they're quite different between the two, you know, the sergeants and the deputy chief what they do. So, I want to see if there's any appetite. >> Come back with tell us how much it would cost because I think in order to to be competitive, we need to find out what other cities and how how we compare.
>> Don't we already have that? >> I don't know. >> I mean, we've got spreadsheets of what everybody is paying. So, I mean, I don't think we necessarily need to do it unless there's some drastic change in the market, but based on everything that we've reviewed over the last three months, it doesn't seem that our pay
scale is off. >> Well, we should we should have a >> correct. So, you say I have >> we have the data together, >> if I may. I think I think it might be um looking at the pay plan itself to see if there's a way I think I've heard some
comments about trying to figure out a way to incentivize longevity maybe a little bit differently than what we do right now. >> Um it'd be we have the data, you know, the data is pretty accessible, especially for our comparable cities. I think it'd be like is this paid plan
structure what we want it to be and does it accomplish what we want to do? That's something I think you can work out with the personnel committee. I mean, yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. So, this will come back um I'm assuming it won't be um on a
consent agenda item since there might be a split vote. So, you'll have to bring it back at a regular meeting for approval. Yeah. >> Right. Okay. That >> All right. Okay. Um next is
our water fund budget discussion. Can we do you think Okay, real quick. How long is that going to take? [Laughter] >> Take five minutes. It could take 50 minutes, I guess. Or I mean, I'm thinking closer to the
>> 5 10 20 I guess. Or >> I could just ask my questions now and that'll >> I mean if everyone read the packet I don't really need to go >> okay anything. I mean >> okay. >> Yeah. So 20% and then 20% and and I think it was 15% and so on. Okay.
>> So the 20 and the what happens if we have a wet season and we don't have it like that's been my concern the whole time is we're banking all on everybody using a lot of water but like I didn't use as much water in quarter three. I mean I was it sounds bad but I used less than 25,000 gallons in quarter 3 and I usually use more. So like
>> Yeah. No, I mean that is the the the risk. >> Yeah. I mean, do we need to bank in, like we said before, a a fee just for the treatment plant? >> Yeah, >> because I'm I'm I I'm very scared about relying 100% on water sales and water connections.
>> I guess that would be that for the council to decide if they'd want some more B. You know, we have the base rate that's 40 bucks now that, you know, it's 49 proposed for next year. Um, but yeah, whether there's any type of additional treatment fee. >> So, a couple what if we Okay. And I I
was thinking of a some kind of a treatment plant fee, but then I don't know how many calls we would get, how much kickback or you know push back we would get. But but I think it it's more fair because everybody needs a treatment plant. I mean everybody needs it. But
then the other question too as part of this discussion is I think and I've heard from a number of residents um that they think we should be going to um monthly billing. I've been saying that for five years.
>> So I think I well it's well maybe maybe not but I do think we need to build that build that into and maybe and I was talking with Jasper um sorry ladies but um maybe just going a part-time billing
person or utility billing person for now. see how that goes and then if it has to work into a full-time, we can add that. But maybe start at part-time, but doing monthly billing for the water um users, not for um the uh rural area
where they, you know, that would be stupid to do monthly billing because it's $45 a quarter. Now all of a sudden you're going to send out cards for what? 12 bucks or, you know, 15 bucks. I'm sorry, but no. But I'm sure we could quite easily uh figure out who to bill
on a monthly basis for water and sewer. Then they also would get a fraction of the storm sewer and and uh um recycling. I honestly think we absolutely need to do that next because what I've heard too, and I think this is to your point,
Kathleen, then people can see on a monthly basis what their water usage is and they can ratchet back, they can add more, whatever. They can make those adjustments. Plus, they don't get this $5 or $600 bill. Every three months they get it. They get a $200 bill every
month. I mean, so I think that should be part of the equation. I really do. >> If I may, um, we did an initial analysis of this maybe two years ago. I think I think staff would like to maybe talk to other staff to see what kind of bandwidth is available and then we can
come back. If the direction is, hey, we want to do monthly billing. I think then we could kick it back to staff and then >> I think we want to do monthly billing. >> Yeah, I agree. Okay. So, we're not kicking it back. We're just saying we want >> Let us figure out what kind of bandwidth we have and then we can come back and at
the next um water budget update we can just kind of say, hey, you know, we think we can do this with probably a part-time or we think whatever it is. >> And can we electronically bill people? And so it doesn't have to be a >> there there is that option already. >> I mean that sounds like >> so people just have to sign up.
>> Yeah. incenting people to sign up. >> Yeah, >> we could look at that. Um, we could do we could do some a bill credit or something like that. I've seen that done before to get people to sign up. >> We we want the money. We need the money. >> There's quite a few that bunch of >> I don't know what the saturation is
>> calling everyone. So that's one thing. Um, so and rather than, you know, here's the thing. Rather than ha calling it, let's not I'm not trying to be not trying to disguise it, but maybe what we need to do to Kathleen's point is maybe
we need to raise the base fee. Maybe the base fee needs to go up versus a treatment plant fee. >> That's fine. >> Because, you know, I think when people I don't know. I mean, it it's kind of one and the same, but or maybe we just bill
$50 every month as a base fee versus because it's $50 a quarter now, right? >> It's going to Yeah. What's proposed? >> Okay. So, rather than $50 a quarter, maybe it's $50 a month. I don't >> You'll have to figure out maybe what we
need for a base fee, but um I don't know. probably if we're going to add a flat fee, probably would be better to do just the base rate because I think anytime you add an additional fee, right? >> I think people don't like that. The only other comment I mean the monthly billing will be fine. You know, we'll figure that out, but
>> I don't think it's going to be a panacea for everything. I mean, what >> I don't think it's going to just help and make everything go away by going to monthly billing. I mean, so we shouldn't be fooling ourselves. No, I I know that >> you pay it $2,000 in semianual, quarterly, monthly, you're still paying
$2,000 for water. So, >> yes, but the shock would be a lot less than a $700 bill. And, you know, >> I I' I'd rather get a $900. >> I'd rather get a two or $250 bill every month versus a $800 bill once every quarter. I mean, something whatever. I
mean, you you two are on water. I mean, you >> I've said monthly billing since I moved here, >> Brian. >> I I like the idea. My first year here, I I think I had a $3,000 water bill for the summer. Um, but I like the idea of having a broad base because I know my
water bill for the last two summers was like $300. >> And so clearly that's a good chunk of change the city's not getting. >> Yeah. Right. So, um, look at look at the, um, base rate and, um, or Yeah. and
see if we should adjust that a little bit. What would that do? Um, >> okay. We're probably still going to have to raise the rates by probably 18 to 20%. >> No, I I I now >> you're saying in addition >> Yeah. I I It's not that I don't want the rates to
go up. I understand why they need to, but we also need to bank on people using less water with the rates going up. >> Yeah. >> I mean, >> yeah. And I had a question, too, because it looks like this year we're about 25% below what the revenue is.
>> Yeah. It'll probably be closer to like 1.5 1.6. It >> the way it it gets reported sort of a cash base and we we go to acrruel based on third quarter isn't really reflected in that year-to- date amount yet >> because it said through September. Okay. >> It is but it's basically the cash
amounts received through September. So the bills just went out the door >> and they're not 17. >> That's 600,000 that was just build here in third quarter will be basically paid between now and November 15. >> Okay. So it's actually maybe a little ahead. Is that what you're saying? >> No, I think we'll be a little
>> behind because basically we'll get another probably like 600,000 between now and year end or whatever. Um, >> okay. >> Is what I'm projecting. So, we might be like 100,000 or so light compared to budget based on the wet summer. >> Okay. >> So, to my point, we can't rely on the
usage fees to cover. >> Well, and not only that, but the um school is is probably also cutting um their usage because they have their own well for their irrigation now. So, um, that's also impacting us. >> Well, and if we have a real slowdown in construction, I know we built that in
for next year, but if the following years we have that and we're expecting what, four and a half% growth that, >> you know, that could could really slow. So, I I think having a base higher base makes
sense. Okay. might I know we'll get a lot of phone calls on it, but >> we'll have a town hall and it'll just be full of people who want to learn all about the longer theater can take the darts. >> Gee, thanks. Also, >> we have an open bar for that one helps.
No, but I think to uh what I would like to say um before January. So for instance, so if we do um uh monthly billing probably they wouldn't get their monthly bill until February, right? >> Depends on if you implement it in winter
or spring or summer or how >> I think we need to start implementing it if >> I mean how quickly can we implement it? I mean, I'm not saying like >> we'd have to go through it and and talk to Banyan and see what it would take. We've looked at it a little bit. I know >> the biggest is like you said earlier,
the third quarter. So, I mean, I don't think anyone really says much in the first quarter, second quarter, next year. be obviously the you know third quarter of >> but I but it' be good to start implementing it as soon as possible because once once the um costs for the
treatment plant hit us in 2027 is that the first year or is it do we have to make a payment in 26? >> It'll be our first we'll have an interest payment I'm thinking in 2027. >> Okay. >> 2028 will be our first full year payment. >> So we still want to kind of put some
funds in the bank. >> Yeah. We want to start it. We want to start building up that fund balance so that if we have a dry a wet year and we don't sell as much water, >> then we have some wiggle room there. So I I think as soon as possible,
>> well, I think the money would get there whether we build it quarterly or monthly or whatever, but it's more Yeah. Do you want to increase the rates for 26 and in in uh >> get ramping up for I and I assume we do and I think that's what we have presented. But yeah, >> but yeah, I don't think it's more of a
C. It's to have the cash ready for 2728 like you're saying or whatever. >> So, um, so if our ne our first payment is in 27, do we have to have to ramp it up 20% in 2026? Can we ramp it up 15%
and then ramp it up 20% and then you know what I'm saying? >> We could I mean, I guess it's probably I don't know. Can you when you come back with all the information, can you bring us an actual um bill and say, "Okay, this is what
people are doing right now." So, here's a few examples. >> I think I have one >> and then just say with a 20% increase, this is what their bill would look like and >> medium usage. >> Yeah. And then this is what a 15%
increase. So that we can kind of visualize it. I just to me took it out once I see dollar numbers versus percentages, it kind of is a little more realer. >> Yeah. >> And it's going to vary based on >> usage >> the month too. Um give you the ad. We
kind of Brian and I sat down and did this where we kind of broke it down by quarter. >> Okay. >> Um and what that quarterly bill would be for Q1, two, three or four. Um we could kind of look at it on a monthly basis too and make some estimations. >> Okay. >> Well, yeah. And if you can project like
if we like for the base rate if that goes to like >> excuse me >> $75 a month can you project what that income would be then? >> Um >> yeah based on the number of accounts we have I guess times. >> Yeah. And do like a $50 a month, a $75 a month and $100 a month just so we can
gauge like what >> what guaranteed revenue usage or >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. Any other do you do you need any more direction? Do you where are we all in agreement here? >> So monthly billing is thumbs up from
everybody or most people. >> Um and then we're going to just try to figure out some different options for rates using the base fee. You know, move that around and then adjust the the rates accordingly. So, >> you know, higher the base rate, the lower the maybe increase for the
percentage of the of the fees are and you know how that moves around. See if you guys can figure out the sweet spot where you want it to sit. And then once we've decided on these new rates, um I really would like to send out a postcard separate from anything else, but a
postcard to all of the water users telling them we're going to monthly billing, the rates are increasing, why the rates are increasing, >> how much the treatment plant is costing, >> and and and it's not just that treatment plant. It's, you know, it's we still have debt from the other treatment
plants. So, and maybe that would help some of the phone calls because I don't want to, you know, I know that Renee and Darcy are going to get inundated with these calls and um I'm sure they would appreciate any information that's out
there previous to when they get hit with the new bill. >> Yep. I think I think we have you had mentioned this to me before and we had talked with A2S and and you know, we're going to get something out. I think if everything moves forward and tonight the plant gets approved um it'd be in
November. Send something out in November. >> Okay. >> A newsletter um to all >> but if we do a newsletter then it's kind of buried in that newsletter. >> So >> it would just be a water water newsletter. That's it. Just strictly about water like a one pager. Yeah. Something like that. No no other city
stuff in there. It' be separate from our >> messenger and things like that. It would just be for water to the water users. So >> All right. Sounds good. All right. All right. Um then >> hard scrabble >> um hard scrabble update. >> Yeah, >> this is the fun one.
>> This is the fun one. So I've been um and I didn't put much into in the packet because there's ongoing conversations between myself and the um settlement agreement person. Um so here's what the what he would like to see. Um and I've talked to him. I think this would be
fine. It's almost full circle from what we originally intended to do. So um it's interesting. the the only addition is really uh the sign. Um so he he would like to install a sign at the entrance, one single sign at the entrance of Hard
Scrabble Circle that basically just says construction parking prohibited. That's it. Um we would then remove all the existing no parking permanent signs. Um we would send a memo to the neighborhood describing the settlement agreement terms and the construction parking expectations.
Um what that does is it kind of it puts the onus on the residents to self-report. So, if there's an issue, somebody will call us. Um, it it would probably be Mr. Smith calling us if there's an issue. Um, but so it would it would it wouldn't be our our police. It's kind of pulling the police out of
the whole equation except in a situation where the road is blocked and emergency personnel can't get through. >> Like really blocked or someone's definition of blocked >> like 20 feet or less >> is what his definition is. NFPA stand the fire protection standards 20 feet or
less is what he said. So, um, but tips or violations would be processed through city hall. So, they'd come in, somebody would call, and then it'd go to the building department. The building department would then talk to the permit holder, try to figure out and say, "Hey, as a reminder, you need to get your your
people, you know, in and out as quickly as you can if you are going to do that." So, it's more simple. It's kind of how we intended to enforce it in the from the beginning minus the sign, you know, but the sign doesn't give the police any authority to write a ticket for
anything. >> Well, that's meaningless then. >> So, but the idea is he's okay with the police not writing tickets and the building department contacting the contractors. >> But that doesn't help you when you're trying to go home and you can't get home because the road is blocked. But the
police could go then >> they could if the road is blocked definitely the police could get called in. >> The police can write a ticket >> for that for sure. >> They don't have to go knock on all the doors at 10:00 at night to find the person who moved their car. >> It depends on how nice they want to be probably. Um but uh they they could just
they could if if a if a car is blocking a road, they have every right to tow that car immediately because it's a hazard to everybody safety. >> When we tow a car, where does it go in Minista? >> And who does it and how far are they away from being >> it? It goes to Madame Mayor, members of council goes to Williams Towing. So,
here in town. >> Where are they located? >> Uh, just off Highway 7, just across from Buddy Boy on the >> Oh, marvelous. >> Yep. >> Would this include uh people that are like lawnmowing and things like that or >> No, so they they would be exempt. So,
day laborers or however you want to categorize them, um they they are exempt from this. They'd be able to park. So, that's going to be the problem. I mean, it's it's always going to be a problem who's doing what. Um, one of the complaints that we had this year was a tree service that was parking on the road. Well, if a tree service is there,
that could be going to some individual's property. >> We' do our best to reach out to the contractor and say, "Hey, you know, is this your contract subcontractor or whatever, tell them they can't park on the road. They have to park on site." So, um, >> it's to me it's a better solution than
putting up a bunch of signs or having the police going out there patrolling all the time. um it kind of puts the onus on the residents to to self-regulate this um and we'll see how it works, but it seems like this would be an adequate um
>> way to to approach the settlement agreement from this individual's standpoint. >> Chief, what do you think of it? >> Uh I think it's a good idea. I just because we we didn't have a lot of teeth before. So, from a legal standpoint, we were kind of a I don't want to say a
paper tiger, but we were mostly just asking people to move the vehicles. So, short of them being in the no parking zone that was already marked where we could issue a ticket, um there wasn't much we could do. So, um I think this is a good solution. Um >> but you don't have to go out every single day.
>> Yeah, that's great to >> correct, >> you know, the troll. So, that was that was a real huge um >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, the only way the police really get involved is if there's a road blockage of some sort, then that's when somebody could call 911 and say, "Hey,
my road's blocked. Get somebody out here." >> All right. >> Great. >> That sounds great. >> Well done. >> Yeah. All right. So, so we won't be doing the ordinance. Um, we won't be doing any sort of public hearing or anything like that. We'll try this, see how it works.
>> Okay. See if Okay. Hopefully, it solves the problem. All right. Um, good. Good job, Steph. Um, discuss installation of four-way stop at the Lotus Drive in Sunset Lane. >> Um, Madame Mayor, members of council, we have Allison Fowski. She's she's going to talk about this. Gary, you might give
some input as well. >> Yeah. Um, thank you, Mayor and Council. So, uh, over the past month, staff has received numerous complaints of um, site visibility issue at the intersection of Lotus Trail. Um, and then Sunset Lane is
to the north and Wolfbury Curve is to the south. This is the location of the intersection. Um so on the next slide, um I show the I show the issue as you see uh as you're driving travel traveling westbound on Lotus Drive. Uh
so there's three monuments uh that weren't shown on the plan. Um the plan that was submitted with the development is is a clip of it. It's on the left there. they showed that there would be um you know in the in the middle part
that there would be some some landscaping. So there's certainly um been some more work that's been done at the intersection than we originally anticipated. Um and then on the next slide I show uh the eastbound Lotus Drive. And so that
the area of concern is on the left side of this of this photo. You can see that there's some trees. Um it you kind of have to squint a little bit, but you can see the the stop um um sorry, not the stop signs, the street name signs um
just where that white house is on the on the right side. Um and then Sunset Lane would be on the left. So uh we've got a curve coming through there. And then you can see here this is looking from Sunset um Lotus Drive to the to the um well
into the picture there. Um so you so we have some sighteline issues through there. I did have uh we talked to the res or the police department talked to the resident there at the corner of Sunset and Lotus um about some of the trimming back some of the the grasses decorative grasses that were a little
high and they did that. Um but beside that beside that issue, um I did have a traffic engineer take a look at it from a stopping site distance. All the all the technical components of it and the recommendation from the traffic engineer was to install a four-way stop due to
this the um uh stopping distance or the sight line distance. >> Thank you. Um, so with that, um, we wanted to bring this to council, um, just because, uh, from a staff standpoint, we do get, uh, depending on the year, you get requests for stop
signs. So we don't want to put put these up intermittently, but we also do want to take a look at it from from these standpoints when we do have a technical expert take a look at it and bring it to council so so that we have good documentation on um if if council
approves it later on um this evening, why th that stops condition was installed. Um, and so, uh, if if that's something council's willing to consider, uh, this is, uh, this graphic shows the proposed, uh, stop, uh, the proposed
signage that would be put up. So, we already have a stop condition on Sunset Trail and Wolfbury Curve. And so, stop new stop signs would be installed on Lotus Drive. And then um stop ahead signs would be installed um on Lotus
Trail just to notify uh drivers that there's a that there's a change in traffic uh traffic control ahead of time. So or ahead of ahead of them. So uh with that I would be happy to answer any oh one last thing. Um cost of this
uh would be just over $500 for the actual signs themselves. There would be a couple of them. Um the temporary signs that show the change in traffic control ahead, those would could be used at a separate time. Um but we do have $500 for the signage, but that does not
include uh public work staff time to go out and install those signs. So um just I I went out um and because I wanted to see what and and there is a there's actually kind of like almost like a little bit burm. So taking the
trees out is for me in my low car that wouldn't help. So and there was a sighteline issue um like you said um going to the west. So I mean it and it it's pretty serious. So if it's a safety issue, I always say, you know, $500 or
whatever it might cost is is worth for for safety. Um that's that's my opinion. The only other thing I want to say and then I'll hand it over to anybody else that wants to say something is um it recently I've been in other communities and a lot of times when they have a
four-way stop they have pedestrian um striping crossing and I wonder if we want to add that to this area as well. That's all I want to say. Okay, Kathleen, >> there's a tree on the southwest corner by that black house. Mhm.
>> Can we get them to take that down? Cuz that's going to be a problem in like 2 years cuz I drive that all the time actually. Um I don't really care if you put the stop sign in. People are going to roll through it if they want to. They do it through all the ones on all of those streets. Um >> but why would they have to take the tree down there?
>> Cuz it's in the sighteline and once it gets a little bigger and it's not this little tiny thing. It's >> actually It might be better. Well, no, cuz and you don't have a picture, I don't think, of that corner, but it's right it's it's like right here. >> Like it's it's in a bad spot.
>> And I have a SUV and a truck and I think it's in a bad spot. Um >> I I think that tree needs to go and I don't care about the stop signs. And if you want to stripe the whole thing, go for it. The crosswalks are kind of goofy anyways because one is on this side and then you have to cross onto a non
sidewalk street to then cross onto a sidewalk street. So, the sidewalks are weird in that area, but I don't care. You put the stop signs in. >> I want to know how the stop sign. How's the stop sign? I don't care. >> I am amazed. I'm amazed
girl. >> All right. Um, Peter. >> Yeah, I think it's a good idea to put it in. >> Okay. I want to know why a stop sign's $500. >> Hey, that's not bad for a stop sign. I made out of metal. >> That's two stop signs. There's two of
them. >> Can we get the really really big ones? >> Plus, I think you have the two more saying stop sign ahead or whatever. >> We have six signs total, madame mayor. So, some of them um and and as Gary just pointed out, some of them have the little flashers on them with
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I drive that every day and that that's problematic. That Lotus part there is too narrow for the amount of traffic it gets and you can only see it a little bit. There's like almost a jog to the left and tell you how many times The road isn't the same width. It's
weird. It's a weird intersection. >> Yeah. So, I think that stop sign will uh solve multiple >> Why did they get to put the monuments in if they weren't on the plan on the sides? >> They look good. >> Um I I don't have an answer, but I didn't want to provide council
with, you know, with what was seen on on the landscaping plan. And certainly um you know in any future development plan uh that's submitted we'll be taking a closer look with something like this so that we're not in this situation again that if there's a warrant for a four-way
stop it goes in right away right away. >> That would be the plan. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. So go for it. >> Um Madame Mayor, this is actually an item on the regular agenda this evening. Um, we wanted to bring it to the work
session um for a more informal discussion before bring before action on the regular meeting. >> It's like right there. It's horrible >> when you stop here because I always come this way and go here. >> Um, and you can't see well coming this way because of where that tree is. So,
when it gets bigger, it's going to be horrible. >> That's what I was talking about. >> All right. >> Well, we can have Gary look at it. He's the tree guy. All trees >> for the in the rightway. We don't like them in the rightway. I don't like any of them in the rightway. There's also
two on the other. If you're really going to do I think that we should get rid of the trees in the right way on that corner. It's already bad. A stop sign's not going to make it better. And the trees get bigger. It's going to be a problem. >> I don't think there are two in the northeast corner. They're just going to be just as bad for the stop sign visibility. >> Yeah, they're going to cover it.
>> They need they need to come out. I mean, there's no doubt about it. Those two and there's actually two on that other corner that should come out for visibility. You might get a lot of push back from the people on the >> they're in the rightway. We can do what we want. Seriously, >> I know. I'm just I know that. But >> well, they can move them over onto their
property more. They could put them here where they won't be in the sighteline. Like they can >> the northwest the northwest five in that corner. >> It's bad. >> Five trees in that corner right there alone. >> Yeah. >> I mean, if we're if we're fully concerned about safety, you need to move
the trees that are blocking the sight lines. I didn't see >> it's just going to get like councilwoman said it's just going to get worse as these get bigger. I mean we have this problem all over in Hunters. We have a problem starting here. I mean there
right now the way the signs are they block stop signs. They block lights. They they block streets name signs. I mean it's it's terrible the way it's set up this way. It's just it's not a it's not a good practice to have them that close to the curb, >> right? >> You know, or in between the sidewalk and
the curb. I mean, I understand the appeal of it, but I always say put them in the people's yard and let them keep it and get it off our right away. >> Yeah. >> Less maintenance for us in the long run. And we're replacing sidewalks now out in Hunter's Crest that are heaving because
of tree roads. >> Well, I mean, the trails in Woodland Cove are heaving from them, too. >> Yeah, they're terrible. From a standpoint, they're Don't get me wrong, I love a treeine street, but they need to be farther out and let them grow over a canopy.
>> Mhm. >> Okay. Um, is that a public works decision or or I mean I don't want to cut trees down. >> Well, they're little enough they'll be able to move them. I mean, ask them where they want to put them. >> This one is brand new. It went in this summer. I mean, they can still move
them. >> All these can be moved. I mean, we are moving trees in the for the new water treatment plant out of that. we can move them and they they're willing to have them put them >> in their yard and ask. Let's do that if we can. Um that I'd prefer that versus just going in and
ripping them out because then you're going to get people thinking it's their tree, which it's not, but still they're think it's their tree. >> So if you say, "Hey, we can we have to remove these for sighteline issues. We could put it in your yard." Um are you
interested in that? >> That's nice. I like that. So, all right. Yes. All right. You're on board with that? >> Yeah. All right. Yeah. Yay. All right. Then I think that concludes um our work session discussion and we can be
adjourned and you can have a bite to eat before 6:30. >> Great. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> And Claudia made that second. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. 5. Um we will be back at 6:30.
All right. >> Oh, you need your charger, huh?