:30 --------- and uh this is November 17th, the regular city council meeting for Minatrista. And I'm going to ask uh number one, please put your um cell phones on silent mode or airplane mode so they don't ring or disturb our meeting. And then please join me in
pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> So, I'm going to first start with
introductions. Um, I'm Lisa Whan and I am the mayor. And to my left our council members, Kathleen Refkin, Claudia Lacy, Peter Vickery, Brian Govern, and then we have on the end we have our SA staff as Allison Falski is our city engineer with
WSB. And then Gary Peters is our public works director. And then Paula Bowman is our assistant administrator. To my right, we have Jasper Krugal, who is our city administrator. Then uh David Ael, who is our community development director. Sarah Sansala is with Kennedy
and Graven who is our city um legal u attorney. Thank you. And then we have our chief of police Craig Squires. So with that um I have one minor change to the agenda. I'd like to add under business item number C and it would be
approve the quote for installing drainage pipe on Bayside Lane. If we can add that for discussion. Other than that, I have no other changes to the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda with that change? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss Refkin. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Thank you, Miss uh Vickery. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. 5. So next we'll move on to special presentations. Uh this evening we have Michael Kirkwood who is the city's representative to the
LMCD or the Lake Mitanka Conservation District. Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Kirkwood. It's always a pleasure to have you here and I'm going to hand it over to you. >> You're all too kind. Thank you, Madame May, Mayor and members of the council.
Um, I wanted to just uh ask your support out of this meeting tonight uh for making a statement to the LMC as your interest in the issue I'm going to present to you. Um and that is looking at an option of having certain areas of
the lake set aside for non-motorized lake use um certain days of the week, certain hours of the day, that's all to be decided, but to get people safely using the lake away from the wake boating environment. So just some background, the LMCD was a partial funer
of the research done by the University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Research Lab. And that research showed that lake bottom being stirred up and scoured at depths of up to 20 ft due to the downward prop configuration of wake boats uh and other large boats sometimes
as well. A video of the research study in Wisconsin showed divers at a 20ft depth were being tossed around like like toys uh at the 20 foot depth from the the propped wakes. So, it's pretty powerful stuff. Uh Minnesota has no
statewide ordinance controlling wakebo impacts. Local ordinances must provide controls and that would be the LMCD's role in doing it. Uh we did establish a 300t zone from the shoreline in 2023 which is what you see in the orange lines on the map in front of you. That's
a 300 ft distance offshore. And the wakeboat users have been mostly cooperative in following the new ruling. However, in some smaller, narrower bays, there have been cases where smaller craft, stand up paddle boards, kayaks, canoes, even small fishing boats have been knocked about by the large boat
wakes. The LMC um has had conversations with others around the lake as to what they need to do and not do, but they've been reticent to take any action. I'm asking you to help support their interest in taking some action. Um the 20ft depth is kind
of a magic number. What you see in purple on the map is areas of the lake that would be deep enough to qualify as a safe uh wakeboarding area. It's 20 ft or deeper in all of those areas. Uh one of the people I interviewed was Chris Banks, a mound resident who's a
professional wakeboarder, and he revealed that wakeboarders prefer waters with 20 ft or more in depth as the wakes are more effectively formed in the deeper water. So, it's not a conflict there. But some of the bays and backwaters of Minnitanka would likely fail to meet the 20ft depth threshold
and therefore we need to think about protecting the lake sediments. Um and they should be ruled out as wake surfing areas in the shallow areas. So our organization is a little bit reticent to take too strong a stance on this. We have a couple of people on the board who
are uh against any restrictions on any voting on any kind of thing. So we're kind of stuck at this point. So, I'm asking you guys to consider uh a letter or something that would say you would support further looking, not an answer
yet, but at least more conversational meetings uh an agenda if you will, a work group at the at the LMCD uh that would take some action on this area. I wanted to introduce you to the fellow who has been really stimulating this thinking and this action and that's
John Bent who lives up in the Orino area. I met him four years ago >> and he's been working very hard to get everybody's attention on this and has some additional data to share with you as to what the risks are and what he's like to suggest that that we're trying
to do and we're going to ultimately ask for a letter from the board that would support that. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a question quick? >> Question. >> If if you do this, won't it just push all the boats into a certain area and then cause more damage in those areas? >> Possible. possibly.
>> Give me a minute to think about that. Yes, we have talked about that would be there that that's that's to be decided as to how that would work out. There are certainly would be some places where we might have to have um no wakeboats and there will be certainly more boats in
some areas. What we're trying to do is avoid having them damaging the lake or risking other people's lives. That's really the mission here. Mhm. And >> how enforcable do we think this is? I look at like Hollstead Bay where you've got a portion of it. Would the intent be
to just basically close off certain bays if they didn't have a certain threshold or would it be up to the wake borders to essentially have like a map like this to figure out where 20 foot? >> And they do have maps like this on their boats. They actually have most of them will have have a GPS that will tell them where
they are, what the depth is, where they could go. So it' be really more a matter of the LMUD establishing some clear language that says yes here, no here, maybe here. And we need to put that together, make it happen. What's happened is we aren't taking that
conversation even to heart right now. We're just getting stuck on not wanting to talk about it. So I'm trying to stir up some interest in making that happen. >> Michael, can I ask you another question? >> Um, I was going to say what Kathleen
said. Wouldn't this just drive all those people to other bays? And then as far as enforcement, there is no enforcement on really terrible infringements on the lake. Like you have to be off the lake an hour
before sundown. If you're on a jet ski, every single night in the summer, there are boats on the lake an hour, I mean after sundown. So these are issues way more important. There is no enforcement.
There's you call and they're they're off the lake before you, you know, before anyone could get there. >> So enforcement is always >> enforcement is going to be >> right. Well, and the water patrol has
said that they will enforce whatever rules we make to the best of their ability. And I think they have at maximum on a busy weekend, I think they have 10 officers available to the lake. And that's a lot of area you can see. So answering that question is also
important too. I just don't have the answer for you tonight, but we've >> Yeah. >> You want to speak to that? All right. >> Thanks, Mike. Okay. >> Good evening. Thank you uh for allowing me to speak this evening. Uh my name is John Bent and um I'm president of a
organization called Citizens for Sharing Lake and we uh we formed to provide a platform for stakeholders on the lake to be able to express their concerns about wake surfing. Now going to the issue of
enforcement. Uh the state of Vermont is the only state in the in the country that has passed a statewide regulation of wake surfing. And what they did is uh they created wake surf zones on their
lakes. Uh their original law was that there had to be 50 contiguous acres of water available and it had to be located 500 ft from shore in a minimum depth of 20 ft. The way that they provided enforcement
uh capability for that is they developed a navigational app and the app identifies those wake surf zones on their lakes and it tracks u where the the boater is in real time
and they make that app uh available to all boers free and that's what we're advocating for Lake Minnetonka. So, we're we're advocating that that wake surf zone be a minimum of a 100 contiguous acres, which uh what does that mean? Well, what
it would allow is that a a wake surf run could be three minutes long and it would be wide enough that three wake surf boats could operate simultaneously with 500 ft separation between them.
It's interesting that Vermont is this year trying going to amend their law. They're in the process of changing their 50 to 100. So, uh, enforcement I think is would be uh possible because both water patrol
and the boater would have this app. But the idea here would also be that it'd be a great tool for wake surfers. A lot of them certainly don't want to be destroying the lake. And now they would know where they can be safely uh as far
as inflicting any damage on the lake. And if somebody is outside that zone, it provides the water patrol an opportunity to perform education as well. Um they don't necess we're not advocating that right out of the bat there's all these tickets being written, but we want a
tool for wake surfers to be able to know with confidence that they're on the lake in an area where they're not going to cause damage. Now, why is that important? Well, uh if you haven't seen the videos from the university phase 2 study, I would highly
recommend you look at them. It's basically uh that that prop wash and wave energy from the hull of the boat hits the bottom of the of the lake and it literally explodes. Uh debris is
flying up into the water column. Aquatic plants are being uprooted and it doesn't take very long for an area to be scalped and have it have it bare. So, not only does it release phosphorus u into the
water column, which promotes algae growth, if there's heavy metals in there, that's going to be resuspended. But it also destroys fisheries. And uh if we don't have aquatic plants uh thriving for fisheries, um it's going
to have a big impact on Lake Manitaka. So, uh we think it's common sense. create these zones, create an app, have an education program. You need enforcement those that are just gonna
not comply no matter what. Uh but it would make a big difference. >> Now, there's another issue with wake surfing on the lake and that's its impact on other users. When I live on Maxwell Bay and in the summertime on the weekends, it's very
common for three, four, sometimes even five or six wake surf boats to be operating out there. Nobody else can do anything. The turbulence on that on the water is so um uh great that battle
sports, forget it. uh fishermen, you get you're getting bounced around uh continually and it is a safety issue. U there was a serious injury on the lake three years ago. Um the woman that lives on Casco Point, she she and her husband
were going leaving Excelsier Bay to go home and they encountered a couple of wig surf boats that created turbulence. She got knocked out of her seat, fell down on the bottom of the boat, and had a compression fracture of her back.
Uh there's been uh reports of boats being swamped, fishing boats being swamped. There was one on North Arm a couple of years ago. Um so safety is also an issue here. Now, why is it important that LMCD act?
Well, first of all, it's their duty to act. They their mission is to preserve and protect Lake Minnotonka for us and for our and future generations. But the industry is also organized against any regulation of wake surfing. And they've unsuccessfully tried at the
state level here to pass laws that have u rest restrictions that are not even close to what the university uh recommendations are based on their research. They want 200 feet from shore
and no depth uh regulations at all. Um they go in and uh and present this position based on research that they funded and it's they make a very convincing presentation.
But there isn't one single independent research study that backs up what what they're claiming. And uh they're uh they're not going to stop. So, uh, LMCD has the authority to act. It was
delegated to them in 19 in the 1960s. They should act. It would set a standard for the state of Minnesota that could be followed. And everything that we were recommending that Mike has talked about is based on the science of the uh, St.
Anthony Falls lab studies. >> And so this evening um, I think as Mr. court uh pointed out that uh they're looking um not for support to create a law but to uh support to actually engage in a committee or engage the LMC board
in discussions about this. >> So I think um um being a Lakeshore owner, I know um Miss Lacy you are, I'm a Lakeshore owner um not on Lake Minnetonka but none the same. I do know what um wakeboards can do and and the
effect that they have on on the lake and on users. In fact, we've been even swamped on our dock by wakeboards. So, I I would have no problem um submitting a letter of support to to uh take a look
at this and see what what could be done um within reason because I think um the LMCD what they want to do is create a safe environment for all users, not just the um paddle boarders or not just the wakeboarders, but for all users. And I
think that's that's what their charge is and I think that's what they should do. So, well, Madame Mayor, if I may, um, are you more concerned with the lake being damaged or with safety? Both.
Which one would you prioritize? >> They both would fall within our jurisdiction. >> I mean, that's an honest question because I see nothing done for safety every single night. I mean, every single We have Wakeboard. We um do I want all the other people from Lake coming to our
big bay that's deep to Wakeboard? Right. >> And but the >> be an issue we have to address. Yeah. >> I would say the number one thing to do is stop. There's a rental place. There's a couple rental places on the lake. There's no policing. They let people
that are not used to driving these very dangerous, powerful machines. Here's the key. Off you go. >> Right. >> Um and >> I don't think we're I You're correct. I mean, you're absolutely right. I think boats I mean, there's boat clubs where people get in boats and have no idea
what >> have no idea what they're I mean, >> but um I think there needs to be more policing of the lake. I don't know if LMCD can get a volunteer like sheriff's, you know, a volunteer kind of situation.
Um, I think that would be marvelous if people could, you know, someone could take a bay. Get a hundred people to sign up for two nights a summer and you take a bay. But I don't know what the answer is. But before I I I would feel that compelled to do something about changing
wakeboard habits. I would say we have to address the dangerous behavior of jet skis on our lake. >> Well, I agree that it's a bothand situation, not an either or. There's lots of areas we need to be attended to safety on the lake. Um I will if you want I can introduce you to the water
patrol and you might want to do a ride along with them some evening or some weekend actually. >> That's a great idea. >> See what their experiences but I've done that and >> it's interesting but thank you for Claudia for the perspective. >> Yeah, thank you and thank you for caring about our lake. Yeah.
>> So, is the council would you be um open to a letter of support to um at least take a look at this wakeboard um consideration? So, >> okay. >> All right. I can work with with Jasper. >> Jasper will >> craft it and I'll sign it. Sure.
>> Okay. And it's good to know. Thank you, Michael. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> John. All right. Um so next we have um no one signed up under persons to be heard. So we'll move on to um consent agenda items. Are there any you wish to
remove? Hearing none. Then they will consist of approving our work session meeting minutes from November 3rd, 2025. Approve our city council regular meeting minutes from November 3rd, 2025. a resolution to approve claims. And D is a resolution to
approve a simple a simple subdivision between 6560 and 6580 South Bay Drive. E is a resolution to approve a lift station control panel replacement at lift station number four and lift station number six. F is approve A2S
SCADA task order number 0126 for consulting services for control panel replacement at sewer lift station number two and G is approve A2S SCADA task order number 0226 for communications upgrade at flow station number 14 and
then H is approve an amendment to data storage service sharing and government's agreement. Is there a motion to approve consent agenda items? Before we do that, I just had a question on H maybe of the chief. Okay. >> Um, Henipin County wants to be involved.
Will will they then share information with you too or how is that going to work? >> Yeah, great question. Um, and they definitely will be sharing it. Um, the genesis of this is a lot of us are on the same records management system, but
they own all of our information. So if um two of these departments Henipin sounds like they're going to go with a different report writing system. So this would be a mechanism for us to be able to still see their information without belonging to their particular um report
management system if yeah it'll be shared amongst all of us. So good question. Thank you. >> Okay, good question. So then is there a motion to approve consent agenda items A through H? >> Thank you Mr. Vicky. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Thank you, Mr. Govern. Any further questions? Hearing none. All those in favor signify with I. I. >> I. All those opposed. Motion passes. 50. So, we'll move on to our business items and we're going to start out with um a
motion uh to deny the preliminary grading agreement request for North Point at Holstead Bay. And is that Allison or >> Yeah, I can. Do you want to take that, David? >> Yes. Thank you, Madame Mayor, members of the council. Yeah, we did receive a request for a preliminary grading
agreement for the North Point uh development at H Hallstead Bay. As the council may recall, they received a preliminary plat approval back on August 4th of 2025. Um, under the terms of that approval, they have until January 31st
of 2026 to submit the final plat approval. So, just for context, that's three more council meetings is what we have left. there's there's three council meetings for them to get us a final PLA application. Um, and so they have not done that yet and have requested to uh
be able to go ahead and grade on that site uh before they submit their final plat application. Um, so we have done these before. We uh it's just in Woodland Cove. We have done preliminary grading agreements uh in in Woodland Cove. This is something that is not um a
statutory requirement. There is no city code. It's completely at the discretion of the city council as to whether or not you want to allow someone to to do something like this or not. Um, if it is something you want them to do, as outlined in the staff report, um, as we
do with any with the previous ones, we'd ask for a letter of credit in the amount of the public improvements at 150%. And in this case, obviously, it's a pretty hefty tree preservation uh requirement that would be uh have to be submitted because um ultimately pretty much
majority of the trees are getting uh removed from the site. Um so we'd look for that that money as well before any uh grading were to continue. And then the biggest bigger item here would be the satisfaction of the city engineer review memo um which is also in your
packet. You can see there's several pages to that. Um we certainly want um from an engineering standpoint to know that uh what what uh the plans are up to snuff and what they're going to do um will ultimately complyations. Um so with that can stand for any
questions. I believe the vestibial is full of the uh applicants. Um so someone wants to go get them if you want to talk to them but uh that's Dean out there right now. So um they are here just not in the council chambers. Okay. >> Can I ask a question before they come
in? What if we agree to let them do it? What's the downside other than it's all clearcut and cleaned out? Like what's the downside? I mean, obviously erosion. I get that water will run, but like beyond that, what >> um
>> I mean, if they clear cut it and then their plat's not approved, they still can't do anything else. They've just cleared it all for someone else to later buy the land and do something with it, >> right? Yeah. And I think you're going to have a quite a bit of neighborhood opposition to that. I can only imagine that, you know, they clear the site and
just, you know, go away and now you got weeds and runoff and all of that, um, occurring with the site. So, um, I can only imagine you're going to hear, you know, if that were to happen, you're probably going to hear a lot from the neighbors about that.
>> But if there if it would be an upgrade. >> Well, my question is, so the they'd have to give us basically $400,000. they'd have a incentive not to just because if they walk away, >> keep the line of credit. >> How does that work? >> We would keep we'd keep the money for
the trees. The line of credit we'd give back. We'd ultimately expire. >> Okay. >> It's just a letter of credit that we're holding. >> Okay. >> So, we would really have no funds with which to improve the public improvements, >> right? You know, the question is, you know, Yeah.
>> How much of that is the trees then? I guess is the of the 400? How much of that is >> That's all trees. >> Oh, so we would we would keep all of that. >> Oh, well that's >> Yeah, >> that's a substantial amount of money if they decide to walk away. >> I I would approve it.
>> I would really oppose that. >> I would oppose it. >> Few issues crop up with them. And of course, we've had a number of other attempts to develop that land. And it seems like if it was clearcut that that kind of appalling to me, but uh uh
I I just think we need to see more from them before we >> I mean they haven't even given us their final thing. >> I get that, Peter, but they're like trash trees. They're not like beautiful. >> No, not all of them. Well, >> I know, but are they going to >> I guess I don't know enough about what
they're cutting down. Well, and I I guess I'm looking at it like if they do walk away, wouldn't it be more appealing to some other developer if it's all clearcut and ready to just put in the infrastructure and start working? >> Yeah, >> I wouldn't think that's had much effect on the previous >> The problem the problem is the problem
is if they walk away then um we don't know what a new different developer would want to put there. So, we can't even put in the storm water infrastructure. We can't do we can't put in the public infrastructure because we don't know where to put it. And so then
we're sitting there with a vacant lot with storm water runoff into the properties that are on that are south of it. I mean it it could be a nightmare and who knows how long it could sit looking like that and we we can't we can't put in the storm water ponds
because we don't know what's going to go there if somebody else comes and does a different type of development. And to to that point, I guess just to point out, one of the major issues here that's been repeated over and over and over again from the city engineer is that they need
soil samples as to where these storm water infiltration basins are going to go. As we all well know, where clay, our city is built on clay. And so there's a strong chance that what we suspect that they're not going to be able to put these kind of ponds in these areas. And
so that likely either they're going to have to do soil corrections or they're going to have to revamp the plan probably. >> Correct. >> Um and so there's there's huge risk in that right now just from an engineering standpoint. >> Right. It's strange that they're showing
some of these things for sale already. >> Right. >> All right. So you're kind of coming late to the party. Um we've been discussing your issue here. So, if you have one representative that would like to say a few words, I would like to say do so
now. >> Dean. >> Oh, we already >> you are up already. >> That was fast. I thought the meeting started at 7. >> No, 6:30. 6:30. >> My absolute apologies. They're all sitting out there. >> That's okay.
>> So, my apologies. I didn't realize everyone told me seven. So, I thought, oh, I got here 50 minutes early. So anyway, my name is Dean Devolus, DJ Architecture, 333 Washington Avenue North. Uh we're here to discuss obviously Halstead Bay and
uh we have a request obviously that we'd like to receive a early grading permit for the project and the primary reason why is just for tree removal and stumping. And the
reason why we're requesting at this time of year is the most optimal time in term of presenting uh spread of diseases amongst trees uh ground disruption because the ground will be frozen operational
uh efficiencies and basically the care is why requesting that portion of it just in working in other developments that I've learned that if you're going to deal with tree removal winter is a time to do it because you have the minimal of disease spread, minimal of
tearing up the soil. Uh minimizes damage of the trees and roots because the ground is stiff, frozen, so you're not compacting root systems of the of the remaining trees. You're not spreading disease and you're not tearing up the ground where spring is particularly a
brutal time to do that because you really risk soil disruption uh issues as part of that. So that's the primary reason of the request. We're working on a major project in downtown Victoria, Victoria West, in which the city requested that we do the tree
removal now for the same very reasons and that was sort of the base of that development of even a larger scale and it's on a lake also uh some components. So that's the main basis of of the request we put before you. Yes, there's
items that we just received that need to be completed on it. And so what I'd like to have the request to be as opposed to dial either two options like proposal council one is
either a continuence that we come back and show the uh completion of the uh comments uh put forth uh number one uh uh as a possibility or approval with conditions that no permit issued until
we complete the items that have been so expressed uh on it and what that would allow us a good chance to step into the site to uh complete the u items over the winter because by the time we complete it the
ground will be frozen hard and it'll be optimal time to allow that occur. So that's we're not doing this as a method of of uh bisecting or bypassing any items or requirement but it's just the best method of proceeding with the
development given the nature of tree removal and the nature of working with arbor is what they recommend that if you're going to do tree removal now is the time to do it. So that's a basis our request for that. >> Let me just clarify if I could. So,
you're saying um you're not asking for a uh a grading uh you're asking for tree removal only. >> Removal and stumping only. That's it. >> And you said um one of your options would be a continuence maybe to our next meeting which would be on December 8th, whereas you could bring back all of the
requirements that staff has put forth and you're fairly certain you could you could do that then? Yes. >> I'd rather do that than give you all kinds of conditions. you might as well bring back the conditions that staff has set forth already. >> Yeah. And we're okay with either method.
That's why I give the choice because given the time and my apologies, everyone told me 7 o'clock. So Sheldon, if if I'm allowed other speakers, I was going to ask Sheldon just go through the detail of what we're completing so we can really demonstrate to you and then
I'd ask Tanya to speak uh briefly that cut. Everyone's going ahead. So they like to see this. There's other reasons beyond our finally wrap up with uh Robert to conclude. So if I can have permission uh I could stop unless you have any questions of my comments. But
all we're asking for is simply tree removal and stumping because that's the best time to do this and if it continues as the option we're comfortable with that. >> Okay. So thank you. >> Thank you gentlemen. Please go ahead.
>> Miss Merit and rest of the council and staff. Um, and I and I think one of the reasons why we're requesting this is some direction that we've gotten from staff relative to the final plat. We are
in the process of that. We've submitted revised plans to the city engineer and to Nick uh in the plane um department. Um we did that back in October. October
20th we sent that in. Um but then with a request for review and comment, we didn't receive that until the 12th. We forwarded um a response to that, but it was only predicated on the fact that we had asked for the early grading permit.
Anyhow, um I believe Dean stated what we were interested in. Um I think due to the um the time tonight I won't get into a lot of other detail but um part of that rationale is we've also been asked
that we could not um submit our final plat um mound was at a equivalent stage with their review. We're expecting today or so um responses back from our submission
there. Um they've been pretty um correct. >> We're just for correction, we'd be fine for you to submit your final plat to us at any time because our final approval is not contingent upon mound. I mean, >> madame mayor and council would it's one
plat and they have not received preliminary plat approval from mound. So the risk in that they certainly can submit it. That's completely fine. >> The hesitation is if something changes on the mound side, it you approved a final plat. >> Okay. >> So,
>> and we can also extend the final plat too. So, just so you're aware of that. >> Sure. Um I mean I guess that's that's quite contrary to the information I had heard from um I should say staff. And we
had also offered the fact that we could have the flat divided between the two cities, you know, make it cleaner for everyone, which was rejected in a sense. So, it was um >> I don't think it was rejected. Well, it it
>> because we're not going to approve because I I had mentioned that, you know, it's it's obviously everything's going through the county, but we would be keeping the project as far as those items and and the requirements on the miniaturista side are um specifically
outlined in in our in our documents. And the same thing is true for the mound side. And so, um, that was information I heard was that they wouldn't accept it and and approve it until mound was further along. So,
>> because the way you submitted it is it it's one plat. >> Okay. >> That's the way you submitted it to us. >> Okay. And well, do we present Well, um, >> is there any way they can >> So, we could separate
>> separate into different phases. That'd be fine >> as long as it's consistent with the preliminary. >> Okay, that works for us >> because we we we have no say for mound the mound side. We have no say. And so I think as as Mr. Ael was pointing out, if
we were to approve the final plat and then something at in mound changed, it might >> change something in Minatrista and then you're kind of back to square one, which I'm sure you don't want to do. So if you want to split the plaid, um that would be fine with us. We we would have no
qualms about that. I'm not and you'd have to work with staff or with legal to figure out how to do that. Um so >> yeah, so if if it's timing and you want final plat approval um sooner than later
and you don't want it tied to mound, then just split the plat. That's fine. >> So just to be clear, we could do that at this point without having to go back to the beginning. we could just move forward and then >> I think >> use the direction and the information from the preliminary flat to finalize
let's just say the miniaturistic side >> and >> I believe so. >> Yeah. Again, without if it does it doesn't change if if nothing's changed on what we've approved. >> Okay. Other than what was requested. >> Right. Right. >> Right. >> Very good.
>> Great. >> Good news. Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> All right. Good night. Madame Mayor, council, staff, thank you for having us this evening. My name is John with Lucid Builders. Um, we're helping on the sales side of things with Tanya and we've taken a lot of requests
to see all these sites. Um, the trees have made it difficult in our opinion to kind of describe what's what's going to end up here. Uh we've walked two potential buyers through the what we would call the executive lots and uh they quickly kind of put us off and and
said bring us on back when you have uh more grading and and tree coverage removed so we can kind of see what's going on. Um, so we would request respectfully if if you could bifurcate those two of the trees in the grading, uh, we would love to be able to take down some of those trees. And I also
think it would help in um, uh, the soil borings for the ponding which is requested because it >> you can do that without removal of the trees. We're we're aware of that. >> Most of the trees, correct? >> You can do that without removes respectively. That's what we would ask
is that it would help us in sales. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> All right. >> Hi, I'm Tanya Kurt. I'm with Coal Banker Realy and um we're just excited to have
motion and things happening up there and getting that tree the tree removal is going to really help us with the um list of um interested parties that we already have going right now. And so, um, like John had said, we did have a couple of
buyers come out there and start walking with us and looking. And of course, it's very hard for people to visualize. So, it'll be really exciting as those trees get um moved and action starts happening. And we'd like to hit the ball running. So, come spring, we can start getting those purchase agreements and
stuff as you know, we already do have placeholders out there in the development um to start bringing in some of that reservation list. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Right. >> That concludes our presentation. Again, just reiterate if uh if we can uh if it
continues is what works for council >> and like we said, Dean, we're we're excited to have this project. Um we really do want it to happen. Um as you know, we've had multiple projects come forward for this site. Um but we also have to be cautious and and
you need to be cautious because you don't want to put a bunch of money into this and then not have it um come to fruition. So, why don't we continue this until um our December 8th meeting and then bring those requirements that staff has set forth to us. Um the soil borings
are important because we need to know if the ponding is going to work. You know that. >> Um and I'm sure your engineers know that. And then if we have all the information we need, I wouldn't see why we couldn't do a a preliminary uh or a um
whatever a tree removal and maybe grading. I'm not sure you'll be able to do grading and >> really just ask for tree removal and stumping >> and there'll be some costs involved. So just be prepared. >> You have the he's getting letter. We have the financing arranged for the project. So that's
>> okay. >> But that's all in place. So >> Okay, good. That's great to hear. >> Appreciate you that consideration. Thank you so much, >> Mayor. Thank you. >> All right. So, we'll see you back here on the 8th.
>> At 6:30. 6:30. >> All right. So, next, uh, we move on to, um, A2S task orders for the Woodland Cove water treatment plant construction observation and the SCADA services. So, um I believe we have Mr. Balmer here
with us this evening. Aaron, um or Jasper, who's who wants to do this? >> Yeah, I was going to defer to Gary. He's kind of leading the charge on this. So, he can kind of give a little intro and then I think Aeron's here to answer questions if that's all right. adds. >> Yeah, madame mayor and councel. Um, as
you're well aware, you on October 6th, um, we accepted the bids for magnet construction to start construction on the new water treatment plant, Woodling Cove. Um, part of that project is going to, this is a two-part um, ask here. The first part would be
for the um, observation construction for the Woodland Cold Water Treatment Plant. Um the second part is the um the SCADA system uh installation programming services for the project. The first part of it which Aaron can probably answer a lot of your questions for is going to be
the construction observation while the plant is being built. Um it covers everything that um we can't do in house but leave it to the professionals but it's everything from the concrete pouring to the um the submitt you know checking the submitts the piping
everything. So um it's not something we can do in house. Um it takes a lot of different expertise and that's where they come in on this because they do have different staff for the different areas for this. So um I would direct any questions that you have on that side to
Aaron. As far as the um mosquito system programming goes, when we did our first two treatment plants, this was incorporated into the quote uh package because um the was the engineering group at that
time does does not do SCADA inhouse where A2S is huge into that. They have I believe 37 electrical engineers on staff. Um we've given all our stuff to them now to take care of. Uh we were running into issues with our prim with our primary
contractor before um being stretched too thin. We have a dedicated uh staff or I should say they have dedicated two staff members to our needs um for doing our any of our troubleshooting any of our questions and stuff like that. And it's
been really nice um to have somebody that's reliable in this. So, as far as that goes, um, you know, when we're talking with the SKA system, we talking the control of everything in the plant from chemical feeds to start pumps to,
uh, opening and closing valves, uh, monitoring the amount of chemical going in the, um, uh, I mean, everything you can think of in a water treatment plant, the skate assistant controls and monitors so that we can do um, you know, for every month we get the reporting on
how much chemical went out and, you know, how How much water went on? How much should we pump? It monitors everything. Um I I should have taken and put the the picture of it in there, but the cabinet is probably 4 feet wide by 8 ft high by 2 feet deep. And it's
what do you think's in there? Thousand wires, if not more. I mean, it is a lot. I mean, everything's numbered. I It would take you forever for I mean, these guys can figure this stuff out, but all these numbers go to all the certain different things. So for us, I mean,
this is a functional um thing we need. Um as far as um that goes, I I you know, there's nothing that we, you know, we could have added in somebody else do it, but if they're in house doing it, it's much easier for that. Um like I say, if you want to open up any questions for
your that we'll let Erin >> Before Erin answers that, let me ask a question. And this might be more for Sarah. Um, Miss Insala, um, would you have to go out for bid for that for the for the SCADA services or is that something?
>> Uh, madame mayor, members of the council, I believe these would be professional services under the competitive bidding law, which you are allowed to contract with whoever you would like to contract with, not the lowest. >> Okay. All right. Just for reference.
Okay. So, um, do we have questions of the SCADA services? Let's let's start with SCADA services. So, I do have a question for Gary if if I could. Um, will this actually save you and in public works time um because of the
reporting requirements and all of that? >> Yeah, we we're putting off updating Excuse me, I don't feel really good today. We're we're updating we're we're putting off updating our computer and our stuff here uh and the reporting system that we track to um to add it
into this. So once everything's done, this will make um our reporting so much easier. Right now what we're using the program is not working right. So we're doing everything by hand, putting in everything slowly. Um this along with the new reporting system that they're going to put in will make you know my
life easier. will make Adam Hegel who was our water operator's life a lot easier just tracking chemical usage and being able to program everything. It's just going to be that it's just going to make so things life so much easier all the way around. >> Yeah. So with this SCADA system and then
the other ones we approved earlier, are we done approving things for SCADA for a while or are there more coming? >> Well, I mean the only thing we'll have is panel upgrades for you know that. But as far as this goes, we'll you know we'll be good for quite a while. I think the last time we updated our system was 20
17 I believe through automatic systems. So we're due for an upgrade, but we will we're pushing this off for another two years just to incorporate all this will also, you know, update our servers. Um it's going to put everything into one place. Right now we have some servers at the salt treatment plant. We have
another set of servers at the nurture plant. Everything will be in one housing, one rack, one area um with redundant systems to back it up. So um it just be a lot neater package. It'll be in its own little, you know, basically clean room instead of being
out in the lab right now where everything's just full of dust and everything else as as it sits there, you know. So, it it'll be a lot neater and a lot more efficient. >> Okay. >> Is this u ska system is this
manufacturer agnostic? So, if if we get a little bit further down and you end up having to change manufacturers for different parts, will that require rework? >> Yeah. Uh so madame mayor members councel um yeah for so A2S provides SCADA services as as a professional service um
we do not build pan control panels so we do the programming we can do maintenance um on call services we just don't have a panel shop where we provide that equipment so we we treat it purely as a professional service um but the the
project was bid with the control panels and all the hardware being supplied through the contractor uh we simply come out at the end of the construction to do all the programming and work with the integrator that's installing the panels to make sure that they do all the the correct installation. As far as the
software, that's really where we focus is working with the city of Minitrista and their staff. Make sure you get the right software and um servers and things operating correctly to run your SKA system, not only at the water plant, but also through your whole water system.
The software we use is uh it's a standard off-the-shelf software. I It's I think it's a Wonderware system. >> Wonderware and win 911. >> That's a offtheshelf platform you can purchase um from Wonderware. Uh and we
work with with the city to make sure you have access to all >> and that's we we do have um um a license for that. So we are updated every with all the new programming that comes in. We do get that with our with our fee. As far as the hardware system goes, that's where we do run into an issue. I'm not
going to lie to you. five years down the road, are we going to use the same components? I don't know. I mean, that's where we're running into a lot of problem with these older panels that are pushing 20 years old. A lot of the components don't fit in them. Um, we can't get the obsolete parts anymore. So, as you know, that's why things are
getting updated there. So, but I mean, honestly, am I going to be able to tell you five years from now, well, will we be able to get, you know, the exact same component? No. But we will get a component that's close that can work. I mean, we've have squeezed them into our new panels here or I should say into the old panels. Most of the stuff that we're
looking at where, you know, that we've put in like at lift station 4, we put new VFDs in there, which are the soft starts for the motors. Those will be coming out and put into the new panel that we get um because they're expensive and we try to, you know, we'll reuse as many parts as we can as needed. So to
that point, I guess one item where A2S is a little unique on the service side. We'd also, you know, we don't sell hardware. So it's it's not we have no interest in upgrading hardware for this city to make a profit. We're here to make sure you have a reliable system and it functions correctly. We have staff
that just service Twin C's metro area and that's what they do. They commission new systems and ser serve uh existing systems. So, we're here to make sure that we utilize the infrastructure we have to the best of its ability, but also prepare to replace it when it's necessary. But we're not in the business
of uh replacing stuff that's not >> and we have two different electrician um I should say electrical contractors that we use for doing that. We don't just rely on one. We do have two um that we can ask for different stuff. You know, if somebody's busy, we need somebody in
a hurry, we can get a hold of the other ones. So, I mean it there we have more than one option, which is nice. Okay. All right. Any other questions regarding the skater system? All right. So, next
>> uh so the other task order that's in front of you today is the construction observation and administration uh contract. So, uh Magny Construction, I I just received the signed contracts that I'll bring back uh to them uh tomorrow and uh and we'll issue a notice to
proceed for them to start construction. uh with that uh it'll require oversight from AE2S during construction. So uh we'll uh within task order 18 we'll have someone on site about 25 hours a week throughout uh until substantial completion of the project and then a
reduced amount of hours from then till final completion. Uh and their primary job is to work with the contractor to make sure that uh the contract uh specifications are followed and things are installed uh per the design. Uh we call it con construction observation
because they're really not an inspector. Uh we have thirdparty inspection that does the concrete testing and the rebar testing that is required by the contractor to carry and they'll have uh AET or brarawn or some type of third-party inspector that will do some of that testing. But we work with that
that testing firm and the contractor make sure concrete is poured correctly. Uh piping is is installed correctly. Electrical systems are commissioned. So really the intent of of task order 18 is to make sure that the project is built uh per the plans and specifications and
our time uh to oversee that. It also uh provides time for our uh engineering leads uh to do the construction administrative portion of this which is reviewing submitts from the contractor working through uh changes in the field uh design adjustments because of you
know different equipment alternatives various items. So that's really our our on-site work and administrative work. >> The submittable aspect of it I can truthfully say is probably going to be the most important part to make sure that the components going in match what
we need. Um a prime example of this and when we first built the original plants um you know I'm going to admit it we knew nothing about water treatment plants. We've learned a lot over these last eight years. Um, one of the things that we learned that the high m uh the
the high service pumps that we installed were actually outdated when they got put in. So, I mean, we're lucky to have have found the parts. We actually bought extra impellers that they had on the shelf because they were outdated. Um,
and basically when the guy said when were they put in, he says they were I mean this was 2017. The final um era for them was like 2012 or 13. So, I mean, you know, that's where it's nice. We've learned these things so that we can make sure that they're watching for that from now on
and we're not getting or something like that. So, >> that was the contractor that put that >> the contractor put it in. Correct. You know, and but we've learned a lot now from you know what we've had experience with the with these two plants and what we can look for and you know and
>> you know have a lot more faith in what what we're putting in. So the the biggest part is going to be launching those submitts and we've conveyed that to uh Ross Merman will be our person that's in there. We've worked worked with Ross now since the uh since the whole start of this. Uh very
knowledgeable gentleman and he'll be very thorough on that. He knows what we're looking for. So >> and then um you said 25 hours a week of observation, but then there's other hours behind the scenes if in in office hours. So what do you anticipate that to
be any idea with reporting and and meetings and I mean any >> hours excuse me I don't don't know the number of hours off the top of my head but u we did provide kind of a detailed breakdown in the task order kind of shows >> generally how many hours we're allocating and I think we broke it out by year as well okay just so we could
see how that time would be spent but so so Ross will be overseeing the construction administration uh Bri will be our on-site representative she'll should be on site 25 hours a And then I'll be in the background making sure everyone's doing their job. >> Okay. >> And there'll be some weeks I'm sure
that'll like we noticed that last time we did that. I mean if the weather's bad, they're not out. If they're not doing anything at the plant, we don't have an inspector standing there. So >> So it's built on an hourly not to exceed. >> Correct. So I'd be hours while they're out there, which >> Yeah. >> because 3,200 hours is extreme. It seems
kind of ridiculous as we have an engineer on staff. Well, the other thing I I I will point out is whoever designs this needs to be responsible for it. So that's why the A2S needs to be there um overseeing it
because otherwise there's fingerpointing which is you know well who's who's responsible or who who who failed and and that kind of thing. So, um I I just think whoever designed this, who's ever in, they need to be there obser
observing and making sure things get installed and built correctly. That's just >> And just to give you kind of a comparison in back in 2017, we had full-time 40hour week for two years. >> Yeah. >> So, that's over 4,000 hours we had
there. Plus, not only do we have, but at that time, they also hired WSB to Overwatch. Yeah. >> Yeah. And we still have lots of issues. >> What's that? >> And we still have lots of issues. >> Yes. And so I mean, you know, so in comparison, I mean, I I feel that this
will be a lot better fit for what we're what we're doing here. >> Well, water plants are unique infrastructure. oftentimes um even the building department for a city then the inspectors for the building department don't have the depth
of understanding of a facility of that type to do the full inspection which is why it's it's oftent times best for us to have someone on site doing that. >> So I'm looking at your breakdown of all the hours and the prices and everything and the billing rate changes each year.
Why are we not locking in at the rate when we start the project and basically paying 15% more per hour by 2028? So it's pretty common practice that the end of every year uh our rate sheet gets adjusted >> to per inflation I guess
>> but should be tied to the project not I mean we're >> no not not typically typically uh every year our standard rate sheet will adjust um to follow general inflation uh there's adjustments within each rate some are
some are more some are less but um we try to project that adjustment in the budget we prepare So, we're being transparent with what we would expect those adjustments to be. We don't know what those adjustments are going to be yet. Um, but that's would generally hold the percentage uh to try to anticipate
that. >> And again, this would be the maximum. I mean, it might be less. >> So, so the budget is based on ours. So, right, we're expecting >> but your hourly rate are going to change is what you're saying. our hourly rate. We have a the projected rate for say Bri
who will be on site for every year that shoe will be budgeted to be on site and we bake in a little bit of uh inflation on that rate >> uh >> because we know that our rates will change over time. So again, we're just being very transparent with our budget that we know our engineering rates
>> change every year >> which is per I guess per standard. >> Okay, that's your standard. That seems like a pretty high increase from the start of a project to a finished project that you're raising your rates 15% over it. >> Uh usually I think we budget four to 5%
a year is usually what we estimate again because we don't know. Generally our our overall rate sheet won't increase by that much but some may or may not just depending on >> but you you're going to actually be billing us the actual inc. I mean, so
let's say the rate is $55 an hour for 2026, but then in 2027 it's a 4% increase. So X number of dollars, but you're not going to bill us for 15% increase. >> No, we will bill the rate for that year.
>> Okay. >> The cost wouldn't exceed this 1.4 million, >> right? >> Yep. Yep. So the okay the cost right now assuming the project is you know ends on the substantial completion date and the final completion date uh the the fee that's in front of you is the hourly
ought to exceed >> okay >> for that work. So if our rates are slightly >> you're not going to go over and then come back for more money like last time >> if our rates are slightly more or less uh we don't make any adjustments to the budget for that. is budgeted. We will bill our standard rate for that year and
the year the work happens and and our the contract that's in task order 18 is the budget for >> Okay. Um and then I just have a question for staff. I think I know the answer, but I might as well ask it. Is there anything in the task order that A2S is
doing that we could do? >> I'm just asking. I I'm going to say no just for the fact that well I mean it it like Jasper touched on it's more that >> the factor of if something goes wrong it's the fingerpointing that could
happen if something that we say yep it's a goal um and it turns out that it shouldn't have been you know who who's to blame now I mean can we you know can we go after them no it was on us so this way that if they screw up guess who's
fixing it Yeah. >> Okay. You don't notice. >> I got another question for Erin. Um, so in the task order, it says the post construction phase services may commence during the construction phase and and if not otherwise modified and the task order will terminate 12 months after the
commencement. So that's basically the warranty period, >> right? >> So what date does that start on? Final completion July 1st or all work completed December 31st? Um when you say all work completed so all work is not >> well you've got so you've got
substantial completion but you have substantial completed he might probably has good eyes >> not yet so on page nine it says substantial completion January 31st 28 final completion July 1st 28 all work completed by December 31st 28 the reason
I'm asking is because I want to make sure that the warranty period extends through one entire summer season of using this plant so we can fully see how it works, fully see how it's operational, >> right? >> So, so warrant warranty period. Um, so I understand the confusion. So, uh, in the
contract that the contractor signs, the warranty period starts when the city has benefit beneficial use of the facility, which is typically substantial completion. Okay? >> So, you're able to operate the facility and that's when the warranty starts because you're using the equipment that
was provided. Um, so we provide uh our our post construction warranty services start on the date of substantial completion. We do understand there's a little bit of an overlap there where we give the contractor a little bit more time between substantial and final to do
um you know small items clean up um various things. Um, so that would be from substantial that I think final is early spring of 2028. I think maybe June. >> July 1st. July 1st. Yeah. >> Sorry. Um, so we'll still have someone
participating in the project to make sure that is completed. So really there's it's just the gap from July 1st to the end of 2028 where we would have uh warranty services where we wouldn't have anyone on site, but that's included in the contract. >> Right. So it says 12 months. I want to know if we can extend that to like 18 or
24 given the issues we had with the last plant with things not necessarily running right and nobody checking. >> So the the warranty period with the contractor was part of the bid. So the 12 months >> well like with your warranty to check stuff because I'm reading this as part of your test order. >> Sure. So I guess my recommendation would
be uh we also are I guess working with the city through a general services agreement uh all kinds of things water related. So uh we're not going anywhere I hope. Uh so that the end of 2028 if you need additional support we'll
provide that. We're we're here. We don't just hand the keys and walk away. We're here to make sure that facilities uh well maintained and operating and works well. So we're extension of staff. >> Well I get that. I just don't want you to come back and say we'll do this but we want another you know 300 thou an x amount of money. So basically where it
says past 303 one-year warranty inspection. I I would I would hope we could get that extended. Maybe I'm the only one on council that feels that way, but >> yeah, I mean, if we want to delay it or or do it at a later date, I mean, that's >> not a problem. It's again, we have we
have a general services agreement. If we need to do additional work later, we would just work through through it that way. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, it wouldn't cost more. I'm not sure. I >> saying it's included in our contract. If
it's additional scope, >> if there if there's additional scope, then we would add that through the general services. If it's just delaying that inspection to be at a different time later. >> Well, yeah. Because I mean, if it starts January 31st, like that, that's not prime usage for a new water treatment
plant. So, I mean, >> so if you'd rather get through a full summer, >> my only concern would be that once you've crossed that one-year window for the contractor, you now lose the ability to come back. So, we I would strongly encourage us to do the the final the the
warranty walkthrough prior to the 12 month uh kind of window expiring uh so you catch anything that does need to become a contractor warranty. >> So, this is under similar to what we had
before, but it's um on plan startup and official run date. >> Correct. And and that's typical because you're using the equipment that's provided, which means the contractor, you need to take occupancy of the facility. So your insurance then applies
and the contractor no longer has control of the facility. >> So it's not necessarily January 31st. It could be April 30th. All depend on what it is. That's when the that's when the warranty period will start. >> Yeah. Right. >> All right. And we get one
>> we get two years after that, right? That's right. >> We went two years. >> That's right. >> All right. Yeah, there you go. I >> was hoping he'd say yes. I don't. >> Um, all right. So, with that, any other questions council has? Otherwise, um, is
there a motion approving the resolution? It would be number 101-25 for AE2S task order number 18 for the construction observation services as stated in the said task force um with a cost not to exceed 1,480,496.
>> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss Revkin. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Vickery. Any further questions? Hearing none. All those in favor signify with I. I. >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes 5. And then I need a motion approving the
resolution which is 102-25 for A2SK SCADA task order number four for the SK SCADA services as stated um in said task force for the Woodland Cove um treatment plant at a cost not to exceed $466,98.
>> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Miss Refkin and Mr. Govern. Any further questions? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Looking forward to a completed plant.
>> All right. Thank you. All right. Um I think uh then we have one more item and that is um Gary is asking for approval um for the installation of the drainage pipe on Bayside Lane. And I'll give that to
Gary. >> Madame Mayor, members of council, we're sorry for the late um add-on addition to this. Um we had just received the quote this week and we're looking to get your feedback on this as um time is of the essence to try to get this done. Um back
in October um the residents at both the 905 and 925 made us aware of some drainage issues um they came in um and talked to us about it. Uh the the person at 905 has um sold their house so that
is no longer on um our agenda, but the 925 Bayside Lane um was the one where back in 2002 the city they had come to the city um with some complaints of the water and the
city opted to um install a pumping system at their house. Um this is documented in their property file and it shows that the council approved the work. Um so that's why we've come back to you to talk about this. Um the system
that was installed um the pumping system that was there is no longer functioning because the pipe with the trees has uh the info the roots have infiltrated it cracked the pipe so it no longer works. It's also very expensive for them to keep replacing basically some pumps and
keeping heat in a shed um where this was done um back in 2002. just never should have been done this way, but it was. So, you directed us, myself and Miss Folski, to look at some different options um to do that. One of the options was to
connect to a existing storm pipe in the backyard um of 880 Jennings Cove. We looked at that and was thinking it was going to be a great option. Um but due to elevations and um you know there's not enough drainage between the two
sources for that we feel comfortable that this will work. Um the other factor is um the and then the second option was if what if we bore a pipe um there to the catch bases front we can have a little bit of more fall but we run into
an issue with on a real heavy rainfall which you know we seem to get these all the time but you could get that big one where the the search charge on that pipe could back up into their pipe thus not having drainage and flooding their basement.
So the other factor as we were looking at this stuff was to pump um to to pour a pipe all the way to the pond location owned in our city park at Jennings Park. Um this gives us great elevation. Um we
talking to the contractor that was there um who came highly recommend it and did some checking with some other people too and they know their stuff. He's confident that he can make this work. So, it's it's a long it's a long steady
stream. We've asked um Sarah to draw up um with Kenny and Graven to draw up an easement agreement and with this um with the property owners there that if this goes in and they decide they want to do this, there's still a slim chance that you know with that pond backs up, their
pipe could back up, but it's in there this thing would be signed before any of the work would go. This pipe would become theirs responsibly for maintenance. the city would own it because it is through the easement. Um we, you know, we would talk to both the neighbors where the drainage easement
exists now to you know so their understanding of it. But once this project's done, the city washes their hands basically to this whole thing. So I mean it is this is the only time that this would be, you know, done. Um, so we
asked the contractor for pricing. Um, you know, for it, came back and I think it's a great price. 21,000, you know, $170 is really I didn't think bad because when we first asked people, they were going anywhere from $18,000, which
was this person was the lowest bid, up to 40,000. Of course, it was guesstimates, but I mean, I I think for what we're looking at, >> um I think it's well worth the city to have them do this, get it done, and basically wash our hands to this
situation. >> And the property owner at 925 is is willing to sign that agreement then. >> Correct. That's Well, if we get approval for this, you know, we would go and talk to them, make sure, you know, that they're in agreeance with this. And if they are total agreement with it then we
can you know get them signed off and then we can proceed with the project. If they are not then >> basically I guess we have no other options and we're not you know >> then we don't do anything. Yeah. No I agree >> and this is going to go into the pond
that we talked about during the work session and need >> No, this is the one that's right in the park itself. >> It's right next to the park. My only question is does that park have capacity? >> Yes. >> Okay. because and actually when we were there, we were actually talking about um this actually came up because we're
actually looking we'd like since that park was redone, we're having a hard time getting the um turf established there because there just there's no water out there. Everything's on wells out that way. We actually thought about maybe having um WSB do a little research, see if that pond, if we could
dig it deeper to actually have water storage capacity and for that for irrigation. um you know so and this would contribute to you know helping with that too. So it's uh >> okay >> it could be a win-win for every for everybody. >> Okay.
>> All right. Sounds good to me. >> Yep. >> I think we should do it. >> Questions. All right. So then is there a motion to approve the quote for installing drainage pipe for 925 Bayside Lane, which is city project number 08-25
with a condition that this um as Gary pointed out um the property owner sign off on future how would you ownership or >> we own it. They do the maintenance. >> Maintenance. All right. So move. >> Thank you, Miss Lacy. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Thank you, Mr. Vicky. All those in Any other questions? >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify with I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. So that concludes um all of our business items, administrative items. Before you steal my thunder, I just want
to say don't forget about the uh tree lighting event. And I would like to ask um since you and you are kind of part of the WCC, I noticed that they gave um they sent out an email for the mound tree lighting. Could they send out an
email about the Minatrista tree lighting since we're part of the WCC? >> All us Christians. I think Betsy Brady usually sends out those emails. >> Good ones. Love it. Um, okay. That that
was my comment. So again, reminder, um, it's December 4th from 5 to 7. Santa will be there at 5:30 and tree lighting >> fire. The flyer will be sent tomorrow. >> Okay. And uh there'll be bonfires, there'll be a wine and beer tent,
fireworks, etc. It'll be a lot of fun. So, please come. Okay. Now you can do your report. >> Oh, well there you took half of mine. Um so, uh the only other thing I had was just a reminder that the next meeting that we have is a little bit non-conventional. It's the second
Monday. So, it'll be instead of December 1st, it'll be December 8th. So >> at 6:30 >> at at 6:30. Um and that'll be our It's a pretty big meeting. It's our budget meeting. So if everybody can be there. If you're not going to be there, just let me know. >> Oh, and then are we I'm not sure. I
haven't confirmed it yet, but we might have the sixth grade students again that um were the top. But yeah, mayor of the day essay. So that might that that'll be a lot of fun. So >> all right. Anything else? >> No. And I will uh get Betsy.
>> Yes. So you're gonna do it? Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. >> All right. Anything else, David? >> Is there a meeting? Um, who's going to be Peter? Okay. >> All right. Great. Um, any other staff reports? Hearing none. Um, council
reports. >> Second one. Go ahead. >> Okay. Um, I attended the mound fire meeting, not the >> fire committee meeting, right? >> Mound fire commission meeting. Just mound. Funny enough, we did spend about half the meeting talking about the fire district and the pension. plan. Uh the district meetings were agreed to be
cancelled until January. So there will not be any district meetings in November or December. >> Um the big issue is still the pension payouts monthly and then preventing which is preventing the pension plans from merging on that. With regard to Mount Fire specifically, uh projected calls for 2025 are at 804. The 5-year
average is about 718 of which 37% are fire and 62% are medical calls. Mhm. >> The big news from the meeting is that Mound will likely have a new chief by July 1st. >> And there will also be a new deputy chief um starting then too. That was
approved in the budget. Um no clue as to who will be taking those positions, but they're working on that. Um the end of the meeting was mostly discussing the call types and how to decrease the medical only calls. um commission members felt it would be beneficial for the chief, the mayors and the police
chiefs to have a discussion about when the police are calling for fire instead of just directly calling EMS. More so an issue um with the other police department that helps mound, not ours. So just putting that out there. He has good things to say about our officers
and how we respond. Um also discussed the possibility of um billing residents for lift assist. Um, chief did share an ordinance with us which I believe he was going to be sending to the cities. Did he do that yet? No, >> I I haven't seen it yet, but I can check
in. >> Yeah, just check with Vicki. And um again, commissioners thought that would be helpful to possibly deter some of the calls that not necessarily Jasper and I just talked a little bit while he was talking about that maybe in our city it would be like the first one or two are free and then after that you'd pay
because we don't get a lot of repeat offenders like some of the other cities do. So that was the big thing. Next meeting for that will be February 5th and I have a St. Bonnie fire meeting this Thursday at 7 that I will be attending. >> Oh, thank you. >> Miss the January
fire commission meeting. >> I I can be there, I think. >> Okay. So, can I go? >> Yes. >> Yes. Um, the West Tanka Community and Commerce is retooling their whole deal and starting January 1st, they will be
connect West Tanka. They're going to try to connect. They have kind of a wonderful logo with a bridge with a W, which looks like a bridge because there's lots of bridges all over West Tanka. And what they're trying to do is bridge um communication between
um commerce uh nonprofits, education, all the different sectors of our community. And I found out something. So uh and the prices are going up drastically because they found that they looked into joining like Celsius or
Minnotonkas or Weisetta's um chamber of commercees and and the fees are about $450 and up. So they were charging like 75 for a nonprofit and 125 for um commercial business, but um they're way
below um the average. So um they are raising the prices substantially, but they're taking on um Plaid Moose, which is a marketing company to really help market these different um activities going on throughout our communities. Um
the the bottom fee will be $200 a year. Um, I'm a little concerned because only like 27 people have paid their fees. >> Pretty small town. Yeah. >> So, we'll see if we can get more people to actually pay. Um, but it looks like
they've got some young, interesting, exciting, talented people that are going to be trying to reboot this whole thing. So, that's kind of the big news there. Um, and the Gillespie Center, I think I told you their 25th anniversary was a sellout. It was wonderful. Well
attended. Everyone had a great time. They raised a nice amount of money. So, things are going well with Gillespie Center. Thank you. >> And that's it. All right. Anything else? Do you have a meeting? Are you going to be at the Thursday meeting >> uh for Pine New Creek? Okay. um
Northwest League, we had um Henipin County um um actually soil and water resource um person there and um basically talked about trees and uh and so I talked to staff, you know, there's tree grants available and so on so forth
and so maybe in the future we'll we'll um apply for some of those grants. So, >> Madam, we did actually um >> Brendan and I had talked and I had Brendan do we actually applied for uh $200,000 worth of tree replacement
through um a grant for asht tree removal. So, we'll see if we get it. >> Okay. >> This would be able to any of the trees that we've removed presently and any of the future trees and yards um from boulevards um would be able to be replaced through this grant.
>> Yep. Okay. just on city property or just on city property or >> we would push them off onto their homeowner. We would get them out of the rightway and onto their own property. That be the caveat for the whole thing. We don't want them on our We don't want to deal with them anymore.
>> Okay. Well, keep us posted on that. And so, um and then the next one coming up will be interesting because um it'll um include five representatives. um the um um our representatives and then there's um two representatives in the northwest
area that um Danny Nadoo and Christine Robinson and then also uh Liur is their senator. So it'll have all five people there. So it'll be um interesting. So but and then I'll um I think we have a Zoom meeting with um Anne Johnson
Stewart and I also have another Zoom meeting with the LMC. >> We do. We don't have it. We don't have it yet. >> Okay. Well, one is going to be scheduled. Anyhow, that's it. Um, we can be adjourned if there is a motion to adjurnn. >> So, move. >> Thank you, Miss Revkin. Is there a
second? >> Second. >> Ryan, the governor made that second. All those in favor signify with I. I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Um, David, don't leave. I just want to ask you something. Part: 2
a plate plan um park dedication and tree replacement and then the property discussion the Hunter and Bosema property as you know those um and then we have the bathmetric survey summary so wish with that we're going to start with water rate discussion I'll give that over to Jasper
>> yeah u madame mayor members of council uh what we're trying to do today is kind of fine-tune our water rates for adoption on December 8th so what I included in the packet um mostly from the residential side I think was fairly clear. There was some I think rounding up to have some round numbers because I
was sired I think. Um so and there's a there's two rollouts. So there's the quarterly roll out for Q1 and Q2 and then Q3 is when we would start doing monthly billing. So you can kind of see the breakdown of that. Um what we would likely do is we'd adopt the quarterly
rates and then close to when we would need to do monthly we'd amend the fee schedule and adopt the the monthly. But I just want to make sure that those are all out there to kind of to kind of talk about that roll out and what that'll look like in the future. Um and then just briefly about the commercial the
commercial side which includes the schools. Um that's the other piece that we need to talk about that we didn't really talk about at the last meeting uh to try to dial in what those are. Generally what those have been is they've been kind of a mirror image of the residential but with you know
different tiers because it's different scale. So, we want to do something different there. What's in the packet is basically what we have for the residential, you know, mirrored on the commercial school side. Um, and this that doesn't have much impact to the budget because or the revenue side
because there's only uh 11 commercial accounts and nine school accounts. So, only really 20 accounts on that commercial school tier. So, um I guess first I I'd like to just have a little discussion to try to dial in the residential side um for the quarterly
and the the monthly roll out. >> All right. So, I think we kind of dialed in the 75 and the 35. So, I think we did that. I think the my question was um I I didn't recall that we decided on 69% and
40% for tiers three and four. And I'd like to see if is there some some way we can ratchet that back a bit because that's >> you use 24,000 gallons in a month. That is a substantial amount. I use that in a quarter.
>> That's a lot of water. >> So that's a lot of water. >> Okay. But we're talking about >> well quarterly. So this would be quarterly, >> right? But I mean it's it would still be 24,000 gallons a month to get to the 72 >> or even the 16 thou,000. Like so the
>> that's a lot of water. Okay. So, you're saying the gallons were adjusted? >> Yes. >> Yeah. It says monthly, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, no. I know it's Well, quarterly and monthly. Yeah. >> I think the mindset was that if you're going to use that much water, you're going to pay. >> Yeah. >> Because we want them not to use that
much water, >> right? So, we're talking um a 12% increase for tier 2, but then we're talking a 69% increase for tier three. >> Be an example of somebody using that tier three. I mean, would it be somebody
putting in a new lawn or would it be somebody that's, you know, got a twoacre garden or something? >> It could be or it could be a large lot that has irrigation on their entire lot. Um, we had an individual, I think back in 2023 in the Trillium neighborhood who used nearly 500,000 gallons and a
quarter just watering his lawn. >> Um, so >> is that Warren? >> Yeah. No, but but so it can happen. Um it can happen pretty easily if you don't monitor and watch it. And I think what council member Ruffkin was saying is we want people to do that. Uh just so we
can, you know, make our investment in the water plant last as long as we can to try to change those habits. >> So it' be a pretty small number of people that and and it would be an issue for them pretty quickly, you know, that they needed to deal with. >> Yeah. And I would say Q3 Q3 is obviously
our most, you know, heavy used uh quarter >> because of irrigation. >> Because of irrigation and that's what really drives those numbers up. And we we've seen since we've been monitoring that monthly Q3 that the number of violator, you know, people that are above 100,000 gallons a a quarter or
they're trending towards that has really dropped off um significantly. We have had some more >> What about 24,000 gallons? Um, so up so 0 to 24,000 for the quarter, >> right? >> Um, I'd say >> for monthly, I'm sorry, monthly.
>> Oh, for monthly. Um, so that would put you at about 75,000 a quarter. I'd say that I'd say 90% of the people are below that. >> How much of a leeway would we have? Um, you know, if it's a year where there's a lot of rain, are we still going to cover
our costs? >> We will. Yeah. Yeah. So there there's a kind of a contingency built into these rates when we plug these numbers into the kind of utility rate calculator that we had uh help um with from DDA David and Associates um to plug those numbers
in. These numbers will will generate enough revenue on a dry year. And what that means is that each year we're going to look at it, see where we're at for fund balance in the water fund, and then we can adjust those rates accordingly because we're still looking at a 20 probably a needed 20% increase for 20207
rates as well. So, um it's not like a onetime thing. It's a it's kind of a roll out over five years um where they're going to be a little bit more exaggerated just because of the the bond payment that's required for the plant. does it, you know, to me, this is just
me. Um, on the monthly rate, if you did tier one at 5% and tier two at 10%. >> And then you did a little bit less or whatever. >> The other reason that it's such a big jump at 69% is we didn't have four tiers before. So, we had to create another
one. So, that's why you're seeing the huge jump between two and three because two used to be bigger and three. So like that's >> we used to have like up to 62,000 or something. It was for tier three >> because the the amount per gallon for
the third tier was what was that last year? >> I think it was for the fourth Yeah, for third tier was over 62,000 or 69,000. >> 65,000 I think. >> 65. Okay. >> No, I meant the dollar you was it like $15 or something like that?
>> I could look that up for tier three. The other thing I will notice >> that was $14 for tier three last time. So like the tier number, the dollar amount is actually going down and then tier four is where the huge jump comes in. >> Okay.
>> And and I will note the kind of talking with A2S about utility rate best practices. They maybe have mentioned this if you remember is generally each tier should be one and a half times the previous tier. So this follows that exactly. Um, so tier two is one and a
half times tier one and so on. >> Well, tier three is more. >> Tier three, tier three is one and a half times tier two. >> You mean the volume? >> Oh, the the dollar amount. >> The dollar amount. The dollar amount. Yeah. The volumes are >> You meant the increase. >> I think if you didn't see the percentage
next to it, if you look at the just the numbers, the 6 to9 to 13 and a half to 20, those the dollar amounts make sense. It's just seen at 69%. >> Yes. Right. >> Causing concern. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. But again, what would you run the
numbers just to see what an average kind of bill would look like? I mean, how much of an increase are we looking at? I'm just curious. Do we know? >> I think the big increase is going to come from the monthly rate cuz I mean, so for 0 to 25,000 gallons a quarter, it
was $576 and now it's $6. So it's not like the first tier rate is not that much different, >> right? That's why I'm saying it's only 4%. >> So for the average user who's not watering their yard, they're not going to notice a huge change on the dollars
per gallon. They're going to see it on the base rate. >> On the base rate, right, >> just what we want to make sure we have enough money, >> right? >> No, exactly. No, I get that. Um >> I don't know if you have a >> I do. I mean, it's um So for Minatrista, the average bill is about $155 if you
average it out throughout the year. Per quarter. >> Not per quarter, per month. Uh, let me just double check. >> It has to be per month. Yeah, >> I assume we would actually see some higher water bills because I know like for this summer, one of the summers I was here, uh, we had like a really dry
month, was in water a lot, and then basically made up for it the the rest of the summer. So, with a monthly one, we'll probably see. >> Yeah. >> Give us a little more. >> I know a couple years ago, too, there was a Metro Council um, grant for um,
irrigation controller updates. Yeah, they only come out so often. >> We're on the list for that. >> Okay. I'm sure the interest in that is probably going to uh increase with these. >> What is it every two years or three years? >> It's every three years. And I think the next cycle is 2026. So, we're they know that we're interested in applying for
that and we will >> we didn't find out about it until it was too late and then the money was already gone. >> Yeah. >> So, but yeah. >> Um >> but that's a good point. We'll keep Yeah. So, if you use 8,800 gallons a month, which is what the
average is throughout the year for Minotarista residents, your month your quarterly bill would be just under 200 bucks and your monthly bill would be like 65. >> Um, under the current structure. Okay. >> Under the the new structure, that would
go up about 25%. >> Okay. So, 65. So, under a hundred still >> um per month, yes. Yep. Yeah. that be about 90 bucks. Okay. >> $90. So, >> um, and the monthly charge, we've kind of looked into this as far as what other communities go. If you want to talk
about that, the $35 is not outside of like the norm. >> Um, it's within the range of what other communities charge when they go to monthly. It's probably on the higher end, but um, I get >> I look at our gas bill. If you look at your gas bill or your electric bill, there's a base rate and I think they're
I don't know what they are. It depends on where where you get your um electricity from, but they can be. Yeah. Um so just I recently read in the paper whether this is correct or not that ORO is raising their rates by 10%.
So I don't know if that's across the board or whatever, but um also for future infrastructure needs. So all right, I've got a question, Jasper. Why is it we don't offer the second meter if you're going to let the water run
through your grass opposed to going, you know, down the drain? >> Yep. So, the Met Council doesn't like that model. Um I think we have to justify it if we do. So, >> well, I can tell you that for me, um I save $400 by putting in that. So, after
the first year, I save $400 every year. >> Is that in in mound or Okay. So in in Minitrista we have so our it's all tied to sewer rates and because we have like a flat fee for sewer >> you don't you won't get a discount for communities that charge your sewer rate
based on your usage. That's where the second meter comes in handy. >> Um for us you're going to pay the same amount every quarter no matter what for sewer regardless of your usage. >> So that's a benefit to us I think. >> I'd say it's a benefit to to most um especially to the high users. >> High users
>> you know. So I know Mound for example does it sewer based on usage. I know Wakonia does it based on usage. >> Everybody has sewer and water whereas here we don't. Some people have sewer but not water. Got it. >> So it wouldn't necessarily be a big benefit.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> I just needed to know how to answer that. Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> All right. So I just have a question. So the it goes tier two three goes to 72,000 and then tier four is greater than 72,0001. It's supposed to be
72,000. >> Sure. Yeah. >> On both of those. Okay. >> Y >> Okay. Other questions? Okay. So, brace yourself. >> Um are you guys okay with the residential the way it's kind of structured in here? And then what about
commercial? >> Yeah. So what are normal commercial volumes? Where would they >> It varies a lot. Um we have some really small commercial users and we have some, you know, a little bit more significant ones, but at the end of the day,
>> no, they're not on. >> No, it's basically the school. >> Um >> schools are number one. >> Yeah. And then the grocery store, um theor um the apartments, and then a bunch of smaller businesses. tier would they be in is it
>> um most of them based on the spreadsheet Jasper sent me um all the businesses will fall in the first category for all the small businesses that they won't have an issue um Mac and pending they're right on the cusp um some quarters they
use like 400,000 gallons two the quarter one and quarter two they use like 200,000 so they'd be in the first tier for some and then moving up for the others the winter months they'll be right on the cusp of tier one and mid tier two. Um, summer months they would
be in tier one. >> Um, apartments are just high pretty much all the time they'll be in the >> the top the high tier, >> but then that's spread out over all of the units in the apartment building. I mean, I'm assuming I don't know how they
do it, but >> yeah, >> they just pay a flat rate per month, I'm assuming. It's up to them how they charge their residents, but they get the bill from us and they pay us directly for the all of the usage. >> Okay. >> And then all the school accounts except
for one um in the first tier and I the one says the high school, but I don't know if that's like the swimming pool high school or what as which account it is. That one quarterly is about 400,000. So they'll be in the >> top tier
>> top tier or third tiering >> or sorry tier >> they're the third or fourth pending how the breakup per month goes. >> So >> so most will be not impacted too much. >> Good. Thank you. >> It was a very helpful spreadsheet.
>> Okay. Any other questions? >> Just to summarize that. The message I'm hearing is that because of the limited number of commercial accounts that it's not really juice isn't worth the squeeze to uh charge. >> I know that yeah there there's been
talks about increasing the base rate to some other number but it really has a no impact on the very little impact on the revenue that it generates. >> In apartment buildings does the is the water included or is that do the residents pay separate? They don't pay
separate. They don't pay separate to us. I'm not sure how they do it. Um, but we send the apartment building uh owner or the manager one bill um based on um one meter. So, one base rate plus the they get charged the residential rate. So,
they get charged a big usage rate. So, that was kind of the we had this discussion at about how when we first got the the apartments, we kind of use they have both options like they could be commercial or they could be residential. And because they only have one meter on the whole building for the whole building, um they're falling
underneath the the residential ones. They're getting that base rate, but they have a big large usage. It's kind of how it comes out. So, it was about the same amount of revenue generated, but I think because there's only one one meter, we went down that route of residential. So, we can look at that in the future if we
have more apartments. But um I think we we did some calculations if I remember back and it was a reasonable amount for each apartment based on what we thought they were going to use. >> Thank you. >> And we haven't gotten I don't think any complaints from them about their bills. So
>> what have they do we know what their bills have been? Does a spreadsheet show? >> Not the version I got. >> Yeah, I'm not exactly sure the total. A lot of times it just peanut buttered across. I know when I lived in lofts, we didn't pay separate. It was just rolled into our HOA fees.
>> Yeah. Good. Okay. All right. So, are we okay with this? >> I guess so. All right. All right. Um >> Okay. So, in the in the fee schedule that you'll see on December 8th, we'll have the the quarterly in there. I'll talk to Brian about maybe putting the
monthly in there and just having, you know, dates that they're effective. That might get confusing for people pulling up the So, we might just >> maybe just put in the quarterly. quarterly and then we'll amend it again like in May or something like that. Okay, that sounds good. >> Okay. And then pay plan next. Is that
Paula or >> um yeah I mean I can give it just a brief intro. I mean we've and then Paula can can talk about it. Give me one second. >> Okay. >> But essentially what we have is a continuation of our October I think sixth discussion. Uh it's been to personnel committee one time in between
there. Um I've you know talked to personnel committee members. um individually, you know, just it was hard to get a second meeting in there. So, basically what you have in here is just a lot of background information about pay plans. If you want to go into detail or ask questions, Paula can definitely give give an update on that. And then
there's a bunch of different options with a whole bunch of information about uh a pay plan that council member Refin had kind of developed and I looked at the costs and and and plugged all those numbers in um to figure out what uh what the costs and and and implementation
costs of those things are. So, I'm not sure. Um, >> well, let's let's have Paul um give our 101. So, and I asked um staff to do this because it's very confusing if you if you don't if you haven't done this before because there's the steps and
then there's the grades and then there's this state statutes and so on. So, I thought maybe if Paula could just give us a quick overview kind of a a pay plan 101. >> Sure. So, >> um, I did a real quick, so if you guys
have questions, please stop me while I'm going. But, um, compensation programs start, uh, you look at three parts when you're doing this. You're looking at the pay level, the pay structure, and the pay method. Um, first talk, we've talked about pay equity quite a bit. This is a
law that went into effect in 1983 or four. Um it's to make sure that male and female um employees are being paid if they're doing close to the same amount of work or same type of work um they're getting paid equally. We um go
through our pay equity. You have to submit you have to do a uh report every three years. Um we have been passing that. We did that um a few years ago. I don't have that date in front of me. Sorry. But we did it about two years ago. I think we're due or maybe we're
due to do it soon within the next year. Um and we did pass that pay equity. We did pass that. I have had a few question of what happens if we're not in compliance, if we don't pass that pay equity. We do get a reduction in state aid or we get fined $100 a day,
whichever is higher. So there is um issues if we do not pass our pay equity. >> But when you say $100 a day, from what what day until when? I mean, when does it is it effective? >> It doesn't specify. I would say from the date that we submitted our report and we
were found that we were not in compliance. >> Okay. >> Um and then from that date on >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, could add up. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Perfect. Um when we look into job creation, we look into um a bunch of things. When we're creating a new job
description, we're looking for what the purpose of the job is. Um what are the essential functions that this person would be doing? What criteria will they be judged? So, how do we know that they are meeting expectations of the job duties? What are the minimum requirements and
what are the required requirements of past job duties, past school, um, education, that sort of thing. We have the minimum and required. We talk about who the employee reports to. Um, is this a supervisor position? Is this not a supervisor position? Uh,
will the position be exempt or non-exempt? So there are quite a few steps that we look into when we are creating a new job. So those steps that we're looking into will actually >> and Paula just real quick also if we're revising a position we would use the
same criteria. Okay. Correct. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. So we look at all those steps of that of that job description and we um do a job evaluation and job class. So job evaluations can be done a few different ways. there is a state job match system
that you can take all the job duties and go into the state system and do your match. It can be a little bit cumbersome because there's not always um when you're looking into the state job match there's not administrative services coordinator like
you can't it's not specific. So you look into the duties that this position is doing. You figure out the percentage. So be um you know working the front desk, answering the phones, you know that sort of thing. You you break it up and um you
figure out through that state job match. Uh the city of Minitrista does not use that. We use a third party consultant um employers association job evalu evaluation system. Um so they are the ones that will go through our job descriptions and figure out that the
classification for each job and then based on what that evaluation comes up to that is when that's where we put it into our comp plan or or pay plan sorry. >> So does that then give you the grade at which they start basically? Yep. So
that's if you will that's the uh far left hand column. Okay. >> Correct. Y um there are different types of t pay plans traditional step plans um like what the city of Minitrista has now what we're looking at so that is um
employees move through assigned pay range um by these established steps um typically there are about 10 to 12 steps can be higher average step is between 2 to 5% um which is which is the average um steps are based on longevity with the
city so what we've been working on now. So, the longer you've been with the city is typically the higher step that you're at. Uh the advantage of a step plan is the predictability. So, employees can actually look at this step plan and know all right, I started at step one. If
something I'm planning something three years down the road, I could probably be at step two or three. Like I I an employee can look at that step plan and plan budget for the future. A disadvantage of a step plan um is if
it's based on longevity. There's not a lot to motivate um employees to perform at higher level levels. Um something that has been noticed and not necessarily here, but yeah, >> as you're going through
>> as we go through market comparisons, we want to make sure we have set goals for our comp plan or our pay plan. Sorry, I use different terms, so stop me. Um, you know, you need to set goals as a council and I don't know if back in 2022 when all of this was approved if those goals
were set. You know, is it staff retention that we're looking for? Is it budget savings? Is it um there's all different types of reasons to have a comp plan, but typically when when these are set, that is what you watch, you know, as you're as you're doing your pay
plans. One >> one of the biggest goals was uh staff retention at that time. >> Perfect. Um once the uh classification the scale has been set that's from the development job descriptions and the assigned points the steps will be put into that comp
plan. So once all of those steps have gone that's where we that's where we place that employee within the comp plan or the pay plan. >> It's important to remember to not look at a specific employee. We're looking at a job description to fit within a pay
plan. um you know, instead of stating talking about employee X um dollar amounts, we want to look at that job description and where they fit within the pay plan. And um I don't have a lot more to say. That's pretty much the end of it. I do,
you know, going through trainings um meetings and peer groups, it's it's easy to look at numbers um you know, percentages and steps, but um you need to remember there's employees behind there, too. So, we need to keep um
morale up with employees. When these are changing quite a bit, there's, you know, a little uncertainty. So, we should watch that as well. >> Any questions for me. That was very quick. So, >> very good though. Very good. Okay. >> I did have a question. How does uh if
somebody changes positions, how do the steps work? Do they go back to one or >> Sure. um if they actually change a position that will go into the job description. So there'll be a new job description and that would tell you which step to go into um that would
happen talking with the uh supervisor, you know, HR that's decided what step. So if they've had a lot of experience, have been doing really well, not always in step one, but it can be step one or it could be higher too. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll note in in if I may
>> um in one in our police union contracts that we have now they have a minimum increase for promotion in there. I think it's 5%. So depending on how that shakes out with whatever grade they they're going into. Let's say from an officer to a sergeant. They have a minimum of five.
We generally have been around 10% is what promotions generally are. But it's all dependent on what they were previously paid, where they're going, and you know bunch of other factors. But it's things that get weighed in before we make a recommendation or discuss that with the personnel committee.
>> But this is this is different because this is non-union that we're talking about. Unions are kind of all set for this 2026 year. >> That will be whole another discussion next year. So >> So these are non-union um things. So and
then um in your packet there were three different plans um right three different options. There's actually a four if you will. So there's actually the three options that were in your packet >> and then the other one is status quo. Um
and then the only thing I would say is in the packet the three different options it didn't give >> give a cola or not a Oh yeah, it gave colas. >> Yeah, if I may. So the the one with the 4% cola, the header had 3.5 on there twice. I just want to if somebody caught
that, we caught that. I have it updated now. But um essentially there's the the the the grid plan of 13 grades by 15 steps with 2% at each step. Um that's what council member refin um come came up with and we've discussed and you know
it is it is pay equity compliant. It will work um in that sense for sure. Um the one piece is the the cola that's attached to that. So what that means is from 2025 to 2026, what's the cola that city council would want to if they if they choose to go
down this route of of placement in this plan? What cola do you do do you want to have that's appropriate for the employees? I kind of did a breakdown of three different options, 3%, 3.5, and four and then compared that to the 2026 um current plan that we have with a 3%
cola. Um I know that there was discussion about a 2% cola um on the on the 6th. There's been a lot of discussions between now and then, too. So, we just use that as the baseline. Um, but we can look at it either way. >> Well, let's So, here's just um a comment
and of course, Kathleen, if you want to weigh in. What I'm not comfortable with is there were a couple of the I'm fine with the what 13 steps and 15 or whatever. 13 grades, 15 steps. Um I'm
fine with that. um because if it's compliant then we're we're good there. Um but what I don't like is depending on the cola some are going to lose out and then and that's not good for morale. So there in in option number one or two um
it was like there were 10 employees or 11 employees that would make less the remainder would make more. I don't think that that's an equitable and fair um thing. So it's not until you get to the 4% cola that it pretty much is every
everybody is equal. There might be one or two just tiny tiny bit less. So I think we need to look at what's fair and equitable. If we were an organization that had two or 300 employees, that'd be one thing, but this is a small group of
individuals. It's not the whole it's you have to take the public works out because they're union to take the um police out because they're union. We have a small group of people and they all talk and I don't think it would be fair to say well okay this person is going to get a lot more and this person
is going to get less with the 4% and this this 1315 um chart then it it will be pretty much equal that that's kind of my take on it because I think we need to also think about employee morale and employee
relations with the council as well >> not disputing any of that. um fair and equitable is everyone getting the same percentage which no matter what the cola we do is everyone will get the same amount. Um comparing it to the current pay plan and what someone might get in
2026 is not necessarily 100% accurate because there's no guaranteed anything for 2026. Um so you can the difference between the current pay plan and what is anticipated to get is essentially what the column is. And yes, some people will lose x
amount of money. Um, but everyone would get the same percentage. So, just clarifying that like you >> percentage that dollar amount. >> Well, yes. I mean, >> but that's because of how the pay plan currently is set up. So, that's why it's because the steps are different
percentages. This levels them all. Um, I still like the 4%. I I told Jer which three percentages to put. I'm not I I literally gave him and Paula like the options. I'm not Does anyone have any questions about the pay plan as was
created? I will leave the cola discussion for >> others. Illuminating question for me at least. What uh can what p what is the percentage growth rate of population in uh Minatrista? >> That would be a David question
>> that's a good you know. Yeah. >> We're averaging what about averaging about about a hundred new homes a year. >> We have been. So it's 3.5 2.5 let's say three people. So 300
>> population. >> I will preface this by saying I absolutely appreciate everybody's hard work and this isn't uh and I know this discussion is not a a uh discussion of the moral re relevance of your jobs because everybody on the city staff is frankly pretty awesome. Um, but when I
look at it, I see you have to think about the taxpayers. And so we're looking at a lot of these are like 7% raises plus. And I know I just might be a crappy employee, but I've never gotten a 7 and a half uh% raise without getting a promotion or changing jobs. Um, that
said, I do want to recognize that obviously if our population is growing, the job is expanding every year, too. Um, so I just wanted to give that at least the context that's going on in my head as we're we're talking about this. >> We're also comparing it to other
communities of similar size and and in the area. So, and that's I think was in our packet in October whereas what our and and then the other thing we compared is the pay plans itself. And so we're we're right in I mean they they all do
the grades and the steps and they all do the um um and they're all within that four to six four actually four to what was it the range >> and yeah I mean >> the highest was eight and a half >> and that was kind of an outlier but
>> anywhere four to five or four to 6% is is my recollection was pretty much the norm. >> Yeah. And uh just the more metrics, I know there's a lot of numbers being thrown at you, but since the pay plan's been implemented, the the cost of of the
average increase for each employee, like the total cost of payroll when you take out the positions that we added or you you put those in there when they as they kind of um grow into the position is like 5.6%. So it's we kind of thought it'd be between five and a half to six,
but what what we've had what we've actually seen is like 5.6. Um, granted there's some bigger numbers in here and there's movement, people leave, rehiring, things like that, but that's what we've seen statistically. Um, it'll probably be with with the per pay plan and we haven't gotten into details about
just how this would roll out, but um, it'd be about the same, maybe a little bit higher than that is what we'd anticipate year to year. Um, depending on personnel turnover, that type of thing. But I think to your point, Brian, and I think Kathleen mentioned this too in the October
meeting is I think we need to take a look at this next year as well because what's driving this is the market. That's that's the big driver here because when we have employees that are offered more money, you know, a lot more money than what we're paying them and we
want to retain them, then we have to kind of come up to that level. And that's what happened in 22. um that's why we made that a huge fairly huge adjustment. But what but what but we'll have to do is we have to keep an eye on the market to make sure that we're
competitive and that we're offering things so that um our employees don't leave. But the other thing to keep in mind is when we hire new people, let's say David were to leave, David, don't you dare. Um we're uh we we would have to hire somebody very similar to David
and it would probably cost us as much or more. Not necessarily because based for David's position in general, he's paid very very well compared to the market. >> So, I mean, we want to keep all employees, but if some town wants to give I'm going to keep using David as an
example, if they want to pay, you know, $30,000 more, like that's not going to happen. >> No, I agree. I'm not that maybe it was a bad example, but we'll we'll take some other people in our pay scale and if we don't stay um if we don't stay up with the market then they'll they may go and
and there's jobs out there. Um that's that's the thing and we want to keep the >> the really good ones that they have. >> All three options, the three three and a half or 4% all stay with the market. Nobody is going to be suddenly underpaid in the market. That is not in here. It's not there.
Well, and the one of the issues here is, you know, when you think about it, probably in your own experience and work, um, the long-term employees that are very valued, you know, you you can't put a price on them at some point, you know, I mean, it it and that was the trouble with just kind
of across the board reducing the uh, cost of living increase or the market adjustment that it would hit them more because they wouldn't have any steps and, you know, left. And so Kathleen worked out an idea of well we could
expand the steps from 10 to 15 so that then they have more of a runway to keep you know uh encouraging and incentenning them uh which which was really important to me. So I I like that part of it. Um,
when you look at this though, it really begs a question of, well, maybe we should just leave it where it is for 2026 because um, other than option one, these others cost more money and uh,
20 I know you want to settle this, but 2026 gives us a little more room to for all of us to consider this very carefully because it is a big issue Uh so in my mind I think taking the ideas that you've developed here that
look really great uh but but keeping in mind to see what happens next year is as we all acknowledge could change. Um I I I just think that would be the way to go and and I like the idea of expanding this the steps and expanding the categories so that we give more runway
to these long-term you know valued uh leaders. So you're you're saying you're advocating for status quo for 2020 >> status quo for this year but then next year >> and you like the 12 or 13 >> um
>> okay okay >> good I agree with Peter okay >> uh I do like the expansion of the um of the the steps and the the categories I think that's uh more equitable way to uh uh to do it. Um
honestly, I it is I do feel like it's a little late in the game, but I just got to rip the band-aid off and do something now rather than later. >> So, what would your preference be? >> Uh as far as which option?
>> Yeah. So, you have basically four status quo, option one, two or three. >> Uh which option is which? So option one would be um they're all the same steps. Yes, >> they're all the same steps. It's just the cola is different. So they're option
option one the cola is um >> 3% gives an average increase to employees of 5.7%. >> They start then the 3.5 gives the average employees 6.2% increase and 4% cola gives the employees an average of a
6.7% increase. Keep in mind one and two, you're going to have some disgruntle. You're going to have some, how do you say? >> And it's going to cost us more. >> And it's going to cost us a little bit more. A little bit more. >> Well, one doesn't, one doesn't cost more. One costs less. Two isn't bad.
Three with the 4% where everyone gets a six.7% increase costs about 20 grand more. I also have a solution for that. If we eliminate the miscellaneous category that's on all the budgets, the money will be there. I so yeah we've talked about the the
miss and I want to I wasn't clear in my little spreadsheets here the 19 like an option for the 19,182 that's the total implementation cost of just the salary part the 11,000 is the estimated um
general fund levy impact so that's where that's the you know we got >> because the other the other comes out of mutual enterprise funds so it'd be an 115 impact >> roughly uh >> general general levy. >> Yeah, nominally I'm leaning towards uh
option two. The CPIU change for the last 12 months was uh 2.9%. So that's still a slightly above um inflation uh raise. And so I think that's you know getting a little bit of a premium given that uh we're kind of in the 11th hour
talking about it. >> All right. And Kathleen, >> I'm fine with option one, two, or three. I I don't to Peter and Claudius, I don't see the point in delaying this another
five months or two months or whatever. Like, it's nothing's going to change. I have I have put so many hours into trying to find a pay plan that works for everybody, that doesn't make anyone have less money. And I know it seems like you're losing money, but you're not because if you look at the pay plan as a whole, the end number is bigger, right?
like you're you're going to make more money. >> Um and there's a longer runway >> and I know there's a worry that next year >> you're okay with with >> which one? >> Yes. I it doesn't matter. Whatever the council majority is, I'm just opposed to
leaving the status quo. >> All right. So, here's where I'm going to come from. I would like to do option three for percent. If you and Ryan would agree with me, then we have a go. If not, I'm going to have to vote with status quo. There's where I'm at. So,
Brian, Kathleen, are you guys going to go with the 4%. And give give Kathleen credit for all the work she's done. Come on, guys. Work with me here. It's $11,000. We can take it out of out of our um contingency fund
that we have budgeted. We have $50,000 in our contingency fund. So, it's a little bit more. I think we're going to go away with very happy employees. the I think the morale will be great. I think the relationship between the council and employees will be great. I'm looking at
the bigger picture and we can take a look at this next year. Maybe next year the cola is going to be 2%. I mean, I think we need to make it clear that we're going to take a look at this in 2026 and there may not be such a big increase next year. So, will you go with
me? >> You're very persuasive, Madam Mayor. Well, uh, I will go with I can support option three. >> Okay, >> you look like you're in deep thought, >> but we have three votes already. >> All right, thank you for your work.
>> Okay, >> I know how much work she's doing. >> I know. We have to give her some credit here. Next year, we can look at >> we can look at this again. >> The plan is next year at some I would I don't know July there's plenty of room for discussion. The personnel committee
will look at the market. We'll look at what the market is doing locally and everything and what's happening and then adjust the colaarket adjustment for the following year. And that will be the plan. The personnel committee will have one meeting discuss it and then that will come to council. That will be it.
And I have no intention of ever spending this much time on a pay plan again in my entire life. >> I guess we're raising prices all over the place. And so I think raises. So >> I think we're good on um option number three with a 4% cola and you can bring
it back under consent agenda or under >> what? >> So what you'll see on the ETH is um there's a policy it's you it's buried in this packet with you know a bunch of information. It's called the non-un employee pay plan policy. It was adopted June 6th, 2022. What we'll do is we'll
update this with the new pay table. Um, and I think that would be about it that's in here. Um, we'd probably t I'd probably have to update I'll look at it, but we'll update the step increases. So, just to be clear, what happens? What'll happen in 2026? There'll be an
adjustment. Um, 4% placed in the pay plan. Um, and then there won't be a step in 2026. Um, and that's kind of the justification, I think, for the 4% cost of living adjustment is that that that step is going to go away. It's kind of a
wash. is kind of what it comes out to be compared to what we currently have. But then in 2027, that step and that cola adjustment would happen on January 1, 2027. So whatever the personnel committee talk, we talk about this like in July for the prelim levy, we would
then plug a number in whatever that is um in the budget and then we kind of like this, we'd have until December to actually finalize it. So what you'll see in the budget document, you'll have, you know, it'll we'll make the update and the change. Um, you'll have this pay plan policy in there. If you want it on
consent, we can put it on consent. Otherwise, we can put it on business. I'll just take direction from from the group. But it'll it'll essentially reflect what we've talked about here. >> Okay. >> So, that's what you'll see. I just want to know if you want it on consent or on business.
>> Consent is fine. >> Consent is fine. >> I think it's fine. Yep. >> All right. >> All right. Um, so next we have park dedication and tree replacement discussion. Yeah. Uh, quickly, Madame Mayor, members of council, as we do every year, we do a
annual park review uh with staff and then we take that to the park commission for a recommendation to you for what to do for next year for park improvements. Um, we don't have a lot, but uh you can see in the the staff report, we did
earmark the commission uh as we've done historically, we did earmark $50,000 for Lyall Park. As you know, we still don't have a playground there. So that's just earmarked for that. We've got uh Lynen Park, Perennial Park uh with some uh
re-roof pavil pavilions in each of those parks. And then also there's some trail work and also uh replacing of the basketball court and back uh the backboards in Lynen Park. And then there's some miscellaneous park maintenance in a number of parks listed
there. Merge Marsh, Gene Laner, Lineer, uh North and uh Slow Slow Creek Park. There's a number of them there. And that's mostly uh trail type maintenance. Is that correct, Gary, that we're looking at doing there um is is what's being slated. I think some concrete work
and some parking lots might be some of it as well. Um so, not a not a huge number, but just things that uh definitely need attention. The commission did review this uh last month and uh this is their recommendation to the city council to to move forward for
2026. >> Any questions? >> No, I was at the parks meeting. Um they were fine with it all. The big thing was they wanted to push to get Lyall Park done. Obviously, we there's some newer park members. Um, so we discussed how
there's no money coming into the parks fund, so using it all in Lyall Park was probably not the best option. Um, but otherwise they were fine. The big takeaway, which I already talked to Jasper about, was to update the packet so it's more accurate. >> I'm sorry, what' you say? >> To update this park packet so it's more
accurate with pictures and all of the work that's been done and whatnot. >> We've already we've already got p pictures of all the parks already. So, yep, we're working on it. Yep. And and I I was talking to staff earlier too just um about grants that are available. So
um we'll have to keep an eye on those too. Um and then I just want to say um to Gary and your crew, thank you for finishing that trail. I did get an email from one of our residents that was so excited that the sidewalk was finished and now it connects to um the Dakota
Rail Trail. Great job. Thank you very much. So all right next then um any there's no other questions. Uh we have the property discussion regarding um Hunters and uh Bosma property.
>> Yes. Um Madame Mayor, members of council, this is kind of a a group effort. I'll kind of lead the charge on this a little bit, but um there's a bunch of moving parts here. Some are related to the police department, some are related to community development. Um, and then some we have Sarah here as well to answer any legal questions. But
essentially what we have going on um in in the packet you can kind of follow along is that we have two properties that we received complaints about. We've evaluated those properties. Those properties have some issues with um criminal complaints. So there's there's two components here I think everybody has to be aware of. There's the criminal
side and then there's the civil side. So Craig's team has been working on the criminal complaints um and and going that route. And you know, one of one of the properties has been more receptive than the other. So, one of them has received some criminal complaints, the other hasn't because they're actually do making some progress on their their
property. And that's what we want to see, right? We want to see some progress that's being made. Um, so that's the criminal side and those are mostly um I don't know, Craig, if you can, you know, they're generally related related to unlicensed vehicles and other equipment and things like that. I don't know if you if can generalize what those
complaints are. >> Yeah. Uh, Madame Mayor, members of council, that's a good way to say it, generalize. So, when you go on a property like this, it's really hard to articulate. Okay, that that pile of junk is a count and that this pile over here
is two counts. So, ultimately, what the prosecu our prosecutor decided to do was um just essentially say the vehicles are a count. um the the piles of junker account the basically kind of broke it down into the the different elements of
um our ordinance instead of saying each particular items that count because that's it's to prove that in court it's impossible and the judges will >> this is a lot of cars very much. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So that's the criminal side that's kind of moving forward on one. Um, but
that the outcome of that is maybe a fine, right? Like a small fine, they could pay that fine and then there's this that double jeopardy clause. If that is still there, you can't charge them again. So, it's a one one and done kind of thing. Um, if there's new things that are brought in, new violations, then you can charge that. But that
really takes a lot of effort to like inventory what they have there, see what the changes are. So, the criminal criminal piece is moving forward. the civil piece. Um if there is a desire to proceed with this on a nuisance level, that's where the city can come in and declare um uh property nuisance and
that's a nuisance violation and and there's a process to abate that nuisance. So um letters were sent out to both of these properties on the civil side. Uh there's three main areas of our city code that are generally in violation. Storage of materials, home occupations, and then the nuisance side
of it. Um, in the packet I included just an air photo of both of the properties. They look somewhat similar. Um, but so the the main goal of the discussion today is we we've gotten to this point. We've sent criminal, you know, criminal
complaints to one of them. Um, we're working with the other one to to remove the the items at I guess we need to have a discussion of what are the next steps? What do we want to do? Um, and how do we want to proceed? because generally we've we've sent letters in the past. We've
sent a lot of letters, but when it comes to um actually enforcing it and maybe declaring it a nuisance and and abating that nuisance, um very rare that we actually go through that um because of the costs, I believe. I'm not I'm not entirely sure, but some of these uh you
know, if we were to declare, let's say, 9550 West Hill Road a nuisance, and then we would have to abate that nuisance, that would mean we would go in and we would remove all that material on our um we would then be able to assess that back to that property owner and then
that would go on their tax role. And if they wouldn't pay that assessed value or assessed amount, then that potentially could hit tax forfeite and then that they would lose that place and it would go to a county auction or or or something. Um, and this process takes quite a while to actually do. You know,
I think it's probably two to three years in that in that um neighborhood if we would start abatement because there would likely be some appeals and a process that we would have to follow. So, um, before we go down that route, and just, um, as a note, I've talked to
there's there's a there's actually a a hauler, a refuge or junk hauler is what I think I forget their junk master, something like that. They actually live in town or they have a place in town. Um, they just happen to be in city hall and I showed them these properties. I'm like, well, what is it? What would it cost? And they had done one and I know
Sarah's group has worked on one of these properties in like Maple Plane. Uh theirs is a little bit bigger and different, but the estimate for these to to abate them would be around, you know, 75 to $100,000 per parcel.
>> And and the other piece that is unknown is if there's any, you know, environmental hazards, soil amendments, things like that that would need to be done. Um so there it's a big number. If we start going down this path, we have to almost
be committed to to doing that and committed to the process. It'll cost legal fees. It'll if we get to the point where we actually have to abate, it'll cost money to abate. Um, so that's where we're at. We I'm looking for direction, I guess, on how we want to proceed
because we're kind of at that end of the hey, we sent letters. Both parties have acknowledged that they've received the letters for the civil side. Um, one of the parties is is working on it. um you know the pace at which I think you know I think we had a deadline of uh October
of this year we kind of gave them an a deadline and there was uh you know some health things that have been occurring and things like that but I they're they're actually sending me um images of things that are being hauled out you know so I think we'd we'd hope that it'd be at a at a quicker pace but we
understand there's other things going on so any progress is good progress but that's the direction or that's what we're seeking direction on is how how we'd like to proceed um you know especially with the one property that has been uh not necessarily responsive
um and that'd be the the 9550 West Hill Road property. >> Do we know the genesis of this? Are they running like an illegal junk business on their house in on their property or >> it's unknown uh for sure. Um I think
there's a lot of scrapping scrap metal stuff going on. Um, I know that >> 9550 West Hill >> at the 9550. I know that that's been there for a while. I think 40 plus years, maybe 50 years or so. Um, there's in the 80s there's rec I did a lot of
digging into this and there's records into the 80s of Henipin County getting involved in um talking about environmental hazards and the individual. >> So, there's quite a history here. Um, but what that individual has said is that people just, I think, have become
accustomed to dropping things off at their driveway and then they take take it, you know, and then they, you know, the price is right, they're bringing it in to scrap it. So, it's essentially a a salvage yard that is um it's not allowed in that egg preserve district in this in the in that sense. But so, but we have
got a complaint and we are complaint based enforcement. So, that's why we're here today. >> You mentioned Henipin County in the past. Can they help with anything now? Yeah. Yeah, that's true. So, I' I've talked with them and and they don't want to have anything to do with this. Um,
they basically said, "We've tried it's a it's a local government unit issue at this time." And, you know, talking about grants and I've I've kind of looked at grants and there really isn't anything that's specific to this because there's probably thousands of sites like this in Henipin County and, you know, tens of
thousands throughout the state. There may be there's brownfield grants if you if you know what those are, but those are like sites with contaminated soils that have generally a a use after the cleanup. Um it's not just, hey, let's clean it up. It's usually, hey, we're going to do this. There's some environmental hazard. We're going to
clean it up. Here's some grant money. Now, this next thing that's going to come in here is is beneficial to the community in the region. So, that's not the case with either of these just because they're residential or, you know, a egg. Well, we don't know if there's any contamination. >> We don't.
>> Let's talk about um >> one at a time. So, let's talk about the 9550 West Hill Road. That's that's the one that they're they're not being cooperative or whatever. I mean, they're just saying go away. >> That I mean I I haven't had any real
personal interactions. If you want more details, I think Craig and his team have been out there frequently and can maybe speak to that. >> Okay. Craig. >> Yeah. Madame Mayor, member of council, they they they were somewhat helpful in the beginning, but the more
start saying this has got to go and this has got to go, this has got to go, then it just collapsed and now we're not welcomed out there anymore. >> Okay. >> Have we ever done an abatement? >> Minister, >> I would defer to not that I know of. I
don't know if we've done anything. Um, I think we just updated our nuisance ordinance to allow us to more easily do this. So, >> that was a fun process. >> Yeah, >> but I think >> we do have the tools in place to do it if we want legally. >> So,
scrap companies will just come and pick it up if they get to keep the all the scrap, right? They do because I I checked on it. There's a I mean there's a property in Metatrista that has it's like 32 acres and it has something like
32 cars back there in the fields and they'll come but they keep you know all the scrap. Can't we just say I mean this sounds easy but can't we just say they're coming to take all the scrap out of there? How much of it is scrap and
how much is >> Well, but we can't. So, if they don't want us on their property, then we have to go through a process to >> court and go back to jail. I don't know. Maybe that would be a option to say, "Why don't you just call the scrapyard and have them pick everything up?" Start
with that. >> And and I mean, I can kind of >> address that a little bit. I don't know if it'll be that easy because a lot of the stuff isn't as clean as like there's a single car sitting here. It's piles of stuff. a little bit harder to actually I
think gather than to just back a flatbed truck up and pull a car because I know what you're talking about where you know somebody will pick up a junk car and maybe give you some money maybe give you a couple hundred dollar but in this case I don't we would look in we would have to look at what it would cost if it'd be
zero that I'd be surprised but um we could look into into that it's the same company that Junk Masters that's what they do that they're taking that stuff um >> do they seem like they're willing willing to just turn that over to >> scrappers to take
>> the property owners probably not not willingly. >> So they'd want to go to court. >> Do they do they think that will happen? I mean I think one of the property owners is here this evening. Um,
so let's talk about um the Hunter property if we can because you said that they've been more willing to work with us and where are we at with that and can we kind of maybe get that one going or you
know I mean if and you know where are we at? >> Yeah. So that I can talk to that a little bit and um there there's progress. I mean, I think I get about weekly or bi-weekly photos of things that are being taken off the the site. So, um, a lot more responsive and they
are communicating with the city. So, that's where it's we're holding the criminal complaint piece because they're actually working with us. And, you know, I think we have a there's a goal, right, to clean up the site, right? And if they're making progress toward towards that, great. I think what I would like guidance on that is, you know, what's
what are some deadlines, you know, what what's our >> grace, I guess, for letting them do this. Um because we have a complaint and we we're kind of waiting for direction from from city council as far as how we should proceed. >> I wonder I'm sorry, Jasper. >> Yeah.
>> I wonder the party that's complaining. Maybe they just have a certain area they don't want to look at. I mean, >> we could make it a little easier on the resident by just going address this quadrant of your property. >> The this one you can see it right from 110. I mean, everyone can see it. It's
not it's not off in the woods somewhere like >> Okay. >> Yeah. And it's it's one of those things. We get the complaint, then we look at the property and then we have to address all the concerns that violate city code and criminal, you know, criminal side. So, it's, you know, once you open that
box, we're looking at everything at that point. >> I don't know what a reasonable time frame is to haul stuff off. And I don't I don't know how long this takes. >> A lot doesn't take long. I mean, I don't know.
>> I mean, yeah, that would be a good question. You know, what would it take to clean it up? I mean, 52 weeks, um, you figure a couple vehicles, a couple loads of junk a week. Um, 52 I mean, I don't know.
>> I mean, I think we have to see significant improvement within a few. >> It took me a whole summer for my father-in-law's junk property down in southern Minnesota on weekends. A whole summer. >> Yeah. And by comparison to this, was it worse the same or? Okay. So if we give
like in the middle of rural Minnesota, you know, but he passed away and we had to clean it up and we had equipment, but it was a full summer. >> Yeah. >> So if we give like a sixmonth window, is that realistic? Do you think? Okay. So give them six months. >> So
>> visible improvement every month. >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's the one issue that if I may that we've heard comments from neighbors about the 9550 property is that it's actually net increasing in volume of stuff >> probably.
>> So and we I don't know if they've actually removed anything um of significance. So that's the other. So kind of I don't know if we look at them as two separate complaints and you know one of them seems to be working with us, one of them doesn't. Um
>> well I think we need to give both of them the same kind of ultimatum you know show a significant improvement within the next 6 months um you know um and and and we won't pursue a abatement but if
you we don't see I mean we have pictures here and if we don't see this cleaned up especially as I think council member Lacy suggested from if you don't see an improvement from the road that makes a huge huge difference as well. But I
think overall we need to see an imp significant improvement in the next 6 months. >> Okay. >> Is it feasible to clean up during the winter? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I was going to say July 1st that'll give them like three months because you're >> ground's frozen. So I don't know how
much the stuff would be frozen into the ground. >> Well, they you yank it out of there. I mean >> I was going to say >> but let's let's see. But okay, July 1st. um that still gives you know April, May, June, you know, several months in and
now we don't have any snow and it hasn't been freezing. So there's still time right now before the snow starts to fly. So I would I would say the same option for both of them otherwise I think we are going to have to look at abatement
and and taking it to the next step. the one of the things that I look at is what about um abudding properties like the one on hillside. Um there's there's abudding properties to this and it
affects their property values too and um you know so I think we need to be cognizant of that. >> Yeah, I think so too. you know, we're right on the edge of the metro and so you got to collect some of these things and I think it's important to be strict
on this because it's just gonna >> right >> long term. Um, okay. >> So Sarah, is that legally okay for us to give a date and then >> Okay. >> So, so one thing I mean, so progress
updates are challenging to do um from the road at times. you can kind of see some things we can't and the air photos that we get are generally maybe once a year. Um the 2025 one is up. So the one I think that's in our packet is 2024 or 2024. The 2025 one's almost going to be
available. Um but you know if we compare so it'll have to be I don't know how we'll have to find some metric or some way to look at the site. Can the property owner give us um some show us some receipts of um I don't know where they take the junk. Um
>> does someone have a drone like WSB? I know St. Bonnie Fire has a drone which I believe has a camera on it. Um yeah, like could we use a drone and take our own overhead photos? >> We would need consent from the >> consent or a search warrant. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I was going to say if >> Can we get consent from a neighboring
property? >> I'm not I'm not sure. >> No, no. I mean >> Yeah. No, I know. >> If you send the drone up on the neighbor, you're obviously going to catch the area. I mean, this we're we have property next to that one. So, I mean, >> we could ask the property owner say, "Hey, we're going to give you six months. Will you allow us, you know,
consent to to kind of monitor your progress?" >> Yeah. They say that's reasonable. Like, hey, we're going to we're going to give you this chance, but you have to consent to monitoring. >> Okay. >> They probably have to sign something, I
believe. I'm guessing. U madame mayor, members of council, just one point I want to bring up in the one property we have started the criminal process. So um if we're all still good with that. Yes. >> We'll see if that provides some remedy for this. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. And can the city be the complaintant for 7501 since we abut their property? >> We can be if we want to be. Yeah. All right. >> Yeah. So So we'll give them until July
1st. I'll we'll try to work out a detail where we can kind of monitor um from above and do some maybe some snapshots. >> Okay. >> Um and see if we can get consent to do it. If they don't, I don't know if that changes the timeline for anybody. We'll just say we can't monitor it. We'll try to do it from the road uh or other
public spaces and then we'll plan on doing an update at the probably first meeting in July >> or only meeting in July. >> Yeah. >> Can we get like a you know March update if we've heard back or any response in general? >> Sure. So, we're >> Yeah. Not
>> Can I ask one more question? Can um what about some of these groups that go in and try to help? I mean, my organization does this kind of thing, but inside houses and for elderly people and people that are unable to tackle
kind of what seems to be insurmountable projects. Outside's a different thing, but could we reach out? Are they elderly? Are they elderly? I believe the property owner at um on Hillside is elderly, but he has younger um kids that
are involved in in the property. >> I'm just wondering what kind of age, >> you know, church organization that would send 40 people over there twice to >> But the property owner could reach out, >> but maybe they just don't have that. A lot of people just don't know how to do that.
>> Could we I mean, would they want us to inquire inquire for them? >> Well, We don't know. One property doesn't seem property owner doesn't seem to want to >> chat >> change the operation of what they're doing. So I I find it hard to believe that they would want to let somebody
come on their property and take their stuff voluntarily. >> Um so we could look I can look and see if there's something to to help out. I just don't know where. >> Yeah. I'm just not sure where to start.
>> But I'll do a little research. Do they answer the phone >> when we call them? >> Um, email is pretty reliable. >> Again, chief. >> Chief. >> Um, they it would depend on the day. Um, I I
think at this point, uh, they're not interested in talking to law enforcement. Somebody from the city they they may respond to. Um, but, uh, there hasn't been much progress. My guess is they want to retain their property.
>> Okay. All right. So, we'll get um some periodic updates. You're going to contact the property owners. We have a deadline of July 1st to have it significantly um cleaned up. So, all right. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. Um next we're going to
move on to um our bath bometric survey summary. I think that's Allison. >> That is me. Thank you, Mayor Whan. So, um, as council may recall, thank you. >> Uh, quite some time ago, uh, you authorized WSB to perform bathometric
surveys on some properties within the city. Uh, the ponds where these were done, um, were identified using the surface water management asset surface water asset management program. Um, where it calculates the anticipated, um,
sediment load into ponds. And so, um, this is a a graphic showing the locations of the ponds that were surveyed. So, uh, going through each pond, um, I just included in the packet and in summary here in the presentation is findings of the bathmetric survey. So,
the first one is, um, just off of County Road 110 over near the high school on Langwood. Um, and that's pond P61. and the bathtric survey indicated that the pond was still functioning. Um, so they the recommendation is to do nothing to
that pond. So that's that's good news. That's why we get this additional information. >> So remind me again a swamp score. What is a good swamp score? I >> believe we did 65 was the cut off. >> Okay. >> If it was 65 or higher, >> 65 or lower,
>> it was good. >> Bad. So but this one is 49, but it's still good. >> Correct. So, we'll be updating. I'll I'll check. >> That's why I'm asking. That's why I'm asking. >> I had to I had to think about that for a moment, but I believe it was anything
under 65. >> So, under 65, we want to do something, but in this case, we don't. >> Correct. Okay. >> It's fine. >> Yeah. And so I I mean just to to give a a like a high level generalization of of how the program works, it takes what
they what you typically see for given the area that drains to the pond and what's usually um what kind of sediment load you usually look at and that's that's how they develop the score. And so in this instance, there just isn't as much um sediment load going in there.
Maybe there's a little less area, but it it usually has to do with with the sediment load coming in here. So um that's why we go ahead and do the bathometric survey as a second step um in the process here. So the next two uh
here are over by over in Hunter Crest. Um one was uh one the outcome of one is is to do nothing. Um but the other one was to excavate 4.7 ft on average uh with an estimated with a budget cost of
$16,400. And then the next one is over off of Jennings uh Jennings Bay area. Um and this one had a recommendation to ex excavate an average at 2 and 1/2 ft for an average cost of 20,800.
And you'll see some variability in some of the pricing. You know, for example, the last one was four, what was it? 4.7 feet at 164. And then here we are at 2.5 at 20,800. There's a couple components to that. One would be the actual area
that the pond takes up, but then the other part of it too is um accessibility to >> I was going to say access, especially that one is >> a little um yeah, complicated. >> How are we deciding the depth? I mean, should we excavate it deeper so we don't
have to do it again as re? >> Um it's a good question. So this is based on the recommendations from the the water resources group that performed um the survey. If council wants some more detailed information, I can certainly ask them if over excavation is an option. Um I think there's probably a
cost benefit that could be done with that. So um depending on what direction the council would like to give, that's certainly something I could follow up with you on. >> Gary, do you want to say something? >> Normally it's to the depth of what it was originally constructed to is what it's normally at. So >> Oh, okay. >> So that that pond's not deep at all
then. That's like not even three feet. >> It could be most of them could be. I mean these are just settlement ponds. So I mean just to let it you know so for that function. So >> Oh sorry sorry. And even if you go deeper doesn't necessarily mean you gain any storage.
>> Well well that was going to be my question. >> Well and if we possibly are putting some more water in that on a different item later does it make sense to make it deeper? Yeah, >> we could certainly if that's something the council wants to take a look into,
we could I could get the the experts to to weigh in on that. I think surf, you know, on a superficial level um we can give some guidance, but I'd certainly turn to the experts to to give us guidance on that. Okay. >> And then um just a question. So Hunter
Crest has an HOA. Jennings Cove, I don't know if they have an HOA that's active. And Palmer Point does have an HOA. >> Yeah. So, do we contact them and say this is what you have to do and if you don't then we come in and we do it and
assess I mean how does >> I know council those those are some of the options that >> those are some of the options that >> that staff presented there are a couple different approaches we could take um but we wanted to bring this this to
council's attention then get direction on what the next steps are >> okay so um again. Um, Jennings Cove was probably prior to the um um when we started doing um the overlays, you know, the um storm water um special assessment
overlays. But Palmer Point and Hunress Crest, they should they should have >> No, Hunress Crest doesn't either, but Palmer Point does. >> No. >> Really? >> No. >> When did we start doing it then? >> Woodland Cove. >> Okay. I thought
>> Okay. I thought we did um overlays like for um >> Cove Red Oak, >> Orchard Cove. >> That's it. >> Okay. So then what happens then if they decide not to do it or and do we then
can we still assess them or what? >> Um so Mayor Whan, that's that's one of the options that we've we've talked to the city attorney about. There is um there is an option and I believe it was in chapter 429 where the city could take a look at assessing the cost to do these
improvements. It would have to be there would be um a benefit test to that. Um I talked to some of my colleagues in the water resources division. They're not aware of any communities that have done that. Um it doesn't mean that isn't something that we could explore. Um, but
we always like to look at opportunities of, you know, if someone's done it in the past as a model that we could work off of. So, um, if that's something that the council wants us to explore, we could certainly do that. >> Otherwise, it would come out of the storm water fund. Correct. So, um,
>> but then what's if Okay. So, what's to prevent them from saying, "H, we're not going to do it." Um, why should we do it? Um, I I don't know. I mean, what teeth do we have to make them do it?
>> Um, Mayor Whan, to my knowledge, uh, there isn't anything in ordinance that would would have any teeth to them to do this. This would simply be um you know something that we look at from a city standpoint, city asset
management standpoint and if it's if there's an appetite from the council to do an assessment, that's certainly something that we could mention to the HOAs. Um otherwise it's it's you know you'd look
at if the city would were to do projects um and not assess it then it's it's a cost that spread amongst all all storm water um fee payers in the city. >> Sounds like that's something maybe we need an ordinance on to is it something
we can after the fact put in >> it. So, we asked this question to to Sarah to kind of talk about what our tools were and that we can through some I don't know more I don't know if I obscure is the word but for
chapter 429 we're able to assess but it's under not necessarily a direct connection with what the way you'd think it would be. I can't remember off the top of my head what they were, but they kind of were like a little bit different than what we've seen um or that we've used in the past or that I've ever used.
But um so there is some mechanism, but it's kind of a little little different. Um what other communities do, we've done a lot of research and I think Allison's looked into this, David's looked into this, I've looked into this, is they've just utilized the storm water fund to do these projects. Um thinking that there's
a community benefit um to have storm water. We're on the hook because of our MS4 permit. They're actually, you know, we're we're on the hook as a city through that permit to make sure that these BMPs are adequate to to treat the storm water. So, we're ultimately on the
hook. Now, in the case of Woodland Cove, now they we have a very clear mechanism like, hey, if you can't afford to clean these up, like we're going to, you know, tax you for it. You have a taxing district there. Um, so there's a way to do it. It's it's I don't know of any other cities that that
>> Well, the thing the thing is is a lot of other cities are um 100% developed. Um what what kind of our situation is only onethird not even one third maybe about a onethird of our city is developed and
so it's onethird where these storm water ponds exist. the other portion of our community is is still rural where no ponds exist and you know so it's kind of a conundrum because we're going to be
all of those people out there are paying for their storm water. So maybe it's fair. I don't know. I'm just saying, you know, it's a little different than if our entire city was developed and then we went around and and fixed every storm
water pond as need be, you know, because then everybody benefits. >> It's no different than going in and fixing five homes drainage issues with everybody else's money. I mean, or it's it's the same logic. You're using the big fund to fix small problems. I mean,
in my mind, it's the same. Currently, most of the storm water fund is used in the rural area for the ditches and all. I mean, so all the >> residential properties are paying for all the improvements that have happened the last, you know, 15 years. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, it's I mean, I've
>> Okay, fine. I mean, if that's, you know, if as long as it's spread out and and everybody benefits in some manner, then that's fine. >> Really benefit. between what Peter said it maybe we need some kind of ordinance so going forward
>> way in the future how what what if there's an overwhelming number of water issues we can't I mean no one's ever fixed my water issue I had to pay for it myself >> well these aren't water issues these are storm water ponds that we have to have
that were mandated to keep functioning and like going forward like Woodley Cove the HOA has to pay for them So we've we've fixed the problem going forward on all of them because Woodland Cove has like what 30 ponds. Like the HOA has to fix them if something goes wrong. So like we fixed it going forward.
>> I think the issue come in like for who to assess in Jennings Cove. It's like do you assess everyone in Jennings Cove? Just people that back up to this pond. Like how big of a assessing area are you going to do? I mean because if I lived in Jennings Cove and was on the water and nowhere near this pond, I'd be like well none of my runoff goes there. Like
why am I being assessed for it? And whether or not the whole community benefits the same as a road, right? We all pay into the roads. Your road has, you know, like when your road gets fixed versus when someone else's, it's not necessarily fair. So, I mean, it's no different than doing road projects on we have a pool of money. We're fixing the
things that are coming up. >> Well, we paid we paid to have our road fixed. >> Part of it. >> Part of it. >> 50%. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I don't know. I I just what what if there's an inordinate amount of
water in a row and there's water? I mean, do we have enough money to solve all those problems? >> Well, we have So, this is different than just your standard water runoff. The these are ponds that we have to maintain. >> But we have a a lot
>> and we have a lot of ponds. >> A lot of them. >> There's a lot of ponds. Um, and we're just trying to tick off a few at a time every year. This is what about 83 two four uh 50 60 this somewhere around
70 $80,000. >> Well, and also like so we've been talking about this the entire time I've been on council. This is the first estimated time of doing this like spending any money and fixing it. So it's not a yearly thing that we do. >> Okay, good to know. >> Thank you. So,
>> Mayor Whan and Council, we Gary and I were just discussing I don't recall the number off the top of my head, but there is a there is a a number certain of these private ponds where we don't have agreements in place to say um
where where it's unclear who would be responsible for the cost. That's something we can certain I just don't have it at my fingertips here, but I this was years ago when we first started looking to you know what's what's the cuto off score. Um and I just don't recall off the top of my head how many
um privatelyowned storm ponds are out there where there isn't an agreement in place. Um if that's helpful for the council to make a decision. >> So direction. So, the ones that have HOAs like Palmer Point and Hunters, can we fix them and then
turn it like make an agreement with the HOA that they have to fix them going forward? Is that something we could possibly do? >> We could we could try. I mean, if they agree to it or not, >> you know, that might I think we maybe what we could do is we could say this
time we're going to fix it and it should be fixed for the next 10 or 15. I don't know how many years generally what 10 years 15 20's like 20 years old. Yeah. So then we could say however in the future it is going to be the responsibility of so we fix each one
once where we where there's no HOA or we don't have an agreement on it going forward the new developments they always get um we do a overlay. So going forward with new developments were covered but going backwards for the developments that didn't have that overlay then we
would say this time we're going to fix it. next time it's on your dime. Uh so we we do it once but then No, I don't know if that would be doable. >> Yeah. >> Um >> it's not in perpetuity. It's just >> Yeah. >> So we would need some kind of ordinance,
wouldn't we to do that? >> Would we need an ordinance or how would that work? Sarah, do you know? >> Um Madame Mayor, members of the council, I guess we would probably want an agreement with the HOA so that documented that, you know, we're going to go ahead and >> take care of these issues now. we're
paying for it, but in the future it's going to be your responsibility. But if they come back to us later and want the pond cleaned out and they want us to pay for it, we have documentation that they >> okay >> had agreed that they would do it later. >> But what incentive is there for them to make an agreement? >> Yeah. Why would Why wouldn't Why
wouldn't we just have an ordinance? >> Well, we could Yeah, we could do a special assessment. See, we could say, "Okay, well, we'll do a special assessment then for this for this time." I don't know. um don't want to have a there's nothing in writing now and so
then we yeah to have a big discussion later. I think if we preemptively get something going now for the future that would be nice. >> Y >> Mayor Will if I if I may ask the city attorney is there are there
opportunities to get an ordinance or is a 429 process our only option? I'm not aware of ordinances that can be set up to uh force them to pay. Yeah. So, >> I guess we'd have to look at a 429 then, right?
>> Um >> so, why don't we do this? I I still think we should go and say we're going to do this the first time. Everybody gets one one off, one freebie, so to speak. Um, and then after that, it's
your responsibility, but we need an agreement in place. If you don't want to do the agreement next time, it's going to be an assessment. >> Do we have the ability to mark up city services? I'm just trying to think how to incent them. Hey, we'll do it, but
we're going to charge you cost plus 20%. >> We can't make money. >> Make money. >> No, I would say not. But I mean of course staff time and all of that has to be included in it. So but >> okay.
So Mayor will if I may. So my understanding is direction is uh to proceed with the city project and in conjunction with that um work with the HOAs, contact the HOAs, let them know what the direction is and then to get
agreements with the HOAs that they're that in the future they would be responsible for the cost. Is is the council interest does the council want to have those agreements in place before proceeding with the project? I think so. >> Well, I think we have to do the project
regardless. Um, >> well, how long do you think it will take to do get the agreements assuming they're cooperative? U Mayor Will and Council Member Ruffkin, that's that's I think that's a HOA dependent question. Um, I think it would
depend on what their HOA um members are. Are they going to have questions? Um, I think we should do the project regardless and pursue agreements um, kind of simultaneously and and then we
should look ahead as well and see what other ones we're going to be doing maybe in 27 28 kind of thing. Again, kind of giving the HOAs and home whatever owners of the ponds kind of heads up. um your
pond will be cleaned this once such and such a year going forward. We're not going to do it. I mean, I don't know. >> So, all ponds moving forward from so one time all private ponds are cleaned at
the that >> except for the ones that are already covered by the HOA um uh by the development agreements. Well, um, >> okay, here's my question. I mean, we'll have before you make this decision, we should probably figure out how many
private ponds there are, how big these are, what this is going to cost, >> because I mean, you could all of a sudden have 10 ponds in one year that need this at an astronomical cost because these are in backyards of, you know,
>> million dollar homes. So, now you're talking getting equipment back there. You're talking some of these could be very expensive. So, I mean, I think before we make a broad decision, just say, "Hey, we're going to do them all at one time." We need to kind of evaluate what's there. >> We're talking about these.
>> Yeah. Just these, not an overall general policy of we're going to do that for everyone. >> Okay. I'll play devil's advocate. I'm I'm the owner of one pond here. You did it for this guy. Why aren't you doing it for me? I'm just throwing it out there. I mean, this is going to happen, >> right? That's what I'm saying. >> Somebody finds out that you clean one
pond. Why aren't you cleaning mine? David's pond gets cleaned off, mine doesn't. Now, I'm mad. I'm coming back to you guys. Why doesn't mine get cleaned out? Why am I Why are we getting assessed? I'm just throwing stuff out there that I know is going to happen. >> But there's going to be a budget. And so, for instance, if there's 10 ponds that need to be done and the budget and
it's going to cost 200,000, then we don't do all 10. We do one. We do two at a time. We, you know, and we just keep clicking them off the list. Um, but and I mean, what else can you do? >> Does anyone have the list that they can
throw up there? I know it's been in a prior council meeting. I can't find the note. >> I was starting to look at it. >> I'm clicking through all kinds of them. I can't find them. I mean, and well, to that point, like what what is the time frame that we're thinking we do this? Do
you do it now in the fall? Do you do it next spring? Like when when do you see this? >> Depends on where it's at. For this one, you'd almost want to look at doing this. It's hard to say. I mean, access is going to be the biggest issue, >> right? to get in these without even
looking at it. I mean, I'm just looking at an aerial be with the yards where things are at. There's no trails to this one. >> The Yellowstone ones are pretty, >> you know, some of them are very easy. Some of these are very difficult. So, >> generally
>> these you can't really do them in winter because you can, but you you have, you know, now you're also pulling out a lot of, you know, frozen ice, you know, because you're going to have that. A lot of these should be summer, you know, you know, the spring, summer, fall activities. So, but you know, like in
Eden Prairie, they actually have saturation bags they put out there. They put all the dirt in there. From what I understand, it drains all off. They crane them out between the homes and they have this issue. So, it's kind of a, you know, different system. So, you know, most of these I'm going to say are
spring, summer, fall. Not not much you can do in winter here just because of the frozen soil. >> And the other thing you can do if if they don't want to agree to it, couldn't you create a special maybe I'll have to ask Sarah, couldn't
you then create So let's say we did these then couldn't you create a special taxing district for the future? Madame Mayor, members of the council, I believe you could, but you would need to get all the property owners to sign off on that. Oh, so they would all have to
agree to it. The city couldn't just cart blanch say, "Okay, >> I don't think so." >> Oh, okay. All right. Um, so I'm sorry, Madame Mayor, did you say something about assessments like they would have to share in the cost of this? I mean, that just seems only fair
because some of these, you know, like um Gary said, some of these properties are extraordinarily expensive and we're putting a lot of city funds towards those and, you know, I just think you have to maintain your properties. You have to
share in the cost >> and but bought it with that next to your property. The assessments though I think is um what Sarah is could speak to. Um you have to prove benefit. >> So and that's hard to do with storm
water ponds or is it not? I mean >> madame mayor members of the council I believe the city engineer would need to show you know where the runoff from various properties is going and if it's going to that particular pond or not and that would show the benefit. >> Okay. So we could potentially
>> It seems like it's opening a can of worms. And correct me if I'm wrong. So the but the benefit there has to be a dollar amount that translates to that's the benefit that the property owner receives by us doing this project. So I don't know I've never heard of this but it'd be I don't know what your thoughts
are but if you clean out a storm water pond does that affect your property value that much when you sell. >> So if it runs into your yard and floods it do if you don't care then then I guess it's not a benefit. So like if you have to compare runoff like let's like
if you're on this side if you're on the >> north side of the pond and the water runs towards the lake. So people on the north side of the pond clearly it's running into this but the people on the south side it's not running into this. So you just charge the people on the north side of the pond instead of the south side of the pond because they won't have any benefit. Their water goes
elsewhere. Um Mayor Whan just kind of >> hold on. Well possibly because Hold on. >> Thank you Mayor Whan. So I think from an engineering standpoint when we look at benefit we would look at the area draining to the pond right that's that's
high level what I would recommend where we start at now um to Jasper's point I think the question is how much does an individual property benefit from doing that and I think we would we would certainly have to reach out to and kind of cast a broad net and find out who
could assist the city in doing that in establishing what's a dollar amount. So, as council may recall, for the street improvement project, we had evaluation consultant that came in and did that analysis. Similarly, we would have to find um a subject matter expert that
could help us determine what that would be for storm water. >> Well, here's here's another going to get expensive. >> Okay, hold on. Here's Right. But here's here's the reality. When you look at this in Palmer Point, how many units are in Palmer Point, David? Is it 66?
>> Yeah. Yeah. 68. So, here we have um 29 um 30 uh I mean do the numbers. I mean it's going to be what? $1,500 per parcel or something like that. I I'm just 29200 plus 16800
/ 66. Let's say it's going to be $697 per unit. So $700 per unit. Are they really going to want to go to the ninth degree for $700? That's I mean, you know, are they going to really want to battle the city for $700? That that
would be the question. >> Possibly. >> Well, could this be like roads where we I mean, we're talking about that where you have an assessment and then the city pays part of it. >> Right. Right. >> Um it seems like that's something that with roads people accept that that hey,
every so often you need to rebuild the road. This is the same thing where every 10 years or whatever you have to rebuild it. So, >> right. Um, >> and that's what I would suggest doing like 50/50 split like we do with the roads. >> And that would then bring it down to
about $300 a unit. Are they really going to >> No, not I mean there's some $8 million houses in there and $10 million houses in there. So >> what, Gary? >> They should definitely >> Well, just put things into perspective. I just looked it up on our on the thing
here. Like between pawn 68 and uh P68 and P69 out there and you're covering over 25 drainage acres, >> right? >> You know, so you're covering a wide not just even that, but you're picking up water from other sources, too. So,
>> you know, with the HOAs, I mean, I think you, you know, approach the HOA say this and they're very active out and I know out there cuz they do their inspections. We get records of these things yearly from them. So they do have a company that come in there. I you know so I
think the first step for myself would be you know from my point of view would be approach HOA tell them that this pond does need to get you know explain our system how it works how we scored it and start that way and say and see what the response is. I think you you know you'll probably
get fairly far with some of these associations. Even with even with co they do have an association. So you just go and >> or Hunter Crest even I know they've in the past even contacted us to say okay when do we need to do this? I think a lot of HOAs are just looking for
guidance and they they would be happy to say oh if you guys want to do it fine and then we'll pay for it. >> They would want just to pay. >> Yeah. So why don't we reach out and say we have some um like you said Gary explain what's happening and then just say we have some highle dollar amounts
and the city's willing to do this if you guys want to pay for it. Um if not we'll have to I mean that maybe that's the route we we start at. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, so madame mayor option two where we reach out to HOAs with
recommendations, estimated costs and then bring that information back to the council with what response the response and and I would offer up that the city would be willing to do it if they want to pay for it um or share in the cost. I think, you know, like Peter said, we if
we do road roads, we share the cost. Usually it's 50/50. I mean, so if if they're willing to do it at we we can do it for them and they pay 50% of the cost. I think maybe start out at 100% that they pay, but if you know, if they
say, well, you know, is the city going to pay any part of it? Just say, yeah, I think they'd be willing to pony up some of it. >> So, all right. With that said, um I think that brings us to a conclusion on our agenda and we
can be adjourned for about 20 minutes. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> Okay, Kathleen made that by and second that. All those in favor signify with I. I. >> All those opposed. Motion passes. Thank
you very much and we'll be back in 18 minutes. All right.