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 [snorts] 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. [laughter] 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? [clears throat] Okay. So, brace yourself. [laughter] >> 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. [laughter] >> 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 [laughter] 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 [clears throat] 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 [clears throat] 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. [snorts] So, just clarifying that like you >> percentage that dollar amount. [laughter] >> Well, [clears throat] 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 [laughter] I I literally gave him and Paula like the options. I'm not Does anyone have any questions about the pay plan as [laughter] 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. [laughter] >> 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, [laughter] 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, [laughter] 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 [snorts] 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 [clears throat] >> 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 [laughter] 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 [clears throat] 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. [laughter] >> 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 [clears throat] 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. [clears throat] >> 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 [clears throat] 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, [snorts] 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. [snorts] >> 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? >> [laughter] >> 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 [clears throat] 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 [clears throat] 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. [laughter] >> 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. [clears throat and cough] >> 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 [clears throat] 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. [laughter] 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 [snorts] 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, [snorts] 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. [snorts] 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. [clears throat] >> 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. [laughter] >> 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 [laughter] 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 [clears throat] 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? >> [laughter] >> 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. [clears throat] 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 [laughter] >> I know council those those are some of the options that >> those are some of the options that >> that [laughter] 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 [clears throat] 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, [snorts] 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 [clears throat] 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. [laughter] >> 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 [clears throat] 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 [snorts] 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. [laughter] >> 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. [laughter] >> 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 [clears throat] 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 [clears throat] 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 [clears throat] 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. [laughter] All right.