Then we will call the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. with the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Any changes to the agenda? No, there is not >> motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> no presentations, proclamations, or acknowledgements at this point. Right. >> Now, I will only take public comment for anything that is currently not on the agenda. So, if you have public comment for anything that is not on the agenda, you may approach the podium and state your name and address. >> A copy of the agenda. >> Hi, Jody Lucas 26501 East Trail. Hi, here we are again. Hey, couple years. What I have a question for is Tom. Um, from the point that Niagara contacted the city via email, phone call, walked in the front door, whatever till now, how much money have we, the city spent for Bolton, Mink, LRE, attorneys, testing, um, I don't know, just anything in general. How much money have we spent? That's not a question that I could answer off the top of my head. >> Have we reached a million dollars yet? >> It's not a question I can answer off the top of my >> Okay. >> off the top of my head. >> Okay. I'm just wondering. All right. Thank you. We will be able to find that number though. And >> if to answer that, I'd need a more specific request of what expenses are being other than anything in general. Um what types of expenses. >> Okay. to make sure that we >> just all the money that we have spent. >> Explain yourself a little more. >> Explain myself. Okay. testing plans drawn um attorneys looking over contracts um testing projections just everything that has been done to get to today is what I want to know is how much money we have spent on permits on anything and everything that we have done annex the land um run a pipe pull electrical, anything and everything we have spent, meaning me and most of the people that live in Elco, what we have spent so this company could be open for business. >> So, if you could put that in an email and send it to me, yeah, I would research that and provide you with that information. >> Okay. And then another question is um my son-in-law right here almost was um hit by a semi coming out of Niagara >> multiple >> multiple days in a row. At what point are you going to take responsibility for that or just because we annexed in that land we don't have to be responsible for it? That's the other question that I would like answered because he's going to be a dad in a few months. and I'd like him to be around. And I specifically do not take that way anymore because semis are coming and going. And it's not meant for semis to come and go. So I'd like just to know what we're going to do or you're going to do, the city's going to do to control the traffic because obviously I don't want a death to happen for something to happen because that's what it took to get the stop sign. I can't speak specifically to the circumstances of which your son-in-law involved. I drive by that entrance at least twice a day. I have not experienced that when I'm driving through. So, if the question, if I can rephrase it, is are there traffic controls or something required at that intersection? That's more of an engineering question. So, I am not the person to ask. I don't I'm not a traffic engineer, nor do I play one on TV. So maybe I can defer that question to the city engineer. Jody, >> that's you. >> Sure. >> Perfect. >> So there um >> microphone. >> I don't have >> here. You can come stand by me if you want. I can lower it. >> Yep. Pretty much. >> So I'm inferring that uh you're driving on Connie Road 2 in a semi pull out. >> Yep. He's going to the east. He was coming out. >> Okay. >> Noah Henry, I live at the same address as they do. Um, yes, I would be would have been heading east on County Road 2 at approximately 6:30 in the morning on my way to work in Elco. And multiple mornings have had a semi pull all the way out, ignore the stop sign completely. Car is going 50 miles an hour. I have to lock up my brakes on my truck in order to stop in time. Yeah, >> I honk my horn and the response I get from the drivers and Niagara trucks is the finger or a >> I don't know what to do. >> Yeah. So, I think the appropriate controls are there, but whether people are obeying them is a different question. We can do a couple things. We can notify Niagara that we're getting complaints of drivers not observing the stop signs. >> And we can also ask our police chief to uh if you heard any other questions or complaints about that or if there's any enforcement action we could take >> specifically are the violations occurring at >> as driver as as semis leave the Niagara the uh DuPont >> on to two >> on to two >> yeah um some of that's are some of that Scott counties technically but we could talk to them about trying to have some extra patrols in the area >> um if we're going to have patrols are we going to stop them for doing it because they are they are a commercial vehicle. >> We see violations, we will stop them. Yep. >> But you know, we have limited staffing. We'll do the best we can, but I can create a extra patrol request for that area and that time. And because honestly, I'm worried about I'm not worried so much about me going to work in the morning because I'm paying attention. I'm worried for the teenage drivers. >> Y >> that don't always look at don't always look at the road. I'm worried for elderly people. >> Yep. >> I'm worried for my wife who's about to have a child >> that something happens and I get a phone call at work. >> Yeah. I get that >> because then there's going to be a lot more actions that are going to get taken. >> What kind of timeline are we looking at? Like when does this happen most often? >> 6:30 in the morning. >> 6:30 to 7 a.m. in the morning. >> 6:30 to 7. >> Yep. Any day of the week. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Because I've had it happen coming east after I get done hunting. >> Yep. >> And Yeah. It's >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah, we can schedule some extra patrols out there. >> All right, >> thanks for letting us know about that. >> Can we also send a letter to Niagara and make them aware that >> Oh, we'll call them. >> Okay, thank you. >> Anybody else for public comment? >> My name is Alex Smith. I live on uh 4103 Shelley Lane. Um, and I'm just going to piggyback off traffic um before I think a lot of people have water concerns. Um my wife and I moved down here in 2020 to raise our kids in a small growing community and it's truly been a blessing. Um we live on Shel Lane. It's a small road tucked off Aaron Drive. Uh which leads into a double culde-sac. Unfortunately, since school started this fall, I've had two close calls crossing Aaron coming back um into the culde-sac from the bus stop. Um there's 18 homes down Shelley Lane. Actually, I have maps if you guys want if it's I don't know if it's appropriate to hand those out to you guys quick >> or not. You can keep one too if you want it. >> Um anyways, there's 18 homes on Shel Lane. Um that goes into a double culdeac. Um, all of the Lakeville and New Prague students have to come down Shelley Lane and cross Aaron Boulevard or Aaron Drive to get to their bus stops. Um, this morning my wife and I counted 11 students at Lakeville stop. There's usually one to fourth and new Prague stop. Um, the problem is the eastbound traffic. There's a sharp curve there, 30 mph speed limit, and drivers have just a blink of an eye to stop before uh before hitting someone. Um, the one time I was so close to getting hit, um, there were skid marks in the road. Um, I usually drop my six-year-old off for first grade and then I'm walking back to the house with, uh, my 2-year-old girl and my four-year-old girl. Um, and sometimes a family dog, which can really complicate things. Um, so we've reached out to Elanu Market Police Department, who've been great. Um, they put out more patrols during that busy hour. Um, and they put out the speedometer trap. um that does help in lowering the general speed on Aaron. Um unfortunately after those interventions are gone, the conditions return shortly after. What I'm asking for is for you to work together with us families that have young kids um to somehow make a permanent change after those interventions are gone that would help um help make these 18 homes safe crossing Boulevard to get back or drive to get back out to the bus stop. Um, I would love to invite you guys over any Wednesday morning. I'm home with the younger two. I'll make coffee and you can watch the school buses, the commuters, the kids, the garbage trucks. It's a little bit wild. Um, I believe some of you have school age children, too. And I know that you guys would want to do the most you can uh to make sure that path to school is safest. So, um, I don't know what kind of permanent interventions are available. I work in healthcare. I don't work in streets. um whether it's a crosswalk, crossing guard, lights, signage, speed humps by Aaron or there's speed humps over by Wagner Park which I think are really helpful. Um so that's about it. Lastly, I just want to thank you guys for allowing me to come and do my concern. Never been before city council before so this is uh exciting. Um your roles can be tough balancing people's concerns, taxpayer dollars, and I appreciate your job. Um I love our community down here. Um, I love hearing the sound of families and everything playing in the neighborhood. It's It's the American dream and I want to uh do everything we can to make it safe and keep it that way. Thanks for your time, >> sir. >> Thank you, Alex. >> Sir, did you sign in with a phone number so we can >> Yeah. Okay. Yep. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thanks. Coming over folders, whatever you want. >> Wednesday mornings. >> Do we know? Have we I mean because my brain goes to less of the the the things that we were talking about crosswalks, lights, but have we reached out to the school districts to see if we can move the bus stop uh so that we scooch it closer towards Francis or >> can but we've asked to do that previously on another area where we've had a lot of stop arations and I did not get a lot of cooperation there. I think if maybe sorry I mean I don't want to assume that they would blow you off again or not blow you off again but if we put enough pressure on the school districts to do something I mean >> challenge would be where would you move them to to avoid the issues of people speeding there is if they're speeding the belief is they're speeding by there correct that's the main >> by there so so two two problems exist >> further down air now if you're heading west um you know there's tons of families with young kids out there and it's just a it's just a wide road. It's a main vein of of traffic coming in and out. So, in general, it's just a a crappy road for kids to live on. The traffic flies there. Um, but also the the Holy Cross bus does come down Shelly to the double culde-sac. And so, I don't know, you know, if we can reach out to the bus if if both buses could come down there and stop too, it would save, you know, at least those 18 homes of children crossing Aaron. Um, >> so the Holy Bus, >> the Holy Cross bus does come down there. Lakeville and New Prague do not. >> Yeah, I think they Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that the Lakeville bus actually comes down there, but it drops everyone off on air and I think it just comes down there to turn around in the culde-sac, but >> I can reach out to certainly can reach out to >> Well, and I think we help help amplify that message as Yeah, it's right at the at the school, you know, border where half the kids go to to either spot, but but e even so further down on Aaron, just not being talking about my family, but there's a ton of kids and traffic just flies there and it's just especially right where that curve is, if you guys see, it's just uh the so when you come out of Shelly, the bus stops are both to the right there. And that's that's the problem is when I'm coming back south into Shelly and people are coming eastbound, it's just uh it just sucks. So we we end up walking west quite a ways on errand to cross. So I can see both ways when I'm crossing with the kids. >> I will tell you this when we have put out the speed counters, the ones that can kind of track how fast people are going with and we can do in a way they don't necessarily know they're there. The average speed is as Rich could attest to is is less than usually 30 miles an hour. Okay. And the speed limit is 30 drive. >> But it doesn't mean that we can't look at other ways to maybe slow people down in C. certain areas, but usually what we've seen in studies over the years is people are pretty consistently at their less. >> Yep. And I'd agree with that. It's just that curve right where at that intersection there is just tough. Yep. >> And little kids are kids are kids crossing the road. >> From a law enforcement standpoint, we can continue to look at having some extra patrols, put the speed trailer back out there, and then I can reach out to superintendent at the school and see if they'd entertain at least avoiding that curve, putting this top somewhere else. >> Okay. Awesome. Thank you. You guys have been great working with >> Well, ju just an FYI too, the superintendent for New Break will be here at the next October meeting. So, if you wanted to bump into him in the audience and talk to him, you could. >> Thanks, guys. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else for public comment on anything that is currently not on the agenda? >> I have a comment. We're in the back room and unless you guys speak right into the microphone, we cannot hear anybody talking. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Hello. I have a simple comment. Why are you guys not allowing people to talk about an item on the agenda when I think almost everyone? >> I'm asking you to wait until general business and then at that point it will be addressed. And yes, I did plan on having public comment, but please wait until general business. We're going to have a presentation and then after that I will allow public comment. Not right now. >> Thank you. Anyone else for public comment for anything that is currently not on the agenda? Okay, we'll move on to uh consent agenda. Is there any changes or anything that needs to be pulled and discussed? >> Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I passes. Okay. On to general business. Um, so underneath the general >> post >> what? >> No, >> Stephanie. Um, it's not allowing me to share. I sent a request. >> Okay. >> The first thing under general business will be the concept plan for review of Eagle View Meadows. >> I think we have a public hearing on vacation of easements. It's >> at the very end. Okay. Posted for 7:00. >> Oh, it changed from my online. Okay. Okay, I'll be handling this item um tonight. We would like the to present to the council a concept plan for residential development that has been submitted by u Mr. Joe Sullivan. Um Joe and his partner Rick Jansen are here tonight if you have any questions for them. Um this is a concept plan um for a 80 acre parcel located in the northwest area of the city. Uh again the property is currently owned by Mr. Sullivan. It's 80 acres in size. Um a concept plan was submitted uh for city staff to review in 2021. At that point uh Mr. Sullivan received uh staff comments but never uh proceeded to obtaining um comments or feedback from the planning commission or city council. An updated concept plan was submitted for the city to review in 2025 and the owner is interested in um getting feedback on this current concept. uh this map shows the location of the proposed uh or the location of the property in relation uh to the city. So as you can see the municipal city limits are shown in a gray and in the township property is shown in kind of a light green. So it is currently in the township. Um this is the concept plan that was presented to the city or to city staff in 2021. And this is the concept plan that was resubmitted to the city in 2025 and which we will be presenting to you tonight. So to um first just to review some of the surrounding neighborhood conditions um of property that surrounds this parcel. To the south of the proposed development are two rural properties. One is vacant um land about 35 acres and one contains a single family residence. Both properties to the south are located outside of the city limits but within the city's planned 2040 growth area and guided for low density residential development. To the east of the uh property are large uh rural large lot rural residential properties that are approximately 10 acres in size with single family detached homes constructed on most parcels. The properties to to the east are located outside of the city limits but within the city's planned 2040 growth boundary and guided for res low density residential development. to the north uh um of the property are also large large lot rural residential properties with single family detached homes on most parcels. Uh the property to the north is located outside of the city limits and outside of the city's 2040 planned growth area but within the city's ultimate sewer service boundary. So, um to the north ultimately, uh that property can is planned to be part of the city. Um to the west of the proposed development is the Highlands at Eagle View development, which is currently under construction, and also to the west is the Eagle View Elementary School, both located within the municipal city limits. Uh this is the um this slide shows the city's adopted comprehensive plan which guides the property to lowdensity residential. Um we have to develop uh properties have to develop at 2 and a half to five units per net acre within this designation and the concept plan does meet that. Um there's the concept plan as currently drawn shows 194 lots. Um and it calculates to 2.7 units per net acre. Um just forformational purposes, this slide shows the ultimate sewer service area uh boundary of the city. Um the as indicated by the red box, this property is within um the city's service area. Um, the current zoning authority on this property is Scott County because it's located in New Market Township. Uh, it's currently zoned urban reserve and that property would automatically be um zoned urban reserve if it was annexed into the city. Uh, any future zoning must be consistent with the city's 2040 comprehensive plan requiring um residential use of the property. Um any future zoning uh must be consistent um with the comprehensive plan and as it is currently been submitted the a PUD zoning would be required unless the city changes its minimum lot size standards before a plat application is received. Oops. Um the proposed lot sizes are 65 uh feet in width at the minimum lot size of 8,400 ft. um proposed front setbacks 25 feet and um proposed side setbacks at 7 feet. Just for comparative purposes, the highlands at Eagle View, the lots uh platted in the current um Highlands at Eagle View to the west are 65 by 120 for the most part. Um a the city does require a tree preservation um plan uh tree inventory. This large this parcel is largely agricultural. There are likely very few trees. However, a tree inventory uh would be required during the pro plotting process. Um the city does have landscaping requirements. Um any there is 20 extra 20 foot of lot depth required for any uh lot that backs up to a major collector street to allow for a landscape buffer. Um there are a number of um collector streets adjacent to this property or planned through this property. Nevada Avenue, Dakota Avenue, and 255th Street are all uh collector level streets which would require some extra depth to account for landscaping. Um this is this slide shows the city's sanitary sewer plan map. It simply shows sewer districts or sewer sheds. Um this property lies within uh sewer district W5 um as outlined in green on the map. Um sanitary sewer service is available on the currently on the uh south and west side of the property along Nevada Avenue via 6 in um PVC force main. Um this lift station a lift station and force main are proposed in the highlands at Eagle View development and that uh lift station will also serve sewer um provide sewer service to this entire property. Um the city engineer uh made sure that was designed uh to handle gravity sewer from this property. Sewer service must be extended through this development and um two adjacent properties. Uh this slide shows the city's water plan map. Uh water is also available currently on the west side of the property um via a force main 12-in water mane or equivalent must be extended through development consistent with the city's uh water plan. As you can see this thick purple line that runs through the site depicts um a trunk water man. uh water service must also be extended through development to um property lines to provide uh connections to adjacent properties. Uh this slide depicts um this storm water information about the site. The property lies uh within both the Scott WMO and the Vermillion WOL. Um the areas shown in crosshatch uh have higher discharge rates or more stringent runoff rates than allowed in other areas of the city. And this was due to an agreement between the city and the town uh as part of the school development. Uh this slide just shows existing um storm storm sewer lines along the west side of the property. There is a large storm sewer line that was constructed with the school development that extends north through areas in the township um and discharges to the surface um just north of 250th Street. Uh there are five stormwater ponds currently shown on the concept plan that are uh dedicated to the city in an outlet at the time of development. Access to ponds must be provided um for uh maintenance purposes for city staff. Uh storm water ponds must have a vegetative buffer of 10 feet in a 35 foot building setback. staff um are aware that there's an existing drain tile system running through the property which provides agricultural drainage for the subject property and the property to the south currently owned by uh Bruce Frigies. Um the existing drainage patterns uh must be perpetuated. Um township representatives have also informed uh city staff that there may likely be more drain tile um that aren't shown on the on this map. This is the these are the tiles that we are aware of currently. There are no DNR protected wetlands. FEMA flood planes located on the property. A wetland delineation was completed by Mr. Sullivan in 2021. It's valid through the end of 2026. There's a one small uh quarter acre wetland on the west side of the site uh which would need to be dedicated to the city um at the time of development if it were to remain uh with wetland buffer signs um are also required. Uh, regarding transportation, um, the property, uh, borders on Nevada Avenue on the west and Dakota Avenue on the east, both of which are identified as major collector streets in the city's transportation plan. And then 255th Street, um, which exists to the west, is also programmed, uh, to continue running east west through the site. Uh, so that would be constructed as part of the development. Um the purpose of a major collector street is typically to link neighborhoods together um within a city or link neighborhoods to business concentrations. Um access to uh major collector streets should be made um from local streets and private access is prohibited. Uh public street connections to the major collector street should be spaced at at least 660 ft apart uh which is about an eighth mile. And the standard right ofway for a major collector street is 100 feet of rightway and 32 foot wide street is our current standard with highback curb. Major collector streets uh require a trail on one side and a sidewalk on the opposite side. Um so a little bit about Nevada Avenue. There is actually an existing rightway platted on the west side of Nevada that's 35 ft in width on this side of the property. Um city would require an additional 15t. So there'd be a total of 50 ft of rightway on this property for Nevada. Um and that would be dedicated as part of the plat. Only a small section of Nevada is currently constructed at the southwest corner of the plat. Um and city code would normally require that uh Nevada is extended north to the north property line of the plat. Um however, at this time staff is uh recommending that that may not uh does not need to be constructed as part of the plat. Um the city there uh Mr. Sullivan also owns a strip of land that's 33 feet in width that extends all the way north into the township up to 250th Street. Um the city is interested in acquiring that as part of the development process. Dakota Avenue is um I'm going to switch talk about Dakota on the east side. So that is an existing gravel road. It's currently under the jurisdiction of New Market Township. Uh the rightway is 33 feet. So again, we would ask for an additional uh 17 feet of rideway as part of the plat. Um city code would require that Dakota Avenue is constructed or improved adjacent to um this plat. Uh and that be improved meaning paved. uh if the gravel section to the south. So there is a section of gravel street um south of Mr. Sullivan's property um that is it's not improved. It's still uh gravel. If that were to remain gravel, uh the city would consider that to be premature development. uh we would not want city traffic emptying out onto um a gravel road or having to cross uh that gravel road without any other route to paved road. Um so the city's idea or recommendation of staff uh for Dakota Avenue would be that it be paved from the existing pavement termini at the north edge of um at its north edge um and paved to the north edge of the development. And then rather than surface it with a 32- foot curb and gutter standard, which is our standard for new streets, um that we allow uh it to remain with a rural section uh with ditches and pave a 26 foot wide surface with gravel shoulders. Um and then once paved, ma maintenance would be taken over by the city. Improvement would be required before any local street connections could be made to it. and um that the uh staff recommends that because the utilities are available on the west side of the property that approximately twothirds of the development could build out before needing to extend um that street over and improve Dakota Avenue. and a pre-development agreement and orderly annexation agreement could document the city's expectations, city and township expectations regarding um Dakota Avenue. Um the concept plan does show the Collector Street, 255th Street, running east and west through the property. Um 80 feet of rightway is shown on the concept plan. 100 feet is required. Uh so that would be a recommend is a recommendation included in our staff report. A 10-ft trail is required on one side and 5T on the other. Um the local street connections that are shown on the concept plan do not meet the 660 foot spacing requirement. Um so that is one thing we'll be seeking um feedback from the city council regarding. Uh the planning commission has reviewed uh the concept plan and did not express objections to that. Um that we'll work with the developer to uh the degree possible to uh achieve the spacing spacing requirements. Local roads, there are a number of local roads uh shown within the plat. Temporary culde-sacs uh must be constructed if the street exceeds 150 ft in length. Um there's one local road on the northeast corner of the plat that is shown to connect to Dakota. Um staff recommends that that connection be taken out as it does not meet again that spacing requirement and rather just extended to the north and future road access exception signs are required where uh roads would be extended in the future based on the city code. Um, again, sidewalks are required on one side of all local streets. A trail would be required along Dakota Avenue. Um, sidewalks along Nevada and then along 255th, a trail and a sidewalk. the parks uh the city subdivision ordinance requires that 8% of the land be dedicated for parks, playground or open space or the developer shall make a cash contribution to the city's park fund roughly related to um its effect on the park system. If no land dedication is required, the park fee has been established by the council at 8% of the fair market value of the land. Um the the estimated park dedication requirement for this development is approximately six acres or just over six acres. Um the city's adopted comprehensive plan, park and trail plan identifies a neighborhood park search area within the southern portion of this property. You can see the green crosshatch um that intersects the red box on the slide. um a neighborhood park. Uh facilities that could typically be expected within a neighborhood park um are shown on this slide here. Playgrounds, ball fields, um tennis courts, pickle ball courts, ice ranks, benches, picnic facilities. Um these would be a bigger park than most of the parks that we have in the city today. The parks commission has reviewed um the concept plan and they have recommended to the planning commission and the city council full parkland dedication uh land dedication for this development that it be centrally located along the southern edge of the plat. um that the land uh be that's dedicated for park purposes have topography and configuration conducive to developing the park with facilities um typically found in a neighborhood park and then the recommendation for sidewalks and trails. Um they noted the park land dedication as depicted on the concept plan be reconfigured to provide more usable open space. um annexation would be required to develop the property as shown. The developer and um owner may petition the city for an annexation of the property. Um if the city does receive a petition for annexation, we would work with the township regarding a joint resolution for orderly annexation. It's a agreement where the city and the township mutually agree to the terms of the annexation and um a pre-development agreement is recommended. Miscellaneous items. Staff recommends that a neighborhood meeting be held by um the developer in advance of any formal applications to introduce the uh concept um to the neighborhood. Um, city code does require a ghost plat of how adjacent properties could possibly develop. Um, it's something that's required by our uh, subdivision ordinance. It does not indicate city support or approval uh, but more so is meant to um, so that we can ensure proper roadway alignments for future developments. um in a traffic impact study would likely be recommended based on the number of housing units proposed in the plat. The planning commission um did review this concept plan at their August 26th meeting and concurred with um 32 comments and recommendations that were provided by staff and also included in the city council packet. Um they also uh recommended to change the roadway alignment on the northeast side of the plat to remove a connection to Dakota Avenue. Um tonight the city council is being asked to provide feedback to staff and the developer uh regarding the concept plan if annexation would be supported based on the proposed plan and use of the property. Uh feedback is being s uh sought regarding the lot proposed lot size. Um the local road spacing on 255th Street. Uh the construction of Nevada Avenue on the northwest side of the plat and concurrence with staff's recommended conditions. And this is the concept plan. >> All right. >> Okay. Well, council, what do you have? Any questions, comments? >> You want to click through the list? Would that be easier? Or put the list back up where you need the feedback? >> Sure. >> Okay. Annexation of the property and the city would be recommended based on the concept plan. Um, good. >> No questions. >> Okay. subject. >> Yep. Feedback is being sought regarding the proposed lot sizes. >> We got no issues with that. And I guess my question would be, have we do we have any update for where we're at in reviewing lot sizes across the town or city? And when do we think >> do we have an estimated timeline and when or if that might be proposed to change? I'm hoping to have a solid uh report to the planning commission at the October planning commission meeting. >> I have certainly no issues with it. So, I mean, I think this is where we're going. >> Okay. Anybody else have issues? >> No issues for me. >> No. >> Okay. um feedback being sought regarding the proposed local road spacing on 255th Street. >> Could you maybe go back to the map? >> Go back to that one. >> One of the maps with the roads because I have some questions about the roads. >> I >> I mean maybe not even necessarily the spacing. I mean I'll defer to Chief and Rich and others for recommendations related to that. I guess I have questions of so is the one entrance in and out of the place going to be off of 250 255th in Nevada at that corner and will there be nothing there then until 255th goes all the way across and then we're ready to upgrade update Dakota >> correct so that's where uh the twothirds of the development so um just a starting point from staff's conversation is uh if approximately twothirds of the development could build towards the east but yes they would all be concentrated to that intersection or there's another street uh I think to the north that will run east west through um you can see it better there's another local road um 253rd street just to the north of 255th is really light on this, but I mean that will technically be another east west route that they could take, but this being the collector more of the collector street, it may feel more comfortable to take this. >> I mean, part of me I just I mean, I don't love the that um I mean, I've seen Boulder Heights with the one in and out and we have that stubbed road there on the south side >> that should get out to Thomas eventually or what a beard Thomas, whatever that is over there. Um, so I mean, especially if we're not doing anything on the Dakota side, I don't know. I mean, I just And then to have the stub or not extend north just feels >> Josh, you caught that the developer would be required to improve devel uh Dakota. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Well, I mean, and I would even feel better of having both entrances and then we complete Dakota up to that eastern connection. And I don't know. I mean I get but again I would defer to chief and fire department and and you know to have the one in and out if that one entrance is blocked. Are we up a creek if there's an issue in there? Um >> we we do have more than one way in and out though. Um that there's the north of 255th. There's an east west that connects from Highlands directly over into this project. So there's an alternate way in and out of this project until that connection is made. So, >> okay, >> we don't and since they're building >> both projects are building from Nevada west and east respectively. >> Um, that does not appear to be. >> So, then will Nevada go up that far or are we not extending Nevada at all? >> Well, >> because that's what I was confused. It sounded like we weren't extending Nevada at all. So, then there'll be an east west over just a slice of where the road eventually would be. Correct. instead of would we not be better off requiring the north to extend up to that and have both developers put it in? Now, >> from a transportation standpoint, there isn't a need for that chunk of Nevada until Nevada connects to 250th Street, which is a long time down the road >> um potentially decades at this point. Um the connection between the neighborhoods provides circulation and connectivity between the neighborhoods is important. thus the east west connection on the local street side. Um so there's a question of we would be we would be asking the developers to build something which isn't really needed at this particular point in time and then the taxpayer would be on the hook then for all of the maintenance for that road. the mill, the overlay, the crack ceiling, the ultimate replacement, possibly within before it's actually needed for that connection ultimately up to the north. >> Yeah. Something about I just don't love. I mean, I'm not going to fight about it or anything, but it just feels like we're leaving it incomplete and it feels like this is a good time to at least think about it. >> Yeah. It's one of the things on the list that we're seeking your feedback on. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think from a public safety standpoint, the distances aren't that long where it's that big of a deal for us to only have one entrance. >> Okay? >> You know, if we were talking miles, that'd be something, but this isn't for us at least. We're pretty I haven't seen that as a big issue in this city where we've only had one entrance where it's made some kind of a weird difference or something. So, I wouldn't have a big issue with it at this point. >> Fair enough. >> Good questions. Anybody else questions on that? >> I'm taking that as a no. >> No. >> Okay. >> You put the list back up there, Renee. Sorry. Um, construction of Nevada. Oh, we just talked about that. And then, do we concur with the 32 staff recommendations as outlined in the staff report? I'm fine with that. Can we go back to the um I'm sorry, the spacing on 255th Street um 660 ft. And I don't know if the city engineer has any uh comments at this point. >> And I would assume it's the right as you get into the neighborhood. It's the the turning right as you get off of Nevada or Dakota. I mean, that seems like it's a I mean, it feels like Aaron Drive and turning right onto whatever that street is right there before Shelly and and you know, it feels like >> that might be an issue >> except that 255th is a major collector, not a minor. So, the concern would be possibly in the long-term conflicting turning movements uh for turn lanes and things like that. And we didn't look at it that closely because there is some space. It's a concept plan. we can raise the concern and see what they come back with in an actual application. >> Right. Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, if it's if it's that ma more major of a road, it I would have those same types of concerns coming in and out of there and then stopping right there and you're going to be Do we have a general idea? Is that like a 40 mph road? 40 >> typically there would be a design speed of 40 miles an hour. Yeah. And that's I mean one lot obviously depth before a turn or a stop or whatever that could get tricky on both sides. >> Okay. All right. Well, yeah, they might come back with a amended concept that removes some of those. >> The only other thing I would say is I fully support the parks uh dedication. >> Oh, sorry. I take it back. Amanda wants to talk. No, you can talk. But I just we're it's close to a school. In theory, families are going to move their playground equipment, I think, is very important in the park dedication. And I was very excited to see that there was an actual park dedication and not just the funding. So, >> anything else, council? My only other question is about the ghost plaque because I know before in the past people have seen that and been kind of alarmed because the disclaimer is really small. Can we either like notify those property owners that that is happening or have that disclaimer be bigger and maybe the notification is not a good idea, but I just know we've had comments before and like making it very clear that this is not like the way you said it tonight was very concise and digestible. So I would want people to understand it that way too. Yeah, I think we will take any opportunity um to advertise that it's required by code just to show connectivity for future streets and street alignments aren't going into wetlands and things like that, you know, we'll do our best. >> Well, and I think if we just like Megan said, it was very fine print on there. If we just enlarged that portion of it that says that it's >> a ghost. Okay. Well, that would be great. >> No, but otherwise, I mean, super supportive of the development and kudos to the developer for, you know, all the work that's been put into it so far. And um Yeah. Y >> All right. Do you >> do you have any more >> I was just going to ask Mr. Sullivan if he wanted to speak. Joe Sullivan, Eden Prairie. Council members, thanks for your time and your support. Um, you know, we were here a year or so ago and did Parkway Meadows. Appreciate your help on that one. I think it's going very well. And so, we're trying to do something similar here, well thought uh well-designed uh community uh trying to get a neighborhood going um long awaited by the elementary school. So, appreciate your help. And if there's questions now or along the way, we're here to answer them. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Did you get all the direction that you needed? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Um, next on our agenda or our agenda is going to be Rich talking about the water quality aquifer test findings. And before you start, Rich, I just want to thank everyone for coming out. Um I am going to um allow public comment after the presentation from Rich. Um Josh will be timing 2 minutes. So anybody approaching the podium will come up, state their name, their address, and you will have two minutes to speak. At which point I ask that you please step away so the next person can come up. And please understand that the council once you are done with your comments, the council will go into discussion itself. So there may not be answers for you right away. Um but I will allow comment. Um, technically we don't have to, but there's three of us that were on this council back in the day when this all started and we made a promise to you that we are here to listen to you and this is our way of making certain that we are here to listen to you tonight. So, if you can at least give us the pleasure of listening to Rich's um speech and then at which point when he is finished, I will open it up for public comment and then once that is completed, then the council will go into their discussion about the aquifer test pumps. Thank you. This uh presentation is exactly what it's entitled and it's not more than that. This is focused on the complaints that were related to the aquifer pump test that happened in late November uh and early December of 2023. Uh this is for council consumption education. Uh I know it's going to be pretty detailed, but I also know that you guys are probably not private well experts. and the information should be helpful in understanding what we think happened. I've um put together kind of a timeline that shows different things. I would uh call your attention to the four arrows on here. Particular the aquifer pump test began in November, I think it was November 8th, 2023. It ended December 6, 2023. We started hearing about complaints uh through the DNR and then from directly in uh early May. And you might ask, well, why the delay? And uh but if you think back, that makes some sense. We didn't know there were complaints out there. The folks that this was happening to had no idea that the pump test was coming, what had happened, who did it. So it just took a while for the those inquiries to reach the right people and then eventually to us. Um and then uh the other one we conducted anformational meeting for area well owners in uh early September, no early August of 2024. And the important thing about that is that invitation to that uh public information meeting was sent by mail to 935 well owners and property owners that uh where the property appeared to have a building on it indicating there may be a well and that was within 2 and a half miles of the city. So the uh attempt was to reach everybody we could that might have been affected by this. And that notice did include information that we were aware of some complaints about water quality during the aquifer pump test and what to do if they wanted to file a complaint. So everybody uh as best we could that uh may have been impacted at least within two and a half miles was sent a mailing. The rest of the uh dates are just showing different things we were doing to implement the city's interference response plan and water quality response plans and I don't plan to go into that in any detail. Um so the question might and and was asked often why were private well owners not notified of the pump test and it was simply that staff was unaware that impacts to water quality at private wells was a possibility. uh it was not part of the DNR's pump test requirements or their comments or any suggestions. It it really never came up as a question and so there was no notification done. It wasn't um any attempt to obscure anything. We were following the plan that was approved by the DNR and that wasn't part of it. Um, but I think this shows that once we were aware of it, we did attempt to reach out as best we could to let people know what to do if they were having, uh, if they had, uh, complaints from that time. The things we did, uh, we sent out questionnaires to anybody that notified us that they had experienced an issue during that pump test. if they had well logs. We found those and we reviewed them to see what kind of well they had, what other information we could glean. We conferred with several experts. Um, a key one was RH Rener. Um, they have done work on city wells. Uh, and Roger, the president of and owner of Rener is a former president of the Minnesota Wellers Association. So he's extremely experienced and actually uh was his suggestion as to the main hypothesis we followed as we went through this. We worked a lot with Hartman well company who were great in providing us information on well logs that were not on uh public record answering questions. They uh pulled a couple of pumps for us so we could see what that looked like when they came up and what might uh happen. We had LRE do some work. Um, Bronn Inertech, we worked with one of their microbiologists. Um, and then, uh, we have a water chemistry expert on our staff that, uh, also helped us review some of the information. Uh, we, as I mentioned, we pulled two wells and I was there personally and looked at those and talked to the to the guys actually doing the work to, uh, learn what I could from their experience. And then we did uh as part of our uh water quality response plan, we did pull samples from 19 area wells. It wasn't specifically to investigate these events, but uh we were able to take away a couple of insights from that. Uh and those were done from both wellwater and aquifer water. And I'll explain that more when I get to it. So, we're going to talk a little bit about wells in the prairie to chain Jordan aquifer, which is the aquifer that the city of Elco Market shares with most of the people uh in the area that have private wells. Uh this graphic some of you have seen before just shows the extent of the Jordan aquifer. It's huge. We're at the northern edge of it, but it extends down into Iowa, over into Wisconsin. uh so it's it's very large. This uh gives a graphic for this area. Those uh curvy lines are actually represent the uh approximate elevation of the pressure level in the aquifer. And if you and you can't see it here, it's too far away, but the uh black arrows indicate the direction that the groundwater in the aquifer is moving. And that corresponds to those pressure levels. So, as the pressure gets lower, typically as it gets closer to to um lakes and streams or rivers especially, um it's flowing towards those rivers and discharging into the rivers below grade. You may not see it, but uh there's there is ongoing movement uh in the aquifer. This is a cross-section of a typical domestic well. I drew this to scale from an actual well log from uh one of the wells that were subject to the complaints. So at the top you see the ground level. Um that's a very simplistic typical twostory house maybe 25 by 40 ft. You see the domestic well poking down through a thick layer of silt and clay overburden. That is nonwaterbearing. There's really no available water in the silt and clay. um you have to poke through that layer down into the actual um prairie to chain aquifer which is the the upper layer of the aquifer. Um kind of like and it's and the thing that that's uh maybe a little hard to understand you'll see a arrow that says aquifer water pressure level. This is a confined aquifer because it's capped with an imperial layer and there's higher parts of the aquifer elsewhere that put pressure on this. It's pressurized like if you were and the only way to get water out is to poke the straw all the way through the confining layer into the bottom layer. And when you do that, water will rise up inside the well to that aquifer water pressure level. So you might think of a juice box. uh you you poke the straw in, you give it a little squeeze, the juice will rise up in the straw. The same thing's happening here. When when a well is drilled through the clay into the aquifer, the pressure in the aquifer will push water up automatically. There's nothing to be done uh to to bring water up. And that water pressure level line kind of represents where that is relative to the aquifer to the houses. And I have a blowup on the next screen that might uh show a little more detail. So at the bottom of the picture, you see the top of the aquifer. They bore a six to 4 inch hole all the way from the surface down into the aquifer. Then they drive a casing in that hole down typically down to the aquifer. But the bottom of in the the hole that's in the aquifer may not have a casing. It might just be an open hole that allows water to flow out of the cracks and fissures and sandstone in the the aquifer into that and rise up into the well. About in the middle of the picture, you'll see, and it's a little hard to read, I know, submersible pump level in the well. That's all the deeper into the well the pump needs to go. It doesn't need to go to the bottom. It just needs to be below that aquifer water pressure level, which is near the top of the screen. Again, this is the same graphic as before. just zoomed in. Um, and there's detail about casing and drop pipe and such, but that's the basic concept. The pump has to be below the top of the water in the well, and that top of the water in the well is there because of pressure in the aquifer. This is a graphic to help you understand how a well pump works. uh a well pump is um an amazing thing uh when you when you really look at it. The line the numbers on the left of the graph are in feet. That represents basically pressure that the pump is working against. That pressure is not only gravity from the distance it has to pump from its level up to the house. It's also friction loss in the line. The lines on the bottom represent GPM. So, if you pick one of the curves, and there's one kind of highlighted with the red lines, that is showing that you're going to get about 7 GPM when that well pump is seeing 800 ft of head. If the head goes down, the well can perform better. If the head goes up, the well performs worse. The reason head can change in a well system is because the pipes tend to have buildup that happens in them over time. And as that buildup happens inside the pipe, the diameter gets smaller, it increases the head loss, makes the pump work harder, and it can't push as much water. So over time, performance will go down in these systems as the water's being getting pumped to the pressure tank. This is kind of the same thing as before except this is showing a high capacity well configuration like a city well. Uh besides the um the well casing being bigger. Instead of a 4 in, it might be a 14in. Instead of a 2-in drop pipe, it might have an 8 in drop pipe. it the wells tend to also go through the top layer of the aquifer down into the deeper Jordan sandstone level. Uh that is so that more water can be uh available to the end of that casing to get into the the pumping. Otherwise, they're pretty much a similar concept. Um I didn't me well I made a brief mention of an air tank. A house would have an air tank. When the pump turns on, it fills that that pressure tank in the house to a set point and shuts off. And that pressure tank has pressurized air that keeps pressure on the water. So when you get a glass, it's kind of uniform. When the pressure drops enough, it tells the pump, "Turn on again, fill me back up." The city doesn't have pressure tanks, but it has water towers. They do the same thing. Uh but instead of air, we use gravity. So, we put our water way up in the air so it can keep uh pressure on the system. This shows side by side a residential well and a uh city well. Again, both are made from actual well logs, but if I drew them to scale, they'd be so far apart you couldn't really tell. So, there's a mile and a quarter gap um represented there. Uh and so you can basically see how much deeper into the aquifer the city wells are. So this gets us into what is interference. Um just broadly so there's understanding when a when a well is pumping especially a big well like a city it's pulling water from all directions in the aquifer towards the well. Now, these big fat blue lines make it look like it's really ripping through the aquifer. And in actuality, it moves very slowly. And the further you get from the well, the more slowly it moves. And we can walk through that math if you want to, but u uh there's it's it's not like it's um you know, water, if you were a mile away and could see that water with dye in it, you wouldn't be able to perceive how fast it's moving. It's very slow. But the area is so vast that it doesn't have to move very f fast towards the well to deliver a lot of water. This is what draw down looks like on a graph. So on the left side we've got the level below the normal static water level. I mentioned that aquifer is pressurized. So it normally say it's at zero. if you have a big pump pumping and we we got this from uh we had LRE run just a model to to give us an idea what these curves look like. So when this model had the pump pumping um full blast, the draw down right at the well was about 37 ft. And then as you move away from the well is shown on the bottom axis, the distance in in miles from the pumping well pair um that draw down declines. So when you're at say a mile, draw down's about what? 8T. When you're at two miles, it's a little under five feet and so forth. So, it drops off uh fairly quickly. Uh but it does extend out quite a ways depending on how hard that well is pumping. This graphic is not meant to say what the draw down was at any point during our pump test. Uh that's variable. Um but it does it was intended to just give an idea of the shape and the order of magnitude of the draw downs that can happen from a typical city well. So if I take that draw down curve and just pretend that it does apply and I put it uh on the um city well on the right and on a private well on the left. It's the same uh graphic before except I somehow mocked up putting the right gap in there. But the the concept is the same. You see a blue dash line on each of them. On the city side on the right you see the draw down at the well 37.7 ft. And this is to scale. So it's not nearly as steep as that graphic on the previous page showed. But when you get, you know, couple hundred feet away, it's already down to 30 ft. When you get to 2 mi or 2 and 1/2 miles away where that private well is represented, that draw down is down to 2.7 ft. However, it's still draw down and that is the crux of uh what's going on here with these water quality complaints. So, I'm just going to move on and and uh see if we can help you understand that better. We received after sending out the well before and after uh the mailing that we sent did prompt some more complaints. We got 60 68 uh complaints. We sent questionnaires to each of those um folks. We got 45 questionnaires back. We compiled the results of those questionnaires. Um and we also looked for well logs. Uh we found them for 32 of the respondents out of the 41. So uh 45 uh we couldn't find well information for 13 of the wells. Little graphic shows the uh drillers that we found on the records. Uh I thought that was interesting and I would guess our audience uh probably are familiar with some of these names. Hartman did almost half of the wells uh that we had logs for. Bone was common. Gary's Toddola Cadillac. Um, Jacles was also fairly common. So, and I learned of a new one today. So, there are a number of well drillers in the area. Um, and any one of them, at least from my experience and dealing with them during this examination, are pretty knowledgeable and cooperative. So, this just shows what we found for ages of wells as of 2024. And in this is in years. So, uh, dark blue, that's unknown. We didn't, there was no age information. Uh, there was quite a contingent that was in the 11 to 20 year range. The purple 20 to 30 year range. I was actually expecting there would be uh they would be be more older wells, but um when you think about how this developed and maybe this makes sense. There's, you know, probably uh half of them are under u 40 years old. Uh turns out an important question is when was the last well last service. So this shows the years since the last well service. And by well service that meant the pump was pulled out. Uh any drop pipe that was corroded or had gotten smaller on the inside was uh replaced. They can replace those section by section. And the well drillers do recommend that pumps be pulled every 10 to 15 years because there is corrosion that happens and it can break or lead to pin holes that causes other problems in the well. So um you know we had a range of responses but most of them were pretty recently um few unknowns but most in the five or 10 years or less um range for getting their well serviced which is what we'd expect based on feedback from the the well contractors. This shows an idea of the type of inhome treatment systems. Lot of inline filters, lot of water softeners, which we'd expect. We know we've got high hardness, we know we've got high iron, we know we've got high manganesees in this area. Um, and this is just the 41 or 45 responses. There are lots of other uh wells out there. We don't know, but we suspect it's probably similar. Um, some RO systems, um, some only faucet filters, but majority basically an inline filter, the water softener, and maybe some additional equipment either at the tap or elsewhere on the line. Um, most homes have more than one type of uh, treatment. This is an idea of the type of responses we got and um keep in mind that there can be more than one response at a home and some of these are related. So if we have um no water or lower pressure which a lot of people reported that can be related to the plugged filters or interference uh with with material getting on those filters. It's going to prevent water from getting through the system. And you're going to see it at the tab. Um about a quarter of people reporting color or appearance problems. Um quarter of people reporting changing in staining. Um some change in soap use, which is typically an indication of high hardness. Um and then um that red one uh another quarter of people reporting something brown, black, orange. uh sludge-like material. Uh we believe that is oxidized iron and manganesees. Uh and the manganese is probably getting oxidized by iron oxidizing bacteria, which is not harmful. It's not nice looking, but it's not a health risk. Um, and just if council has ever looked down in your sump pump and you see a kind of an orange filmy stuff on the pump and on the piping, that's what that is. When it's exposed to a lot of manganesees, that uh filmy stuff will be more black because that's the material available for it for food. Basically, it converts it from a dissolved form to a insoluble form. And that's what we think is clinging to the inside of the uh well casings. This shows um a drop pipe that was u taken from one of the wells that we pulled. And that black and white material is inside the drop pipe. The white is hardness and the black is that same material we were just talking about, oxidized manganese. The clogged filter on the right was also uh gathered from this investigation from one of the uh wells that were complaining. That orange material is uh rust. It could be rust from IOB. That well did have IOB. We sampled for it in two wells, but you get an idea what that um at least in this case what that stuff looked like. Other cases it may have been more black. sampling um was not super helpful for this effort because we were looking for what's going on with the material and the sludge-like stuff. Almost everybody reported that coming into the houses, but we looked at the samples anyway. And when we did the samples, we took the additional step of going what the DNR wanted us to sample for was water from the aquifer. >> Rich, can you speak closer to the mic? You're moving slowly away. It's getting quieter backwards. >> Sorry about that. Um, so our our requirement for sampling was to purge the well, which means run water out of it until all the water that was sitting in the well is out and you've drawn in new water from the aquifer. They wanted to know what's in the aquifer water, not what's in the well water. We chose to sample both. So we did a short purge just to get water you know out of the pressure tank uh but get water that was in the well. We sampled that for iron and manganesees and then we also sampled per our requirement the aquifer water by doing that longer purge and getting all that well water out of the well before we uh took the sample. We did find uh manganesees exceeded concentrations, health concentrations in nine out of the 15 locations we had data for at this point. 100 is the health standard. We found it as high as 415. Um that was not a surprise. We know we've got high manganesees and I think most uh homeowners do as well. Um the that was the pre-purge. uh the post-purge value was uh 36 to 430 micrograms. So kind of the same range. We did look at the changes in the concentrations of manganese and iron before we purged and after we purged. And what we found is it was mixed but it was definitely different either different higher after it was purged or higher before it was purged. So we think the cause of that is likely to be water use before we got there. We don't know what that was and we can't control it. So there may have been fresher water for one batch or not. Uh but the important thing uh is that it does appear to change concentration of dissolved manganese and iron in the well versus when it's coming first out of the aquifer. And I suspect the longer it sits in the well with lower usage, the more that change might be. And we suspect that that uh coming out of solution is largely going to contribute to the the stuff that's building up inside the well. This is more about um you know why it wasn't conclusive. So I don't want to hang my head on that too much other than that there are clearly changes or differences between aquifer water and wellwater and um let's move through this uh it just again it supports a potential for iron manganesees to change form and build up inside the weld casing. Uh I talked to our water scientist about that. He suspect because of the pH isn't right for it to happen just with oxygen that their microbial processes going on especially for uh the manganesees and that that u microbial process is probably iron oxidizing bacteria which is not known to be harmful. Uh we did sample for that at two locations and found it in both places. We did not measure hardness uh pre and post purge, but uh pretty clearly from the well pumps we pulled, there's hardness in the water and we know that. Another um thing we found that really reinforces that there is stuff inside the well casings is that when we were having Hartman lower one of the uh well pumps for the pumps we pulled, we hadn't told them that we were going to lower it before they showed up. And when we told them, you know, as long as you got it open, let's just put another stick of pipe and get that pump deeper in the well, they couldn't do it. They had to stop and get another piece of equipment onto the site because they want to take an air compressor and a tool and clean off the inside of that well casing before they put the pump lower. Otherwise, they risk knocking stuff loose from the sides of the well casing that can get sucked up and damage the pump. Um, so there's clearly stuff built up inside of these casings and we think that stuff is what came loose during our aquifer test. Recall, we dropped the water level in varying degrees depending on the distance from our well and allows that stuff that's normally wet to dry out or die and fall into the water column where it can get sucked up by the pump, come into the house, cause a big nuisance. Once that's cleared out and flushed, it's gone. Uh then the problem is is kind of back to normal. But it was uh pretty clearly what happened here uh that it was caused by our pump test and that's where the material came from. So I just gave you the conclusion. I won't read it to you again. Uh other than I would add this stuff is happening in these wells kind of all the time but on a lower much lower pace. So as it builds up, a little bit might come loose, end up get caught in the filter, go through. It's manageable. The homeowners are used to it and dealing with it. They they kind of have a rhythm with how often they have to change their filters depending how much. What happened in this case is above and beyond normal because there was more exposure of that stuff to um to air. Basically, we dropped that water level uh from a foot to three or four feet in some cases for four weeks. and allowed that stuff to basically come loose. There were other theories that we considered. I don't know how much time to spend on these other than we rejected them primarily. Um well, I'll just stirred up the aquifer. I inferred that meant that the water moving through the aquifer towards the city wells was causing some kind of disturbance that raised up material and causing the wells. But I already told you the velocities were so low that u that's just not possible. In fact, the velocity at the bottom of a well from even a domestic well pump is thousands of times faster than what our rates would have been from our pumping. So it's not likely that anything we did stirred up the aquifer. It drew down the water and allowed material already in the well to come loose. Uh drew lower quality water towards the wells. The idea there is maybe there's uh plumes of bad water out there and and when the city pumped harder, it pulled that stuff towards the wells and got in. Again, that aquifer water is constantly on the move typically towards the rivers to the north. Um, so this would happen naturally if that was the case. Plus, it's unlikely that at the velocities we were pulling water. I mean, over over the length of test for wells within a mile or two, the water might have moved 10 feet. It's not like it pulled it from 200 feet away or something like that. So that's just seems implausible that there's and that there would happen to be 41 batches of lowquality water out there right by a well ready to be drawn to it. It just it didn't fit. And then um there were some comments this is normal in domestic wells and that is true but I already explained not to this degree. Uh we chose to assume the complaints are credible gather what evidence and information was reason available and form an opinion accordingly. I'm going to uh move past the examination of these since I already gave you the highlights and that leads us to questions. I may have missed something important Tom wanted and being a mention again this was all in support of the recommendations for compensation. We think that the complaints were credible. They're linked to the evidence that we have and we think the cause was the draw down in the city and that it was a short-term impact, not that it's not continuing on the normal rate. Um, and that's why we u recommended what we do in the compensation memo. So, I guess I'd stand for questions at that point or additional remarks from Tom. Does the council want to uh any Q&A to this piece of it or do you want us to just move on to the recommendation for compensation and then just handle it all at one time? >> I believe Josh has some questions. >> Well, I mean, I guess I don't know. I mean, if it's specific to the test and what you just talked about, maybe it makes sense to ask now and before there might be or there might be separate questions related to the compensation stuff. Yep. >> If that works. >> Um I know I will. Uh so just a this is a very just process question. So when we when we did the questionnaires did we uh was it all self-reported? Was documentation submitted um like dates of last service issu I mean what was it self-reported only or was there documentation that we also accepted to verified? >> It was largely self-reported. Some people um added some information from their driller or an invoice or something just backing up that they had it serviced on this date. Um I didn't mention um we'd got very little information on the specific timing of the first notice of these incidents. It was all over the map. At first I'm like that's aggravating. But then as I thought about it, you own a well, you don't know anything's going to happening. You start noticing something weird. You're probably not going to write down this happened at 11:02 a.m. on this. And so after I thought about thought it through, it made sense. Uh and we just had to rely on the reporting that it was in this general time frame when these things were observed. Um so no, not a lot of documentation. >> Okay. Um and and I I think I heard it said two different ways or things uh you know that seem contradictory in my brain. Um and so at one point I think we said we saw levels of magnanes exceed health limits or standards but then earlier on I think in the slide deck it said that there weren't any concerns or health risks or something like that uh related to increased levels of magnes. Square that up for me. There are well when I say increased it means increased from the pre- purge to the post purge. It doesn't mean anything relative to when our pump test occurred. We don't have data from before the pump test on manganesees other than what's just from our own plant. So at these sites we didn't have it was simply comparing water that was sitting in the well that manganesees dissolved manganesees specifically. We didn't and there's not really a test for oxidized manganesees. So, we were testing for dissolved manganesees before we purged the well and testing for dissolve manganesees after. And that's where we were noticing it always was different. Not always in the same direction, but we think that's related to how much usage might have been going on at that well before we ever got there. >> Okay. But to be clear, increased levels, elevated levels of magn manganesees uh for extended periods of time does have health impacts on people or animals or things like that. So, we're not saying that it doesn't. We're just saying that >> what are we saying? >> We think that's evidence that the water changes in the well as it sits there waiting to be used and that that stuff is what's contributing to the buildup on the walls of the well casing. >> Okay. And and then I also heard you know the the the pump test did not drop at least according to the modeling and what we expected to happen. We didn't have any I believe or very few any actual interference claims that outside maybe that it could have been tied to sludge buildup filter buildup maybe and that in increased uh the likelihood of like lower pumping or lower um flow. But so so if we are under the assumption that it didn't drop more than two and a half or three or four feet in some private well locations, is that enough to then cause enough of that stuff inside of the pipe to dry up to then come loose again? Is that enough to cause some of the impacts that folks would have seen? I mean, because that just doesn't seem like a lot to me. And these pipes aren't like, you know, this big around or whatever. So they're this bigish and and then that much dries up or whatever that much dries up. Is that enough to cause filters to to >> It's a fair amount of surface area relative to the surface area of a filter and it's coming through. It's getting ground up by the pump and coming through all at once. So it could pretty easily I think clog up a filter or two or three um depending on uh how much draw down was happening at that well the degree of the buildup inside the well I mean there's a lot of variables but uh no it doesn't seem implausible to me at all >> any other questions for him otherwise we'll let him go on >> I just wanted to on your question about interference. Up until today, I believed we didn't have any interference. I do have some clarifying information. It's not for this presentation or meeting. We will be dealing with that, but there was one that uh that I think is confirmed. >> One last quick question. I don't know Tom or Rich who's better for it, but this is a compensation recommendation. Is it a requirement from the state or the DNR? No, they support it, but it was not a requirement. I did fail to mention at the beginning why you asked us to do this. Um, I'll do it from memory if I if you allow me not to have to page back through, but basically we were looking are there health concerns because remember at that time we had no idea what happened. We just heard people were unhappy, various comments about what was going on. So, was it a health concern? Um, would it happen again? Uh, can it be prevented? Would it inform how we design our wells going forward if we knew the answer to this? Um, were the claims valid? Were they, you know, people just thinking things or was it real? And, you know, obviously we think it was. Uh so those were some of the reasons um why you asked us just seemed like the right thing to do to find the answer so that we could hopefully help us manage better in the future. This may actually in benefit well owners around other communities going forward because now the DNR is well aware that this can happen and probably be I would guess we'll see some kind of notification requirements um for other other places as they do the same thing. And one last thing too, I mean so just this is getting detailed, but I mean we did talk about the well test in public meetings. There were some folks that are in this room today that were part of those meetings in the audience. So we did talk about this. It's in the minutes. It's on all the videos posted. We were getting updates at the October 26th and November 16th and the December 7th meetings of 2023. I'm sure we talked about it before, but I didn't go back any further. But we didn't do enough to notify the private well owners and we acknowledge 100% that. Uh and so I even say that and I see your head shaking and I'm not trying to say that in a way that folks should have known because nobody ever shows up to these meetings. So I get that and I mean we'd love more engagement. Um but I mean to say that nobody would have known about it. This was done in secret. That's just I mean that's not true. But we should have done more to notify folks to communicate what to do when issues were heard or seen and felt. Um and that is a piece that we failed to do. >> Just I I kind of want to reiterate on that what Rich had said at the beginning of the his presentation. Um if we had known that there was a chance that this would happen, we would have notified, but the DNR did not expect that this is something that would happen. We did not expect it would be something that would happen. They do awkward tests around the state based on the DNR's experience. It wasn't something they brought to our attention. They were surprised by it um in our discussions with them. So, this is simply an issue of we didn't have an opportunity to advise well owners that hey, we're going to be doing a test that might have an impact on your wells. It wasn't a secret they were doing an aquifer test, but we didn't have an opportunity. Nor did we were we aware there was a need to advise well owners within a certain distance that hey, you might have stuff coming up in your well and here's some things that you should do to possibly address it ahead of time or be aware of it to make us aware of it. All right. Um, I do have You have a a another presentation? No, you're done. >> No, you have the the memo in your packets. The purpose of this was to help you understand how we got to Yes, we think it would be appropriate to offer compensation to certain uh people that complained about their >> Okay. So at this moment right now the council is going to hold off on our discussion and I am going to open it up for public comment. It will be 2 minutes and it will be comment on the aqua for testing itself. Please refrain from anything else that is not in regards to what we have just talked about in this presentation. I don't want to hear anything about Niagara. So, who out there would like to come first? Janelle, you had your hand raised if you want to come up. And please remember to state your name and address. >> Absolutely. Janelle KNA uh 26775 Grand Avenue. Um first Josh, I just want to address your comment on on the uh pump test. So, as we just so for the record, as that pump test was being um developed, it went back and forth to the DNR several times. And so, I myself made several calls to Rich outside of these meetings in order to know when that pump test was starting. So, did the community know that there was going to be a pump test? Yes. Was the date that that pump test was going to start known to the general public? The answer to that question is >> well we knew but I think the point >> did the general public know >> not from us >> correct? That's what I wanted to get across. So your point is accurate that people knew there was going to be a pump test but nobody knew when it was going to be. So I just want to respond to that specifically. Um so just a couple other things I want to say. Uh, first I want to say that I've held two volunteer well clinics here with Minw um and tested people's wells for both arsenic and maganesees. Both times we had over 200 people at those clinics. Um, I do have the results from those um uh and so I think as you move forward um with the city, this is something the city could really offer the stakeholders in this and which will bring me to my second point. Whether you guys like it or not, we are stakeholders in this. We are well owners in New Market Township and we have a stake in this. We've been here for three years trying to get you to understand that we have a stake in this. You've we have brought experts in to testify that there could be a draw down and a problem with our wells. We have testified. We have spent thousands of hours trying to get that through your heads. I think even when it comes to this meeting, I spoke with Rich via email on Monday. However, and Tom, you were involved in that email as well. No one told me that this was going to be on the agenda tonight. I had to seek that out myself. So, if you want to have a conversation with stakeholders, it would be really important to bring us to the table and keep us in the loop. So, instead of just saying, "Hey, read the minutes." And actually, to be honest with you, the conversation I had on the email with you, Rich, was specifically in regards to this memo. I was asking for this memo, but no one informed me that it was going to be discussed at this meeting. So, I just want to point that out. So, a couple of other things. Um, I would like to know what the pump rate was during that pump test, hourly and daily, and how that's going to compare in phase one, phase 2, and future development of the city. Um, because how much water was being pumped at that time and how is it going to compare into the future? So, you don't have to answer that right now. If if you can, go ahead. >> We pump for 2 weeks at 835 gallons per minute. >> Okay. Okay. Then we pumped for 2 weeks at,230 gallons per minute. So for and that that was continuous pumping but the rate did increase in the latter part of the of the test. Um 1,235 gallons a minute is roughly 1.8 million gallons a day. This summer there were only two days we exceeded 1 million gallons a day. to give you at least what I have off top of my head kind of where we're >> and do we know what the second phase will be that is in there? I think that was the second part of the question. >> And future development. >> Um well, what's the future? I mean, this city will continue to grow for decades. And so I, you know, we have projections out to 2045. Um I don't remember those numbers off the top of my head, but it's well above what we're pumping right now. So yes, it will continue to grow. We'll be dealing with these issues uh for a long time to come, which goes to one of the reasons we did this. If we know what happened, we can try to minimize it, avoid it, notify, you know, manage it better. >> Unless it's the daily pumping that is causing it. >> Well, um >> when you get to that point, >> Yeah. The difference between our daily operation and these pump events like that pump test, that pump test, that pump was on all the time, round the clock for four weeks. >> Mhm. >> Our daily operations, we pump for 3 hours, the pump shuts off, water levels come back, another couple hours, it might come on again or it might be a different pump. So there's there's movement and recovery. We're not drawing things down and letting them dry out. >> Uh that talking I'm sorry. that will get there over time, but it's gradual. For the pump test, the pump went on, it stayed on, and it stayed on hard. That's not anything like how we normally operate. So, >> not right now, but we don't know for sure. Like, as far as high demand next summer, if there's a phase one and phase two, what the effect could be on private wells? >> Even even then, it tends to build up. It's not like we turn it on and leave it on for weeks at a time. Okay? >> It might run more one day, but it'll still turn off. there's some recovery might be other wells coming up. >> Can you clarify what you mean when you're talking phase one and phase two? >> I'm I'm talking about what Kate said. I can't talk about Niagara. >> Well, and then >> and what I was referring to was the second test that we're going to be doing as part of >> I'm going to get to that. I got that next on my list of questions. So, is there a way that you can summarize real quickly cuz the two >> I'll quick um can you please explain the second round of testing um and why we're going to push that second round of testing through um what the reason would be for it? >> First of all, it is not aquifer testing. We have >> No, I didn't say but it was aquafer but it's testing. >> Not testing. It's sampling. >> Sampling ex Thank you. Our water quality response plan requires us to take a second round of sampling after we've pumped 1 million gallons a day or more for 14 days. We did not hit that this summer. We also have an issue with waiting around for that to happen because as soon as it happens, we got to get out and take those samples. If we haven't lined that up ahead of time with the homeowners where we're sampling, with the sampling crew that's got to go out and do it, with the lab that's got to run the results, with notifying the people that were coming, it's impossible. So, we decided we're going to schedule this level of pumping. I actually just wrote a notice today that will be going out to the 900 and some uh folks that we notified before telling them about this and other information. Um, but that's not quite ready to hit the presses yet. But we will be doing an advanced notification. Even though this is less than what the pump test was, there could still be some impacts. It has some tips on how to manage it, what to look for. So, um, that's the reason we're going to uh, do that pumping event so that it triggers our sampling requirements. We can get that second round of sampling this year. >> And and I think you and I had a conversation. You also have Niagara asking for another permit and they're wanting that permit and you can't go for that permit until this sampling is done. Is that not correct? >> Uh, we have to do three rounds of sampling. >> Yep. Three rounds of sampling before you can ask the DNR for another permit. And is it true or not true that Niagara is asking for their for more water for their second phase? >> Okay, we're we're not going to >> anybody talk Niagara right now. I'm sorry. I I would like that question answered. Yep. At some point, >> we will answer that >> because I think that's a fair that's a fair question for the people that have wells here. Again, we're stakeholders. >> We are stakeholders. >> I'll ask that question on my two minutes. >> Okay. I'm just I got a little bit more. Um and the DNR and I noticed in the packet the DNR and MDH responses. I'd like to see actually what those responses were. You summarized them in the packet. if you could post exactly what they said. Um, I couldn't glean exactly what the DNR and the MDH were saying, but I have talked to some other experts about what they think might be going on here. So, I'd like to compare um what what was said by those two comments. And then I'll just finally say one other thing. Um, we are stakeholders. We are well owners that have lived here as long as you, Amanda and Josh and the rest of you, Kate. We are stakeholders in this. You have got to stop not inviting us to the table. Can I get that commitment from this council? >> Again, this this is not a not yes or no question. >> It's a yes or no. I think everybody invited and so yes. Can do we need to do better with the notification? 100%. But there is no none of this is happening in secret. None of the develop in this community is happening in secret. No, >> I'm not saying that it is, Josh. I'm not saying that it's happening in secret. I'm saying that that if this was going to be talked about at this meeting, >> I don't disagree with you at all. >> Then okay, that's what I'm asking for for to let us to the table, you're going to have a lot less problems if we work this out together than if you keep it in secret. >> Mhm. >> Correct. That's the bottom line. >> Yep. >> And um you may want to consider well testing annually for the people that live around here. That's the recommendation that people should get. I I will tell you that there was a lot of arsenic and a lot of maganesees in the 200 plus wells that I tested in the area. And Rich, if you could make your presentation from tonight. Thank you, council. Thanks for your time. >> Thank you, Janelle. >> I'm going to stretch my two minutes. >> So, excuse excuse me. >> Who's sitting at this table has a private well? Do you live in Elco? >> I live in Sier Township. >> Okay. So, all you people are making decisions that will not affect you in the least. Thanks a lot. >> So, Rich, question. Following the meeting tonight, what was the plan and schedule for public engagement following the meeting tonight? >> Uh the hope was to put we have the mailing list prepared to put it in the mail tomorrow. Um however we are promising some content this presentation or excerpts of it broken up to make it more digestible. Um the actual memo that was in the council packet um materials talking about the upcoming um pumping event, what to do, but that was all going to be and we're hoping to mail that tomorrow. I don't want to have that out if we can't get good quality content on the website immediately and we can't. I need a few days to get that pulled together. So, probably sometime next week, we'll be sending out that mailing, posting that information, uh actually scheduling a public information meeting for people that don't want to consume it online or still have questions afterwards. So there's uh there's another big uh information push coming up if that is. >> So prior to the meeting tonight, we had planned to one send out information to all the property owners after we'd presented to the council and gotten feedback and direction from them. We were going to hold a publicformational meeting and we were going to post online information that was going to be presented at that meeting for easy access to individuals who might not be able to make that meeting. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Well, can I >> go for it? I mean and this is where I mean somebody in the audience already I mean took the words out of my mouth too. I mean I think at that point it is too late um to a certain extent because we would have talked about it here. We would have talked about the compensation piece and and it's that piece that I think is there's frustration and feeling not invited engaged notified of of the topic and it does feel like it's after the fact and and 100% agree with that. So, >> yes, sir. >> My name is Roger Bass, 25421 Natchas Avenue. I literally live right next to the treatment plant. The question I would have is I live a half mile from the pump. You talked about a draw down of 37 ft. >> Yep. >> What do you think mine's going to be? >> Pretty severe. >> Pretty severe. And the question I would have for you is over the long hall, and I'm not talking this year or next. >> Yep. >> In five years, what's going to happen, am I going to have to replace my well again? Because I can tell you to replace a well is $20,000. I just did it. >> Yeah. >> And so you people that don't have a private well, that's the cost involved. $20,000. I don't know what your compensation package is. don't care. >> No, it's >> But it's pretty it's pretty sad if you're not addressing a wall. Okay? And I know I can tell you for a fact that I'm going through filters twice as fast as I ever have. And a cost of a filter is 65 bucks. That's for a kinetic water softener system. Cost of a filter 65 bucks. I don't know what your compensation is going to be offering, but if it's not something I'm not I'm not worried about yesterday and I'm not worried about next month. I'm worried about five years from now. >> And if my draws draw down is going to be as bad as you're saying that I'm going to have a lot of issues. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> I don't know if you want me to address that. I think it might be helpful to have Corey Schwike, our public works director, come up and talk about what level of usage we've had since the Oxford test compared to the previous several years and whether or not there's really been much of a difference. >> What I was thinking about is the future draw down and how that gets managed. But can I even reframe a bit and tell me if I'm out of uh line here, but I mean the compensation that we are talking about right now is for and only for what might have happened during the pump test in 2023. Okay, >> that has nothing to do with any future well interference, any issues that will still be addressed and we are on the hook for any well interference, any future. So like let me ask you this. In the future, if I have an issue, who do I go to? >> They contact us. That's why we set up that's why we set up the my private well website >> inside or or because of or not because of an industrial plant or anything else for future development. You have well interference, you have issues, the city is responsible for that regardless. Okay. >> And so that's where it's a reach out to these guys or staff and then we are accountable to looking into it. >> Yes. So I know who I can talk to in the future. Yeah, >> thank you. >> Okay, Corey, can you speak to a little bit about once we completed the aquifer test, which was an extreme situation within a defined period of time, what our pumping since then has been over the course of the year, even with the N-word company being online, adding to our regular base usage. What does our usage look this year compared to previous years over? Um right now we're up about uh we're pumping about 20 million gallons a month. During the pump test we pump or aquifer test we pump 49 million gallons in that month. So we're well under half that. Uh this month to date we're at about 18 million gallons. Um which obviously fluctu sorry which obviously fluctuates with people watering their lawn everything like that. Um, our pumps now are set at we're pumping a thousand gallons a minute, and our wells are running for a few hours here, off for a couple hours, few hours here, off for a couple hours, few hours here. There was a couple times this summer that they ran for 22, 23 hours, and then we're off for a few hours. But that's when we're using more water. Um the the usage right now can fluctuate from 600,000 gallons a day to a million, but we've only been over a million probably a handful of days this summer. >> Um so it's it's kind of leveled out a little bit now that people aren't sprinkling as much. Um but our pumping rates are way lower than what they were. Actually, our rates aren't that much lower. The duration of the pumping is what the difference is. So if you pump non-stop for basically 28 days and then once we shut the pumps off the level came back in the aquifer within 3 days it was back up to where it was initially. So it dropped down for that long period of time and then everything came back. Um and Roger I know you're right next to where we are. We have not run well four which is right by you um for most of the summer. We've been using well two and three which over by the racetrack and city hall. So the the draw down um I would think if you were going to see any issues um during the pump test when we were running well four for two weeks straight you would have seen it then. And now uh we're pulling water from a mile and a half away and we're not right there. Unfortunately, I had to replace my well last summer, >> but I had I got a hole in the case. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I don't know if >> So, that's what when talking to the well drillers, they said a lot of times when people are seeing maganesees or high iron, they have holes in the casing and or their drop pipe. And a couple of them that we did pull, the drop pipe was less than 15 years old and they had holes in it. The holes in it is where you're getting a lot of the rust from. >> And I mean, I'm not a well driller. I don't pull them every day, but the ones we did see, I mean, they were corroded and you could tell where the water was sitting. So, >> all right. Anyone next to come up to the podium? Please do. Jonathan Carlson. Uh 26126 Pillsbury Avenue. Um we live about 2 miles from the nearest city uh well. Um but we're uh uh adjacent to the new industrial park. So I just want to say that I want to echo what Janelle said like we're stakeholders and u many of you are familiar faces and we've been talking about this from the beginning and I just want to compare and contrast one stakeholder. The red carpet's been rolled out for millions of dollars of subsidies were rolled out. Every exception to code or construction access was granted. Another STE set of stakeholders, township residents, well owners, like from a water quality perspective, total of $7,000 and have had to continually kind of fight to get a seat at the table to be in front of communications and to even have conversations. that doesn't I don't like the word equity, but that just doesn't feel like equal treatment of stakeholders. And then specifically to our well issue, like uh we saw one-time impacts, but we continue to see elevated levels of manganesees in our water. So, I don't agree with the conclusions and the the $150 compensation for one time doesn't come close to addressing the impact we saw from a one-time perspective. And with eyes wide open, this council accepted sole responsibility for addressing well interference and water quality. And I would encourage all the well owners that have had impact to seek full and fair compensation for the impacts they've had because this council knew the risks. Thanks. >> Thank you, >> Jamie Carlson. I live with him. I'm his better half. 26126 Pillsbury Avenue. Um, we have spent thousands of dollars. We still have maganesees. Rich maganesees is poisonous. It will kill us. So, we have kinetical wind, which you know, we have six tanks in our basement. We have four filters up on our wall just to have drinking water in our home. so that we're not poisoned. So your analogy that maganesees I say it like J I know um is not poisonous. It's very poisonous. It's still coming. I said that ma'am you did. It was in on one of your slides. Another thing is Carrie Jennings, a hydraologist, came not before Megan or you, but for the rest of you, and she gave like a 2hour presentation warning you, and you did not heed her warning. Now, maybe the rest of us, like me, I'm not a hydraologist. This is the first time we've owned a well. Our well is clean. We do not have holes in it. Our motor is running perfectly and we are still drawing maganesees because we live right across the street from the NI A. >> By the way, we've lawyered up with Zel Law. So if anybody needs a good lawyer, Zel Law is taking people. Your $150 won't touch the time and effort and money that we have put in to the filters that we have. The time that John has had to take off of work for these silly ass meetings at Christmas and New Year's Eve and Thanksgiving. We all showed up even through blizzards. You all remember this. And yet you voted yes. So you suffer your consequences. That's what I tell my boys that are all law enforcement. You will suffer your own consequences because what goes around comes around and we are suffering because of it. >> Thank you. >> Oh, don't forget your purse, Jamie. >> Oh, sorry. >> Unless you want me to go shopping. >> Uh Jody Lucas again. 26. What is our address? 26501 Xerxes Trail. Question for Rich. Was anyone in the proximity of my house and the original OGs of Elco that are still on private wells >> for sampling? You mean >> for anything? Did anyone get on Woodrest? My home top of the hill. >> One of our um IoB samples was in Woodrest. >> Up on the hill. >> Yeah. >> Okay, perfect. Um, so, uh, when I filed my complaint with the well website and you told me to flush out, >> did it help? >> Nope. I'm getting stuff in my sink. I'm getting stuff in my toilet. I have uh, low pressure now. And I'm one of the wells that had all the pipes pulled and replaced. I spend more than $100 a month on iron out, white out. 150 bucks doesn't even really get me a filter. The the gunk that's constantly going, the smell is atrocious. And we are now forced to buy refillable bottled water because I don't trust our water. And obviously I am going to be a first-time grandma. I'm not going to let her drink it. So now instead of drinking our water through our filtration system, which sucks now, we're doing this. I mean, I'm so insulted by the payout. I just I'm like just shooken. It's like, here you go. You cash this check, we're done with you. You're not done with us. We're not done. And I just want answers of why everything is just kind of brushed off. Oh, flush out your system. It's going to be fine. Everything's not fine. I have 14 raised bed gardens. I'm running that hose like crazy. And I ran it when I talked to Corey. I ran it when I emailed with you. I've done everything you've asked and nothing has changed. And my brother-in-law is here. We paid a hefty bill to pull out those pipes and put new pipes in. I don't want to do that. And I'm not going to pay 20 grand. And I cannot. Even if you made me connect to City Sewer and Water, which I won't. What are you going to do with your two other houses that don't have access to water? You're going to run water up Woodrest. That'll be bad. That'd be a cold day. Like Grandpa said, he'd burn his house down before he hooks up. I'm having those same feelings and I and I feel like I don't ever get any kind of answers. I get a lot of head nods. Yep. Yep. We'll look into it. Nothing else. >> Um what I actually have is more questions, but I don't know that this is the venue for that. Um but I'd be happy to talk to you outside of the meeting sometime. >> Sure. >> But I I also reiterate, Jamie, we told you we had Dr. Jennings here. We were right. We told you what was going to happen. She knew. And yet here we are. I just deja vu for me. Missing out on everything, family gatherings to come here and argue about our water that we own that you gave away. And now we're left trying to fix our damage. And that's all I got. My name is Noah Henry. 26501 Xerxes Trail, Elco, New Market. So, it started probably six months ago. Started 6 months ago. I get a message from my wife. She says, "Why is the water so brown?" I said, "We'll change the filter. We'll see where it goes from there." Change the filter. Nothing happened. It actually got worse. And then come to find out that you sit here and you say, "Yeah, we did a draw down. We drove it down four feet. Four feet and bunch of that stuff probably dried out. Ended up in the bottom of your well. So bad. So sorry. Here's a check. But if you take the check, you can't do anything about it. My niece, they're having to buy water in jugs just to bathe her because the water is so nasty and so brown. >> Our tub is >> Yeah. >> tan. There's a black scum on the bottom of the bathtub. What am I supposed to do when my son is born? Am I supposed to go buy water and then come to city hall and say, "Here's my bill for the month because I had to go buy jugged water to bathe my son. Here is the bill for the month because I had to buy water bottles so I could drink out of them." What are we supposed to do? You take a bath. You can't even see your damn legs in it because it's so freaking brown. You knowingly drew down the well. You knowingly knew that stuff was probably going to dry out. You knew it was going to fall. And then you say, "Sorry guys, you've lived here forever. Some of the families have been here since the 1800s. Multi multi-generational families. Sorry. Really sucks your private well. But hey, you can hook up to city water and city sewer for a price that no one can afford in this economy. No one. Who here that's a private well owner can hook up to city so city sewer city water not have to take a loan out for it? Grandpa Jason >> and pay the monthly bill. >> Yeah. And then pay the monthly bill on top of it. One of her cousins, he just sold his house cuz his water bill made it so bad that he could not afford his mortgage. $400 a month >> for two people. for for two people in a single family home >> that work 12-hour days that are never >> Yeah. I have to my dog dishes I physically have to wipe the black scum out of them before I will even give my dogs water. And guess what? Not coming out of the faucet. I'm filling it up with water bottles cuz I'm scared as hell to let them drink it. I'm scared as hell to let my wife drink it. I'm scared to drink it. What are we supposed to do about all the family farms around here? The Zwebers, the Wagner, the Klein, the Frigides, they all have cows, they all have animals. What they drink goes into their bodies. So, what are we supposed to do about that? Their livelihoods, the livelihood of this whole entire town that it used to be, what are we supposed to do? That's my question. There's my two minutes. >> Can I touch on one thing? Yep. Okay. Who was around here before our water treatment plant was online? >> Who was on city water before our water treatment plant was online? >> City water. >> City water. Yeah. Who was on our city water? >> Some of us are >> Okay. So, the >> Okay. Okay. So, the water that we used to pump, the same water that we pump right now, that's what our water looked like before a treatment plant. Our iron magnes levels have not changed since 2016. Since the plant went online, we used to have to flush our hydrants once a month up until 2016 when the plant went online. This iron and maganese that's in the water, it's been in the water forever. So, the levels that we're seeing when we pull, we test almost daily for water coming in. We test daily for water going out. The levels of iron and magnes in the water have not changed since 2016 till now. I don't know what they were before that. >> Now, now it's four times the safe drinking limit. The slide just said per liter and that's what it is coming into the plant. >> The water the water that you're pulling is the same water we're pulling into our plant. We're treating it. We're backwashing filters. We're back backashing a filter a day because of the iron and magnes. >> We're supposed to install I'm water treatment plant. >> No, I'm just trying to give you a relative of the water that's in the aquifer that we're pulling into the plant. >> But we're not city water or city sewer. >> No, I I know. But it's coming from the same aquifer that all I'm trying to explain is >> the treating it. It's affecting the treating it. You have the money to treat it. We do not have the money to treat it and put a thing in. It's just the issue here isn't that you guys are treating the same water. It's the fact that we are not. We are on the same water source we have always been on. And all of a sudden there's an issue, but there's a common denominator in the issue that everyone in this room is dealing with except for the people on the council and the one who is potentially I don't know. I don't want to speak for you, but nobody on the council has a well and they voted in something that directly affects people with a well. As my grandfather stated, you are making decisions for people and these decisions only affect these people, but you don't want to listen to the direct effect of these people. That is what we are trying to come across. This doesn't affect you. You don't have daily occurrences with it. >> We do. That is the problem. We're asking for a solution for our daily occurrences, for our livelihoods, for our children. I mean, we want to build a school or we want to build a neighborhood next to a school, but you're not thinking about the children that are here already that are being born into this. This is affecting so many more people than the 98 complaints you got or however many complaints you got. This is affecting so many more people. But people don't want to come here because you don't listen. That's why you're only getting 40 responses. We need a change. And not the kind of change where you put a water ball water bottle plant in or a new neighborhood in. We need current existing people who live here change. Thank you. >> And just to answer your health question from MDH health sorry I know I'm doing this twice and I'm naughty but I've never been a rule follower. from MDH health effects. Children and adults who drink water with high levels of maganesees for a long time may have problems with memory, attention, motor skills. Infants, babies under the year of one, which I will have, God help me, may develop learning and behavior problems if they drink water with too much maganesees in it. And heaven forbid that something happens to my first grandchild because you think I'm batch crazy now, wait till that because I'm still convinced that both of my dogs died during that test period. And heaven forbid if I ever decide to test those ashes, I'm coming unglued because seeing that seeing Titan collapse like that out of the blue, that young healthy dog. So I really love this community. I love this city. I want a community, but right now it's damaged. And I'm damaged because I deal with this every day. Every day. Have you ever scrubbed a toilet with iron out every day and turn on the shower and have to let it run and pray to God it's not poopy brown or a yucky color? It's just nerve-wracking that it all started almost three years ago. Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Cameron Cooper. I live at 10452 245th Street East. Um, uh, Mr. Schwike, I understand your point that nothing's changed in in the water, and I agree. I I'll say that that's fine. Nothing's changed, but what we're dealing with to treat our water has changed. Since the pump test, which you've talked about, increased oxidization in our pipes, right? I had a hole in my well. I've also had to put in a water treatment system beyond what I've already had. So to your point, yes, the water hasn't changed, but what we're doing with the water to even make it somewhat safe and I'm listening to these people and like, holy crap, I'm glad I'm not dealing with some of what they're got they got going on. And Josh, I sent you an email and the whole council last year an email regarding the health concerns with regards to manganesees. And you just made my point for me, so thank you. But I have two little kids. You're talking about potential behavior change. You're talking about potential learning difficulties. All of these things that now I have more manganesees in my water. Hey, by the way, oxidization is occurring. You're also messing with the pumping systems, right? There's an increase in pumping stress that changes arsenic levels in the water. That's been documented. Arsenic is tasteless. Arsenic will kill you. It will cause kidney cancer, bladder cancer, liver cancer. It will also increase my kids likelihood of having type two diabetes. They're four and five. They didn't ask for that. And the hard part for me, and this gentleman back here made a really good point, is what does the future look like? I now potentially if my child is diagnosed with diabetes now have to deal with a lifelong health complication for the rest of her life that will put her at greater risk of other muscularkeeletal problems neur neurological problems gastrointestinal problems. She didn't choose that. And I think the hard thing here fine you didn't change the water. I appreciate that. You didn't change it. But what's coming into our house and what's going into us is changing. And I have well tests that document the changes in my well. I've also spent $8,500 trying to prevent some of these things from potentially poisoning my family. And the hard part here is that we don't want to talk about it. We're going to give you $150. Cool. What about the lifelong health complications for people? What about for me? I'm 37. I want to be on this planet for a long time. My kids, they're four and five. My wife, she's 40. What's this going to look like for us in 15 years, 20 years, where we're drinking water concentrations that have up to four times the health limit for manganesees or now all of a sudden a tasteless, odorless chemical is in my water and it's going to give me diabetes or possibly give me cancer. Thank you. [Applause] Good evening. I have a picture here to show you right away. >> Don name and address. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Don Widel, 26340 Thomas Avenue. And we also have Wells at 26106 and 26148 Newton Circle. Uh, I want to show you a picture here. of it's this is um my iron filter that was cleaned during testing. I didn't know what was going on. I I hadn't been told um that testing was happening and and that may be a result. Um all I knew was I didn't have water pressure at the time and the cl the cost to clean the irration head was $400. not $150. You know, I have um I have a letter dated to council from December 2022 expressing my concerns about the potential of a business coming in. In the letter, I stated that the residents and businesses in the area deserved protection and guarantees. I wrote another letter um stating on August 1st, 2024 stating that we had received the questionnaire about the well data. I wrote how disappointed and disgusted that I was that the questionnaire was sent out as the construction of the new business was taking place. An afterthought. That's how I felt that residents and businesses were being treated at the time. And now we're here discussing how residents and businesses are unfairly spending up to thousands of dollars for the repercussions of a business that doesn't have to pay past, current, or future damages. when we were one of the severely impacted wells and um the city had Hartman come out and add more pipe. We also spent $1300 of our own money to add additional pipe knowing that the city administrator had said that there was no remediation fund and we didn't want to be caught in a bad situation. Now, city council has allowed a new business in town that's monetarily impacting longtime residents and businesses. We'll be the ones paying higher taxes to cover remediation efforts. In addition, we're being told now that we just have to buy more filters. While the health issues related to manganesees and arsenic were noted in the council report, it wasn't stated who would have to pay for the regular safety testing of our wells. We deserve fair compensation and regular testing of our wells. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. I would like to thank all of you for coming out and speaking with us. Um we are now going to discuss as a council um the compensation the presentation you obviously are very welcome to stay um oh and then um further questions comments we have wr I have written down a lot of what you guys have said um we will gather those questions and make comments and be getting back to you either via email make please make certain that you have left phone numbers emails so we know how to get back in touch with you um would be appreciated >> all right council Okay, >> we'll just give it a few minutes. >> Two minute break. >> Two minute recess. Madame Actimir, >> you need a motion or anything for that or she just called? >> She can just do it. >> Yep. Two-minute recess. Okay, I believe we are going to restart our council meeting. So, if you are in the hallway and you want to join us, please come back inside and take a seat. Otherwise, if you can quiet down just a bit. All right. So, council, let's start talking. who has well compensation wise um water quality aquifer test finding I know I made a promise to our residents and our constituents two three years ago to listen to them and I understand that the staff has done a great job putting this all together for us to listen to and throwing a number out there for us to talk about. I would like to ask the council to consider not doing the $150 and going case by case and forming something similar to our appeals committee where there is one or two council members with a staff member and a Bolton and Mink engineer um somebody from LRE where we sit one on-one with our residents and discuss. They bring in their hard facts of where their well are at and we make decisions with them one on one. >> Is that for everyone who's just the people who are documented being complained or everyone who's had problems? Okay. Well, and and maybe I have a question or to even back up further before we start talking about solutions, compensation, different things like that. What we're talking about tonight and for this discussion is related to the documented issues or the the the complaints related to the however many weeks, four weeks or so period of time in in November to December of 2023. We're not talking about the ongoing issues. This is separate and distinct from that discussion. So any compensation thing tonight that we're talking about is related to that and that alone ongoing current future issues will be dealt with and uh separate from that hundred currently as it sits right now $150 compensation thing. And so, and am I correct in that? >> Correct. >> That was the intent and the purpose of the information that was provided tonight. it was for that distinct incident during that distinct time frame >> and I I mean I feel like then there's so we >> again I'm not trying to whatever but it's like >> we need to have that discussion and and come to consensus if we can tonight on what that should be and how we address that and then I think there's a separate discussion of ongoing issues how is that handled what is the plan that's in our water plan I mean we have a lot of that built in already and then how do we communicate ate that with folks so that they know what to do for ongoing issues and what they can expect as responses, remediation, whatever it might be because I think they're two separate >> big discussions big discussion is a bigger discussion to me >> when we're talking about tonight or supposed to be talking about tonight is the four-week period of time >> two years ago. Yes. >> Should the mayor be here for this? Mayor Andrew Gangfield, >> he unfortunately is not here. We know that we found out. He found out yesterday at noon this meeting was happening. He's in training. >> Correct. >> I think before anything could be decided. Aren't I right, Tom? The existing mayor needs to be here, not Kate Timberman. >> I will go ahead and let Andrea answer that as our attorney. >> This council can address any issues before it as a quorum of the council. The mayor does not have to be here. you are the acting mayor and you can make the decision uh on a three four vote >> but on good faith. >> Did the mayor provide any feedback related to the topic? >> He did not provide anything that he specifically wanted me to relate to the council. >> Did he ask us or suggest that we hold off and that he needed to be part of the conversation? He indicate my understanding was that he did not indicate that the council needed to hold off to make a decision >> because he just found out. >> We have had our calendars since January. These have been pre-planned meetings. >> Yes, but he just found out the logistics what was on the agenda. >> The mayor's >> I will speak for him as a PD family. I know that he is in training right now and I think good faith to all of us stakeholders would be that our mayor be here because that's who we voted for and I guess the only thing I would correct in that is we all knew what the agenda was going to be weeks ago for this meeting. So that's not accurate. I mean I uh I didn't remember when so like part of what I want to correct too in in what I said or how I said it perhaps is we as a royal we not staff so my my my comments were not directed at how staff handled this because I was we have uh weekly or bi-weekly meetings uh with staff to talk about upcoming agenda items. I was in had my own so I had that information. I knew at that point in time this was going to be on the agenda, ran through it, could have provided feedback and comments. I could have said notify all well owners that this meeting is coming up. I failed to do that. So I have to own that piece of it. I didn't think about it. It didn't cross cross my mind in the moment when we go through during that weekly oneon or bi-weekly one-on-one. So my my comments of we should have it was not staff should have notified we should we all should have I should have I'll speak for myself. I should have suggested that we notify this in a more public way to let folks know so that you could come out, provide feedback, listen to the discussion. So, I just want to make that absolutely 100% clear. >> Is that your job though, Josh, or is that Tom? >> I think that is our job. I'll I'll speak for myself. I I feel my job as city council, like it is on any board that I'm on or anything like that, is my job to provide that direction and that overall guidance. Do I do the day-to-day operations? No, I don't have to. I I trust the people that do that. But if I feel that there are reasons and things and topics that are more important or I want to highlight certain things or I have a personal whatever to it, I I that's my job to then and it's all of our jobs collectively to to make sure that we're looking out for the best interests in this case of our residents and and I think we heard it multiple times. I I'll only speak for myself. I represent the residents that vote me in, but I also represent in a way more indirectly, and this is no indirect shot at the residents that actually pay for the taxes, that pay for me to be on the seat, that vote for me. I represent the surrounding community as well, the neighbors that we interact with that ultimately will be someday potentially in the city that will be voting for a council that I won't be on that. So we we do have an accountability at least in some part to represent the township and and folks as well. Um you know we all have different maybe opinions on how far that reaches or whatever but absolutely. So my voice our voice I think should represent some of those factors. >> I just think as a stakeholders I think it's only fair that we have the full committee here not a standing in mayor but that we have our mayor here. So that's just my opinion. >> Thank you, Jamie. >> You're welcome. I have a question. You guys are talking about >> Can you come up to the microphone? Sorry. >> That's fine. Jamie German. We live at um 230th Street in New Market Township, the city of Lakeville. And the question I have is you're talking about cases that are documented. What about the people, and I kid you not, who have gone through mental anguish, feeling like something's going on with the well, but I'm not quite sure what's going on. Um, multiple tests, we've had people out, we've have a lot of money invested into this. My husband's taken it all apart. Um, different systems put into place, all the receipts from that. And the reason I say that is because the only reason I knew that something was going on, and like I said, we live in the city of Lakeville, New Market Township, was from a newspaper article. And I went to one of Janelle's uh water testing clinics in the dead of winter because I thought, well, shoot. Um, we should probably go investigate this. Maybe we aren't out of our minds. And so I don't have documentation. I I might have emailed with you um time some time ago. Um but I was reassured that Niagara was good to go. Everything was fine. There were no problems. And I kind of went with the trust in our city council, I suppose. So my question is, we don't have documentation with any of you. I have receipts. Um, so where do I go from here? And I just to let you know the compensation $150 is like a slap in the face compared to our receipts >> and that's what we're here to discuss. >> No, I understand. I'm just saying it's it's significant >> and it's put a financial strain on us and like I said, the me mental anguish of saying what's going on? Why is this our well bond put in our well in 2012? I mean, we we put it in, we built, and we shouldn't be having all these problems. Our iron content is through the roof. We have maganese in our water. I mean, >> ma'am, what's your address? >> Um, we're at 829 >> 1928 >> 228. One more time, one person. 829 28th Street East. >> 228th Street East, >> city of Lakeville. >> Just this is to help me answer one of your questions. >> So that's that is quite a poll in our property. It joins my mother's >> and she's had issues. >> Her water was radically changed as well. >> Okay. So, and to answer your question, you didn't know about it. We did, Richard had talked earlier on that we had sent notices out to just let me >> let me finish ma'am >> to well owners within two and a half miles and that was like 900 property owners. You are just beyond that. So you are correct. you did not receive a notice of hey if you are seeing issues >> that that's why >> but my my my deal is is that when I go back and I do all the documentation and the photographs I have and we still have in our basement our old iron rust remover that he won't get rid of and I'm sure it's due to the fact of its proof of what we've gone through it all coincides. How can you tell me you do a stress test this pump stress the well and then in April beginning of April we have what we have to have done with bond our new pump >> said multiple >> multiple issues and we have all the >> receipts and stuff but >> so so I think the question is how do you get on the list you were out we were outside right our our dwelling is outside of >> Okay so we're undocumented >> yeah But we we need to be documented. So I think I think there needs to be some type of platform right for that to exist. >> So we we do have a platform but the awareness of it the distance that we have was arrived at based on feedback from the DNR information that we had from the pump test etc saying 2 and a half miles would be the reasonable extent of people that would be impacted based on the information that we had at the time. and we did our best effort to notify everybody within that radius. So, it's not disagreeing with anything that you said, but you asked why and and that >> that is essentially that's essentially the why. As far as a platform, we had established a platform. Uh we have a contact. It's my private well um the my private well email for people to communicate so that one we're making sure that those communications we know are specific to issues related to the private well owners around it so it doesn't get lost in the mix of the other city business so we can account for it and we can provide accountability for responsiveness to it. None of that answers the question of that you didn't get notified. You clearly didn't receive that. But you're asking why? Because the two and a half miles was determined to be that reasonable distance to identify people who might experience impacts and you guys are just a little bit beyond that. >> So where do we go now? >> You've done what you need to do at this point. We have your information. >> We're documented and part of this. >> Yeah. I mean you've raised the question and that's one of the questions that the council had directed staff say okay >> based on the information you had related to the complaints at the time which we heard a lot about people talking about experiences outside of that time frame which is a different topic to go to council member Berg's issue >> and based on the information that we had received at that time the nature of the complaints and our communications with those people how they resolve themselves etc our recommendation related to that is the $150 $50 >> if people are experiencing ongoing issues and if those issues are related to it um related to the city's pumping efforts that's a separate discussion than >> I had to replace I had to do extra filter replacement during that window versus I'm continuing to do ongoing filter replacement. So our recommendation of the $150 >> to be blunt is not intended to be >> insulting in any way. It's not intended to sweep it under the rug. >> It is >> It reflects It reflects the feedback that we had during that time that most people experienced discoloration of water beyond what they did and they had to do maintenance beyond what they did, which largely consisted of >> more frequent replacing of filters and the time and effort associated with that and possibly cleaning up fixtures >> and more. But that but that was based on the information that we had from the people that were did respond to what we sent out at the time. That was all the information we have. It's the information we had to make a recommendation to the council. >> I don't know if it's accurate information is what I'm telling you. And I liked your idea. >> Not not disagreeing, but you're explaining you're people are asking the why. That's the >> No, I understand you've explained that several times. I think what you have said of sitting down with someone and going through what everybody's individual experiences were because ours is far beyond replacing a filter. >> So, >> thank you. And you did sign in, correct? >> I did. My phone number. >> Thank you. >> Can I real quick? >> Sure. >> My name is Chris. I'm at 26698 Woodcrest Circle. So, I was in a position where I put a well in in this time. I honestly don't know how much formal documentation I've provided with you guys. So, like to her question, what do I do to be on the list of considering for compensation? >> When did your well go in? uh January 1st, 2024. And I'm pretty sure it was right after like >> So that would have been after the test was >> right after the test. Then they went out. >> Yeah. So what we're talking about tonight is for people that were impacted with existing wells during during the test. >> But wasn't that test like six days before that? >> Uh it ended u well if you said end of January, two, three weeks before. The first the first day of January, New Year's Day, I had a well put in. And didn't your testing go through? >> It ended on J It ended on December. December 6th >> of 23 or 24? >> 23. >> So you went in your well? >> It went in. Yeah. But it went in like I replaced the well on the first. So right after you guys were done testing. So, so you had you had a current wall and you had to replace it because of the testing >> potentially >> is what you're is what you're bringing forward >> potentially. Yes. And I just want to know like how how do I go about it? I don't >> Well, so given the forum tonight, we would want to take a look at the specific circumstances. So, as you're heading out, if you can just give your contact information to Rich, we will probably ask you for some more information to see if there's a reasonable or plausible connection between what we did and what happened in your specific circumstances. >> Sounds good. And Hartman did it, so I mean documentation that they would have had. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Well, I I think I know where you're at. So, >> good. We're good. >> Okay. So, let's back up just a bit to um Jaime's concern. Is there anyone on the council that would like to pull this to put it for two weeks from today? >> It's not against anybody. I just think that it's only fair when tons of people voted him in as mayor and he's not here. Like, it just it doesn't feel right. It feels pre-planned. >> Right, Tom? Tom. Right, Tom? >> Right. Right. >> You know what I'm talking about. You pre-planned and this is not fair. Our mayor should be here. >> It This is just a happening of yours, Tom. So, everybody read Elco New Market neighbors, Tom. It's all over from the citizens. >> I don't appreciate Agree. >> I don't appreciate the accusations. >> Well, I'm sorry then, Tom. >> Are you going to let me elum market neighbors? >> The mayor advis the mayor knew that this was a target date for this discussion well in advance of when he >> going to make decisions tonight. So, that surprised all of us. >> I'm sorry. I can only tell you that I the council was well aware that we were shooting for this general meeting for this general topic. The specific information they did not get until the packet came out, but they had a general idea of what the topic was going to be. They had a general understanding of what the cause nature was going to be that was going to be presented. >> Decisions are made here tonight, Tom. Look at how many people are left >> and wait until the video comes out whenever it comes out because you're going to have a community of outraged citizens. We don't want that. >> Okay. So, Jamie, let's let I I appreciate your insight and and everything, but let us figure out what we're going to do up here, please. And thank you. >> It seems like Kate's going down a good road. the individual meeting with individuals. >> Well, we're going to decide here what we're going to do as far as if we're going to continue our conversation or if we would like to have it pulled. >> Don't look at me. >> With the intent that there will be a full council. >> And to that note, I will not be here at the the next meeting. It will only be the second one that I've missed this year. But as someone who is also new on the council and who is here, I I could go either way, but I would like to hear what Andrew has to say and I wish maybe comments were provided prior. >> Thank you. >> So we could discuss it further. But >> but you will not be in attendance in two weeks. >> I will not. But is there any chance that we will have the um ability to for her to zoom in in two weeks? If we were to take this off the plate today, when does that uh availability for council members to zoom in to a meeting? Is that any time now or does that not start till January? No, she could she could zoom in if that's an option for her. >> We're not required. My understanding previously is we were required to have an adopted city policy in order to for that to be the case. >> You just have to have it on your website. You're you're a notice that she will be zooming in. >> Okay. Would that be an option for you? >> I can make that work. >> Can she vote when she's on Zoom? >> Yes. >> Yes. I mean, I have no problem taking action tonight. We do this in the 11 years I've been on council there. We don't always have a full council and we make decisions. Have we decided to push stuff until we get a full council? Absolutely. So, I can understand the justification to do that as well. I have no problem though uh making decisions with or without anybody here. If there's three of us here, I'd still be comfortable making a decision. We all knew this was going to be on the topic or on the agenda. To Tom's point, I was my brain was refreshed on Monday or Tuesday when I was told what that the packet was posted and I started reading it last night. Uh so like it was enlightening and that's where some of the questions that I do have now didn't come up during one-on- ones or previous feedback because some of those questions were sparked during reading some of the details. So, if I wasn't here, I would have Well, that's not fair to say. So, I mean, I can go either way. Um, and but I'd be completely fine moving forward and making decisions, having a discussion. >> Okay. And I could go either way. >> I'm indifferent. >> Do we just move forward? So, >> it's your decision. It's It's our decision. It's not Tom's. It's not anybody else's in here except for ours. So, we get to decide. Um, >> so I'm I mean I'm not hearing a strong consensus. >> I'm not hearing a strong consensus to hold off. So, I would say that we move forward with this discussion >> and we can we can continue to have the discussion and if we get to a certain point where we're like uh now it's getting dicey and we want to pivot and we want all feedback then we can then we can pull it at that point. We can continue the discussion I think. Okay. >> Especially with fresh with comments. Um, I don't know. >> No, I'm fine with that. All right, guys. I said my two cents. I think I agree with your two cents, but also concerned about others who aren't documented in this set. And is that part of like what you're saying of like we'll address later or are you saying like ongoing is like a separate conversation? >> I think we need to quantify and qualify what we're going to take um for the documentated people. I think that has to be part of this discussion. Yes. And and I mean I think related to the the the proposed compensation for the four-week period and potential issues. I mean I think my brain says if if folks are comfortable with that and this relates to what complaints that they had based on the questionnaires that we received and the general feedback that we got and this feels like it's an appropriate thing. I mean Rich and staff didn't pull this out of thin air. Um it was made up of the data, the feedback and the information that was received from everybody that came in. And so if that represents let's just I'm making up a number 80% of the complaints and 80% of the issues and they're comfortable with that accept it and then and then take the 150 and move on if we think 150 is the right number take the compensation I guess I'll just say but then you know where I worry about is that 10 to 20 or whatever that percent is that was above and beyond um that you know I I I don't know I mean I trust the experts I trust um the the the input and the rationale it all makes sense. Do I continue to hate the fact that the agencies the department of health the department uh or DNR continue to I mean they provide feedback they generally support and they don't really you know provide a whole lot of guidance. So I mean they lead it leave it up to us to make it right or make the wrong decision. And I think they enjoy uh uh the fact that they then don't have to be held accountable at all. Um, and it's a general topic and feeling I get with some state agencies here. Um, so I mean I want us to do better and I want us to um be able to I don't want to put anybody in a spot where they have to accept something that doesn't meet the needs of what actually happened to them. And that's not fair. That's not equitable. That is not right. And and so I mean I think it's a good faith attempt to start with this and then you know if folks are comfortable with it and it matches what happened and they want to accept it I think it's great but then how do I think there needs to be another portion of that so I don't think we need to do case by case review of everything and everyone now with that said this still only relates to the 48 or 68 and 45 that responded correct like that's what I think we need to define plus or minus anybody that feels like they weren't notified. and or weren't notified or feels like maybe they missed the submitting something or or things like that. Now, we continue to open this up and now it's going to be years before we get this resolved. So, we also have to then I think like I said, I think there has to be deadlines. you know, obviously these people cared enough to come out today because they found out about the meeting. Um, and they're with Rich's information have Rich has their information. Now, I think this is where we as a council have to decide, are they making the list? Are we going to sit down and talk to them one-on-one, see what their concrete evidence is, and discuss with them what happened? Um, obviously we can't leave this open for two years for these four weeks that we had. Um, because we're going to have to come up with a plan for what the future holds and what we are going to be doing in the future of when this happens again. But right now for this four weeks I think these few people that have stepped up today I would like to see them on that list so that we can discuss with them and and and I mean I think one of the the things that I remember from from as talking about it reading through it um and I don't know where it is. I've been trying to scroll through and find it, but like if if they accept compensation related to this four-week period or I guess or don't and maybe this is an Andrea question too, what other avenues do they have? Because right now one of the problems I have with some of our state agencies is we don't have any path other than to sue that entity uh to get them to act or not act in a certain way. But even when we do sue, then we change the the the statutes or the rules or the whatever that uh the the authority that allows them to do certain things. So we never really have an actual means to to have any action taken or stopped. So I mean outside of not accepting this and continuing to pursue it, I mean what what what should folks do? I mean, sue the city and then I worry about that because then we're going to have everybody sue the city and that's going to be extra, >> you know, cost on us, cost on on on folks that are doing it, headache for everybody. >> Um, so >> Josh, I think that's up to the council. This was our recommendation for an approach to make it quick and easy. If you wanted to add, I think, an appeal process of some kind, they can accept it or they have to go through some hoops to get before. That's up to you. >> Yeah. If I >> as far as attorney fees, Josh, though, those are reversed. >> Um, yes. I mean, it would you can set up your process whatever you think is fair. What you're doing is you're essentially avoiding some lawsuits by coming up with a compromise scenario. I mean, each side has to determine how much they want to spend on attorney's fees and a lawsuit. >> So, and that will depend on what the actual costs were related to whatever the issue is. So, um, anything you can do to mitigate those, uh, and be fair, great. Um, if things get too excessive, then you may want to consider allow, you know, having those people bring it bring an action and then they prove up their case. >> And I think that's what we're trying to discuss right now is what are our parameters? It was a suggestion, a recommendation from the staff. >> Yeah. No, I mean, and it's a it's like any negotiation. It's this is a starting point. It's a react to it. It's on paper now. Now, we can respond and provide feedback and comments like we do with any planning thing. >> So, I mean, I would put perhaps like us to consider an appeal process or some sort of way other than just simply suing the city. Um, so something like that. I would also you know wonder see this is where it starts to blur though and it's the ongoing and forever potentially future issues not related to this is you know factoring in uh ongoing or regularly recommended or whatever the best practices for testing and reimbursement for things like that. um >> and so like what again it might be separate from this discussion piece and that's what you know we need to really firm up I think >> and I think in in all honesty I think right now we're discussing the four weeks and then I think we need Andrew here when we're discussing what we're going to do for the future and what that plan looks Like that's my thought. I don't mean to be telling you guys >> what >> but but that's just my opinion. You guys I want to hear your opinions as well and what your thought process is. I agree. But I think we're just talking about the four-week process tonight right now. Yeah. >> So, even with the four-week thing, I mean, I I think, you know, based on, like I said, the what was proposed was a draft, an idea, based on the feedback that was given. Again, not made up, not malicious in any way, not a slap in the face intentionally to anything any part of this. It was based on the information that we received at the time to be able to pull forward something. So, I think that is a good place to start. So, $150, but I also maybe there's something to the uh like an appeal or a request for above and beyond that for these factors and then a requirement with timelines of all right, if you don't accept it uh because of whatever, you need to then follow up with um this do any documentation you might have uh to support it, which may not exist. And we have to accept the fact that it may not exist either. And then we'll determine how that works in our approval or denial process. And I think so then allowing for that space to the appeal like the appeals board. >> So are we looking to do this through the appeals committee that we have or do we want to start a new one that's just for >> as part of the quality water quality response plan? there's kind of an appeals process built into that. Are you guys aware of that? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, with regards to um this particular issue, um there's always the possibility when you have this issue, there's always the possibility somebody has a unique circumstance, right? So, that was one of the feedback items and direction we were looking for from the council tonight. How do you deal with that? What if somebody was just outside that area? You guys were planning to talk about that. What if somebody has unique circumstances? Um the recommendation that we made was just a general recommendation related to that. What I hear the council discussing is the possibility for like an appeals like here it is. If you feel it's beyond or you feel you have you know can make a good case that it should be more than that to provide for like an appeals board. Now in that case you could establish a group an ad hoc group to handle that in this situation but they would not be able to make the final decision. any right because tonight you guys as a council would be saying this is what we feel is appropriate in most cases but if you're going to also do that the council also has to approve those extra cases so you could establish a group but it would be to basically >> make a recommendation >> backfine make a recommendation >> and I think that's fair I mean and I think >> yes so if the point of tonight too was was to provide the feedback to refine you know what we're going to do in these situations. I think that's what we're trying to do. I mean, >> so you would still send out $150? >> I mean, I think and maybe that's up to staff of what we think we should do. We need to go back and refine the letters, the D the things that are going to go out to say because we're going to have to add if you disagree with this or don't accept this. Here's what you do for next steps. >> We we haven't sent that. >> No, no. I mean, we'll have to tweak it anyway. >> We would tweak it anyways to reflect it would be it was going to be written based on the direction that we received tonight. So if there is that option say here it is >> it's based on this if you want to you could >> just to be clear the notice I referenced earlier was for an entirely separate effort the future >> not to respond to these complaints. >> So nothing has been preconceived and and so that should be very clear too I think. So none of this was laid in front of us outside of what's in the packet that's public to everybody else. So, we're reacting to it like everybody else to a certain extent and trying to refine, add suggestions, whatever. >> So, >> question the dollar amount. I wanted to know if you think the plumber came out to my house for 150 bucks, >> right? Well, >> would you get done? >> Yeah. And unfortunately, right now, we just need to be able to get through the conversation up here at the council. We understand that you guys are extremely upset about the $150. So let us finish our conversations here so that we can move on and hopefully not be here till midnight. Thank you. >> So with regards to it, if you're looking at an appeals process, there's really two key pieces. What who is that group and what's the composition of it? The other point and it was mentioned is is a time frame. So if we're going to provide for this, we can send out the notice, but do you want to provide additional opportunities for people to get more information? So the purpose tonight in the originally envisioned process that had been presented to council is that we would present you guys with information. You would give us some direction. We would then take that in we would then go out and present that information to the public at this open house and informational meetings and such like that. Do so take that into account. Is there additional communication that would need to be done? Allowing time for that and then allowing a reasonable amount of time for somebody to consider whether or not they wanted to enter that appeal process. What should that look like and what should that time frame be? I agree from a staff standpoint. You have to say, you know, here it is. Here's your option. You need to do it within a reasonable time frame. The question is what's reasonable for them to be able to make that decision, pull information together, and then make that request. I would generally say 30 days >> from >> the date of the letter >> of the letter. >> What I'm thinking about is whether we can decouple the four-week pump test response from the effort to notify people, provide information on what we found. But not all of those are complainants and most of them aren't. >> Um, one of the reasons we're doing planning this pump event is so that we can trigger our round two sampling which goes to the long term. We've got sample from before pumping increased much. Now we'll have a sample from when we're pumping pretty hard. We'll have another one when it's down. The sooner we can get that done, perhaps continue it, perhaps go to a different s. But we do need to do those three steps. It's already looking at October. If we push that out a month, then we're sampling when it's freezing and we don't want to do that. So >> thinking that this is just for that 68 people or whatever plus the few that showed up this evening, this letter would be for those people, right? So we would >> and then the one you're talking about is going back out to the 900 >> keeps keeps going. >> Yeah. So it's two totally separate letters. >> Yep. >> That's Yeah. >> Yeah. >> When you say people here tonight, are you talking about people physically here or Zoom as well? >> Um I don't know. >> I just know we had anybody on Zoom as far as >> just curious. >> I mean few that actually came up and said something to us and got information to Rich. >> But but that's a good point. >> Get information to Rich. >> I didn't either. >> But you're on that list right there. >> Okay. >> Um so we need to discuss that. It could include the 25 people that are on. Yes. These are parameters that we have to set. >> I would like for them to be included if possible. It's not that many more additional anyways. >> So, we would need to take a break in this meeting for the people that are online. Have them provide us with information if they're intending to do that because Batman does not tell us who to send the letter to. >> No, no offense to that individual. I think that's a great moniker for the meeting, but it's an example of we just don't know who those people are. So we need to during the meeting here request them to provide us with information. >> Can they not raise their hand and chat in or anything too? So I mean if we say hey >> correct but we would need to provide that opportunity. >> Just question we did get some emails today from people saying hey I had an issue. We went and checked the records and I have the envelopes. They were mailed this information in July of 2024. So are if there if they were notified in time to make a claim, do you still want to try and add them to this pool or is there some kind of otherwise it's going to keep growing and growing >> or or is it only certain class like individuals who are within a certain distance outside of the notification area who weren't notified? Do you want to include that came? You know, what are what are those what are those parameters? But I Yeah, I see both. But we don't >> I can guarantee one thing. Whatever decision you like, somebody's not going to like it. >> So, we have to live with it. >> I think our memo talked about going to three miles despite not notifying. That's a fairly arbitrary number. The draw down was maybe a foot, but you could go an extra half a mile or however if that's up to you. Mhm. >> So you could say anybody within X number of miles that provided a complaint at the time or came to the meeting tonight who did not receive previous notification. >> That's very easy for us to determine. >> I have a question. Where could I get a copy of the letter that was sent out to to residents? >> I if you uh give me your email at the end of the meeting, I'll email it to you tomorrow. Okay. But first what we have to do is we have to get said people on line >> if they want to if they if they have I would >> some are probably just enjoying this as an entertaining Thursday night. Right. But >> so how do you want me to >> Could they drop it in the chat and then >> Yeah. Can they just drop it in the chat or >> um We don't allow a chat. So we we we're going to need them to raise their hand, ask them to come. >> Okay. If there's anyone online that would like their information um submitted for the >> We have a hand raised. >> We have one >> raise your hand. Yeah. Anybody that would like to be noted is filing >> the fact. >> Do you know how to un >> I hit unmute. >> Okay. >> I'm unmuted. Can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Tara, can you provide us with just the general gist of what you experienced and your name and address and we can follow up with you. >> Yeah, we had the um same kind of things of the miscolored water. still are experiencing that stuff today. But during the testing and stuff and then basically almost seemed like daily we were cleaning our filters out and flushing things and having to buy new filters and iron filters things and different like you know just going through parts and filters a lot faster than normal during that t uh phase or whatever. >> Okay. Okay. So, if you can provide us with your name and um address and if it's the if the mailing address is different than your home address, if you could give us that because then we can mail you a questionnaire to get more information from you. Yep. It's Tara and it's T E R R A. Last name is Henry. H E N R Y. Address is 9987240th Street East, Lakeville, Minnesota 55044. Okay. >> Thank you. Yep. Do we have anyone else online? Let's see. I'm not missing anyone that raising their hand. Correct. Okay. >> If you guys don't mind, I'm going to go get information over here. >> Okay. So, >> I would just to the degree if someone's having trouble raising their hand or trying to unmute or say something, just send an email to the my private well email so that we know that you're wanting to be contacted. >> Receive it within the next hour. We'll know you were >> correct. I say send it to a Novacci. >> That works too. US is the end of that. Is that direction in first of all are we all in agreeance with this if we ask is that enough direction given >> what repeat >> for the appeals maybe if I summarize what I thought I heard and then you guys can ask do this or or that >> um so what I thought the direction I heard from the council there we was um that generally what was in the staff recommendation with regards to the the settlement. But we would be adding to that general structure um the idea that if they want to appeal that amount, they can do so within 30 days. and then we'll explain the process that they need to do which would basically be they need to contact us and they need to provide XYZ information related to it. Um I think that's really is is that what I as far as contacting well owners is that what I heard and that as far as who would be included on that would be everybody that was described within the memo plus anybody that came tonight to express concern. I think we're still looking for a parameter as far as like a reasonable >> because if you're just a quarter mile outside or an eighth of a mile or you know >> so is so is it not two and a half miles it's three and a half miles or three miles or four miles I think we need to set a box on that >> um would be my recommendation >> say three they were what were they like three miles >> I it was driving mileage so it was 3.2 so actual >> system and she's She's like just at the three mile mark. >> She may have filed a claim with the city. >> So I would say >> three and a half >> to make sure. >> Yeah. To so to Janelle's point and to capture people that we have an idea. Maybe three and a half miles. >> Three and a half. >> Is that everyone that that was impacted by the draw down? Like how far did the draw down go out? Because like you're trying to put people in a box. >> So theoretically it goes out infinitely but it gets so small that it's right. at around that three three and a half miles. >> You were talking about pump stresses earlier and changes right and oxidization and increasing pressure on their pumps. >> So from our draw down test we would expect that at three miles you're less than a foot maybe half a foot. At three and a half you're probably a couple inches. So minimal minimal difference compared to people in that and it goes up fairly quickly. So that's for the council. That's about all I can tell you. We don't know exactly at every well. >> Well, and and once we get too far now, we got Lakeville issues and development and things going in and we have other potential reasons why there could be draw down coming from this way and this way and that way and >> and the area grows exponentially. >> So, we have to we have to draw a line and we have to be okay with that. Right. So, >> I appreciate that. That's all I'm saying is like if you are considering people that were impacted by the draw down, why are we not looking at how far reasonably out the draw down? And I think that and and when we >> I think that's what we >> and when we had the discussion years ago or whenever it was it was two and a half miles that we landed on we debated it discuss not debated we maybe we did I don't remember we discussed >> the DNR number that was a required >> when we talked with the DNR that >> wanted five miles but there was too many >> and that's my point is that like I understand that this number increases exponentially as you go out every quarter mile every tenth of a mile but to the point that Rich is saying is like it it goes out infinitely and I agree that it can't be infinite. >> Yeah. >> But to draw it at 3.1 when somebody was 3.2 too and definitely was impacted like that gets really hard and like you said you're trying >> we found it difficult too >> right >> I think I heard three and a half so that seems like a >> and that's where I guess why are you not overestimating how far out to allow those people to then come to you and say yes I had a problem during this time period versus >> what I'm hearing the city engineer say is that three and a half is that that he had suggested three to take what you're talking about, sir, into account. And if the council went three and a half, it's adding some contingency on top of that. >> Yep. >> So, I'm hearing three and a half miles. >> Sure. >> Okay. Um, so that being said, that's what would go out in the letter. What I'm hearing is 30 days response based on the city attorney's suggestion. Then I think the next question is staff can craft. As far as the type of information we would request, it would be similar to the forms we've sent out previously. If they sent us a form, we'd ask them for any supplemental information that they might need if they indicate they want to. So there might be some interaction with them prior to the actual formal review of their information to get what we can asking follow-up questions possibly, etc. Who would be this board that would do the factf finding and make a recommendation to the council? >> I nominate the mayor since he's not here. >> Just kidding. I don't really care. I mean, >> I just think we're going to be in a tough spot coming up with this ad hoc group of who's going to be involved because no matter what, we're not going to make everybody happy because we hired experts that people don't like and they brought their own experts that have differing opinions. Like, we're not going to make everyone happy. We're not like it seems like what we're going into is settlement discussions based off of the test and it's it's >> we are going to get sued otherwise >> we're going to get sued either way. It doesn't matter like >> tell you that before >> we are going to get sued no matter what. >> Like people are not some people will not be happy no matter what we do. And I know that's just something that we have to live with and we have to, you know, go through the process and do all of that. But I just struggle with coming up with this appeal group reviewers because how are we like I just think it has to be very technical. >> Yeah, it might be >> development. I I would agree with all those points. Um I do think that what I heard from the council is that the purpose of this was to look at extenduating circumstances. So for example, Dawn Whitel had presented that they had a particular system and they feel they can definitely draw to the specific instance and demonstrate that the cost for them to rectify it wasn't 150 bucks. It was 400 bucks for example. What I'm hearing is that would be the purpose of this group that it's not just somebody comes in and says, "Yeah, this kind of happened." And if that we'd be looking for something a little more, >> a little bit more to demonstrate the issue and why the 150, but you would also be delegating because they're making a recommendation. You delegate to that group to do the factf finding and they're going to make a recommendation, but the full council will have to decide whether or not it's appropriate. is the council coming up with then what we're going to ask this group to do like to what detail are we ma giving the direction >> that's a good question it would be up to you guys if you want to set a box on it what I'm hearing is that this appeal group would basically hear the any case being made by an individual who feels that the $150 is insufficient and then this group would do what factf finding is felt they feel is necessary to make a determination. >> And I just want to make a clarifying point that we're saying $150 because that's a recommendation, but that's not what has been decided. >> Correct. And I'm not disagreeing with the this group. I'm I'm wondering, do we even need it though? I mean, this is this is a we have staff is so my main thing to get out of this was an alternative to accepting 15 or whatever the proposed thing is or suing the city. Like I want alternative options. I I I could care less really because it's going to come back to us to make the final decision anyway to accept whatever recommendations anyway whether it's staff staff plus a council member to all council members. I mean we could we could sit and have a council meeting that just debated or talk through all of these issues too. So I guess I don't know what value it adds unless you know >> I I was I guess I was thinking more like the appeals >> process where we have a council member we have >> staff plays a technical role in those discussions and facilitates a process >> but as the representatives of the larger public like on the appeals board I think what you're getting to Kate is on the appeals board we have the topic matter you know, policy expert, finance person to kind of resolve that part of it. But there's a council member that's included to basically be kind of that member of the public to provide the I don't say like the common sense or what's reasonable type of additional input while staff feels that we are can be absolutely but it's a different perspective that you know we that goes beyond what our background and our role is in the process. I think that's what I'm assuming that's what you're asking for. So I based on my experience there's value in that but what it does is you're now taking that council person and you're kind of committing them to the recommendation when they come back to the larger group. So they've already had they're kind of but we do that with >> small bodies all the time. >> So I would limit it to maybe one. Obviously it can only be one or two council people. >> You'd want to be mindful of how long this might take too. If you have 30 of them and it's two hours each it take you months to get through it. So the board might be useful in that regard. >> Can there be like a pre-step of like a written appeal before it makes it to the committee? >> I Kate had suggested that we would come down and do this. Um and our current board of appeals, we request that they provide information. We try and get everything relevant and then that information is then presented. Individuals are welcome to come and observe but for efficiency sake appeals board like on utility bills we don't it's like you present your case you get the information we may staff who handles the the facilitation for that she requests what re more relevant information um if if you're going to say no it's going to be a you know you come in and present your case I guant I guarantee you each one of those will be an hour long. Um, and may not be any more beneficial. In my experience that they submit everything they have as best they can. If they want to come, they can, but it wouldn't be intended to be a dialogue. Would be to observe the proceedings so they really understand the decision or recommendation was made. Now, when it actually comes to council, I would say that would be the time if their appeals is coming to council with a recommendation and they disagree with the recommendation. I would say that's that's the time that they would be >> should engage because they're actually talking to the final decision makers and I think that would be more efficient in the end. That's just my opinion. >> I mean I for they'll say this I can't commit to being on that board. I don't have time to do half the stuff I do anyway. So I'm out and so that's where I would defer to staff or if one of you folks want to jump in by all means but I'm out and not because I wouldn't want to. just don't have time and then my role is here and I'll be held accountable here for the decisions that we make anyway. So, >> I have no problems helping where I can whenever you need. I mean, it was my idea. It's my thinking. So, if nobody else wants to be on it, I'd be on it. Um, I think from a staff standpoint, I think we would I think the point of having, you know, appropriate technical assurance would suggest that staff needs to talk about who would be really the best people to participate in that >> discussion >> and and I think even that should be brought back potentially. I mean, so we're already kicking it, you know. I mean, I think because how much staff time is this going to take? We have a whole ton of other things going on as well. So there's going to be consequences to dedicating, volunteering, voluntelling staff to engage in this group when we have, you know, 50 other things going on in the city that can't be disrupted in day-to-day operations, development happening. And I mean, >> I I I appreciate that, but we also made a promise to our constituents that we would listen. And now I I feel that this is this is the best way for us to do that. >> What I what I would suggest is this is that while we're providing a 30-day time for for them to enter the process, the process will the timing of the process after that will be dictated by the bandwidth we have to be able to get it done. Um we have really good staff. We have been short staff for an extended period of time, but that is changing. That will give us some greater capacity. And on some of these for people who have already made requests to a large degree it's going to be here's your request what additional information do you have? >> So there will be some back and forth. Um but I I think it's we'll make work whatever the council wants us to do but we would just expect realistic expectations for how quickly it gets done. Is this plan wiping any sort of like initial offer off the table like in talking about a dollar amount or we still wanting to like provide a dollar amount with an offer of >> that's what I heard is that there would be a dollar amount and if you disagree with the dollar amount then you could enter the appeal process >> because I think we'll get I I I would suspect we're going to get a lot of people that didn't have any issues that are going to get 150 bucks for nothing and uh and they'll be happy with it and or those that only had the filter changes and didn't see the other impacts because again the recommendation was based off of a lot of the information we already have. So I mean I think wiping that piece out and then we narrow the focus of these other cases that we want to look at. I mean, so yes, I think having something to accept or not and then if you don't accept it, you don't have to sue the city. Here's the other process you go through >> and then when you don't like that, you can sue the city >> and then you can still sue the city or come up here because the recommendation that comes from that group, you don't like it, we say, "Nope, you are only entitled up to the whatever dollar amount." Uh, then we can still do it here, have a full discussion and override that group and or not or whatever. Um, does the council have suggestions on who would participate? Kate, sounds like she volunteered. Does the council have some suggestions on who they think or would prefer participate in that? >> I heard the mayor get nominated. The >> mayor was nominated. Corey, do you have any like would like Derek or somebody on your team have any sort of expertise or ability to weigh into these sorts of things? I don't know if that's just like a stretch. It would be a little bit of a stretch because what we're dealing with is a little bit I mean this is kind of your guys's decision on I mean I have my thoughts on things. I mean but I don't want my thoughts to weigh into what you guys are doing. >> It's a little nutty. I don't know if you can make it happen, but if it was me, I'd probably call Hartman and see if they had someone that could help us with this. they know that business better than anybody or somebody like that. >> Um, >> would we have to do like a an RFP type thing to solicit somebody or can we self- select, you know, an expert service? >> It'd be a professional service. So, as long as the cost wouldn't exceed uh well 25 thou 35,000 55 50,000 you don't have >> Oh, so anywhere under that threshold anyway. Yeah. And Hartman was that the one with the most wells? >> They did the most. So you might have to think about is there a conflict if they work for this person and now they're working. >> I mean my well now we're getting into details. I mean I would suggest nobody on that list so that it's truly objective and an expert in the well business. I could also hear the but they know the area, they know the wells, they know the water, they know the stuff and there's a benefit to having them. So >> maybe Roger Ringer would do it. I don't know. >> Or maybe having two or something. But then we're paying them to to unless they want to do it in kind or something. No, we can't do that. >> No. What we've what Rich correct me if wrong, but when we've contacted Well Drillers, they are super busy and they're doing us favors. Something like this, we're paying them and then we're going to have there's a question of who's available to actually participate. And then I think if I was in that business, I would be like, I'm a little bit nervous about doing this because I might piss off a potential customer. calls to Dola, he's in St. Bonnie, >> be okay. >> I mean, but it gets back to what something Andrea said earlier, uh, or made a comment about like now, I mean, so we do all this and again, it's for good reasons and it's a good faith effort to live up to the promises we made to make sure that we are listening, following through with, making sure we're protecting residents and township residents and neighbors and things like that. At a certain point, are we better off giving $1,000? And and it's cheaper than going through this process. it's less hit on the the bandwidth of staff. So, I mean, is there a dollar amount or a thing that we can do in this process to minimize No, let me rephrase that. I'm going to prioritize make the the the folks that are impacted by this feel like we heard them and are compensating them for the the impacts that they had to deal with and that they had to pay for or whatever. And then without having to expend exorbitant amounts of dollars to to go through this process, are we just better off doing that? So then we shrink that that number that are upset by it or would appeal it down to the 2% or 5% and now we're only dealing with five homeowners or residents or whatever. >> It's not a counterargument, but I was thinking the same thing and then it occurred to me. I thought like you >> I got two mails for $150. If we you raise it to a,000, I'm going to get a hundred of them. >> True. >> People wanting to get in. >> Yeah. >> So, >> well, I think the key is finding out doing the testing that we're going to be >> continuing to do. We're trying to do this >> and make sure that we're not having issues. My gut's telling me you're on the right track with a modest offer to capture the people who weren't impacted that much and a process to review in more detail materials provided for higher level claims >> because if 90% of the people reject reject the $150 offer, I mean then it's like this is going to take forever. It's going to be more costly and whatever. You could always go back out and say, "Okay, based on this, we're going to try again at 250 or three or whatever." >> I can add some I mean, I've talked to most of these people. They either had a lot of expenses or they didn't have many. You're going to have one group or another. And I think that's where most of those people um because they've come to the well testing >> and I think that's where this recommendation came from based on the the number of folks that responded to the questionnaires based on the information. 150 seemed reasonable based on the issues that were found the the documented stuff. So I mean maybe we just keep it at 150 and and allow for this other stuff to happen. And we see I mean if >> the 140 is based on the majority of the type of them. It wasn't intended to compass 100% all of the information received but it seemed to be reasonable >> for the majority of the complaints given the information that was provided at the time. We know I mean to Amanda's point there's always going to be individuals who disagree with whatever is offered. we could offer $4,000 and there will be people that don't think that that's reasonable. I'm just hypothetically and they may have a valid concern, but we could evaluate those um on a case- by case basis. >> The hard part with >> $50 doesn't cover anything. $500 would cover a plumber visit. So, I think that's what you have to think about. So, then if somebody had minimal problems, they would only have probably $500 worth of expenses and they wouldn't do the appeals thing. So that would help to cut your numbers down. I was thinking what would $150 cover a new filter. >> We had a lot of folks that just change it themselves. They didn't call a plumber. So that's where the >> Yeah. based off the information received. That's what they said that they did. And so but I hear you. Yeah. >> I mean so is there do we want to beef it up a little bit? I mean, do we want to go up to like $ 250 to accommodate those that or you know, whatever the I don't know what the market rate is for a plumber uh hourly wage. >> Everything's expensive. >> So, I think what they the the $150 we kind of guys that works for us, he has a well, he says his filters are about 50 bucks. So, if you had to change three filters during that time period, which I mean, he said he changes his filters all the time. certain times he has to change them more often for whatever reason. And so we just figured during that month, three filters, usually people are changing their own filters if it's just an inline filter. That was kind of the justification that seemed right. But again, you're not going to please everybody. You're going to have people who and not saying that I truly believe most people are honest about things, but I mean if the city came out by my house and said that we did this and I had some problems after the fact, I would attribute it to that. Are they from that? I don't know for sure, but I'm going I mean, if you're going to give me some money, I'm probably going to take it. >> So, >> 10 It depends on the system you have. >> So we we >> we got feedback from multiple staff members that are on wells or people that grew up on wells or used to live on wells. So it was kind of a collective thing. Situations are all different, but we kind of found that sweet spot around $150 for a you know what we believe based on kind of a typical situation. But if you want to reduce the amount of people that to to your what you're saying earlier of possibly not coming back and just taking it and and and dealing with that because they didn't have a lot. Do you stay with the 150 or do you go >> I mean 300. >> Everything we're doing tonight feels and I shouldn't even say this out loud. It feels arbitrary and I mean we're just making stuff up as we go right now and we're dismissing the recommend. I mean and again it's just recommendation. It's just another thing to think about some firm boundaries if you're going to increase it so that this doesn't grow into a thousand people. >> Right. Right. I mean we have to >> I mean I'm okay with just leaving it as is and seeing the response too. I mean >> 150 and then seeing if who comes back in for the appeals pro process, right? Is that what you're saying? >> I wanted to make sure there's another avenue other than just having to accept or sue. So I think meeting in the middle of something that allows for that other path I'm comfortable with and and going forward that way. Okay. >> So what does that other thing look like? What would be the 150? >> I mean, as far as that that b that appeals that that group that would hear people that um feel that they should it should be something other than 150 bucks. >> I like the idea of bringing in a Hartman or >> let's call it a claim review committee. It's not really >> it's not appeals. No, >> it's so a claim a claim review committee. Let's call it that. So, what should that composition look like? We've have a may the acting mayor. Um there's been lobbying for the mayor. >> Has there been have you dealt with this before? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. Do you have suggestions as to who you would put on this? >> Honestly, if it's coming back to council and Tom is going to kick me under the table, I would just bring it to staff for >> staff. We can we can interview different whoever if we have a receipt. Oh, they did it. Let's call them up and see what they actually did and what they found. Get more information. Or boy, this invoicing. We can call a competitor. Does this seem reasonable for that level? We know enough people to do that. >> I had to replace my burnt out pump four months after the aquifer test. Okay. Probably not related unless there's information they provide from their well driller that can substantiate that. somebody that comes in and says, um, I experienced these consistent issues. This was the deal, but I have a $150 filter on my system and I had to replace it and I've got, you know, the receipt. >> My filter costs. >> Here's my filter costs. I got I can show you here's my Visa bill. I bought three of them. I'm looking for $450. Okay. You know, so you're looking at those circumstances. I I think you would the intent though is you'd be going beyond just verbal presentation. There would have to be some additional information that would need to be provided >> um and or and clear. So >> I guess what I'm saying is if you're appealing, you're not going to be able to just call it in. You're going to have to be engaged in the process. >> I mean, and it's a good point because even for the appeals board and who's on the appeals board now? >> I mean, we just haven't had one that in a long time then. I mean, I was No, no, no. That's fine. We just haven't had one in a really long time. >> No, we have one coming up, by the way. >> Oh, right. Fantastic. But the point is people don't come in and present that information. They submit the information. We review it. We discuss it. We make a decision. Period. There I mean so like I I would say too we're not inviting people to come in and do an interview in a process. I mean submit the documentation that you have according to the form that we have and the requested information that we have. We may follow up because we you said you have this and then we want to make sure we follow up and then we have to have it in on time. But it's not a we're not going to have a conversation. So it's it's not going to be when you say it's going to be an hour. It's an it could be whatever period of time to discuss with that group. It's not a a back and forth with the individuals themselves is my how I was thinking about this. >> May maybe not at the time, but I do think that when there may be follow-up questions prior to the review, like we get information, we're looking for more detail. We have some qu you know the information leads to additional questions. We need clarification. >> Follow up before that meeting convening of this group to then go through them all or a portion of them. How >> is Yeah. >> Okay. We leave it to staff. I I Yeah. >> Are we allowed to talk to the audience to ask a question? Is that Am I allowed to do that? Like ask >> I have a question. >> I I appreciate all the progress that you're making and and I think this is great. Part of my public comment was about future health risk, >> right? You don't know what happened when you ran your aquafer test. >> Sir, that's part of the round two testing. We're testing for arsenic and maggot, all that stuff. We're testing again. There may be more. So I'm not that is a separate deal. >> What happens if when you do that second round of pump testing there was an increase in arsenic in the water? >> Then we'll know and the DNR and the DO will deal with us is what we have to do or not. >> What is my repercussion if I take your $150 and my daughter ends up with diabetes? >> Yeah, they're separate issues. That is for a one time. >> So I I can speak to that. >> Um I'd like to speak to that. So my recommendation to the council is that I mean if you're going to have somebody if you're going to pay somebody something, you're going to want a release from them. That that release would be specific to damages incurred in connection with that testing period. It's not no one no one is going to release anything that occurred thereafter. But that's how that release would work would just be for that uh testing period. What we'd recommended is to make it easy for the impacted individuals. We basically say we would describe the $150 is for that and if you cash it, the working assumption is we don't need to follow up with you anymore. >> Okay. But real quick, I I just want to bring something up to Andrea before before somebody blows over there because I understand what you're asking. I totally understand what you're asking. He is asking that within this four-week period um what if a okay the arsenic whatever right his daughter has drank the water has had this issue but then in five years down the road the doctor says yes it does correlate back to that but he cashed that check and now he can't come back after compensation because it did fall back to doctors so forth come back. Now I I He can still sue. >> He certainly can try to sue. I I just I think that I assume that he would be able to show that any issues probably occurred continuously after that testing period. I I I guess that it they they wouldn't have done been just during that testing period. Um, >> so then it would be that it would be a continuation for him and then that would be covered. He could have >> the ability to have all our samples too. >> Yeah. >> So basically what would happen is you're you would still have a case if if something happens you're still because it's going to be a continuation. We she just explained. Do you want to explain again so he can understand? >> I heard. Okay. And so, but again, like part of this is again the future stuff, right? Like what is chronic manganese exposure? What is chronic arsenic exposure? I've not seen anything in the research that I've done of is that two weeks, is that four weeks? Is that six weeks? Is that 12? If I talk to a patient about a chronic health issue, I'm talking longer than 12 weeks. But if I talk to somebody that's using cortical steroid use that has spinal fracture. Anything longer than four weeks increases their risk 25%. Right? And so, but it's chronic and that's what's reported in the research. So, again, like this is where who is making that decision and how are we coming to that? Has has the Minnesota Department >> they're not in this room. It'll be the DNR and the DO. They take those sample results and they'll draw their own conclusions. if we need to make changes to our operations or programs or plow the city under, they'll tell us. >> And you've already said though that they are unwilling in situations like this to give you feedback. >> No, they were unwilling to give thorough feedback on the findings of this test result to see what happened during the pump test. They are all on board as to looking at the long-term. That's what the D do is actually focused on. >> But the reality is if you I've talked to the Minnesota Department and the DNR many times they don't know they don't know and the the research is not there. There's some testing. There's a big nonprofit testing starting to happen with the Mayo in in um southeastern Minnesota for nitrates and arsenic. But the answers to your questions. The department of health doesn't know. And originally they were more concerned because I spoke to Tanny at the Department of Health. They wanted to go out five miles. They wanted more testing. They wanted to see what was actually going on before they issued the permit. The DNR said no. So So that's the real truth if you want it. So no one is looking at it. That's the answer to the question. >> And that's why I bring it up because I just want this to be a consideration. And I appreciate that you're talking about this four-week period and you're trying to cap it. And I appreciate that you're willing to go out three and a half miles, but >> again, like if I cash that check, we'll use diabetes as an example. If I have diabetes, my daughter is 50% more likely to have diabetes. If my wife and I both have diabetes, she's 75% more likely to have diabetes. Not diabetic. My wife's not diabetic. She all of a sudden is diabetic at the age of 10. I'm coming back to this because this is the only thing that I can think of in my life that has potentially impacted her health negatively from decisions that I've made. >> I I'm I respect what you're saying wholeheartedly. I'm a rural Scott County resident. I raised three children on my well on two wells in two houses. Um, arsenic is prevalent in Scott County regardless of how close I am to this well. I, you know, when Scott County notified me 5 years ago, hey, we think that there's, you know, arsenic issues going on in Scott County and the data shows that and we've had some, you know, my well results were multiples of what was considered normal and healthy. And I mean, I don't know. I'm just struggling to say >> it's hard. Elco New Market uh draw well is is caused my three kids cancer because it is you can look at at the state's website you can look at the county's website it's all over >> I I think what >> it's naturally occurring >> I think what it really comes down >> have this conversation >> I think what it really comes down to is you will have to make decisions about what that means for you and your familyhood and the likelihood >> going into the future Um because there's a number of factors and you'll have to decide and if there is an issue in the future and you do believe it is, you will need to make that case in the future. But anytime anybody, you know, I get in a car accident, they give me a settlement for x amount of dollars and I'm like, "Yeah, I feel fine at the time." Am I making a conscious choice of whether or not there's something that might happen later and whether I believe it was associated with it and whether or not I would be able to demonstrate that in the future? The reality is the city's making a good faith effort to try and address the concerns and issues that people had related to the specific event. This settlement or this is intended to address what happened at that time. It's not intended to cover, address, research, or make a decision about any the long term related to this. >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand from reading the proposals last night that if I don't cash the check within the 30-day period according to Mr. Reverend's proposal, I am indemnifying the city of any wrongdoing. So that was the recommendation to the council that was not binding that they've already aband like how is that >> I'm having trouble seeing how we're on a path to making you happy tonight >> but that isn't the >> I don't know what we can do for you. >> I'm not asking to be made happy today. I'm just trying and this is the point of the email that I sent last June. Have you considered the potential long-term implications of the decisions that are being made? And I understand your point about you're not going to be able to prevent any future issues. I get in a car accident tonight driving home. My kids end up with diabetes. I appreciate that. I >> I think to your point, sir, and and you've brought it up repeatedly. You've asked whether or not the city has considered the long term. We have. We have considered the long term based on the information that was available at the time the decisions were made and on top of that have committed to and are required to to do additional work to evaluate whether there are issues that were unknown or unanticipated etc associated with it. So yes, based on the information that was available at the time, based on the people that are experts in those fields, yes, the long-term impacts were considered. It was the whole point of the process that we went through. But it was also recognized that not all things are all knowable and there are measures in place for us to do it. As Corey and Rich have indicated, we are doing additional testing to see is there things that weren't anticipated that we couldn't know that we are evaluating going forward. And if there and if there's data that comes out of that, the DNR and the Minnesota Department of Health may require us to do additional things or we may choose to do them oursel. >> It's hard to put a cork back in a bottle as it's leg. >> It's also hard to predict absolutely every alternate outcome. >> I would say it's not hard. It's impossible and it's not going to happen. And >> I'm not asking. >> No, no, no, no. But I I mean I think we I got to move forward. Um I I mean so what else do you need from us? What are you what clarify exactly what you want us to clarify for you? >> So at this point based on the discussion what I'm hearing is that we do send out a letter with the general framework that was presented in the staff recommendation with an offer of $150. It would also indicate that there is an a process by which they may dispute or request maybe is a better way to do it request additional or compensation beyond that for what occurred. And we will have to devise the specifics of it. But staff has directed that that would be a a claims review committee that would be made up of appropriate staff and/or consultants who would review that information and then make a recommendation to the council. We would do what we can to get the information we need to be able to make a judgment call and then that indivi it would be presented to the council and if that individual disagrees with that recommendation they certainly have the ability when it's presented to council to present their case additionally to the people that will ultimately make the decision. That's what I heard. >> And is that all you need? >> I think the question still remains based on the city attorney's comment. We had originally set this up that it was, hey, we're explaining to you here are the conditions, so we don't have to require all 40 people to go out and sign waiver release forms and all of that kind of stuff. I guess the question that I would like to get feedback from the city attorney and the council, do you feel it's necessary at this point to require the waiver release forms or are we okay approaching it the way that was recommended? >> My recommendation is you get a release form, sign the release, we give you the $150 check, >> check after the release form. >> Yep. So return the So we send what we send includes a pre-stamped envelope with a release form that they can sign and return in the pre-addressed envelope. >> And when we get that back, we will issue a check. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And by not accepting the check or not doing whatever does not there isn't a timeline then that to the point it doesn't wave rights after if you don't do anything. No action doesn't equate to accepting and waving rights to >> that to that gentleman's approach. not paying you anything further. This is this is the deal. It's 150 unless they review your claim and make a separate judgment on it. But otherwise, >> so folks could choose I mean three pass accept the the 150, don't accept 150, come back and follow the claims review process or do nothing and still have the ability to take further action into the future, not wave any rights now or into the future. Three ultimate opportunities. >> Yes. And that approach while more cumbersome and more burdensome would address issues like the gentleman is recommend is is bringing up because then there's no inferred or stated waiver or release. Um but the but they would have those individuals would still have to make a decision though of if I'm going to take the 150 bucks I'm or something otherwise you know approved by the council I'm going to be signing off on a release related to that incident. >> I'd like the dollar amount to be higher. >> What do you propose? >> I wanted to be here till midnight. So that's what we're doing. At least double 300. >> I'm okay with that. >> And the release form is just for the four weeks. Nothing beyond just to clarify. >> Four weeks. >> That's what the offer is for. So that's what >> don't love that piece, but I know why we have to do it. So, >> how do others feel about a $300 mark instead of 150? >> I get it. I suggested a higher rate. I still feel it's like completely arbitrary and made up and now we're just pulling numbers out of our there. So, I mean, I get it. >> I did math. I doubled it. >> I know >> it wasn't just pulled out of nowhere. >> DHS. I think what also goes into it though is an analysis of for whether or not somebody's going to come back at you for are you giving them enough to satisfy them for whatever pain and suffering they had with putting in the filters and whatnot. So there is some logic to that. >> Yeah, it's a there's a reasonable you know we staff based on their discussion came up with a number based on information tonight based on individual experience. it there's a there's a judgment call as to what that number should be. >> Megan, how do you feel? >> I am very pro 300. >> Okay. So, going forward, staff will prep the letter that will go out to the complaintants plus the individuals that were added tonight. um the individuals that had previously not filed complaints, we'll have to go through the process of collecting information from them in order to um evaluate. So, what I'm hearing from the council is just because they showed up tonight isn't a guarantee >> of the $300, but it makes them eligible for it. Is that correct? Is that a fair statement? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay, perfect. So, that's done. Just half a page left. >> Okay, perfect. Let's move on. >> Reports administration. >> Okay, I have a 45m minute report with slides. Um, no, really. >> Hey, do you need >> a public? >> No, we're not there yet. >> So, um, actually, just really quick, uh, city offices tomorrow will be operating in a limited capacity. We're doing a change over on the network which means that we will have no phones at city hall. Um we have voipes. So the nice part is people can call, leave a message and it'll come into our voicemail so we can respond to people. But we'll have no phones, no network, no anything that's network oriented will be down for at least half the day. So we'll be running limited staff and doing front counter service to the degree that we can without the network tomorrow. But we'll be fully able to respond to emails. will be getting voicemails for people that call city hall. They'll just have to work through the phone tree. And to be honest, we're becoming a less common city because we have people, real people that answer the phones. Most cities put you through a phone tree to get to people nowadays. Um, in my experience, um, so just so you're aware, we're not going to go out and say, "Hey, a big thing about this," because people will still be able to contact us through normal means. It'll just be a little less efficient than it normally is because Steph won't be answering the phone or Steph won't be answering the phone. They'll have to leave a message and staff will get back to them. Staff will still continue to be working in their offices or remotely that day. >> Okay. >> That's it. >> That's it. >> Public works. >> We got trees put back in Wagner and trees in Boulder Heights. We took them out of areas at our shop that we'd have to cut them down at some point in time. So, we just had a tree spade come in and transplant them and I had to sit at the park all day because you can't leave a seven by seven by five hole open while they dig the hole and then they go get the tree. So, other than that, I got nothing. >> Perfect. Police department, do they have anything? >> Um, no. Everything was in uh in the report. Craig had to leave for a meeting with staff that work after hours. So, >> fire department Tom maybe passed it on is to date we've issued 50 housing unit permits. We have 15 sitting in the queue waiting to be issued and the apartment building 36 units is uh scheduled to start next week. >> Okay, perfect. fire department. >> Um Todd didn't have anything specifically to give to me, but u we will have to be replacing our Lucas unit. For those of you that aren't aware, that's an automatic chest compression machine. If you've ever taken a CPR class, they'll tell you that an average person can only do CPR for about 2 minutes before they're completely gassed. This is an automatic machine that can adjust and handle most it will handle adults or most adults where it can go indefinitely. It's battery powered. Um, the one we've had was donated to us by the fire relief a number of years ago. It's at the it's at the end of life. We need to replace it. So, we're in the process of replacing it. Um, it's one of the items that we've made adjustments in our capital outlay for, but we don't have all the cash. So, the fire relief has indicated that they will fund this replacement again. So, that's awesome. Out of donated dollars. Um, just so you know. Um, that's probably the most notable thing right now. Oh, and the CPR program. Um, all of the trainers have received their trainer certifications and we'll be talking about the logistics of rolling it out following the test runs with city and Niagara staff. >> I have no report. >> Uh, nothing beyond um, uh, what was previously reported. I've got nothing. >> Yeah. How many of you >> Sorry. >> How many of the council members were able to observe the panel at the last meeting? >> I was. So that was the second in a series related to changes in the fire service to address issues related to it. I sat on a panel for that as the loan administrator along with some of the chiefs in the county. We got very positive feedback from that uh presentation. um executive committee. Most of the discussion at the last meeting really revolved around the feedback that they got from the surveys to member entities about the legislative platform and talking about how that would be rolled out going that process would be rolled out through the fall prepping for the upcoming legislative session. 30 I35 >> still on four month hiatus back next month >> and League of Metro Cities we had our meetings the policy community meetings related to the rental licensing stuff they're still upset uh and I by they I mean the league and metro cities and the vast majority of city members so I was the lone voice not I was the lone voice that talked I also had several fs folks that agreed and voted uh against some of the proposals that some of the northwest suburb cities were were going forward with, but ultimately uh they tweaked some of the policies in the league. Metro cities didn't touch anything. Um so we're we're teeing up for a fun session of uh they're going to bring forward something. I'm going to have an amendment ready to undercut them completely and um we're going to be dealing with this for a little bit. So, >> has there been any been any buy into the idea of putting together a group of the stakeholders to have honest discussions about fixing the whole wrecked mess? >> We had DHS and MDH uh there uh at the last meeting um presented. They did a great job. I mean, the cities were looking to get them to to give them sound bites to give them uh something to go off of. And this is related to the quarter mile rule now. So they want to extend ex expand the quarter mile rule to apply to all cities. Um which means you can't have a group home within a quarter mile of another group home um and further limit where people with disabilities can live or choose to live. So um they wanted to apply everywhere and we try to talk through some of the rational components to it. But Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, New Hope, Golden Valley, St. Louis Park. They're all, you know, they have their reasons why they disagree with some of this stuff that we're saying and they're going to go forward with it and I think several of us are going to embarrass them. So, and be okay with that. Okay. So, now we have our public hearing. Um, open the public hearing at 10:05. Correct. >> Um public hearing is uh open and it is vacating drainage and utility easements for New Market School edition. Is there anybody here on behalf of this public hearing? Okay. I just close it. Okay. Closing the public hearing at 10:05. And now we're on to discussion by council. >> Resolution. >> Oh, sorry. >> Anything to note that wasn't in the memo or anything that is notable or I mean I didn't have any questions. >> Pretty straightforward stuff. >> Straightful. >> I would make a motion to approve resolution 25-56. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> I now discussion by council. Sorry guys, >> you're doing great. >> Good job tonight. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Awesome. Good job, guys.