for it stands nation under God indivisibley for all you turned on Um, what are you looking to do? Council, you want to take a vote on that? And I'm going to we can have this discussion now before we before we adopt the agenda. Um we've had several public comment opportunities and this isn't a referendum on Niagara. This is a plat application. So city council Gina I know you do you want to make a case beyond what I just um well I mean briefly we've been getting new information all day um including today. So, I think it's only fair to allow the public to speak on it. Council, any other opinions or thoughts? If there's not, then I'm just going to say something, but does anybody have any opinions other than me and Gina? I'm trying to form my thoughts. If you have something to say, go ahead. Take your time. We got all night. Indeed. I'm struggling just because there's sure that yes, there is new information, different things that are coming forward. But I struggled to to sort of figure out what is relevant to what we're doing with the final plat approval versus I guess being irrelevant to that. Josh Kate, any opinions? No, I I mean I tend to agree uh if it's relating to Well, I I don't really care either way. I'll be honest. I'm neutral on it. And I mean, I'm thinking I'm open to whatever information there is. And any thoughts? I'm neutral. I'm going to be the bad guy and say no. It's uh we've had many public comment opportunities. We're going to have more education and opportunities to connect. But as far as the actual item on the agenda tonight being the final plat having zero to do with water, we're not going to do public comment on that tonight. Is the plat for Niagara though? No, the plat's for the industrial part. Not any motions, any changes to the agenda? Council will note that there is an amended agenda for council. Two uh two changes. One, under consent agenda, we've added item I, which is asking the council to approve a template for the domestic well interference agreement that is required under the water appropriation permit. And then uh removing item C under general business. Uh the applicant has requested that we reschedu that item given um the large agenda that we have tonight. Okay. Any motions? Motion to approve the agenda as amended. Second motion by Josh, second by Kate. All in favor? I I Gina, did you say anything? Nope. You I'm not in favor. You are you going to abstain then or you voting no or you have to vote something? I'm going to vote no. Okay, motion passes. Any We have no presentations, proclamations, or acknowledgements. So, we're going to open it up to public comment. We'll take public comment on anything that's not currently on the agenda tonight. So if anyone wants to approach the podium and speak, now is the opportunity. Larry, welcome. Larry Scoffield, 11550 Duce Road, Elco. Most people here know my home is directly across from this Niagara project. This is not on the agenda, so don't muzzle me. It's regarding the dust problem again. In the past, I had to document with pictures what happened. This time, believe me, take my word for it. Today, the dust is flying again. Earlier, they had water tankers over there. Now, they're kind of getting lax on that. Now, we're getting it again. You need to address it. So, can you be more specific with what's I You mentioned dust. I I guess I can you help me understand a little bit more what's happening. Okay. the driveway that goes in. There were probably today what 40 dump trucks in and out him and Jay besides Fredaloney. Dust is flying at my house which is directly across as you know. So the truck and I'm not trying to interrupt you, but the trucks are generating dust that's flowing. Okay, gotcha. Where are the water tankers? They're getting lax. They I'm sorry, but I'm going to make this comment. They will get by with whatever you let them get by with. They do not take concern for us. I'm sorry. Thank you. So, Mr. Chafield, did you call city hall while the activity was occurring? No, I didn't. Just like the last time when you showed up 3 weeks later. Sorry, Larry. Why? Who is monitoring this? Anybody monitoring them at all? You guys should be watching that anyway. We shouldn't have to be calling. Larry, let's um maybe you and I talk separately. Do you have my number, my cell number? Uh I may. I'm not sure. give it to you. Shoot me a text or whatever and I'll jump all over it next time it happens. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Anyone else for public comment? Welcome. Um, is grading hours on here at all tonight? I don't think it is. I didn't think so. No. No. Okay. So, I'm Christy Thompson, 25831 Pillsbury Avenue. Um, I was just going to say as far as deciding on any kind of grading hours, um, there's two kids, I'm sure you guys well know, there's two real young kids that live right next to where the construction is going on. Um, I'm hearing that there's been a request to possibly start at 5:00 in the morning. Sorry, it's ridiculous. Five o'clock in a residential area. Not acceptable. I just wanted to say that um I'm looking at the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Sleep Medicine and it's saying kids ages 6 to 12 years need minimum 9 to 12 hours of sleep. So I would just like you guys to consider that even though they're not your kids, they're someone's kids. They're very affected by this. I understand the dad is having the kids wear earplugs at home. So I I'll just to respond to that quickly. last couple meetings we've we've talked about that and we've kind of taken a hard position on not expanding those. Okay. I just I just want to come up here and say that again just in case someone had forgotten. Oh, I appreciate it. Thank you. There has been no such request or hint of any such request to expand the hours to expand the hours to 5:00 in the morning. Okay. And staff wouldn't recommend anything earlier than 7. Okay. Okay. So, we're all on board like the we're all on the same page. Seven to seven is pretty much what has been discussed and that's what's being considered as far as tonight or in the future. Yeah. Well, I I we passed the hours of operation last meeting, didn't we? Or did we just provide the direction for what we wanted them to be? Okay. So then what were those hours again? Do you remember restricted to 77? Okay. Okay. to Saturdays, not on Sundays, and not on certain holidays. Okay. Does that sound workable? At least I mean I mean if we have to have six days a week really, right? You know, I don't like it, but I understand. Yeah. I mean, it it should probably go back to like 7 to 5 would be great, but so I just I just want to make it clear. Don't extend it any earlier than seven. Don't extend it any later than seven. I know some people don't care. They just want it to get done, but those of us who live there do care. Thanks. Good. Thank you. Anybody else? We have stuff to Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, I do want to say the water appropriations permit is on the agenda tonight. You just said this is not about Niagara. No, it's not. This is about water quality. You have well owners who are Vita. We have this on our agenda so we're not taking public comment on it. This is not about Niagara on this issue and you're not even going to hear it. Nope. Thank you. Awesome. Have a seat. Let it be known. Anyone else care for public comment? Nope. Anyone else care for public comment? All right, we'll close public comment. We have consent agenda. Any thoughts, questions, concerns? Motion to approve the consent agenda as amended. Motion by Josh. Second. Second by Amanda. All in favor? I. Consent passes. We have no public hearings tonight. So, we'll jump into general business, which is the water appropriations permit and conditions. Think I need permission to share. Rich, have you pushed share? I did. And it tells me the host disabled participant screen sharing. Where's the security? Reception. Disable. There we go. That's a good So, I've been asked to give a detailed review of the appropriation permit amendment and the response plans. Um, there are a lot of slides here. It will take some time. I've been asked to read these um for those that might not be able to see as well and also for the recording. Uh so bear with me as I do that. Tonight we're going to talk about Get rid of this thing. Uh typical wells in confined aquifers. The Elco market appropriation permit amendment request. The Elco 2023 aquifer pump test. The Elco 2024 permit amendment. The well interference response plan permit condition. The water quality complaint response plan permit condition and costs and schedule for the response plans. So, uh, for typical wells and confined aquifers, and this is, um, for those experts out there, vastly simplified, uh, intended to just gain an understanding of how wells are generally constructed in this area in order to get adequate water. Uh, so the top layer, um, labeled surface terrain, uh, well, it's in green on my screen, looks kind of bluish out there, uh, would be the ground. the top where we're sitting, where you walk around, where you drive. The two orange layers or tan layers down below with arrows labeled Prairie Duchain/Jordan aquifer represent the waterbearing uh layers where most water uh in this area comes from. But there are additional aquifers beneath that. There are some smaller aquifers above that. Uh on the left, the depth from the surface down to the um Prairie Duchaine/Jordan varies roughly two to 300 ft. Maybe a little less in some places, maybe a little more in others. So I've colored in blue where the water is um down below us uh at least available water uh the top of the Prairie Duchaine Jordan through the Prairie Duchaine Jordan down into the aquifers below. There's some squiggly arrows pointing down representing how water gets into the aquifer. Um, and that's basically rainwater that lands on the surface or pools and slowly, very slowly, oftentimes uh percolates through the soil over decades or centuries even to get down and fill that walker o aquifer. That's happened continuously, especially this year. Uh there's also a squiggly arrow pointing one direction. This water doesn't just sit down there. Uh in most places it's on the move um very very slowly but always gradually kind of moving in one direction. in this case generally towards the Minnesota Mississippi River u valley. The um thing to remember this generally non waterbearing zone between the surface and the aquifers has a big influence on wells uh how they need to be drilled here. This is just a uh photograph on the left would be fractured limestone that is not genuinely the prairie duchaine aquifer but that's the type of material that would be in it. This uh is exposed to the surface. So the the fractures that you see in the picture on the left are way more pronounced than they might be actually down in the prairie dashane but it's basically a limestone aquifer and the water resides in all the cracks and fractures in the stone. Below that is the Jordan uh aquifer. And this is an actual photo of the Jordan uh sandstone outcropping. The same material that the Jordan aquifer is made of. It's a sand um sandstone where it's porous. There's water in the material and in the cracks and fractures. to drill a well in this area. If you drill a well that is not all the way through the non-bearing zone, you're not going to hit water unless you happen to hit a buried sand and gravel aquifer. And there are some uh varying sizes, varying depths. Uh but generally uh you'd be lucky to hit anything big enough to give you a meaningful supply of decent water. So unless you go all the way through that nonwaterbearing layer like the image on the right, the well on the right um down to and and slightly at least into the um prairie to Shane Jordan, you're not going to have water. Those are typically called bedrock wells. Uh if you hear us refer to that tonight or in uh other uh occasions, uh that's what we're talking about. a well that goes all the way through that overburden confining layer down and taps into the aquifer. Now, you might notice that there's a blue line inside of this indicating that that is filled with water to some degree. So, my next slide explains why that's happening. Recall that we called this a confined aquifer. Confined aquifers are typically under pressure, meaning some portion of the water bearing area is at an elevation equivalent to or higher than this blue line that scoots across the screen screen. Um, that line does not indicate where water is. It indicates the pressure of the water. So, if you poke a hole through that confining layer allowing that water to fill up, it'll rise to that level. That's where the pressure is. And so that because it's under pressure, that's why the well fills to that point. The important thing to remember is that if you drill a well and you want to pump water, you need to place your pump somewhere in that blue zone. If you're up here above the water pressure level, you won't get water. If you press it down here in the limestone, you might get water, but you're unnecessarily putting in more pipe and and maybe having to uh drill a bigger hole than needing. So, it just needs to be in this area that's reliably blue when you need water. Interference, we will be talking about that a lot tonight. Interference is when one well influences another. So, we've already met this well, this private U domestic well. when it pumps water out of this blue zone, say the say the pump's somewhere, you know, quarter of the way down into the blue, it will have a bit of draw down. So, it's going to decrease the pressure in the area of the well and there'll be a small depression in the pressure um gradient right near that well. But if a big well is put in somewhere near enough that when that big well with its much larger volume and uh greater pressure drop uh creating this dash blue line um representing draw down. If that uh pressure drop crosses the smaller well and happens to be large enough that that draw down is lower than the pump, this well will no longer be above the blue zone and it won't pump water. That's interference. That's what we're talking about. This draw down varies depending how big the pump is on the soils, all that type of thing. And that's why and we'll talk about the aquifer test uh next but that's why that's done to determine what are the parameters that allow us to predict what that draw down will be for different flow rates different well depths that type of thing. So I'm going to talk a little bit about your permit amendment request. Um the first um permit for Elco New Market was issued for Elco back in 1984. Then the cities merged and the permits were merged. This shows some recent history that was readily available. I didn't go digging for older permits. Uh but um you know even back in se uh 2010 when the city's 20 2010 water supply plan was approved by the DNR we had an annual permitted volume at that time of 135 million gallons per year. Interestingly at that time in your water supply plan and comp plan the 2020 projected volume for was uh 400 million gallons. Of course, we didn't we didn't didn't realize that kind of growth and so didn't uh need to make those increases to achieve that kind of volume. September 2019, we've got the um new well at the water treatment plant uh approved under an amendment to our permit. Um that permit volume remained at 135 million gallons a year. Uh but we have since then been approaching our permitted volume. Uh there's a footnote here. Um I looked at our pumping in n in 2023. We actually pumped about 182 million gallons. Much of that was for the pump test and the preparations for the pump test. So if we take a stab at adjusting for that because we did use some of that water, but not all of it. In fact, not most of it. We did pump around 135 million gallons a year just for the city's use. Are you okay with questions as you I am. Yeah. When in 2019 when we were approaching uh this that uh 135 number what and we've had developments since then. Why haven't we been trying to increase that per we were we were lower in 19 and 20. We had recall three dry years and then the the usage went up quite a bit because of those dry years. So you know in 2019 we were fine. um we knew populations at that time we already knew were down so it wasn't as urgent but we did apply I remember we prepared and applied in 2022 for this amendment we just got so this is just to illustrate that we needed this amendment regardless of any other applicants coming in I have a question why are we talking about this if we're just approving app plat tonight and why do we put that condition on the pre-approval if it's not for Niagara and it's just for a plat tonight to answer that or I would. Yeah. Yeah. Water appropriations permit is on the agenda because we had a long conversation about it at the last meeting and asked staff to come back with a number of um answers to questions so we could feel comfortable addressing them. That is a separate issue than the plat itself, but they're two separate items on general business. Why do we put that condition on the pre-approval when like you mean on the preliminary plat? Yeah, the the condition was the DNR the condition was that the appropriation permit would have to be issued by the DNR and it was so that was the condition. Why do we put that on that plat? We didn't put that condition on that. I thought it was for the preappro to approve it. Well, I think it was required though by part of the DNR or do I have that wrong? No. Like go ahead. We we knew that it would be necessary for the Niagara site um they were proposing and probably any other site based on Rich's statements here. So, we didn't want to have a plaque coming forward that would give rights to anybody to be able to hook up to city water if we didn't know we had the water available. Okay. Does that help at all or no? Um no, but I don't think I'll get an answer that will. So, okay. Continue. We'll continue. All right. Um so um just recently uh two weeks ago yesterday we got our um requested permit amendment that we requested late in 2022 um for uh 365 million gallons a year. Um, and just a footnote or not a footnote but a comment, our 2040 projected volume now because we're always looking ahead too uh is approximately 630 million gallons a year and that would be a combination of residential, commercial, and industrial uses at that time. So the point of this is really that this is not a one-time thing. This is not new and it's not over. As the city grows and changes, we would expect our water usage and our permitting needs will also change. I have one more quick question. How soon will we need to um request another addendum um to increase our water um appropriation for I guess the second phase of Niagara? I mean, how soon do you think we will need to go ahead? Do you want to take that Tom? So, um, we believe that we would need to amend the permit that was just approved to be able to accommodate that. And when we made the request, we intentionally sized it so that we would have to go through the process. We wanted to make sure that we had safeguards in place to make sure that there was adequate um, sustainability within the aquifer, etc. So, that's how it was set up. So, reasonably, um, it's likely that we would have to amend the permit for phase two for Niagara. When is there a time frame that we are like the next year, two years? I think it would depend on when they feel that they would need to pursue it. They would have to approach the city and ask us to um pursue that amended permit. Well, we need another pump test because um it's unknown. We actually did ask the DNR that question. Um they indicated that that's a question that they might be able to give more guidance on after this process is complete and all the analysis is complete. And that's logical. Um I mean the reality though is we've just completed a pump test that really pushes the maximums. I think it might be a more I suspect and I'm not going to claim to be the expert in the room but logically I think would depend on the amount of the request. So we're amending our water permit for Niagara not only now but again soon. Okay. This um this next slide happens to touch on that. It's the basis of our 2022 request that was just approved. Current demand at 135 million gallons a year, coincident with our prior permit. Uh we did include a phase one of an industrial user at 155 million gallons a year plus city growth for approximately 2500 more people. Uh that could take who knows how long, three, five, 10 years. Uh so that's another 75 million gallons and that's how we arrived at the total of 365 million gallons a year. The pump test that we just talked about was required by the DNR in support of our applications. Uh that is actually a requirement for all appropriation permit applications or amendments. Uh but they can be waved by the DNR. They often are waved by the DNR unless there's a case where it's either a fairly large request or there's limited information on the aquifer in that applicant's area which was the case uh to for both here limited information and a fairly sizable increase. Uh the pump test is the applicant's responsibility. The DNR has to approve the test pump plan. uh they provided a monitor during the test uh that visited the site uh frequently to make sure we were monitoring things and setting up things properly. What we did um it's hard to see out there. So the biggest thing I added in red things we did uh to conduct the test. So at our big wells we pumped at uh the maximum rates of those wells for 28 days. first um one well, our biggest well, we pumped that at 835 gallons a minute for two weeks. Then he immediately switched two smaller wells that ran together at,230 gpm total for another two weeks. So um the important thing about that is it was on quickly it stayed on and it stayed on for a long time. So it caused draw down that was consistent as it developed and stabilized. We did drill one shallow well and monitored for connections to any standing or gravel aquifers. We did find one uh near uh the city's public works building. Uh so what we were looking for there is is there a connection between these sand and gravel aquifers and the deeper aquifers down below. We monitored the water table near wetlands in the river to check for influence of city pumping. And then we had several monitoring and private domestic wells that we installed monitoring equipment in to continuously record the draw down happening during the test. So we have um sensors that picked up the level of the water in those wells every minute for a month. All that data got recorded, bundled up, and shipped off to the DNR for analysis. So, um, when I have quotes up here, that means it's right out of the DNR's test pump report, unchanged. The italicized stuff below are is my commentary. So, I'm just going to read this. Analysis of the data shows the aquifers are capable of supplying the requested rate and progressive declines of the groundwater are not likely although seasonal drawown during periods of high pumping will be more than currently occurs. Uh so this means water was moving into the area adequately to meet the 1.2 to 1.77 million gallons of demand million gallons a day of demand during the test. The draw down went down, kept going down, then stabilized. That means there's as much water coming in as going out. The levels stop dropping at a point. The expected draw down when the city pumping approaches these rates will be greater than draw down that currently occurs. Well, it makes sense. We pumped way harder than we ever have before and in fact harder than we expect to for some time during the test. So yeah, the draw down would be greater than than we than we've seen in the past. Um, and I mentioned lawn irrigation in the in the U commentary because that's when our biggest increases happen when we have dry weather and uh and people are all watering their lawns. Another quote from the DNR aquifer test report. modeling demonstrated that well interference is possible within approximately 2 miles of Elco's wells 2, three, and four. The risk of interference to each domestic well will be calculated outside of this report and I will be covering that uh commentary. The reference modeling indication indicating possible interference within two miles that was based on pumping three wells together at two over 2,000 gpm for four weeks. The pump test was actually done between 835 and,230 gpm for 4 weeks and it was limited by our treatment capacity. We cannot treat all three wells running together. So the DNR on learning that went back and reran their models revising it to reflect our use projections and the pump test. That resulted in a reduction in the possible interference area within one mile of elks 2, three, and four instead of two. So anybody reading these reports, they're going to see two miles and one mile. the final area determined to be uh where the most risk was with one mile of city wells. Is that going to change when we go to um increase our water permit again? Uh it very well could. That's a completely Yeah, we're not permitted for that at this time. Based on what we're permitted for, we don't expect to to exceed that. So, so continuing on on the DNR test report of our aquifer test analysis of the area's geology and aquifer test results show that the flow in the Vermillion River and water levels and wetlands adjacent to the pump wells will not be lowered by pumping from the Elinu market wells. Predictive groundwater modeling based on the results of the aquifer test and geological analysis demonstrates that it is unlikely groundwater flow to the Kalahar Park fin will be reduced by Elco New Market's pumping. So uh previously the report mentioned that the risk of interference would be computed separately. This next memo, the DNR memo on well interference potential is where that happened. So again, uh brown text in quotes is straight out of the DNR memo on well interference potential. This memo describes the analysis that was conducted to calculate the risk of well interference based on the revised peak monthly pumping volume. This memo lists what is known about domestic wells within one mile, presents the risk of well interference for wells where enough is known about the well construction to determine the risk and recommends where additional information is needed. This memo is a supplement to the aquifer test report and supersedes the well interference memo dated May 24th, 2024. So this revised memo, as I mentioned, modeled the drought on it 1.2 two million gallons a day rather than um over twice that. Are you gonna address um address the water quality issue? I will. Absolutely. Before you move on, so this is what the projected uh pumping would be with phase one of the industrial user and current usage of the city or some growth or at the full permit. That is our largest well running wide open. Mhm. Um, we probably can't do the math in my head. How many million gallons per year like does this I mean you have millions gallons per day. Just take that number and multiply it by 365. But we wouldn't run that much. So it would be over the 365 million gallons. Still be more than what be allowed to do. And the previous pump test hypothetically, what would that be per year? You would take um you take 42 million gallons and multiply that by 12. So, a lot and we won't get there in a long time. No. Right. Okay. I have one question though that's related to that. So, I just want to make sure this is correct. For city growth of 2,500 people, we would only need to increase our water permit by 75 million gallons a year. Is that accurate? that was included in addition to the industrial user that was anticipated because we also knew we needed more room for growth. It's just a random number. It's roughly half of our current population. Wow. Okay. Um, just a a side note, it's very difficult to predict what you're going to pump in a year because you can't predict the weather and people's habits or behavior. So, we try to allow some cushion and so the 50% might last eight years, it might last two years. It's so uh more on the DNR memo on well interference potential. The risk of interference at a given well is calculated as follows. They use a Octool um model. It's a computer model with parameters calculated uh by publications from the actual authors of this report to predict draw down at each domestic well after one month of pumping alkal wells two, three and four constantly at the maximum pumping rate. That is actually not correct. That was revised but not revised in the actual pumping rate modeled was the 1.2 million gallons a day. In the model, it was assumed that all wells in the OPDC, CJDN, QBAA, QBUA or unknown aquifers as described above were in the pumped aquifer. They subtracted the predicted draw down at a given wells location from the static water level listed on its well log. They calculated the remaining water column above the wells pump. Uh remember the blue zone we talked about when you drill a bedrock well assumed to be set at the bottom of the drop pipe. If there's less than 10 ft left after that draw down is modeled then they determine that well would be at risk of well interference and we are liable for that. Is that correct? Yes ma'am. If actually not to 10 feet, if it goes below the pump where the pump can't get water, there are 174 known wells. That means they're in the Minnesota well index uh within one mile of city wells. And we'll talk more about unknown wells. So, uh, for wells that are at risk for interference, of the wells that had complete information, there are seven at risk of well interference out of the 174. One of those seven had less than 10 ft of water without the city pumping at all, and the other six had less than 10 ft with the city's draw down during its pump test. Yeah. Were these Oh, sorry. Were these um only the pumps that we know about that are recorded? These are not this isn't any stats from pumps that are wells that are not recorded. Correct. This is only known wells that are in the well index and have complete information and a lot are not. Is that correct? We'll get there. Wells with unknown risk for well interference. The well depth, static water level, andor pump setting of 45 domestic wells is not known. So that means they're in the index, but there may not be complete information in the well log that allows them to determine if it's at risk. The city's working with residents to acquire more information about those wells so DNR can assess the risk of well interference. So that's one um quote out of the memo. Another one is that New Market Well 3 is a backup well to Elco's wells 2, three, and four that may be used during emergencies. This well may be at risk of well interference if it is pumped at the same time as Elco wells 2, three, and four, but the pump depth setting is unknown. DNR recommends obtaining the pump setting for this well to determine if the well is at risk. So, this is a well we own. We can open it up and measure down where the pump is and provide that information. Just for the public's knowledge and maybe a reminder that council well 3 is not treated. It is not connected to the treatment plant. So the only way to use that well would be pump untreated water into the system and therefore it would only be the you know the most dire of emergencies. There's no other option to put out a fire or something like that that we would actually put that well in service. When does the city um plan on starting to work with residents on this? Because I've heard a lot of people have not even gotten a response back. Yeah, let's cover that when we get to the uh water quality interference plan. Finally, there are wells at risk. Well, this isn't finally. There's more. But, uh, in the interference uh, potential memo, wells at low risk for well interference, the remaining 122 wells are at low risk for interference, meaning they have uh, plenty of depth below the static water level and below the pumped draw down during the pump test. And DNR recommends no further action on those wells. So, out of the 74 known wells. 122 are felt to be okay as is with no more information. Then uh the question about wells not listed. Domestic wells not listed in the Minnesota well index. In the DNR's experience, 30 to 50% of domestic wells statewide are not listed in the MWI. These wells are unknown unknowns. It is not known if they exist, how many exist, what oifer they are in, or what the risk of well interference for those wells is. There are over 1300 parcels within one mile of Elanu Markets wells which could have domestic wells not listed in the MWI. DNR's analysis described herein does not quantify the existence or risk to those wells. So that's the end of the quote. Uh we looked into this. The vast majority of those 1300 parcels are actually city lots that are served by the city's water system. They have no well. This is a map of parcels within one mile of city wells that are not on city water that have no well listed in the Minnesota well index and have a building indicating the parcel may have a well. So the lavender colored parcels are the 72 parcels that we need to contact to see if there's a well and try and get more information about that well if it's available. Uh so not 1300 as in the memo. Their information wasn't wrong but we took it a step further and identified which ones actually were already on city water. So this uh memo led to the interference response plan. Many of the conditions and the terms of that plan come right out of the um the interference memo. So this plan is different from the water quality plan. There are two. I will cover both. But first we're going to cover the interference response plan. This one is intended to plan for and address out of water complaints. Basically, if the draw down brings the water level below a private pump in the well, so they can't get water, that's an outofwater complaint. Um, no out of water incidents were reported to the city during aquifer test pumping. So the brown text at the top of each of these pages is going to be a section straight out of the approved response interference plan interference response plan and then the italicized is explanatory comments um from us and I will again uh continue reading these. So number one, stage one, information gathering. The city will complete the following work and provide four summary data packages, one for each of items A through D below to the DNR at least 180 days before the city projects it will begin appropriating at a rate of 800,000 galls per day on average for 14 consecutive days or more. There will be follow-up analysis for DNR and follow-up work from the city based on what is provided in this data package. So 180 days is required to allow the DNR and the city time to complete the work needed to protect domestic wells from interference. So just want to point out this schedule is based on projected pumping and that's all we can do. We take the best available data. We compare it to historic. We project when we might reach those levels. We can't predict that the wells come on when they need to. They go off when they're when the tower is full. And sometimes that's more than we predict or not. But, uh, that's the best we can do. Rich, are you going to go through how much this is going to cost the taxpayers? I am. And just for those of us not good at math, I mean, so I used my calculator here. So, that's 292 million gallons per year. And if we assume 800,000* 365 and so then we have the current 135 that we're already using. So, that's a little bit of a false projection because we're talking we have to project when we might hit 800,000 gallons for two weeks. Okay. which could eb and flow obviously that could eb and flow but we kind of have a history and we can add in other uses to to come up with that um but we typically wouldn't keep pumping at that rate for a whole year it would go up maybe for the season through June and July and then down again so and this this will why it projects maybe in the summertime where there might be more water flow for the current so we're looking when we first start taking a lot of water something approaching what the pump test did even but we won't get close for quite a while. Um, so we project this level of pumping to occur in June of 2025 based on what we know right now. That's predicated on 2025 being a dry summer similar to 2023. I have a question related to that. Yeah. So, what are we going to do if Niagara pumps more than they're allocated? I mean, we can't predict that necessarily or we can because they have in other places, but I know we've tackled this before. I know it's been a long time though. I I need to be reminded. It's been a long time. Rich. Well, there's some limits built in. I mean, their SIU limits, their annual usage. They will eb and flow. They have provided us those projections. Um beyond that Tom if we can't pump the water we wouldn't pump it the significant user agreement right and there caps in there and if I remember correctly there's 105% for a period of time and then we there could be action taken depending on just situ pieces of it. So there there is caps and there is requirements and action shut the water off. Yeah, but stage I can tell you that the peaking that will happen from our roof pumping through the season is overwhelmingly due to city use, not projected industrial use. there there are peaks in their projections but they're much flatter than what we had than what occurs uh when we irrigate lawns. Um so pushing on based on the current projections the data package was it would be due in December of 2024 to allow time for the follow-up work by the DNR and the city to be completed before pumping rates increase to the described levels. Next page, uh, information gathering continued. So, this starts to cover those data packages. Data package A for the seven wells at risk of well interference as listed in the memo we referred to earlier. We have to obtain the current pump depth, the type of pump, the static water level, and the well status and use type. Is the well in use, what is the water being used for, and provide that information to the DNR. information may be obtained by asking the well owner or local driller and or both for more current information that is what is listed in the MWI. If the well owner and driller do not have current information and the well is being used for domestic water supply, then the city must hire a well contractor to open the well, obtain the static water level, pump depth and type of pump. Unless the owner refuses to grant access or fails to keep two appointments, then they would be deemed uncooperative. If the well contractor determines that entering the well would cause irreparable damage, then the city will choose one of the following two options. Let's I'm going to interrupt you real quick, Rich. I think for questions, let's just we're going to become really formal. If you want something, just get my attention. I'll call you. Yep. Or just say, "Mr. Mayor, can I ask something?" or whatever. But we're going to so we can keep things moving along. We're going to keep it more formal this way. All right. So, the two options include either having a contractor obtain the information and repair the damage incurred at the city's expense or offer the owner a well agreement, which um we'll talk about a little bit uh coming up here. If the well owner is non-ooperative, the city will offer by mail a well agreement um along with contact information should future interference be suspected due to city pumping. The real purpose of this step is to verify if those wells that they found were at risk, if they were changed in any way, if anything's changed since that well record was created to make sure it's either still at risk or no longer at risk. Maybe the pump was lowered 5 years ago and didn't get into the well index. That's the kind of thing we're looking for is verification. Section B for the 45 wells at unknown risk. So there's some information but not complete information. We have to obtain the well depth, the pump depth, the type of pump, the static water level, and the well status and use type. Is the well still in use? What's the water being used for? And provide that information to DNR. It may be obtained by asking the well owner and local drillers for more current information than what is listed. Non-ooperative well owners will be mailed contact information should future interference issues due to city pumping be suspected. If the well owner and driller do not have construction information and the well is being used for domestic water supply and the well owner is cooperative, then the city will choose from one of the following two options. Hire a well contractor to enter the well and obtain the the information or offer the well owner a well agreement. So this step is about augmenting information available u to what might not be complete in the well index. Mr. Mayor, may I ask one quick question? Go ahead. Who at the city is going to be doing all this work? It sounds like a lot of work and I do we even have the staff to do it? We do have a plan for that. I don't know Tom if you want to get into that now or is it part of the presentation? No. Okay then. Yeah, if you don't mind. So in order to complete this work, complete it in a timely fashion and make sure that it can be given the attention that it needs, um we will be utilizing BMI staff and resources for the bulk of this work. And that was what makes up the costs that are identified um in some of the estimates that were provided by Rich as part of the memo and this presentation. So we're hiring more people, if I heard you correctly, for this. We're not hiring staff. We're utilizing consulting staff to do a lot of the field work um uh as part of this. Yes. Okay. Go ahead, Rich. So, uh for the 45 wells, the purpose of this step is we're augmenting information available so that the DNR can finish determining if they're at risk or not. Six and C. This is for all land parcels within one mile of ELOS 2, three, and four. Here we're looking for wells that may or may not be out there. So these are wells that are not supplied by municipal water service or parcels not supplied by municipal water service. There's no well listed in the MD MWI and has a permanent structure that is likely to require water, such as a house or a shop. For example, a shed used to seasonally store machinery or a hunting shack can be assumed unlikely to require water, whereas a shop with regular occupancy likely requires a water supply. Then we have to contact those property owners for those parcels meeting the criteria and request is there a well, what's the location, what's the depth, what's the pump depth, what's the pump type, the well status and use type, and what's the water being used for? The city must attempt to contact property owners for parcels meeting these criteria at least once via mail. If the property owner does not respond to the first attempt, a second attempt via phone or in person must also be made. The findings from each property will be summarized and provided to the DNR as described in stage one information gathering. For properties where contact was not successful, all attempts at contact, the date, the contact method must be recorded in a summary document and reported to the DNR. So, uh, you've probably caught on. The purpose of this step is to find the undocumented wells. We think there's 72 properties to check with. We don't expect to find wells on all of those, but we could. Um, finally for stage one information gathering for new market well three, an emergency supply well, the city will determine whether new market 3 would ever be pumped simultaneously with wells two and three and four. If new market well 3 could be pumped simultaneously with one or more of the city's other wells, then the city will provide the pump depth for New Market well 3 to the DNR so that DNR can determine if the pump in the new market well 3 is deep enough to pump simultaneously in case of emergency. Uh and I'll tell you right now that's our intent is to get them that information just so we have that as a option if we need it. If new market well 3 would never be pumped while city's other wells were pumping then the city will notify DNR as such no other f no further analysis will be needed and then finally for all of the information gathering we have to retain records of all the collected data and determinations indefinitely and this is uh purposes about getting well three uh figured out still on the interference response plan, we move to stage two and this is where the DNR basically uh will finalize which owners need to be offered well agreements. So I will uh read this as of May 2024 and described in the DNR memo um 20240531984 641 ENM well interference risk memo PDF seven wells are known to be at risk of well interference from Elanu Market's proposed increased pumping. It is expected that these numbers will change after stage one information gathering. A DNR will respond as quickly as possible to notify the city of receipt whether information gathered by the city in stage one appears to be substantially complete. DNR will review the information gathered by the city in stage one information gathering for each of the four tasks A through D listed in section one above as each task is completed and submitted and will determine if additional wells are at risk of well interference and if based on new information any wells are no longer at risk of well interference. B DNR will notify the city which additional wells are at risk of interference and which if any wells previously determined to be at risk are no longer at risk by 90 days before the city begins appropriating at the higher rate. The city will adhere to the attached well agreement once signed by the well owner for all wells determined to be at risk of well interference and for all wells where a well agreement was the chosen option in stage one information gathering. And then finally de uh retain records of all well agreements indefinitely. So basically they're finalizing which well owners would be at risk and which ones we need to offer well agreements to. Stage three notifications by 60 days before the city projects it will begin appropriating at at a rate of 800,000 gallons per day on average for 14 consecutive days or more. The city will provide the following notifications. B. for all property owners from 1.C.2.C who could not be contacted or who were contacted and had a well but did not know well construction information or were uncooperative. One, provide the following information via mail. Notify the wellowner about the possibility of well interference from the city's increased use. Notify the well owners that if they experience an outofwater situation which they suspect is due to the city's pumping, they should contract a well contractor to restore their water supply, save all receipts and notes from the well contractor, and notify the city within 14 days of first noticing that they are out of water. We provide the well owners with a city contact person and phone number who can be reached during business hours. Purpose of this step is to advise owners of found or possible wells where well information could not be obtained of interference possibility and what to do if it occurs. Uh and based on the current pro projections this step would need to be completed in early April of 2025. May I ask a question? Yeah. So if we are and maybe educate me a little bit, a well owner is is experienced some well interference. I mean are they just out of access to water for that 14 days? I mean how do we accommodate? No, we uh we would have to bring them bottled water. I think Oh my god. out of the irony there is I mean the irony can't even make that up but I think it's I thought it was actually in the in the plan I don't remember seeing it as I went through this but no if we have to provide uh drinking water that's within the well interference agreement that we provide to individuals that identifies that we have to provide an immediate um drinking water source and that we have to it might actually be coming up here it's in this Yep. and with all due haste have to retain um a well contractor to come out and if it means paying emergency fees to come out to the the site. I don't think it says bottled water. I think I that was something providing a drinking water source but yeah more than likely you know it's going to be big jugs of water. Is this um this something we're tackling in more detail in the presentation or should we now talk about that? No, I think it's coming up when we have to actually respond to an investigation. This is still all preparatory. Yep. So this is the notification stage. Okay. Uh and then uh the last thing we have to do in notifications by 60 days before we project pumping at the higher rate, we have to provide uh post information on our website and in at least one mass flyer mailing to inform the public about what well interference is, how to find a well contractor, who to contact at the city if they suspect well interference. The website and flyer should specify that outofwater complaints within one mile should be directed to the city and outofwater complaints outside the onem radius should be directed to the DNR at well.inference.dnr atstate.mn us. The mailing must be addressed to owners of parcels located within one mile of city wells E2, E3, and E4 and that are not served by the city's water system and may also satisfy water quality plan notification requirements if appropriate content is included. Retain records of all notifications indefinitely. So, just a commentary on the one mile that seemed to be a lot of questions about that. That is our response area. doesn't mean that we're not responsible. If the DNR feels that um an interference problem one and a half miles from the city well is due to our pumping, we would have to respond like we would for any other complaint. But the one mile was picked because it's was felt to best represent where it's likely to happen or most likely to happen and to set some reasonable limit that the city's not responding to complaints willy-nilly all over the place. Um pretty much that simple. It was a number picked actually by DNR staff. So, uh, stage four investigations of out of water complaints. All of the preparatory work, notifications, education is done. We're actually pumping water and say a complaint comes in. Hey, I'm I'm out of water and I'm a half a mile from a city well. If there is an agreement that was required, we follow the procedure in that well agreement once it's signed by the owner. It's not valid until it's signed, but it remains on offer unless we would u retract it for a new permit or something like that, but we put it out there. It's it's good for them to uh to bring in and sign and and we would honor it. Could you clarify what you meant by that last part? So, if we send an owner a will agreement offering them, they it's not valid until they sign it, but they could sit on it for 10 years before they decide to sign it because they have a problem. So, just because they don't sign it right away doesn't mean it's not good. So, what was it that you said about the permit? So, if we decide for some reason, and we have no plans to do this, but for some reason decide we need to resend these offers, something changed. I can't you know, whatever. We could notify in writing that that it might be replaced by a new it might be might never happen. It's just would they have some rights in that case? I mean, is it just it's up to us and do whatever we want or We wouldn't be able to do it unilaterally. We'd have to I I I could imagine it may be something different replaces it or whatever. But there is, you know, we we could resend it in writing. We don't intend to do that. we have and we couldn't just do it without violating our permit. If we have to offer them an agreement, we have to honor it if they choose to sign it. So, an example might be in a future permit amendment, the DNR changes what they might ask for in that template. We might resend the previous one and then provide the new one. That might be an example of how that Okay. So, we're talking updating something rather than Yeah, we're resend is more of a m a term for process. No, this plan still applies for the duration of our permit. We can't just go take something away um for without cause. Okay, Mr. Mayor, may I ask a related question? Go ahead. What happens when people want to sell their homes? I mean, I assume they need to disclose this, right? That's a great question. I would presume if we knew about it or they notified us, we'd change to the current owner or the agreement may be offered to the parcel, the owner of that parcel and it runs with the land that the whatever whoever the owner is at the time of an incident. I guess that's kind of a legal question, but that might be how we handle it. I uh the agreement currently runs with the current owner. So if they sold the property, we would have to enter a new agreement with the new owner. So that would likely be a disclosure issue for the seller. Yep. And maybe bring values down, I would assume. That's automatic assumption, but yeah, it's not addressed in the plan, so I don't have a great answer, but uh now I lost my place. Um well if there's a will agreement required so the form of agreement is on the agenda tonight uh for council approval so I won't go through it here but basically it set the terms for the owner in the city for restoration of water should an out ofwater incident occur due to city pumping the agreement makes the city responsible for cost to restore service for typical wells in this area interference would be expected to be addressed by adjusting the pump to a deeper location in the well uh I know there was a question at the last meeting and uh several questions about drilling new wells. We think in most cases in this area that's highly unlikely because water will not come out of a shallow well in this area. It has to be that deep. So they're deep enough. It's just a matter of is the pump deep enough to reach the water. So it'd be it'd be lowering the pump which is far less costly. And I have a little table at the end. We'll that'll cover that. So stage four, investigations of outofwater complaints. If the city receives a well interference complaint, the city or a delegated party such as their contractor or consultant will four wells within one mile of city wells E2, E3, or E4 well agreement was not required. Within 30 days, review applicable information from the well contractor's notes and invoice to determine whether the out of water problem appears to be associated with lowered water levels. If the outofwater problem appears to the city to be caused by the city's pumping, then the city will reimburse the wellowner to correct the problem. Reimbursements shall consider capital costs and may consider ongoing operations, maintenance, repair, or replacement costs only to restore to prior conditions. If the outofwater problems appear to the city unrelated to their pumping, they should notify the well owner and the DNR of their findings and provide justification for the determination. Note, the well owner can choose whether to file a well interference complaint for the DNR to investigate within 30 days of the city receiving the complaint. Notify the wellowner and DNR, if applicable, of the city's finding and rationale thereof. Issue reimbursement if required within 60 days of the city receiving the complaint. For wells greater than one mile, forward the complaint to the DNR and then retain records of all well interferences and city analysis indefinitely. So we already talked about the onem uh response versus responsibility. If it's deemed to be due to city pumping, there is no distance limit. The one mile strictly applies to where we investigate by default versus being having it referred to us by the DNR. So, I'm going to stop there for a second for two reasons. One, I could swear, Tom, in those plans was a provision that we have to provide water. Agreement. Oh, in the agreement. Okay. Could you do that? I need a couple minutes. Well, licensed well contractor local drilling expertise within 24 hours of receiving notice of the problem. The city must call the domestic well owner selected well contractor to inspect the condition of the domestic peritting expense. That would be the city's expense. We can't hear you. Oops. I'm sorry. Um, do you want me to read that again, please? Y. Um, so the domestic well owner will select a local licensed well contractor who's familiar with the local geology, local wells, well drilling and repair expertise. It's like when you have auto body damage, you get to select who you want to use to do the work, right? Um within 24 hours of receiving the notice of the problem, the permittee must call the domestic well owner selected contractor to inspect the condition of the domestic well at the permitty's expense. So within 24 hours, the city has to contact the contractor that the well owners identified to come out and do the work. The permittee the city shall have well shall have the well contractor perform the initial inspection as soon as possible regardless of any emergency fees. So we basically say we want you guys out here to do it as quickly as you can. and we'll pay whatever emergency fees it it takes. Um, we can't control whether that selected contractor gets there in 12 hours, 24 hours, 3 days. Um, it probably depends on what's in stack in line in front of it and how much, you know, what their rules are with regards to paying emergency fees. We cannot control that. We simply are going to warrant that we'll contact them and tell them we'll pay any emergency fees. Get out there as soon as you can. within 12 hours of receiving notice of water supply problem. Um, and the permittee shall provide at their own expense a safe, adequate, and accessible drinking water supply to the domestic water owner until either the water supply has been reestablished to the domestic well owner or the well inspection receives a mechanical or functional reveals a mechanical or functional problem with the domestic well unrelated to the water. So, the whole agreement runs along the lines that we would have to provide drinking water. So um that could be in the form of bottled water, could be in the form of uh you know water cooler, whatever it is, but making sure that there's adequate drinking water for those individuals while the work is being done to research what the problem is and then uh correct it if it was a result of the city's pumping activities. Uh the agreement does provide that if it's found that it's a mechanical issue like a pump failure that isn't related, the expenses then are um the responsibility of the well owner as they should be. and then the city's no longer responsible for providing that drinking water supply because it wasn't a result of the city's activities. Within 48 hours of notification from the domestic well owner, the permade shall notify the well interference coordinator that the well agreement has been invoked and provided timely updates on the resolution. So within 48 hours of getting the notice from the owner that they're out of water, we have to notify the identified person at the DNR that somebody's invoked the well agreement. we're working on it and then we have to continually update them and then so that provides oversight to the process. You we're kind of at a good point before Rich jumps in the next part just kind of open who's got questions. Gina, I know you do. So, you want to go first? Um, who's going to determine if it was uh our pumping or just a normal problem? So, generally speaking, well interference is pretty straightforward. If the wells in good operating mechanical order and it's not pumping water, there's no water down there. But wells can and do fail for other mechanical issues. They could have issues with the drop pipe. They could have an electrical issue providing power to the pump. There could be an issue with the pump itself. The reality is that the property owner when that issue occurs doesn't know. And so they can contact the city. This is going to sound weird, but it's actually a service where we're going to come out and we pay for the inspection to come and pull it where under normal circumstances, they have to just call the well driller and pay that expense on their own. The only difference is that if we go out and we find that it was a mechanical failure, the property owner is then responsible for those fees as they should be because it's not related to something we did. But if it is related to our pumping activities, then we pay for the inspection fees and we pay for whatever correction is required to resolve the issue which in almost all cases is simply lowering the pump down to a level where it gets below that um impacted or draw down level that water level can be measured. So we can measure it's greater than the pump. Getting to your point, Gina, I mean I think the Wii, when you said we a couple times, it's the well inspector. It's the well driller contractor that's coming out, not we the city determining that. It's the the only it's the Hartman's. Only a licensed well contractor can open a well. What about quality? Is that the same? We're about to get into quality. I just I wanted to break it up since we were just going over the interference before we get into quality, but it's still a good question. Um before we move on to quality, any other questions? Go ahead, Josh. Yeah, and and I didn't see anywhere in any of the solutions or fixes or whatever. Would there ever be a situation where the well owner would be forced to or required to hook up to city water as the solution? Uh would we ever put them in a position for that? I I think there's there's two things. One, city water would have to be reasonably available. Um in most cases, uh the um there on a well because it's not. So, in that case, you're going to be looking at probably lowering the pump. There may be a few instances where city water is immediately available. Um, I do think that there would be a conversation with the well owner about whether they would prefer to remain on the well or be required to or would like to hook up. Can I I'm going to jump in real quick. There's not a and maybe you're getting to this, but there is not a point in which we would force a land owner to hook up to city water. I think that would be unlikely. I think if they're out of if their well um if they're in a situation where their well is being impacted, I don't know that we would require them to hook up. The reality is even from a financial standpoint, it's probably cheaper to lower the well than it is to hook them up. Sure. um from a city standpoint, but I think in my opinion and it would be up to the council at that time and quite honestly up to the property owner what they want to do. Um I would say you know it's their property owner's choice they you know um make my well workable or no actually it would be nice to be hooked up to the city system, right? And and I guess where I'd get with that too then, you know, as the the well owner, I mean, I'd say hook me up to city water, but city pays for it then in perpetuity or no, I'm going to keep the well because I mean, forcing somebody to hook up to well or city water then is not just the upfront cost of hooking up. It's the ongoing that that's correct. And that's going to be and that's going to be the the decision part of the decision-m process that and I think that's why you naturally defer to the property owner because if we're hooking you know if we hook somebody up to city water I don't think that that's fair and fair to other people on the system that they would get free water perpetually forever because then there's also no limits on their usage etc etc. So I think reasonably you're going to default to what the property owner wants and if they hooked up I think reasonably if that's their choice they would be acknowledging that they would be paying a normal water bill. But any deviation that would be from would be a policy of the council. Correct. And y I've sworn to the woodrest residents time and time again. I would never let that happen. So just a couple more quick ones. Um you know so we talked about providing notice to those within one mile and I can appreciate and understand the why for the one mile. You know, I guess my preference would be and and I know we have the well agreement, it's been approved, whatever. I think it's the response plan, you know, has whatever. We can always go more than that, I think. And I think providing direction to we notify maybe it's the two miles or the we defer or default to the greatest potential impact that we think is reasonable because it doesn't really impact the city in in per se either because we're going to get the responses directly that are within the one mile or the two-m depending on quality or interference. the rest it could impact the DNR. They could have extra work to deal with and I guess I don't care. So then I I would prefer to go for a wider Well, I think the the plan requires what the minimum is, right? If we get a complaint and based on the nature of the complaint, we think it's merit. We may not, you know, we may not defer it. We may just notify the DNR that we've looked at this, but there does have to be a reasonable limit. If somebody in Jordan is telling, I I think you have an issue with my well, or they live 10 miles away, it's really, really, really, really unlikely. We might send those to the DNR. So, there's a judgment call that we can that we can apply whether or not we would send it to the DNR. It's basically setting it reasonable. And I I just want to pause like I'm talking even before that. I want to make sure that residents are notified to look out for and what to do if there's issues. One thing we're seeing Josh is people don't know how far they are from the wells. So that might need to be something if we're going to go beyond the one mile we incorporate something that lets them know you are within you are not whatever. So if there's an issue, they know where where they stand and that could be handled. But there there's just some logistics, but we certainly can notify broader. I mean, if we're going to do two miles for water quality and notify those, it should just have a piece in there that for you know, also for well interference if you you may not be within the city's perview to address the issue immediately, but watch out for this and here's the information to deal with it. Right. We've already had that discussion. So, as part of the notice to these pro to property owners, we have to provide this mail notice. There are those that we send the notice to for water quality and there are those that we send it to. Well, the reality is people read, in my experience over the years, people read stuff quick. If you're within the one mile or the two mile, you're going to read it. This neighbor got this letter, that neighbor got that letter. We are probably going to send out a combined letter to the full two miles. It will describe the difference distances and where two and a half actually paying attention. Yeah. um it will describe both situations within the same letter, but people don't read stuff close and so it's just easier to send one letter that addresses both issues to the larger area. Can I include a map of where the wells are located? It would be our intent. We can't identify the specific locations. We can provide our city wells. We can't provide the specific locations, but we can provide a boundary of what parcels are included within that area. But we're in the cross pro process of working up something formal. When these letters come out, they're going to include an informational package that comes with it. We've also had discussions that when we do this, it may also include an invitation to an openhouse where we have experts on hand to talk about these issues and be able to provide answer questions one-on-one as well as probably a presentation on the issue because we have a lot of engaged people who are here tonight, but there may be people who are completely unaware of this issue and that's the whole purpose of the notification. What about people who are elderly or or like can't necessarily comprehend all of this? I mean, it just doesn't seem fair. Do we have a way to reach out to make sure that everybody is aware? Well, we we're mailing the notice. The notice will include information. There is some need on their part to reach out to us, but it's not uncommon for city staff to spend to give people the time that they need on issues. Okay. Do you have any more? Can I ask a couple more? Okay. I just want to clarify when we The city pays for it. That means the city taxpayers pay for it and we have no levy, right? No, that is not corre that that is so the city pays for it as an entity but the taxpayers do not. Since this is related to water, all of the expenses, revenues, etc. are related to the water fund. Okay. So, the rate payers, the water rateayers, correct? So, yep. Does not necessarily mean that rates will go up. We will provide a quick financial analysis at the end here. Okay. And um what happens if the city if we fail any of these steps? I mean there's a lot of details here. I mean can our permit be just withdrawn or like what do I be sued? Well, it would be up to the DNR. Um we have to meet certain things in order to pump at a higher rate. Um I you know if we're not going to pump at the higher rate unless we've met the terms. um assuming otherwise assumes that you as a council are okay with us breaking the terms of the permit and that's not going to happen, right? No, but people are human. I mean, mistakes happen and there's a lot of details here. Like what if we miss someone for instance within that mile? Um sorry, what um we have we will make our best reasonable effort to notify people and do what we can, but there's nothing in here that guarantees any absolutes. Um, we will be putting out a lot of information. There are people who are following the subject that have put out a lot of information. We will put stuff on city's Facebook page. We are required as part of this to have information on the city's website and we will be doing mailings to anybody that we reasonably identify could be have a private well within those within that distance. Um, so the likelihood of somebody getting missed is very low, but we will make a reasonable effort as we do. There's no absolutes and there's no absolutes. And if I sat here and say I could absolutely guarantee that absolutely everybody would be notified and absolutely everybody would receive their mail and absolutely everybody would read their mail. Um, I I can't guarantee actions by other parties. All we can do is guarantee what we do as a city. Okay. So, can our permit be withdrawn if we fail to meet any of those steps regardless of the reason? Can the DNR just I'm maybe you have comment on that. I I also just a nuance Tom, we're not restricted from pumping if we don't do those things. We're required to do those things before we correct project pumping at those levels. So, if we don't do them and we pump there, I suppose there could be some consequences. But I don't know if Andrea has thoughts or remarks on what they might be. And I don't want to stray too far from Gina's question too. Ultimately, can they revoke the permit? Yeah, exactly. How do they revoke the permit? What happens in that case? That's where you're going, right? I mean, yeah, ultimately I mean, if we break any of these steps by accident, I mean, even can the permit be revoked? like any other enforcing agency, uh they take into account the circumstances and there would typically be a notice and hearing process before you can revoke a permit or license or anything like that and and an opportunity to correct I would assume and Right. I mean I mean I guess the question does your question assume intent on the part of the city or not? Not necessarily. But I mean that's okay that answers that enough. But one more related question to that though. Um we've heard numerous times that Niagara might sue us or Ryan Companies for whatever reason. Can it work the other way around? Can residents sue the city I mean do we have to worry about that? Well, anyone can kind of sue any I mean we're we're always subject to that. Yeah. Okay. Whether we be held liable that's a different story but Okay. And then would who would be ultimately responsible for that? Would that be the city rateayers, taxpayers? Depend. I mean, there's a League of Minnesota cities insurance. There's there's a number of different for a land use decision that would be handled by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. And you would have a deductible. I believe it's 10,000 that you would pay. Um, and then the league would be handling that for you. Okay, are we good to move forward? Can I ask what I think is kind of a a silly question that I just need some clarification on in this well interference agreement when it talks about giving accessible drinking water supply? Does that is it just drinking water or is it water to function in their home? No, because we can't don't have a way of push providing pressured water within the home if the wells out to be able to make it work. So we can provide drinking water. So yes, they would have to during that outage period, they would have to find an alternative for shower or washing their clothes. That would also be true. It is it would be a short-term thing. But it would be a short-term thing. And it would also be true if they had any sort of mechanical issue with their pump. What if they have horses? What about animals? I think it's just the drinking water is what's in this agreement. Now we would reason I but I think reasonably we would look at the circumstances associated with that particular property. Let me ask what is the actual action we're to be taking on the the water appropriations permit? It was is there a action that we actually need to take or is this just information? This isformational. This is all dictated by other than the form of agreement. So we can we can tweak this however we want to tweak this within reason. The agreement. No, we can't. No. Why not? Because it's approved and dictated by the DNR. We can amend that with the DNR. We could approach them later. So, but this is currently what they have provided and approved. Right. I'm just saying we can all this is not set in stone indefinitely. The response plans are we can't amend a response plan to make it more favorable. They are a condition of the permit which has been issued. But we can amend that. Well, we can choose to go above and beyond what's minimally required. You can do more. You can't do less or change it. I guess what I'm getting at is I I I want to I want to find some solutions to where we can actually make it make it a little bit more accommodating to those that are out. And I don't know if we do that as a separate ordinance on a separate day. I don't I don't I'll rely on staff for how best to approach that. But things like that could just be council policy. If if someone has horses, we'll send a water truck to try and fill their tanks. So we can address that with a separate item in a separate way. Okay. What happens if our water fund cannot pay for it? What if we don't have enough reserves? I mean I think we're drifting a little bit from interference a bit because that's is that that will be covered in this. Yep. Yep. So we are at the now the beginning of the water quality response plan a different condition similar in a lot of ways to the interference but this is new territory. Now um the italicize is just explan explanatory on my part. This plan is intended to plan for and address changed water, not out of water, but changed water conditions that might occur due to city pumping activity. As a condition of the city's water appropriation permit amendment, it applies for the duration of the new permit. Preparation of this plan was prompted by water quality complaints received by the DNR and/or city related to the city's aquifer pump test or at least believed to be. There are 32 contacts at this point regarding water quality to date that we think are related to the to the aquifer test. Um the common theme is discolored and/or smelly water, clogged filters andor staining. The distances reported for those that reported a location u range from less than one mile to 10 miles from city wells. Three of these appear to be commentary related to the industrial park project rather than a water quality complaint. Two appear to be related to a non city project and one contact stated they had no issues with quality during the pump test. However, all complaints or contacts as they're called here will receive follow-up contacts from us for more specific information so we can validate, check out is it a complaint or not and what are the specifics and we're still working up what those questions are going to be. Uh so, um and I'm just going to follow on. Gina, you mentioned that some people haven't heard back. So, when I have an email address, I've tried to at least let them know we have their complaint and we'll be reaching out to them. Some I have no contact information for. I only have a mailing address and we haven't done mailings yet. Um, so yes, there are some people that have not heard back from me. Can they Is there a time frame that people can expect to hear back from you or the city? Like couple weeks, days? Well, um, you know, I wish I could do it tomorrow. I'd rather do a good job than a quick job. So, we want to make sure we're asking the right questions when we push this information out. We don't want to waste people's time. We want to get good information. We want to figure out what's actually going on rather than just go through the motions. So, it could take some time yet. Okay. I feel like we're going to get that question a lot about that. Oh, absolutely. And and deservedly so, but we are working on it. Um, you know, we've well, besides preparing for these meetings, we've uh we have been spending some time on trying to figure out what might be happening so we go in the right direction with our questions, with our outreach. Um, so I'm going to push on into the water quality response plan. Uh, stage one, water quality sampling. The city will complete the following work and provide one summary data package to the DNR by February 1, 2025 or at least 30 days before the city projects it will begin appropriating at 800,000 gallons per day on average for 14 days or more. The city will need to project ahead to this level of usage based on historical patterns, extended weather forecasts, and any large user forecasts. Data used for projections will be updated as trends become apparent or new information becomes available and reported to the DNR. So based on current projections, this baseline water quality sampling work would be completed by May 1, 2025. Stage one water quality sampling a collect and analyze water quality samples from a minimum of 20 domestic wells or city monitoring wells. The city will make and document a good faith effort to identify 20 or more domestic wells or as close to that number as practical. Wells must be within about 2 miles of the city and screened in the QBUA, QBA, CJDN, and or OPDC aquifers. Wells selected for sampling should be representative of neighborhoods or similarly situated clusters of wells that can be reasonably expected to respond similarly to changing aquifer conditions. Some of the wells selected will be as close to city wells as possible and the entire 20 will have spatial variability, aquifer variability and coverage from the city wells. DNR will need to approve well selection prior to sampling. The data must include well location and well construction information. Two, water quality samples will be sampled at a point in the water distribution system where the water has not been treated uh for example before the water softener filter etc. Samples will be tested at an accredited water quality laboratory for major cations ions, annions plus manganese, iron, sulfate, nitrates, arsenic, as well as field parameters uh such as conductivity, reduction potential, dissolved oxygen and pH. Uh the major cations ions are and any chemists in the room connect me if I fumble this but it's calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. And the major annions are hydrocarbon and chlorine. The cost of sampling including laboratory analysis will be at the city's expense. So the purpose of this stage is to establish baseline quality data for the typical wells throughout the area that could be influenced and that'll be held on to so that we can compare it to quality data gathered in later stages or during an actual quality complaint investigation. And uh the city plans to use a third party to gather samples and do field tests. So some of those field tests require specialized equipment. The sampling requires specialized knowhow so that they don't get contaminated or or bungled and lost. Uh and we uh we have made contacts with a professional services firm that specializes in that type of work. Their costs are included in the figures I will be giving you later as well as the accredited laboratory costs. Stage one water quad B. Notify well owners if any of the following parameters exceed current Minnesota Department of Health health risk guidelines. So manganesees at or exceeding 100 micrograms per liter. Nitrates at or exceeding 10,000 micrograms per liter and arsenic at or exceeding 10 micrograms per liter. And then we have to retain records of sampled wells and sampled results indefinitely. So, we want to ensure wellers know of any parameters that exceed health risk guidelines so they can take appropriate action to manage them. This data would be available before the city changes its pumping regime. Um, so go ahead real quick, Rich. Before we move on to uh stage two, how does the city decide which 20 wells they're choosing? We have to look at the uh criteria that I just read through. Okay. That's literally it. That is literally it. Um we may be able to use some contacts we already have either from the test pumping or from the complaints received. Uh we have lists that we use to prepare for the test pumping. So we'll uh put together our best estimate of what meets that, submit it to the DNR and see if they approve it. What do you do if somebody comes forward and says, "I want my well to be a a test site." If they fit the criteria, we'd be happy to include them because that would be that we anticipate that will be one of the more challenging things is finding the folks that fit the criteria and are interested in in being bothered by this because there will be three visits. Perfect. Thank you. Stage two, notifications. By May 1, 2025, or before the city projects it will begin appropriating 800,000 gallons per day on average for 14 days or more, we have to provide the following notifications. Post information on the city's website and in at least one mass flyer mailing stating at a minimum whom well owners should contact at the city if they have water quality complaints which they believe to be caused by the city's pumping. The mailing must be addressed to owners of parcels located within 2 and a half miles of city wells E2, E3, and E4 that are not served by the city's water system. So, the schedule of this will depend on seasonal weather, but it could be as soon as June of 2025. The purpose of this step is to notify well owners that the city pumping may soon be changing significantly and who to contact if water quality changes are noticed. If a cause of prior complaints has been confirmed by this notification, the notice will also include information on preventive measures and damage avoidance for well owners. And like we were just talking about a bit ago, this plan sets minimums. If causes of prior complaints are confirmed and common to all or most wells impacted, earlier comp communications would be planned to allow well owners more time to prepare. Stage three, repeat water quality sampling steps from stage one once during the first occurrence after the city observes pumping rates averaging 1 million gallons per day or more for a period of two weeks. Um samples will be grabbed but not necessarily analyzed within 7 days of the occurrence of the pumping demand described. The city will provide one summary data package to the DNR within two weeks of receiving the information and notify well owners if any parameters exceed Minnesota Department of Health risk guidelines described in this plan. So you can figure out we uh we grab samples before the pumping increases substantially. Then when the pumping actually does increase substantially, we have to grab another round of samples from the exact same wells for the exact same con constituents. So this work must wait for the level of pumping indicated to occur. We can project when that might happen, but we don't know for sure. So we have to watch. So there won't be notice uh other than to the 20 wells. We'll have to call them to coordinate. We want to come out and sample. If 2025 is a dry year, pumping levels of 1 million gallon day per day for 14 days could be reached in June or July of 2025. If 2025 is a rainy year, like 2024 has been thus far, round two sampling probably would not occur that year. The purpose of this step is to evaluate whether changes in raw water at wells are observed when the city is pumping at higher volumes for an extended duration. Stage four, repeat water quality sampling again, same steps, same locations during the period following stage three when pumping again declines after a seasonal peak um to around 600,000 gallons per day for a period of four weeks. Samples will be grabbed but not necessarily analyzed within seven days of the occurrence of the reduced pumping demand described. The city will provide one summary data package to the DNR within two weeks of receiving the information and again notify well owners if any parameters exceed current Minnesota Department of Health risk guidelines. This work has to wait for round two sampling. It can't do it any other time and a subsequent subsidance in demand to occur. The schedule for sample round three must follow sample round two. And it's anticipated the third round of sample gathering would occur in the fall of the year that round two occurs in. That's typically when pumping levels go back down. The last part of the water quality response plan involves investigating water quality complaints. If the city receives a water quality complaint from the owner of a well site located within 2.5 miles of city wells E2, E3, or E4, or one is referred to the city by the DNR, the city or a delegated party such as their contractor or consultant will a request that the homeowner provide to the city a description and timeline for the water quality concerns and results of all water quality samples collected from the well, including the location where the sample was collected such as kitchen sink, outside faucet, etc. And three, other information the city may deem useful to investigate the complaint. So just um the reason why the location is important, water sampled at locations where it's already passed through an inhome treatment system can alter the parameters needed for us to compare to baseline data. We're looking for changes in the raw wellwater out of the aquifer, not changes out of a tap because we we can't control that necessarily. Can we just talk through that a little bit more granular? I mean, what maybe this is a dumb question, but do they just does someone just fill up a bottle of water and bring it in or like There could be a multitude of different types of treatments. Some might have softeners, some might not. Some might have iron filters, some might not. Some might have Roro, some might have a train of things. So, our responsibility is for the water in the well, right? So, we're going to com we're going to draw baseline data for water from the well before it's treated by anybody in any way. So, when we get quality complaints, we want to compare that same apples to apples. Is it from the same loc, you know, the same raw water? So, just so I understand practically, Jod's mentioned issues with her well in the past. Jody is she's not responsible for bringing water into us. She reports a problem. We go out, we collect the water. We'll go out and collect a sample. But if they have samples, we'll take it. We just want to know where it's from. No, I get it. I get it. I just wanted to get my head around. Thank you. If the city receives Well, uh, so we've already um the first part stayed the same. So B, if water quality data that represents the current condition has not been collected, contract with a licensed water quality laboratory or third party testing company to visit the well and collect a water quality sample within 30 days of receiving the information described under 1A from the well owner. Uh again collect at a point where the water has not been treated. The cost of collecting and analyzing the sample will be at city's expense. What this is saying, if we get a complaint and they have a a bonafide sample with the constituents we're looking for from a point where it's not been treated, we can use that. Don't have to send our own uh folks out to get that uh sample. I expect that would be rare, but we can certainly notify who we intend to use for people that would want to do it themselves or contract it themselves. Um, a second question. Yeah. Um, is the data that we gathered going to be shared with city res? I don't know what we there's nothing that requires us to share it with anybody, but at the same time, I'm not sure why we wouldn't. Well, it it would be available. I don't know that we'd be proactively putting it out because it's information that's baseline data and it's information related to individual individual wells or individual complaints. So, we wouldn't be sharing um an individual wellowner's data and pushing that information out. The individual I I got your back on this one. Let's uh let's Can we maybe put a pin on that specific one because I think that's something we should have a good conversation about, but isn't necessarily relevant to the the plan itself. Well, just to note, we'd want to look at data practices active. I'm saying let's give that's but I agree. Yeah, I have more questions for that. Okay. Uh item C samples will be tested at an accredited water laboratory again for the same major cations ions and annions and the other parameters including the field parameters mentioned for the baseline and uh high pumping and and after high pumping tests. And then D, compare the water quality data collected to the baseline water quality data collected under stage one baseline water quality sampling and determine whether the current water quality has changed such that it is outside the previously observed range for any parameter under baseline conditions or has changed such that it exceeds current Minnesota Department of Health health risk guidelines. If the complainant well has water quality data that predates Ela New Market's increased pumping under the June 2024 permit amendment, that data shall be included as part of the baseline data set but flagged as privately obtained. The sample point will also be listed if known. And then number two, complete the comparison and determination described above. prepare summary documentation of the complaint and analysis and provide the documentation to the DNR and the complainant within 60 days of receiving the information described under 1A from the well owner. All data used for the analysis must be included in the summary documentation and then uh continuing with comparing the data. Three, if the city determines that under V.D.2 to the water quality has changed for the worse to a degree that is outside the expected range. Then the city will either contract a qualified firm to recommend inhome treatment methods and prepare a corrective action agreement or prepare a cash settlement offer agreement. And then uh corrective action or settlement agreements shall consider capital costs and may consider ongoing operations, maintenance, repair or replacement costs only to restore to prior conditions. And then three, if the city determines that under let's see, oh the city and then finally D confirm the acceptability of the proposed agreement with the wellowner. If the well owner declines the proposed agreement, the wellowner may counter offer based on recommended correction by the wellowner's contractor or other justifications. Or two, if the city and wellowner are unable to reach agreement regarding settlement, both parties should submit their proposed treatment plans, costs, and justification to the DNR for determination of reasonleness. The DNR will consult with the Minnesota Department DARPA health and make a determination within 60 days of receiving the the proposals. And then finally, u the city will implement the agreed upon or DNR determined treatment method at the city's expense within 60 days of the wellowner confirming the acceptability of the city's proposed solution or within 60 days of the DNR's determination. And then finally, if the city determines under V.D.2 two that the water quality has not changed to a degree that is outside the expected range and the well owner does not agree with their determination then the well owner may request DNR review of the water quality complaint and uh as with all other sections we have to retain all records of water samples and water quality complaints and analysis and submit those to the DNR upon request and I believe that is the end of the water quality response plan. So, I'm going to back up just a second in case you want to talk questions before we push into costs. Thank you. All right. Who's got uh who's got questions? Uh well, I think finances are coming up next. Is that what you um No, just if we're going to share the data, I'm thinking like a different meeting because we're going to need to get some answers to some privacy stuff on that. Yeah, it's it's privacy on one hand and public data on the other. We have to sort that out. There wouldn't be any reason that we couldn't like generally share results of the water quality test, the samples in quick sampling of the council. Is anyone opposed to trying to make this information available publicly? So, we're going to figure out a way to do it. We just I think we need to give staff a little bit of time to figure out the best legal approach to do it. And does the DNR need to approve like any minor variations or anything that the city deems appropriate? They if you've been watching, we have to send them everything. Yeah. I mean, historically, they're pretty slow at getting back to us. And we know all know this. And I mean, we'll worry about what we can control. I mean, we can't really control their response time, but but I think I don't know. I like I really want to come up with some more tighter response plan. Not that there's anything terribly wrong with it, but just some basic things like waiting 14 days to get a resp I mean, some of that stuff. But I think we we're going to attack that probably at a future meeting and tighten that up because I don't know that we can do that at this meeting. Well, I mean I I appreciate that those timelines are in there. Um and then we can hold them accountable. Let's give the benefit of the doubt. I mean, they're going to give us the benefit of the doubt that we're uh going to meet our timelines, too. I'm the biggest skeptic in here when it comes to the state agencies doing their jobs well um all the time and consistently. But, you know, let's give them the opportunity to do it and then if they don't, then we can hold them accountable per the same thing that they'll hold us accountable. by suing them. I mean, how do we hold them accountable? Let's No, I mean I we're accountable to we can't control everything, but we can have those discussions. We can raise those issues and I mean I I don't know what you're asking how we hold them accountable. How we hold the DNR account. Yeah. I mean, they're our regulatory agency, right? So, yeah. I mean, legislatively, I would think that's there's methods that we could for sure. All right, push on. Any other questions before we keep going? All right, go ahead, Rich. So, I have a sheet here that's got some costs for you. And the first table at the top are the response plan costs. That has nothing to do with corrections or settlements. It's just the cost to implement the pre-industrial demand cost and the post-industrial man demand cost. I broke that down based on apparent council interest at the last meeting. So, uh, and these estimates, uh, as requested are my best effort at coming up with. They are not fixed prices. They're not guarantees. They could be way low. They could be way high. But I did do my best to break it down into as many tasks as I could imagine. Figure out who has to be involved in the tax. And it includes Bolton and Mang staff. It includes um a testing of testing lab. It includes well driller, licensed well driller. I've talked with a local one and and got great information from them. It includes a third-party testing company to go out and do the sampling itself, do the field quality. So, it's pretty thorough and uh you covered a wide array of all the different I went through this thing and broke it down as much as I could with the idea that not no individual thing may be 100% right, but that averaging out over the totality, we're going to be in the ballpark. Um, so I I think it's about as good as could be done. There's just some things we can't predict right now. Am I allowed to ask a question on this? And and this is coming from the community, so I'm going to I'm going to read it um just so I don't mess it up. And I'm curious about this, too. Um so they estimated about $170,000 for the cost. It looks like um those numbers do add up, but if you read it carefully, there are two major assumptions um and estimates that they're making. One, they will have exactly one well interference issue to fix at $2,650 after increased pumping actually starts. And two, they plan zero dollars to actually fix any water quality issues after increased pumping starts. Um is well, we're still going to walk you're going to walk us through. Yeah, I haven't even got into it, right? Okay. Yeah. So um so on the left column in the top box it says plan and there's two listed the interference plan which we covered first tonight then the quality plan the pre-industrial demand cost is basically what I think is going to be incurred before we start increased pumping to serve the industrial user um for interference that cost is estimated at 56,200 and remember that's where we have to go out open some wells, try and contact all these well owners, try and get other uh well information from the owners or area well drillers. So, a lot of interviews and mailings and time. So, just to be clear, so the pre-industrial post-industrial question, as I understood it from the council, had to deal with cash flow, timing of cash flow. Yes, sir. But is it fair to say that these costs and in totality would occur at some point regardless? Yes. Okay. Yep. might be stretched out over a much longer period but it would be incurred eventually. So um and then the quality component of that for pre uh um industrial demand is 83400 and remember that is the uh round of sampling of u of wells identifying those wells. So there's quite a bit of work there. So a total of just under 140,000 from a cash flow standpoint before we start materially increasing pumping for a new user. The postindustrial demand cost I only listed a cost for one complaint not because I expect even one complaint or a hundred because I don't know how many will get it all. I think based on the the um pump test results and the fact that there was no interference, I'm pretty confident that we will go for several years without seeing an interference complaint. But if we do, that's kind of the estimated cost that would be to go out and open that well, measure down, make sure we know what it is and what the cause is and negotiate the fix and arrange the fix, all that stuff. It does not include the cost of the fix, just the the management time for that. Um, so you'll have to make your own judgment whether that number is multiplied by zero or multiplied by 100. Uh, we think it's closer to the former, but there is no answer. So that's why that's foot and noted in one. Has nothing to do with how many we think. Then for quality, recall that we have to do two rounds of sampling after higher pumping. That's the 315. They're a little over 15 grand each to go out, grab those 20 samples, get them analyzed, um, and, you know, coordinate all the the sampling and the test results. And say that number again. Did you say 15 grand each? 15 grand for each round. For each round. Okay. 20 wells. 15 grand for each round. 20 big math difference. Um and for quality, there's a future complaints with a footnote. U future water quality complaints are possible but unknown. Again, um anybody's guess is as good as the others. Um for total uh of knowable costs and this does not try to estimate anything that's guesswork. Um total knowable cost would be 140 and and the 31. So what roughly 170 something like that 170,000 for the whole shebang. The next table is simply response to feedback we've been hearing through staff of costs that council and the public might be interested in. So, if we get a water quality complaint, what's it cost to go out and collect and test a sample from a single well? Um if you take the cost that I assume for 20 wells and apply it uh to that you know 15 grand divided by or yeah 20 15 anyway it's about 750 a well for 20 but testing one is a little different than testing 20. It costs the same time to drive from wherever the sampling company's office is to Elanu Market for one as it does for 20. It costs the same to deliver samples to Bloomington for one as it does for 20. It's going to be more to do one well than it is for 20. However, if we get any quality complaints, I would guess it would be more than one. And so there may be some coupling there. But that gives you an idea of a per um incident. And that's just collecting the sample. That was the question asked. Responding is a different matter. Uh and then uh lowering a pump in a well. I was able to talk to a local uh drilling company tonight and they confirmed that 1,500 was a reasonable number to lower a pump if everything goes well. It doesn't always go well, but that's kind of the convention and we heard that from other sources too, but confirmed it with a driller. And then installing a new bedrock well. We happen to have uh someone we know that just installed a well. We looked at their uh their bill and 20,000 is kind of right in the ballpark for a new bedrock well in this area. So that's what those figures are for. Um not that we expect to use especially that last one, but it I suppose could come up now you at least know the figure. So yeah, I mean and I brought this up and I think Josh brought it up too and maybe others. I I I I recognize there's really no accurate way to, you know, figure out what the total cost could be. So, I just want to say I appreciate you drilling this down as Oh, my neck is way out there. I know. I know. Anyway, it's all Can I ask a related question? Okay. So, as correct me if I'm wrong, please, but as of today, the cash balance in our water fund is only $56,000. That sounds like that will would go really quickly depending. Are you counting the money that would be coming in? Well, no. We move to the next slides which I think that question might where where that question's going, Gina, it might be answered with additional presentation information. Okay. Any other questions on this page? I think we're good. I'll let you take this, Tom. You just tell me when to hit the space bar. Yep. So obviously the next question is this is you know these are the costs associated with it. The next question is what is your ability to afford it? But I do think I have to to point out again as I asked question Rich the costs associated with the permit are there regardless of any particular user on the system. It's just a question of who's using the water whether it's an industrial user now future commercial users or future residential users. At some point we're going to be at those volumes unless the council wants to put a complete halt to growth of the city which means no growth or diversific diversification of tax base which means no additional employment or a greatly reduced limit of it. You're basically putting the city in a box. So if we're going to grow as a city, we're going to have more usage. These are the things that the DNR has required of us if we're going to take more water. And so those costs associated with that permit are there regardless. It just might be an issue of timing of when it is. Can I that being said? That being said, hang on. Let Gina go. Well, it's related to that. So, if you want to finish, that's Okay. Okay. So, we um uh took a look at our utility fund analysis. As the council knows, this is primarily cash flow or cash balance estimator based on all the inputs in. So, it takes a look at all kinds of revenue from usage fees uh from our users on the system, development revenue that we receive. It takes a look expenses. So, it takes a look at operating expenses. that takes a look at capital expenses, the timing of those capital expenses, etc. So within that, give me one second here. So within that um for this first slide uh we utilized the most recently adopted assumptions um from the financial model and we updated it for uh 2023 year end audit data the 2024 rate structure that the council had adopted um any updates that were necessary on the debt service uh for future capital projects and the timing of those projects. We also accounted for development and building permit revenues associated with the Platin Niagara project. And we updated for revenues and expense that reflect Niagara on the system because while there'll be additional revenues, there will also be some additional expenses because you're pumping and treating more water. Furthermore, we included the projected implementation costs for the well interference um and quality response plans. So, this is the pre this is the not corrections, but it's the the costs um that would be incurred uh regardless of whether or not you do any corrections at all. Rich, if you can hit it. So, as the council knows, when you look at these charts, uh the blue line is the projected fund balance. The area underneath that line as it goes up is increasing reserves. Those reserves serve a lot of purposes. Now, without even getting into well interference or well interference plans, those reserves serve to um fund repair and replacement of existing capital infrastructure, pay for system improvements, things that aren't directly attributed to to a specific developer um or particular property. But in this case, it would also be the reserves that would help fund corrective actions. So you will note that with having a Niagara on the system who's a large user that and also paying um a significant amount of fees initially but they're one time. You'll note that the system continues to grow. So the size of this area underneath that line, this triangle represents the capacity to be able to address issues that might come up. The other thing that it does is it also allows us to control rates and respond to the unexpected because any model has a lot of assumptions that are incorporated into it. And if those assumptions are on the positive side, that's great. Things get better. But sometimes those assumptions don't pan out um that triangle and the larger that triangle is provides the capacity to be able to respond to that. And we all know what if you don't have the capacity to respond to it, it falls to the right pairs. So if we so for comparative purposes we took a look at um the next slide Rich what if there was um no Niagara we didn't have that large user on the system so we utilized again the most recent assumptions in the financial we updated it for the audit data the 2024 rate structure and the debt service we also adjusted the timing of future capital projects because as we all know based on our many discussions on this topic Having a larger user on the system, whether it's 1500 new homes or whether it's a large industrial user accelerates the timing of large capital expenditures, which was over the next several years would be a new well, a new water tower, plant expansion, depending on how rapidly that growth in usage occurs. So in this scenario, that's been pushed back. Um, so you don't see them within this window. Furthermore, we included project implementation costs as well as the interference and quality response plans because we still have those expenses and those requirements regardless. We still have to go out and we have to spend that money to go and implement the response plans. What you will note, Rich, if you hit the button again, is that the growth in reserves is substantially less without that revenue generator on the system, which means the capacity one for doing the normal system items such as repair and replacement of existing capital infrastructure, future system capital costs as well as responding to unknowns or unforeseen within the system. and then which could are included I guess in that area the um any cost for corrections or any unforeseen elements related to popping is substantially less. So if the question is can we afford it the reality is the costs are going to be what the costs are the timing might be different but it's very clear when you actually punch in the numbers that the capacity to be able to respond it is substantially greater when you have a large user on the system then or large you great number of additional users because of that economy scale and that revenue flow than if you don't okay I just want to um be clear so if the city was to grow 2500 people by that many we would only need an additional 75 million gallons per year is that that's what it's by default. Yes. Yep. Okay. So I mean Okay. Um okay let's keep keep going. I think that's it. Anticlimactic. Yeah. Sorry. I'm guessing a lot of people are feeling a sense of relief. Well, let's um All right. Well, let's let's talk about this quickly. Um this was informational for us. Um we're not taking any action on this. I do want to come back. I don't know if the next meeting is going to be enough time. We're going to figure that out. But I do want to come back and see how we can kind of tighten some of the stuff out as far as the responses. Is there is there anything else the council would want staff to take a look at for this for future meeting or is there any other just general opinion? I would feel more comfortable if we could postpone the vote because it is directly related until we can get more of this sorted out. I mean you can make a motion and see if someone Okay. So we make a motion to postpone the vote for the final platform the industrial park. Motion by Gina. Any seconds? Can I ask a question? Guidelines, deadlines. We don't have any more time wiggle room. Correct. I would say no. And what does that mean? It'll automatically be approved. Yeah, it's going to be the point of us. Is this theater? I mean, what are we doing here then? That's kind of why we pass. That's kind of why we continued it last time so we can get our arms around this a little bit more. But we are under the gun. We do have an obligation. What's the worst case scenario if we say no? If we deny it, what gets approved by the state statutoily? That might not be the worst case. There are damages to who? Who would we face damages from exactly? I'm not clear. Yeah. From the applicant, right? Okay. We would we could face legal damages from the applicant. Niagara in this case, right? It's possible. Well, the applicant for the plan is not I thought with a preapproval that all um liability or whatever is on on them like if we not not in the event of a denial by the city. if that denial perhaps uh was based on um due process violation or an equal protection argument or failure to meet standards or something like that like they didn't check the boxes that are required by code and we denied and the final plat didn't do that but staff has reported to council that they have met the standards of the code and they have satisfied the conditions of the conditional approval of preliminary plat. We've already satisfied all the conditions for our water permit. That looked like a lot of conditions. It's normal for permits and we do it as a city to issue permits with conditions on them. For it to remain in effect, you have to our current permit, water appropriation permit, has conditions in it. Not all of these. These are new or additional or modified. It's not uncommon within the government sphere the permitting or regulatory agency to issue permits with conditions on it. So the fact that and some of these conditions can't be satisfied until you get down the road and the DNR has tied additional pumping to meeting some of those conditions. So our approval um the condition on the preliminary plat approval was that they issued the permit. There is no doubt and conclusively and absolutely the DNR has issued the permit and that condition has been satisfied. Okay. So I just real quick I just want to make sure I have this clear. So, if we were to vote no on this because we're not comfortable with the DNR's decision or the conditions or the possibility of us not being able to afford the I don't know, response plans. Um, the worst case scenario it sounds like is we could get sued as a city and have to deal with that. Yes. And still have it approved and still move forward. It would it wouldn't be on hold if I mean if we vote no like it would still be approved tonight. No, it wouldn't be approved. If you if you voted to deny it, it would not be approved. Um and they would need to request the court to have uh an order that it is deemed approved. Okay. So, it's an automatic. We would have you can correct me. I mean, you can I'm not going to speak on that. The lawyer Right. And and and honestly, I if if if you were to move to deny at that point in time, I would recommend that you uh table it to the next meeting to prepare findings to support that denial. Um which you would each have to state if in your vote as to why you would want to deny it at that time. I don't think the numbers add up and that's in general. That's my reason. I we have to balance the risk. I mean, well, I So, you you made a motion to continue. I'll just I'll call again. Is there anyone that seconds that motion? One once, twice. The motion fails. So, um could I make are we still open for further discussion comments? Yeah, I just I realize we never really have formally jumped into the plat conversation, but No. And I just I wanted to button it up on my end from the water appropriation side in this information. So I mean I s like absolutely appreciate the work done by Renee and Corey and Rich and team to pull together very quickly a lot of this well information piece the unknowns because that was it still is it's the piece that lingers in my brain. Do I have less concerns about well interference based on the aquifer test and the actual information that we actually received based on the data and DNR's recommendations and report? I have far less if any concerns with wild interference. Do I still have questions and lingering concerns about water quality? I do. And I and I think you know maybe to the point of over the next period of time that's where we have the time and the opportunity to continue to implement the response plans all the various stages conduct in additional information and if through that process we gain additional information that uh the DNR uh MDH or somebody else says hey we need to we need to look at this further then we have a legally or a potentially justifiably reason to deny pause uh and and do something with that because then as far as I understand it um we can't because we have to submit all this data by December or whatever the date was 6 months prior to the pumping rate and then which allows time for the analysis to happen and then they the DNR could still potentially pause it if additional issues are raised which at this point I don't think anybody thinks that those are going to happen but if they did um that's why we're giving them those that information over the next period of months. So, we still have that out and that's where we would able be be able to defend that and if I mean I would you know if I'm a potential applicant I would probably still sue andor push some sort of legal finding but we'd be able to defend it and actually you know stop something at that point for this we don't and we don't have the grounds to stop do you realize that we're talking about multi-billion dollar company. If they are hurry, if they're here, then at their own risk, knowing the conditions and the response plans that are in place that we have to go through all of these steps still, that there is a potential that it may not go through. Now, do we think that that's likely? I don't think that that's likely, but there is a possibility that we find some some additional issues and we we throw some stuff out there and that's a risk that the applicant has to assume. Okay. DNR supplements prod funding for a while. Our our role is very specific. I mean, we it's a land use application and Okay. Well, and my point was thank you, Renee. I mean, I just that the information that we got related to those unknowns, it took that 1300 plots or properties or parcels or whatever the words were in the report and and boiled it down to that's not that mean that doesn't mean that there's that many wells that we don't know about that there's that much of an impact because there's not, you know, the vast majority of them are already city hooked up homes that are on the the water that are not wells. Many of those properties are vacant land uh lots that don't have any wells. Some of those wells are sealed. I mean, so that that that risk in my brain anyway, the way I understand it, went significantly down. Um, and that's what I it just I have to call it out. I mean, the work was fantastic. It was fantastic. I never denied that. Of course it is, and I appreciate it so very much. Um, but also, are you aware that our city, the majority of us live here, who are on our water and sewer, we pay of the highest, if not the highest rates in the state. So, I would not be comfortable raising our rates if if it came down to that. I mean, we would actually lower our rates with this. How do we know, though? We we we just using the math and the models. I mean, we're getting into the weeds where we don't belong. We're Can you give me 30 seconds? Can you wait 30 seconds? It's about the water stuff, not the plat stuff, though. That's all fine. One thing, so I talked to Corey this morning. Uh, and and one thing, you know, whether it's a question to Corey, I know he's bored over there and is so excited to be here. Um, but, you know, something I learned and maybe I just didn't always think about it is, you know, the having a user like this on the system actually benefits the system uh by maintaining flow and and keeping the peaks and the valleys, you know, out. So, Cy, do you want to comment at all about what I'm talking about? Yeah. Oh, no. Well, and then Gina, you get the final word for it. Yeah. So basically with the how everything works right now in the summer we have peaks and we have valleys. Um I was just looking at our pumping from um previous years in 2019 we pumped 91 million gallons. 2021 we pumped 125 million gallons. So 34 million gallons difference in weather. Okay. So when our plant's running, if you have constant consistent flow, it runs a whole lot better. Kind of like car driving down the freeway. your car is going to last longer driving down the freeway than it is stop and go. So, if you have a continuous user, um it levels everything out all the way through. So, our plant and our system runs more efficiently when you have basically a constant flow rather than peaks and valleys like you do with sprinkler systems in the summer. Genie, you get the last word. Well, I mean, did you take into consideration that we're going to need another treatment plant, another water tower, another well a lot sooner? A lot. This is not a couple years sooner. This is probably several years sooner than necessary for one industrial user. I mean, go ahead. I'm sorry. I just I the number I've I'm not the best at math, okay? But I calculated some of the numbers based on the little bit we know of the risk. It could be so much more and it does not add up to me. That risk is not worth it. I mean, this is our city, our community. I mean, Niagara, from my understanding, they're based in California. This would be a what pennies to them. I mean, it would harm us more than them. So, do you have anything specific on the on the presentation, the water quality, the water well interference, any of that? I mean, it's related. So, I mean, but nothing as far as directing staff to do anything. It sounds like everyone already made up their mind before we came into this meeting. So, I'm good. It's not like that, Gina. Yeah. All right. Uh, let's move on to Interstate Park 35 or Interstate 35 Industrial Park. So, this is a continuation of the previous item. Um, it the materials are the materials from last time. Um, we staff had planned to basically give a slightly abbreviated version of the presentation last time for the benefit of anybody that might be viewing online or anybody new that might be in the audience. Um, related to the item, anyone? Yeah. you going through it or this would be the final I think we're waiting on the presentation. Yeah, I was just waiting on the presentation to load. Sorry about that. Um, so yeah, moving on to item 8B under general business related to the industrial final plat. Um, one correction, this is pretty much the exact same presentation and it'll take about 10 minutes. But uh for those that weren't present or audience members that weren't present at the last meeting, um I'm going to give uh the background information. Uh so again, we're here to um requested action is a decision on the final plat and associated items for Interstate 35 Industrial Park. Uh the slide here shows the location of the property proposed uh to be final platted uh at the southeast quadrant of uh Interstate 35 and County Road 2. Uh the city received the application for preliminary and final plat approval on October 28th, 2022. Application was submitted by Ryan Companies. Uh the proposed plat contains uh 119.39 gross acres. There's one lot that's proposed to be platted at this time containing 28 acres and three outlots. Two outlots would be reserved for future development. One outlot would be con uh containing a storm water pond would be conveyed to the city at this time and the plaque contains 8.3 acres of road rightway dedication. Uh the city's planning commission conducted a public hearing regarding the preliminary plat on November 29th, 2022 and provided a recommendation to the city council. Uh following recommendation uh for approval from the city council uh or from the planning commission the allowance of multiple uh opportunities for public input at city council meetings. The city council approved the preliminary plat application on April 13, 2023. Um this city council adopted resolution 23-17 granting approval of the preliminary plat. Um again, uh it's at this preliminary plat stage that the city has the most discretion in evaluating applications against its ordinances. Um and uh this is the time to impose conditions that address any concerns the application may generate. It sets conditions and guidelines under which the final plat approval can be obtained. Uh after a plat is preliminary preliminarily approved, changes should generally be limited to uh meeting requirements imposed as a condition of the preliminary plat or to meet any legal requirements under city ordinance or state or federal law. This is a uh graphic depiction of the preliminary plat that was approved. Uh resolution 23-17 is a four-page document that outlines the city's approval of the preliminary plat. It included 23 conditions uh related to its approval. Uh conditions are very common during preliminary plat. Most conditions are uh fairly uh standard in nature such as the developer must enter into a development contract with the city um or uh standard conditions. Uh after preliminary plat approval uh state statute allows the applicant to seek final plat approval. The final plat application must demonstrate conformance with the conditions and requirements of the preliminary plat approval and state and federal law. Um unlike preliminary plat approval, there was no public hearing required for final plat approvals. Um all uh staff con uh considers all conditions that were placed on this plat. uh normal and typical uh with the exception of condition number 23 which stated that the final plat approval should be subject to the DNR's approval of the city's request to amend the water appropriations permit to allow up to 365 million gallons of water annually. Uh on June 12th, 2024, the DNR issued the city's water appropriation permit findings of flact and conclusions in order of the commissioner. All conditions uh placed on the preliminary plat pursuant to city resolution 23-17 adopted April 13, 2023 have been addressed in the final construction plans, the development contract, and by the city receiving the water appropriations permit. The city engineer has issued a memorandum approving the construction plans for the development. Um Minnesota statute outlines time frames that the city uh must process um approve uh or deny applications um related to uh final plat. The application uh pursuant to state statute uh applications must be processed within 60 days um of the 60 days runs from the date of the application not that the date that the last condition was met. Uh this is a graphic depiction of the final plat. Approval of the final plat is solely an approval of the subdivision of the property owned by two property owners identified on the plat uh and the applicant is Ryan Companies. The approval the approval of the plat essentially approves the layout of the property into lots and blocks and lays out the requirements for the public improvements serving the lot. Final plat approval is not approval of Niagara. However, it does create a lot that is proposed to be purchased by uh Purple Rain Properties, also known as Niagara Bottling. Uh also included with um requested actions tonight, uh there are there is an assessment currently levied against one of the parcels in the plat and uh the balance of the assessment is proposed to be reallocated to one of the newly created outlets within the plat. So, um, there's on the agenda a resolution approving a reaportionment of assessments and an amendment to a special assessment agreement that we have with the underlying property owner. Uh, there is a budget impact of approving this plat to the city. The plat will have an immediate net positive impact on the city's infrastructure funds as follows. These fees uh are to be paid by Ryan companies. These do not include any fees that would be receded into the city by Niagara Bottling associated with their building permit. Um $184,000 into the city's park fund. Um $9,700 into the city's storm water fund. Uh $33,000 into the sanitary sewer fund. And 289,000 or 290,000 into the city's water fund for a total of $59,239. Can I can you go back a second? I just Why does it say net for water trunk fee? Uh the reason that it says net is because there is public infrastructure that the developer is building for the city as part of this plat. Got it. Okay. That will serve areas outside of this plat. So they're getting a credit for the work they're doing for the city. They're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to build infrastructure that will serve properties outside of their plat boundary. This is common for things like over just a quick question. I'm good. Uh city council is being asked to adopt resolution 2442 approving the final plat and development contract. uh approved the storm a stormwater maintenance agreement uh with Zwires Properties LLC and a stormwater maintenance agreement with Purple Rain Properties LLC. Those two agreements are needed are just uh obligation of the property owners um requirements to maintain storm water ponds on the property and council is being asked to adopt resolution 2445 approving reaportionment of special assessments and also approve an amendment to the special assessment agreement with wires properties. Are you looking for five separate motions and actions or one or how do you want to approach that when we get to that point? I would be um I think everything can be handled in one motion. Andre, are you good with that? Yeah. Yeah. Can we ask a few more questions or Absolutely. I'm not um I'm not Yeah, I'm not calling for any actions right now. So, okay. But um let's get into questions. Unless there's more to the presentation. I'm sorry. That concludes my presentation. Mr. Go ahead. Um, okay. How much the last treatment plant? I'm Did I I'm going to interrupt real quick. I'm sorry. We're not taking any public comment on this at this time. I just saw you politely having your hand up. I just didn't want it to No, I appreciate that because there's state law for the Department of Agriculture. So, I hope that that can be addressed. Thank you. Go ahead, Gina. Um, was our last treatment plant around $8 million if I'm read that correctly? Well, it involved the treatment plant and quite a bit of other ancillary work. I would guess the total package was in the neighborhood of 10 million with a weld redevelopment, a new well, raw water lines, mile or two of raw water line. Yeah, it was about 10 and change, I think. Yeah. So all this money and correct me if I'm wrong please, but all this money that's going to be infused into our water and sewer fund, I mean essentially it needs to go towards the infrastructure to support the bottling company. Do you want like a back and forth or you just I'm just I'm wondering if that's accurate because to me that's I'm interpreting this information different. I know you guys see it as a positive, but I see it as a big risk for us. And um and then also, can we is there any way that we can approve the industrial park without approving that one plat that we already know is for Niagara? That's not possible. Okay. So, and hang on. Let Gina kind of fire out a question. Um, no. I I guess I I think um one more I don't know if it's a question or necessarily a comment, but I was not a part of the pre-approval. You all already know that, but did you guys have all of this or any of this information when you gave the pre-approval? I mean, I'm not really understanding how we can a lot of it. I mean, we didn't have the the response plans for well interference, but everything else we did, the financials and or the fact that while we might have well interference and we might have quality issues and um Okay. Any Well, can I just follow up and kind of why I planted that seed earlier with Corey, too. I mean, so our current water infrastructure, correct me if I'm wrong, Rich or Corey, uh, can and actually would be better with a user like this or can support and would be better off with a user like this. Am I correct in stating that? That's correct. Can can you explain a little bit more how that is correct? Because we're going to need He asked if it can and would be better. I'm saying it can have the capacity. It has the capacity. Okay. And Cory just testified that it would be better. It runs more smoothly when it's running on an even keel rather than very spiky and barely running and then running and then barely running. Uh and that makes complete sense. Um all that equipment starting and stopping and trying to maintain uniform concentrations and trying to maintain uniform tower levels. It's all easier when you have a more steady state flow. Okay. If our system can handle it, then why do we need to start thinking about implanting a new treatment plant? Uh because we will continue to grow. There may be other users that come to this system. It does take up space that we have. We can serve them, but it takes up reserve space that we have for growth. So, it accelerates the need for those expansions to continue to grow. We build infrastructure for future capacity um not just what we have at this particular point in time. Um, and to go to your question about those fees, Gina, we collect those fees to help pay for that infrastructure. Those fees coming in help pay the debt service on that infrastructure. And our fee structure that we have currently related to base fees for existing users, they're paying for the portion of the plant that was needed to serve them when it was built. The other portion in order to pay for that, we need to have this type of development coming in to help pay for that additional portion of the debt service because if we don't then that by default will end up having to go back to the our rateayers. Okay. And one more question related to that. If Nager wasn't coming on board, if we know a big industrial user, sorry, right now, if we are just going based on normal projected growth, actual projected growth, I mean, how soon then would we need a treatment plant and water tower and all that? I think we were estimating we'd have to push a new well out till probably 20 204, I think. Yeah. Everything would move back roughly about 10 years about 10 about a decade. Okay. Those things were accounted for anis are we going to be able to lower water rates for the people who pay really high water sewer rates right now because a lot of people are anticipating that the plan is to reduce water rates. So yeah, it is fair to say there are no absolute guarantees. Yeah. because well that's a counter decision a lot of magic but on capacity side one water user one rates is not the only influence with regards to the financial health and capacity within the utility system it is fair to say that with having that type of economy scale and that volume of customer on the system it provides way more capacity for the council to do things with rates and also provides a much bigger buffer against negative financial impacts to the utility fund than without. Okay. I wouldn't be drilling this in so hard if I didn't know that we already have the highest water sewer rates in the state or of the highest. I'm sorry. I don't know if it's the highest, but we're amongst the highest in the metro. So, I mean, I don't feel like we have room to increase. Pretty much true throughout the state that as system sizes go up, rates go down. I live in Minneapolis and my water's so cheap, I can't even believe it. We're happy for you, Rich. No, I'm just just It's because It's because of the size of the system. Doubling the size of the system is going to give you those opportunities that staying the same will not. So, we can still anticipate our water rates going down. The the truism is that as you get economies scale on the system and you have more cash flow coming in, it allows you to do more with rates. Having a user coming on like this is significantly accelerating that natural evolutionary process. Is it fair to say that the only way we're going to reduce water rates is to bring on new users? Yes. I mean, so whether we staying the same and doing nothing means our rates stay the same andor increase with the additional needs. There will be fluctuations, but as far as general trends go, if there's always how long it takes to pay for capital infrastructure and then how long it lasts, but we're going to be able to see. So there's a scenario, let's say we didn't grow and our users paid off all of that debt and we didn't need to build anything new for a long time that rates could potentially come down. But even with those big pieces of infrastructure, we still have to do a repair and replacement on existing pieces of infrastructure. The bigger your system is, the better it is for you able to handle that and the better it is to buffer your rate payers given other circumstances um on the system. That is a fair general statement. What if we need to drill 72 new wells for people? That is highly unlikely because as Rich explained in his presentation, if there are well interference issues, the solution is probably going to be dropping the well for a few thousand dollar, not drilling a new well for 20,000 or the quality or when we go to increase the water permit again, which it sounds like much sooner than later. I assume that the risk is going to be greater. Um, I just I just hope that you guys have taken all of that into consideration and who we are harming here. You good or you? G, I appreciate your passion beyond what I can express to you. I mean, I really do and you and I are on different ends of this one, but um, you're representing your your people well. So, um, any other thoughts? I I just would like to speak up. Um, first of all, I take offense to the fact that you just assume that you know how all of the rest of the council feels. Um, just because we say we have to approve the plat tonight does not mean that we all fall in the same line. So, I take offense to that when you said that. No, you don't have to. We have to we we have to approve it tonight. doesn't mean that I necessarily haven't changed my mind. So, you just coming at me and saying that hurt my feelings. So, I'm just telling you, okay? So, I have to I have to approve it. I was up all night trying to deal with how I was going to do this. Okay? I if I had known back when they came in, I don't think I would have voted the way I did if I had known the quality issues and what it would be doing to our residents. But I am at the standpoint now, as with the rest of us, that we have no choice right now but to approve it and take the time after the plat is approved to make them do all of the stuff in the response plans and show us everything so that we know that our residents are being taken care of. I'm going to stick to it. I'm going to make certain that I see every single report that comes through so that we can watch what's happening to our residents. And I will be the first one to say with the DNR if something is wrong and say this is not okay. Okay. But do you understand that it also harms the people who are paying who are rate payers? I mean we we pay for it ultimately. So what if we have to raise our rates? Would you be willing to do that and harm other people? I'm we're not going to raise our rates. Okay. So that's my two cents. Sorry, I had to just put it out there. You're fine, Josh. Amanda. Yeah. No, I mean I I echo a lot with what Kate said in the fact of voting no I believe directly violates Minnesota statute section 462.358 subdivision 3B. Specifically the second paragraph, the majority of that we would violate it by not voting for this. Um and and and ultimately setting ourselves up to be in this exact same position potentially losing leverage. I think we need to really refocus on a following the law and b uh then focusing on the response plans as Kate pointed out and making sure that we have all the protections in place. I think comparing this situation to other situations across the nation is comparing apples to watermelons to oranges to bananas because we are in a different spot the way that we have gone through this process, set things up and and I appreciate a lot of the guard rails and say and just checks that we have in place and as much as you know you could argue that the DNR, MDH and others moved goalposts and and changed requirements, I appreciate they actually maybe did their job for a change and um you know are we learning along the way and having to deal with stuff. Yeah. But I I can appreciate what the the intent of what they're doing is. And I think we can lead now and figure out the right way to do this and make sure that we are protecting our residents, but also protecting those in the township and pro protecting those in the surrounding communities that have wells. And we can set a model for how we do this, not only here, but across the nation if we want to. And and I think um we're focusing on the wrong thing. We need to focus moving forward. And and I think we can do that now. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. You're more scared of being sued by Niagara than well owners because I feel like could happen either way. And in nowhere did I ever once even utter those words. Um so uh no, that is not I think the city would be breaking the law. I'm not even worried about anybody suing us at this point. I think we need to to do what's appropriate and and that's a follow the law uh as an entity that's supposed to enforce it. Um, and then also do all the things that we can to protect our residents and those uh in the surrounding community. Thanks, Josh. Well, I So, once there's a motion and there's a second, we're going to do a roll call vote and prior to anyone voting, you get an opportunity to say whatever's on your mind. Yeah, you guys beat me to that punch. Um but if there's no more discussion, I would make a motion to approve resol. How should I make the motion? Recommendation with five different things there. Uh motion to approve resolution 2442 proving final platinum development contract. Just go through the list. Okay. I would make a motion to approve resolution 24-42 approving the final plat and development contract uh stormwater maintenance agreement with Zwires Properties LLC. The storm water maintenance agreement with Purple Rain Properties LLC resolution 24-45 approving reo aortionment of assessments and the amendment to the special agreement. Motion by Josh. Any seconds? Second. Second by Amanda. Um, okay. Let's I'll start and then we'll go this way. Um, I'm going to vote to approve on all items. You know, um, development can be ugly. Growth can be ugly. Um, there's no one up here on this council that wants to cause any harm or any anything bad to happen to anyone in our community, neighboring communities or cities. We've been trying to grow as a city for a really long time. And I know there's a there's a number of folks that have been that are around the community that are not supportive of growth. And I understand that growth and I'm not going to try and sell you on it, but it's it can be an ugly process. And we are a community that is adding our first industrial user. That's not always going to be the most comfortable. But the long-term health of the city, this is a this is something that's going to benefit us 10 years from now, 15 years from now. and I just think it's in the best interest of the city to move forward and I vote to approve. Kate. Well, you already heard my spiel, but um yes, I will vote to approve as long as we're paying attention to those response plans and the council is updated frequently on what's happening with them and with the DNR and making certain that all of our residents and township members residents are being taken care of with any concerns that might arise. So, you vote to approve or you vote to Um and and and I spoke a little bit earlier, but I just want to reiterate again and thank you to the staff. Thank you to just everybody throughout this process for being patients patient um because it has been a long process and it's been a lot to absorb and figure out and there's been uh changes of feelings and and whatever. So I can empathize with you Kate on uh what you just said earlier too. I also agree that we need to continue to take the steps forward to make sure that we comply with everything we need to and maybe even above and beyond like we had talked about earlier of notifying more people than maybe what the standard or the required amount might be um and going above and beyond to make sure everybody knows what needs to be done. We make it as easy as possible for that to happen um and things to get addressed and uh yeah. So I vote yes. Okay, Amanda, I approve. Okay. I vote no, but I still appreciate the staff a lot and it has nothing against our staff. It's just the issue. Okay, we have a 4-1 vote. Items pass. Thank you. All right, let's get into reports. Administration action. Um so rental park shelter faces rescue days uh decision that we had already that it's okay with that as we move forward. Anything else before we move on? You good? No, we haven't had a report in C from Corey in person in a long time. It's been a little bit, but I'm here. Um, we got a couple parks done. So, Boulder Heights is done. Uh, Woodrest is done. Um, been working on fire rescue day stuff. And you see a guy hanging from the New Market Towers getting all the mildew cleaned off the outside. So, that's about it. We just been super busy with the rain and it's we're busy. So, appreciate it. Thank you, Chief. Well, on a uh less controversial note, um Officer Barry is doing well on field training and looks like we're going to move him off early to solo patrol beginning of July. So, you should see his sunshiny face out there driving around by himself. Um so, we're excited about that. And I want to do a special shout out to Officer Gar. He has been the primary field trainer for us and he has been training almost constantly for the last probably year with all of our new officers. And I can attest personally that takes a lot out of you riding around with someone trying to kind of babysit, train, watch out for them day in and day out in the same squad for 12 hours. Um so just special shout out and thanks to him. And then we're looking pretty good for the parade. Um we've got reserves with Scott County coming mounted posi and then we'll have several officers there as well. So it thank you Rich. I know you've heard quite enough from me. However, um I'm pleased to report that the 2024 pavement rehab job is done. All the streets are uh paved. The uh reconstruction project was to be paved today today. The crew got delayed in another town till afternoon and then rained out. But if the weather holds, they will be paving tomorrow. So at least the key streets in the area of fire and rescue days will hopefully be black before tomorrow night. Will that include St. Joe's? That's the main street I told him to get done. Thank you. Community development. Uh we had a planning commission meeting on Tuesday night. The planning commission toured the apartment building that is under construction nearing completion. Uh Gino was able to join us for that and um it's looking like mid July. All right. Do they do they have any plans for the second? I mean obviously they want to lease up and get things moving, but have they mentioned anything about the second? They haven't mentioned anything about the second. I didn't specifically ask them during the tour. They do have a number of leases signed. They were going through we were going through different apartments and they were saying, you know, this one's leased, this one's leased. Um, so they are struggling with permanent power. That's one of the big hang-ups right now. Um, can't remember. Rich joined us, too. I don't remember who the power provider is, but [Laughter] yeah. Oh, they said they are not worried. He said he has not lost one minute of sleep worrying about whether this is going to get filled up. So thank you uh parks then there are meeting there are minutes in the packet and anything else need to be passed on CC we met last week last week or two weeks ago I'm not sure um yeah I think it's fire rescue talk organizing that and the volunteers. Um I would like to Jod's gone now, but Jody raised I think over $13,000. Is that the right number? Or assisting and got sponsorships and I think that's phenomenal. So awesome. Kudos to you guys too on the fire rescue days committee. Um, other reports I I don't really have an update for scale. There's no July meetings for scale. So, um, Tom, you have anything service delivery related? Um, no. Uh, I35. No, next one's canceled. Maybe is canceled, too. Okay. Uh, discussion by council or motions. Motion to second. Before I take a vote, Gina, we just had discussion by council. Did you have anything or I'm good? All right. All in favor? I I mean adjourned. Thank you everybody.