algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Um, I'd ask council members to make sure their microphones are on. Is there is there any changes to the agenda? >> Uh no, Mr. Mayor, there is not. >> Motion to approve. >> A motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Motion to approve. Uh we have one presentation. Uh tonight we have uh Andy Rice from KDV Bergen uh the city's auditor uh giving a presentation on the audit for financial year ended December 31st, 2024. Um and that item will be is on the consent agenda for council action later on the agenda. >> Give me one second, Andy. There we go. >> All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of uh city council for having me here tonight. Uh as Tom mentioned, uh presenting the audit results for the year ended December 31st, 2024. Uh the next slide uh highlights uh one element of our reporting this year. Um one more. There we go. And that's our independent auditor's report that's included in the city's financial statements. Uh that report highlights what the city's responsibility is uh relating to that financial reporting process and that's to annually prepare those financial statements and it's our job as your auditor to provide an opinion as to whether those financial statements are fairly stated in all material respects and happy to report that we are giving a clean or an unmodified opinion which is the best that we can give as your auditor. The next slide uh highlights a couple other uh pieces of our reporting. One being our report in accordance with government auditing standards. That report talks about how we consider internal control over financial uh reporting when planning our audit. But we're also required to report any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses uh that come to our attention as part of that process. And we did have two findings to report for this year. Uh one being a lack of segregation of accounting duties. Uh that finding uh was has been present in the past and just a reminder of what that is. uh uh proper segregation of accounting duties uh is kind of a bar or a measurement that we use uh from a financial reporting perspective as to whether there's enough individuals involved in a process uh you know to ensure there's checks and balances there uh to ensure it's properly reported uh in in a perfect environment you would expect there that you'd have uh one individual that would be responsible for initiating and authorizing an activity another individual that records and processes that information another individual that has custody of the related assets. And then lastly, you'd have another individual responsible for the uh reconciliation and reporting of that information. And it's not a common thing to have that perfect segregation of accounting duties for for local governments just based on the sizes of finance teams. So again, it's not uncommon to see that for a city of this size, but something that city council is, you know, continually um um needs to be aware of, you know, as uh you know, processes uh people change uh that that condition is present. And then uh other finding that we have to report is material audit adjustments. Again, as part of that audit process, uh we're uh taking a look at to whether those financial statements are fairly stated in all material respects and we did note uh some adjustments that were required to get to that point. So did have that uh finding here for 2024. Uh the last reporting that we have is our report on Minnesota legal compliance. Uh this talks about uh the office of the state auditor's legal compliance guides and we're required to report if uh we find any instances of non-compliance with the statutes included in those guides and we had no findings to report for this year. Uh the last piece of reporting that we have is our communications letter that includes all other required communication but also highlights some charts and graphs. Uh just a reminder uh when we take a look at the general fund that that's on a modified acrruel basis of accounting. So it does focus on current assets and current liabilities uh and and uh the items that affect kind of near-term liquidity. Uh and the exception to that would be you know inner fund balances or inner fund borrowing and and that's something you would see in the fire department fund actually does have a negative uh fund balance at the end of the year because the exception there is that you still would uh acknowledge and and record any um interfund borrowings and there are some significant borrowings out of that fund that will ultimately get resolved in in in future years. But tonight just focusing on the general fund as well as the enterprise funds. Uh to start wanted to highlight the makeup of general fund revenues and how those compare between 2024 and 2023. Uh the majority of general fund revenues continued to come from property taxes. Uh there was a shift in that percentage uh comparing 24 to 23 went from 77% down to 70%. And that was uh mainly driven by an increase in development and and permits issued. So you do see that offsetting in that C category which increased from um 8% to 15%. Uh other categories were fairly consistent uh between the two years. Uh the next chart I wanted to highlight the budget to actual results. The budget called for a revenue budget of about $3.2 million. Uh that came in about 15% better than anticipated or about $488,000 more than anticipated. And the most significant variance there was in licenses and permits. that was uh ultimately about $49,000 better than anticipated. Uh and and historically, you know, is just budgeted conservatively because that can that can vary from year to year. Uh another area is miscellaneous revenues. Uh also an area that's typically budgeted conservatively because that's where investment earnings uh are included. And so those can again vary from year to year and with better interest rates this year that uh ended up coming in better than anticipated by about $35,000. The next slide um highlights the general fund expenditures and how those are made uh how those were made up between the two years and again fairly consistent uh um between 23 and 24. Uh the one area that you do see a shift is in public safety that went from 39% up to 45% and that's directly related to the development and the related building inspection fees and the related contract for uh for services for that uh for for that need there. So, um that was the the main shift that you saw there for 2024. Uh when looking at budget to actual results, um expenditures did come in more than anticipated by about 7% or $231,000 and the majority of that was in public safety. About 180 of,000 was was in that category and that again relates to the additional building uh inspection fees uh with the increased uh permits issued and development. Uh the last chart related to the general fund is just highlight highlighting general fund balance uh over the last five years and this is the equity position in that fund. Uh that did increase with the current year surplus from about 1.2 million to $ 1.5 million. The city does have a fund balance policy in place uh to to maintain minimum fund balance levels and that's uh uh presented as a percentage of expenditures and at the end of the year fund balance is about 46% of 2024 actual expenditures and that is uh in compliance with the city's policy. Uh next we do have uh the enterprise funds to take a look at and again these uh have a bit different terminology because these are on a full acrruel basis. So it includes things things like depreciation expense, some non-cash uh related uh expenses there. Uh and with the increased development here in 2024, there was an increase in hookup fees. So we did see an increase in operating revenues. Uh and as a result, there was a significant increase in the operating surplus which increased from about $100,000 to $640,000 uh um uh for 2024. The next chart highlights the sewer fund operations. uh similar story there with an increase in hookups, saw an increase in operating revenue. However, there is some uh required uh fees associated with the collection of those uh sack fees. So, did see an operating expenses uh as a result of that and did see a surplus this year of about uh $54,000. And then lastly, did have the storm sewer fund uh um did also had an increase in operating revenue and ultimately generated a surplus of about $36,000 for the year. Uh that's the highlight of our audit report as well as uh some key elements there of the financial statements and uh next I just like to open up for any questions. >> All right. Well, thanks for thanks for having me. >> Thank you. Not agenda. >> Motion to approve consent. >> I will second. General business. >> Mr. Mayor, we have uh multiple action items associated with the proposed Highlands Eagle View development. Those include approving a wetland replacement plan and uh two land use applications which would be uh approving a wet uh planned unit development and approving preliminary plat and then lastly a grading authorization permit based on the preliminary plat if approved. Uh Renee Christensen will be giving the staff report. >> Thank you. Um, I plan to go through kind of overview of the whole development like we did during the council plan review just to review each item again. Again, the development name is Highlands at Eagle View. This is a residential development uh now containing 150 lots and six outlots on 52.74 gross acres. Uh it would create the plat would create 148 new lots and uh reconfiguration of the lot lines around the two existing home sites. Um property owners um of the overall property that uh would be preliminary platted is Victory Fields LLC um on-site marketing company and Scott and Lynette Henry. The applicant is Tamarak Land Development and the requested actions are to approve the wetland replacement plan, approve the request for PUB zoning, approve the preliminary plat, and authorize uh approve the grading authorization. Um the property is currently zoned um PUD, which is a special zoning district that approved uh development back in 2005. Um Eagle View Estates. Um the concept uh there was a new concept plan um that was reviewed by this planning commission and city council in 2024 and early 2025. Uh there was a neighborhood meeting held at the library by the um the de developer hosted the meeting. There were a couple of staff members present at that meeting. Um concerns observed by staff or identified by staff at that neighborhood meeting related to questions about drainage. Um concern about the ghost plat that was shown on the properties to the north. Um screening traffic roadway connections to adjacent properties. And then the uh city did receive the formal application for zoning and plat approval and a p public hearing was required under um state law. Uh and that was held before the planning commission on May 27th. Um there were concerns um during the public hearing ex expressed about headlights uh drainage uh questions about drainage to the west, questions about again the ghost flat shown to the north. Um concerns about maintaining drainage uh from the north through the property and questions about traffic counts. Um this map just depicts the location of the property in the far northwestern uh portion of the city and city's growth area. Um this is a graphic depiction of the plat. Reviewing um the neighborhood conditions as you can see a little aerial photograph with the subject properties highlighted in red. To the south of the proposed development is um the Iggoville Elementary School and agricultural land. To the east is uh agricultural land. To the north is um approximately 40 acre uh piece of eggland and rural residential properties that vary from about 5 to 10 acres in size. Um and to the west there, uh is a farmstead and agricultural land um and a rural residential home. The property is guided by the city's comprehensive plan to lowdensity residential. Um we have obligation to uh development in that area must meet 2.5 to five units per net acre under um our approved comprehensive plan. The development as proposed is 3.31 units per net acre and um all of the lots are proposed as single family detached and meet the currently guided land use for the property. Um again the current zoning of the property uh is a PU PUD zoning which reflects a historic plat that was never constructed that's shown on the top um drawing and it is proposed now to be reszoned to a new PUB zoning which uh reflects a new plat and that is shown on the bottom. So they're um somewhat similar but and similar number of lots as well. Um, so PUD zoning is kind of a special zoning district. It's um it's used in appropriate settings and situations to um that create or maintain development patterns that are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Um they sometimes allow for the mixing of land uses. uh in this case that uh the PUD is used to provide variations to the strict applications of the land use regulations in the city's code to improve site design and operation uh while at the same time incorporating design elements that exceed city standards and to create a more um efficient approach to land use. Um this particular slide and table outlines the slight reduction in the lot widths and setbacks that will be um that are being proposed within this development that have received positive feedback from the council and planning commission previously. The minimum lot width in this um R2 zoning district is 70 feet and the applicant has requested a minimum lot width of 65 ft for this development. So that's um one of the primary reasons for this um that is being zoned PUD. Uh in addition, there's a 25 foot front setback versus um a typical 30 foot front setback um in this development. They're actually increasing the side setback from 7 to 7 and 1/2 ft. And then there is um there are two lots adjacent to a storm water pond where they're um are seeking a reduced uh setback from the ordinary high water mark of the storm water pond and uh that is a infiltration basin. Um, also, oops, along um, County Road 27, um, we are or they've requested flexibility for the screening requirement along, uh, the county road to either allow fencing or landscaping. Um, so that is written into the current approvals. Um, over and above, the developer will construct trails through outlet C, which is where the proposed or the park will be located. Um and the developer will pro uh provide a variation in housing styles as outlined in um the narrative provided uh by the developer and included in the application. Um, in addition to reviewing those requirements for PUDS, all zone all zonings in the city, um, there are requirements that the city must consider when considering a reszoning of a property. And, uh, that is a or number one, it has to be consistent with the city's comp plan. Number two, it has to be, uh, compatible, the proposed use has to be compatible with adjacent and future land uses. Number three, uh the use conforms with all standards um in the city's zoning ordinance except as allowed by um PUD deviations. Uh number four, the proposed use can be accommodated by um this existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. And number five, traffic generation by the proposed use is compatible or is within the capabilities of the street serving the property. Um and staff does believe that these the request to reszone the property meets these um upstated criteria. The city has tree preservation requirements. Uh this is largely a farm field. The tree inventory has been completed and there were only six significant trees identified on the property which are all proposed to be saved. Um this is a landscaping plan that is included in the uh development plan. Um we have landscaping requirements uh for the developer uh where there's double frontage lots where the backyard um also backs up to a street um and backs up to a collector or arterial road. So, the developer screening obligations would apply along Texas Avenue, along 255th Street, and along the east along Nevada, even though Nevada is non-existent today. Um, so as mentioned earlier, the uh applicant has requested some flexibility to be able to install either a continuous 6 foot high maintenance-free fence or trees um along Texas Avenue. Um earlier during um as a result of feedback received from property owners to the north, uh there was a um suggestion or uh offer to place a six foot high fence at the north side of um this is referred to as street E within the plat um to shield any potential headlights that would be coming into the development um for these rural properties to the north. Uh so that is a requirement that is written into the preliminary plat approval. Um in addition to the developer obligations for planting trees in the development, the builder will also have obligation to plant two trees on each lot. So uh the developer is proposing 85 deciduous trees, 73 coniferous trees and then builders will plant an additional 296 trees. Um, easements are always required during the platting process around the perimeter of the lots. Um, easements have been depicted as required except on one lot which is uh we've noted on the plan. Um, there's one small correction that needs to be made. Um sewer service is available uh to the property at the southeast corner along the Nevada Avenue uh near the Nevada Avenue 255th Street intersection um via 6-in PVC sewer force main. Um a lift station will be needed to serve this development which was proposed on outlot A. It's on the very northeast corner of the development and then a force main will be constructed from that new lift station uh to the existing force main. Um preliminary utility plans have been submitted and reviewed by the city engineer. Um the city engineers office is in the process of designing the lift station um which would be constructed by the developer. Uh water service is also available in the same location. um by a 12-in ductile iron pipe. Um the city's comprehensive water plan uh requires that 12in water mane or equivalent be extended through the development and um that is shown on their current plans. um storm water. The entirety of the property lies within the Scott uh WMO, watershed management organization. Um a portion of the property currently surface drains to the west under Texas Avenue. There are uh some existing coververts that um drain the Texas Avenue ditch and then there's a portion of the property um that drains to the south and then east and then back north. So generally northeast um and that portion is shown in the black hatch here within the green box. and that portion of the property has more stringent discharge rates than the existing runoff rates um allowed in other areas of the city. And these extra restrictions were a commitment by the city um to the township as part of the school development. And they're meant to um reduce or protect downstream properties from erosion and flooding. Uh there's a pipe that discharges to the surface um about a quarter mile north of this development. Um the city is aware that there's an extensive um drain tile system in this property that was used for agricultural purposes. Um the existing drainage patterns must be perpetuated um during and after the development. Uh the storm sewer plan for the property um depicts five basins that will serve the property after development. Um there is an existing uh as I mentioned there's an existing uh storm sewer line in the Nevada Avenue rightway that again goes north about another quarter mile into the township and discharges uh near a creek um near 250th Street. Um and then on the west side there are two existing culverts that drain uh the west side of the property. So these series of um the lots will drain into the ponds and then the ponds will discharge um to the east and to the west. And this is kind of a a drainage map that was taken out of the um storm water management plan. Um kind of the yellow highlighted line shows the area that will drain again ultimately east and west. Oops. Um this is a fair fairly recent um addition to the city's um report. Um very recently the city staff was contacted by the Scott Wol administrator um noting that she had been contacted by uh some property owners located on the west side of Texas Avenue um concerned about um how this development might affect drainage into their properties. Um, we had a a couple of uh chats and she ultimately on Monday submitted this letter and I did lay this also on your uh table tonight. Um, the letter had uh some suggestions. There were um three comments in the letter that were uh submitted for staff consideration. And then um in addition uh last night uh staff received an email from the same um property owners which we believe contacted the WMO um stating their request for a a for the city to add a condition requiring an assessment um a downstream assessment of um storm water impacts. Um I think when we get maybe through my presentation if the city engineers office um would like to add any additional regarding this particular item since it is uh come up in fairly recently. Uh I will let turn it over to I think Rich is online and Luke is here as well. Um, moving on. Uh, also tonight included in in the request is a a request to approve a wetland replacement plan. Uh, a wetland delineation was completed for this property and a 2.4 9 acre type 1 wetland was identified um on the site which is protected under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Uh the wetland is proposed to be replaced on a 2:1 ratio by purchasing credits from a wetland bank. Uh the technical evaluation panel uh commonly referred to as the TP has reviewed this application and provided a recommendation of approval of the replacement plan uh to the city in Elquanu market. We have all the replacement plan applications approved by the city council. Uh sometime in some cities they are done at a staff level. Uh there are no um FEMA flood planes or DNR protected waters on the property. Um the development borders on uh three streets, Texas on the west, 255th on the south, and Nevada Avenue on the east. Although the majority of Nevada Avenue in this location is non-existent, um the city's transportation plan identifies uh Nevada and 255th as collector major collector streets and um Texas as a minor arterial. Again, that Nevada Avenue, there is a partial rightway that's platted along the entire east side. That's where the existing storm sewer line lies within that existing platted right ofway. Um the developer will um dedicate an additional 15 feet of rideway on their side of the plat. Uh this road back when it was constructed was um planned to go on the property centered on the property line between um this property and the property to the east. Um so typic oops, excuse me. City code would normally require that Nevada Avenue would be constructed to the northernly property line of the plat. However, the street lacks the full rightway needed to construct the full street at this time. Uh so when the property to the east develops in the future, uh we will uh obtain an additional 50 ft of rightway on that side um which would allow future construction of that street. um 255th Street. Uh there is an existing uh this street exists the full length of the property. There is an existing trail on um the side on one side uh only a part portion of the uh street. So that I'm sorry, the um trail will need to be extended along a portion of that north side and a future sidewalk can be incorporated on the south side of 255th when the property uh to the on the south develops at some point in the future. Texas Avenue um is under the jurisdiction of Scott County. It is a minor arterial roadway in the city's transportation plan. Scott County seeks 150 feet of rightway from the center line, 75 feet from each center line uh for their minor archerial roadways. Uh they have all the rightway they need here. Um no additional rightway is being uh requested by Scott County um during this platting process. There are no street connections that uh will be proposed to Texas from this development, nor would they be allowed Um, Scott County has requested that a trail bench be graded for a future trail along Texas Avenue. Um, and just the way the grades worked out in that area, it will be partially within the county road rightway and partially within a city outlot that leads uh to that southwesterly storm water pond. Um, there are a number of local streets proposed within the development. Um local street standards are 28 feet in width face to face um with highback curb. Um in instances where a street uh is terminated pending future extension into another property uh a temporary culde-sac must be provided um if that street is more than 150 ft in length. So, um, we do have two street stubs to the north that do not exceed 150 ft in length. So, they will not have temporary culde-sacs. U, but there is one, uh, street here on the western portion of the subdivision that will require a temporary culde-sac. Uh, we always require future road extension signs placed at the ends of uh, streets that will be extended in the future. Uh concrete driveways, aprons will be required uh from the curb to the property line. Direct access is uh to major collectors or arterial streets is prohibited. So all access must come off of the local streets. Um reviewing traffic. um ingress and egress from the development will be from two access points on 255th which are um circled in the red circles. Uh traffic will then be distributed either east or west. Uh west would be towards county road 27. Uh and if to uh route to the east, you would eventually probably end up at county road two near near Dakota or Todd. Um the 2024 traffic volumes on uh County Road 27 are 1,95 uh vehicles a day. And on 255th Street, the city uh had traffic traffic counts there as well from 2024. So 443 um vehicles a day. Uh the city asked um Bolton and Mink to assist us in doing um traffic modeling and projections um based on some of the feedback that we heard at the neighborhood meeting. And um the engineering uh IT trip generation manual was used to determine how many trips the proposed development would add to the roadway network during peak hours as well as the total daily trips. And the 148 lot uh subdivision would be anticipated to generate approximately 1,447 daily trips total with 106 a.m. peak hour trips and 144 pm peak hour trips. Um we do not have any knowledge um after consulting with Scott County and the city of Elony Market Police Chief. We don't have knowledge of any major operational issues at the existing County Road 27 or County Road 2 intersections. Um, at the County Road 27 and 255th Street intersection, there are turn and bypass lanes in place and the Scott County Highway Department has reviewed the plat and did not comment on any uh traffic impacts to their roadway system. Um again staff uh during our consultation with the our traffic engineer uh we wanted to understand a little more about those impacts and uh with the with the existing traffic volumes and the anticipated traffic volumes uh to be added to the intersection. Um the traffic engineer states, "I do not see a concern regarding capacity of County Road 27 or the intersection." Um and also uh stated acceptable intersection levels of service are anticipated during peak hours. The modeling assumed all traffic from the development would go west towards the 255th Street, Conor 27 intersection. And um Scott County's comprehensive plan shows Scott County's uh transportation plan shows their capacity for a two-lane highway is well above what this development would add to uh County Road 27, which aligns with why Scott County may not have commented. Um five-foot sidewalks are required adjacent to all local streets and uh the developer will complete a 10-ft trail on the north side of 255th and construct the trail bench along the east side of Texas. Uh the city's subdivision ordinance requires 8% of uh land within a development be dedicated for parks, playground, public open space or trails or the developer shall make a cash contribution to the city's park and trail fund roughly uh related to the anticipate anticipated effect of the plat on the park and trail system. If no land dedication is required, a park fee has been established by the city at 8% of the fair market land value. Um the total land dedication requirement would be 4.07 acres. Um the city council had previously recommended a combination of land and cash for this development. Um 1.2 acres within outlot C will be applied towards the park dedication requirements. Um, and the direction from the city council at that time was to provide enough space for a playground area, a sport court, and a um, picnic shelter. Um, and then there's also some trails that have been incorporated. So, for the remaining 2.787 acres, the city will require a cash contribution based on the fair market value of the land. Um during the uh review staff sought um comments from the city engineer, public works director, city attorney, um police chief, fire department, building official, uh school district, um New Market Township, and Scott County transportation services. The city council is being asked um not being asked to hold the public hearing. That is a table. Um they're being asked to uh provide a decision or take action on the following um items. Adopt resolution 25-44 approving >> notice of decision on the wetland replacement plan. >> Um adopt >> that's okay. Gotcha. Adopt ordinance 332 reszoning the property to PUD in conjunction with the Highlands at Eagle View and adopt resolution 2545 granting approval of the preliminary plat uh consisting of 150 lots on 52.74 acres and approve a grading author authorization agreement. The city uh code allows grading um after preliminary plat approval with approval by the city council and the city engineer. And uh that concludes my um presentation. I do know there are um people here tonight related to this item. Um, >> do we want Rich to speak to it? >> Luke or Rich? I know Rich. >> So, um, Luke is perfectly capable of addressing this. However, I did the review and so um I thought I would uh give you an explanation to the extent you want to hear it about the primarily the issue of the downstream assessment. Uh it's a complicated issue. I can try and keep it uh simple and and as brief as possible, but uh there are several points to consider. So if that's all right, I'll just go ahead. So um the first point uh to keep in mind is that the city not the wershed is the LGU for storm water management decisions. You guys are the deciders. Every development in Elanu Market has to meet two sets of rules. Uh the cities and the state um MPCA has a general permit which is largely consistent with our rules. There's some variations here and there, but the developments have to meet both sets. This one does. Um, our rules and the state's rules are basically intended to require developers to mimic existing conditions for three major factors. One is the rate of runoff. The second is the volume of runoff and the third is the quality of the runoff. So rate and volume can be a little confusing. If you imagine capturing all the water from a from a site in a bucket and you're going to empty that bucket, the volume is how much water is in the bucket. The rate is how fast you're dumping it out of the bucket. And then of course the quality is what's in the water, sediment, um nutrients, that type of thing. So the rules are basically set up to limit developers to not exceeding existing conditions for all three of those. >> So they have to attenuate the rate. Everybody is pretty familiar by now. When you have hard surfaces like rooftops and pavements and pipes, water will flow off the off the ground faster than it did before the development. So they use ponds to capture that runoff, hold it and release it slowly to try and mimic what happened prior to the addition of the hard surfaces volume. You try and keep water on site uh to the extent you can in Elanu Market. We generally have pretty tight soils. So you already have high runoff volumes. Most of the water leaves the site. Some will sit in the top soil. A farm like this one uh well tiled does slowly drain that water off the site as well. Um and then of course quality. We want to remove sediments um for a couple reasons. One, they can clog up waterways and cause problems downstream. Number two, nutrients like to attach to sediments. So if we use those ponds to slow down the water so that those sediments can settle out and be captured on the site rather than discharged from the site, that's a plus. Um we consider the downstream assessment um technique that's mentioned in our code um as the city sees necessary as the review method of last resort. We would use that only when a development can't do something on site with ponding. There could be reasons like um contaminated soils or maybe it's near an airport where you don't want to attract nesting waterfall. I would envision going forward and and in the past we've never used that method here because we haven't needed to. Developers have always met the requirements for the big three rate, volume, and quality. So I'm just going to give you a quick description of what a downstream assessment is. If we imagine that a site can't do any ponding or or anything like that to slow that water down, hold it on site and treat it for quality, it's just going to run off. Um then what you would do is say, okay, I've got this, and I'm just going to make some numbers up here. I've got this 30 acre um drainage area that drains to a culvert. So when I say drainage area, that means it's a boundary that every drop of water that falls within that boundary ends up in that culvert. That's the drainage area. So if you got a 30 acre drainage area and you have to do a downstream assessment because you can't do other techniques to hold that water on the site, then you have to look at an area where the drainage area is 300 acres. So you trace where that culbert where the water through that culbert goes downstream to a point where the total drainage area to that downstream point is 300 acres. It's got to be 10 times. And you have to model that entire 300 acres for the terrain. Where are the low spots? Where are the drainage ways? What are the channels look like? How big are the pipes? What's the land cover? You put that all in a computer model. And what you're looking for is when you uh include your new area for the same rainstorm before the development and after, you're looking for, okay, in the after condition, does the water by this barn downstream rise to the point where it's a nuisance or not. That's the type of thing you're looking for in a downstream assessment. uh we already know that this site will not be increasing the runoff rate volume or decreasing the quality. So automatically a downstream assessment would be would show no change or no no harm. So to go through the time and expense to do all that modeling to find what we already know in my view, it just makes no sense because they can fit the required facilities on their site and their calculations show that they're meeting the state and the city's requirements. I I know that was quick and oversimplified. Um and again I don't see many instances where we would have to do a downstream assessment in Elanu market because we have generally the space and we don't have the conditions that would impede a developer from providing his own on-site systems. So I guess um with that I' if the council has any questions about that I'd be happy to try and address them. I know that was speedy and a big topic in a short time. I do not you doesn't look like it. >> Does that address all three comments on this letter >> or just that second one with the downstream? Um, >> Rich's Rich's explanation addresses the second comment. And the reason is because uh the email that staff received from the adjacent property owners um only addressed that particular comment and wanted that added as a condition to the preliminary plat approval. And is this >> Matt? >> We did consider the other ones and and and uh I found really none of them uh relevant to this particular development reuse, for example. Um it's just not practical unless you have an HOA to put in some sort of an irrigation system that would be served by a pond to serve multiple homes. However, individuals could put a sump pump in the pond to water their um that's something staff can talk about. We don't have that in our regulations right now. We can't require that. Uh it's certainly something worth talking about, but at this time it's not in our rules. Nothing we can compel. And I don't think it would be practical for a single family um residential development that's not in an HOA especially. I don't remember what the first one was, Renee. Uh the first one first comment uh simply uh modeling the pre-existing condition for the west portion draining uh should be agricultural only. >> Yeah, >> just just a suggestion to verify the modeling and adjust if needed. Not sure why these comments are coming because the city is the LGU and the city's rules require you to model to existing conditions, not to go back 150 years before anything was ever settled and model that condition as existing. That may change going forward, I don't know. But at this time, it's existing conditions. So, we just found that comment to be uh irrelevant. I was just going to ask if we've worked with the Scott Watershed Management Organization on other property developments before and if this was like a comment that's come up before, if other cities have seen it. >> They uh they prefaceed very much um during the introduction many times throughout my meeting with them is that the Scott WO does not typically get involved in reviewing city uh developments, nor do they want to. it's not the role that they play or want to play. Uh the only reason they did here uh was because they got a inquiry from a property owner and yeah, we have little communication with them. Um I sat on some technical committees with uh Vanessa. So uh we we know each other and uh she was felt comfortable reaching out and >> we have uh followed the city's and state rules for every development that's been before the council in the last 15 20 years. um without an issue from from Scott County. [Music] >> By show of hands, how many are here to speak to this? >> Two, >> three. Are you here to speak about anything that hasn't been spoken about at the meeting um with the developer through email? >> Anything new you want to bring? Is >> we would like to speak about this particular issue? This memo >> what what about that? Is it is it already been brought forward? >> No, because this memo was just published on Monday. >> Okay. Do we want >> It's a council's prerogative. It's not a hearing, but the council can certainly take comment from uh individuals if they so choose. Council historically has taken comment on developments at the meeting, although it's not a hearing and it's you know um we usually has the ability that if it if the comment becomes repetitive or etc to to limit it. So >> we'll allow what two minutes per somebody wants to speak to it reasonable. I want to ask a question before. >> Sure. >> Which I feel like I know the answer, but I'm gonna ask it anyway. Um, so it has to, let's say we make we the development is done and then there are drainage issues. Whose responsibility is it to correct those drainage issues? Well, it would certainly be the city's responsibility to investigate what's going on, whether it's a failure or a deficiency in the developers uh improvements or there's some new element that we have nothing to do with. There's no way to know who'd be responsible until you actually go through and we'd certainly take the lead and and working with the wershed to figure out what happened, what's going on. We haven't had that happen in the past, but yeah, things are possible. >> These will be city ponds. So, >> all right. If anybody want to come up, you two minutes to >> If you could please just state your name and address for the for the record and for the minutes, that would be greatly appreciated. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. Um, I'm Jody Wagner. This is my husband, Darren. We reside at 25226 Texas Avenue. So, we are the property directly to the west of County Road 27. Um, obviously, you're looking at the memo. Um, we feel that the memo from the Scott wershed and we did engage with them along with a couple other neighbors because we feel very strongly that our property is going to um be impacted long term because of this drainage. There's an existing drainage system today um that has issues and with a new development coming in, the drainage from this new development is going to flow into or discharge into the county right away, but that pipe connects directly to our property. So, there will be flow changes over the course of time and it's going to be concentrated on our property. And I think the memo validates that there was potentially flaws in the modeling that was done and the fact that they're saying that it meets or affirms their criteria for an assessment of the property. We would expect the city would want to do the due diligence ahead of time to have that analysis done. That's our request that we requested that there be a modification to resolution number 2545 to do this assessment analysis of the downstream impacts. it. >> Thank you. >> Well stated. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Hi, I'm Cheryl Friedis, 25490 Texas Avenue, Elco. So, I can't add much more to that. Um, I invite you all to come out and take a look. If you don't understand what we're saying or you don't know where it is, the development is going to happen. There's no question. But because it doesn't impact the city on the east side and doesn't impact you on the west side, still should be a concern. Um, again, come and take a look so you know what you're voting on, what you're doing. Those plats are perfect, but walk it so you know what we're talking about. You can see the cicks, you can see the drainage. We just want it to flow appropriately, you know, no drought, no flooding. But the question I have is the holding ponds, who maintain them? Who who does maintenance on them? It's my understanding they last 20 years, maybe 25. So, who in the city maintains those so they're draining appropriately? Is there someone on your um I guess I don't even know your parks department, your streets department >> and they've been educated, they've been trained, they know exactly what to do with them. >> And then the lifespan of them is about 20 25 years. >> It uh it's a good question um Cheryl. So >> and then what happens after that when they fail? Is that up to the city to maintain them then? Is that correct? >> Yeah. or to fix them again or upkeep them. Is that correct? >> Yep. So, those ponds, we require that they're dedicated in on city lots. So, they're city ponds. We own them. We are responsible for maintaining them. We regularly inspect them. Uh they have to meet certain standards. There's testing on the drainage system that we're required to do under the overarching permit that we have with the MPCA, which is called our MS4 permit. um we test them. The specific timing of work you need to do really depends if your inlets or outlets need work. They're starting to deteriorate. That may be work. We measure the amount of sediment in the bottom of the ponds to depend to determine if we need to go in and basically dredge them out over time. If you have vegetation that's growing, volunteer vegetation that's starting to reduce the function of the ponds either because um biio materials are falling into the pond or it's starting to obstruct the function of the pond because they won't be flowing >> appropriate. Those are all things that the city does on the ponds and so that would be our responsibility and we do it now with our existing ponds. >> Also getting back to the Scott County wershed, it should be relevant. It should be relevant on the vote that you determine or what you vote on. It may not be part of the city, but it's still part of Scott County. New Market, city of New Market is part of Scott County, and that should be maybe it was just a consideration. Probably should have been a requirement. Um I'm not part of Watershed, so I can't say that, but um you guys all have an opinion and I have mine. Should have been a requirement that some kind of um drainage was done. I know that you he said it meant everything that the city asked for, but it may not be meeting what will happen in the next I don't know 20 years, 10 years, five, I don't know. But as long as we know the city is responsible after that, then that's who we'll come to. But again, come out, take a look. I'll give you my number. You can see what we're talking about. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm Charles Fis 25795 Texas Avenue. My concern is the ditch throughout the year that your ponds go through underneath Texas Avenue and eventually get into a drainage ditch back there where my whole farm drains into the whole 320 acres. I hear, you know, the water's going to be limited and no flooding is going to happen and so forth. And I hope that's what happens. But if this here water would enter into that into that service ditch down there, my water is behind this. So I that would cause me flooding on the back end of all this here stuff for my drainage tile and so forth. That's my concern. That's why the metering of the of the ponds and so forth sounds like it's very important and sounds like you guys have a handle on it. But I'd like to assurances that I'm not going to be flooded on in the long run of some kind. >> I don't know that we can guarantee that you can't be flooded. you could potentially be flooded today depending on weather conditions and items that are unrelated to the system that would be in developed in this. So I think um any sort of guarantee that your property will never flood. You didn't have that you don't have that guarantee now and it may have happened before. Um what we can do is say that what's built will have to meet standards and it will be maintained. it will be metered um coming out, but there's a lot more downstream and other properties that impact areas. Um I'll be blunt. Um in my career, I've had people come and say, "Hey, development happened next door and I noticed something different." Oh, but they forget to manage mention that there was 10 more inches of rain that year that they noticed that something was different. Um we can look at the function. We can look at how much is coming out. We can look at how fast it's coming out. It can be modeled so that it matches what exists today. But to sit here and say we're going to guarantee that nothing will happen to anybody's property, we can say it may not be related or shouldn't happen to what this development is doing, but that isn't a blanket that it can't happen because of other things. I just want to be clear about that upfront. It goes to what Rich was saying. If somebody notices something downstream, we can certainly um assist in looking into it, but we have to look and see what the actual issue is. >> The big thing is I haven't been flooded out. We've been maintaining that ditch back there. It's a private ditch for many many years and u adding this here extra to it. Even if it's metered, eventually the water is going to have to go down the sear ditch >> and it goes today. >> Yes. >> Yep. And you know this everything's been working fine for the last 100 and plus acres on third generation there. So I don't want to see problems in the next whatever years. >> Yep. And no no nobody does. I would assume >> I know that's that's my comment on the whole thing. So whatever precautions you need to take so this year don't happen would be a wonderful piece of mind for me. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, sir. >> Hi, I'm Ken Wagner. I'm here representing Victory Fields and really representing Leander Wagner. And these are our neighbors and their feelings are so important to us. We're not experts. This is we don't know how runoff works and all these details. We're relying as you guys as the experts and we want you to make a good decision what's best for Elco New Market. That's what dad would have wanted and um that's what we want for our neighbors and um we respect uh your decision. >> Thank you. >> So then anyone else we do on this one? So, at this point, if there's any questions from council that you guys need as part of your um consideration of this item, if there are none, then it would just be discussion and decision. >> Any more discussion? >> I just have a quick question for Rich and apologies. This is a little bit of a learning curve for me, but I think he said our rules and state rules mimic the current condition. So, Rich, do you have any insight as like are those current conditions already like not great or like what is like the current status of the drainage just after public comment and maybe hearing that it's not great to start with? >> So, I can speak to the site itself. You know, there's certainly water going to that culvert to that uh to that ditch and creek on the other side. Now whether there are silted in drainageways downstream already or silting in, you know, all infrastructure needs maintenance. Even if it was a ditch dug 50 years ago, they will silt in and do occasionally need and and I know Charlie is pretty about keeping his clean, but if downstream ditches aren't uh that could be a a source of of, you know, backups or flooding. Um, but I am seeing nothing in this development proposal that would tell me there's likely to be an increase in uh flooding from this development if that's what that >> answer. Thank you. for peace of mind for our neighbors. What do we know what the cost of this assessment of downstream impacts would be if we opted to do that? >> I think that's a rich question. >> I'm thinking through it. I I could imagine it's easily three weeks of one person full-time that knows what they're doing. So that's 120. It's be what? 25 grand plus the time to do it. And I'll tell you right now, you're going to find no impact because we already know that this site's not putting out more than what it already does based on the proposal. So it would I guess you can certainly do it. We'd be happy to undertake it. Um, but I just I don't think it's going to result in what people might be hoping. >> So, and to simplify that, Rich, it sounds like what you're saying is that to require it would be more optics than practical benefit. >> That's my opinion. Yes. If we weren't doing any storm water management on this site, then that downstream assessment would be very important because it'd be the only way to know if uncontrolled runoff from this site is causing problems downstream. But this runoff will be controlled. So it's it becomes a point. We're not adding to the problem. We already know that. >> Um, Mr. Mayor, I also just wanted to make a a quick additional comment, which is that, you know, as part of the PUB process, we have a lot of flexibility with the conditions that are imposed on the developer here. Uh, but there are still legal standards. We do still need to have um basically some kind of a basis to impose a condition. Uh, and so what if the council wants to go that way, I I think what we would need is sort of a a clear decision from the council of why it's necessary. >> Right. >> Just for introductions because I don't know if the council, this is Jack Brooks Bank. He's from Campbell Kudson, the city attorney's office. Andrea wasn't able to be here tonight. So Jack is the standin. >> And I don't think that metric would be met. based on what Rich is saying, what I need based on his assertion. So, what do you need? Um, >> I got I have one more. >> Sure. >> On drainage, not related to drainage. Question about the fencing. If they put up the developer puts up maintenance-free fencing, >> does that is that does that become the like the residential property owner's responsibility? Yes. >> In 30 years? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So So when they buy >> it'd be on their >> except the one except the one at the north end of street D. That would be the cities to maintain until such time as any road would be extended. >> Correct. So, I mean, it's it's theirs to maintain immediately, but I'm hoping maintenancefree means that for a good period of time, I guess, is what I when it comes time to replace. >> Yeah, there's no um homeowners association or um proposed in this development. >> Amanda, we would make that uh fence be designed so that future homeowners could tie in their own fences to it. without it being common across the line. So, they'd have their own fence eventually if they chose to put fencing up the sides, >> which I think is kind of common like when I think about like I'm driving in Lakeville and like they all have the same fence. I don't know. I'm having revelation. >> All right. Any more discussion? We're going to go line item by line item. Um, make a motion to approve resolution 2544 approving wetland replacement plan. All in favor? >> Second. You need a second. >> Second. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I um motion to adopt ordinance number 322 approving plan unit development. Second. Second in >> favor. >> I. >> Motion to approve resolution 2545 approving preliminary plat. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I a motion to approve grading authorization agreement. >> I have a second. >> All in favor? I >> All right. Now we're done with general business. Let's move on to reports. Uh the first um item is under administration. Uh we are uh giving a report back to the council related to staff's recommendation for public safety training facility options that are available to the city and we will be asking for direction related to that. As the council is aware, the regional training facility, the scale regional training facility over in Jordan, um has been in operation for nearly 20 years. It was one of the first major projects that scale did or facilitated as an organization and it has served the needs of not only Elco market but the other members of the um of that facility uh for that time period. Uh the facility is managed by a joint powers board. So everybody that is a member um has a position on that board. I currently serve as the city's representative. And then the facility also rents out to organizations um and other uh entities, other agencies that use it for their training purposes. Um the facility is now getting to an age where things speaking bluntly are starting to wear out. um it's ready for its next evolution um of what it's going to be. Um it's also fair to point out that the uh mode of operation or the drive the direction on that facility has been only to put in what was necessary to keep it running. There hasn't been a lot of money put away to grow it, expand it or even replace what's there other beyond what was absolutely necessary and that was based on the intent to keep costs down. the as you know uh the board has been looking at future evolutions of the site. Um we've presented some of the options and costs associated with it and I've returned to uh that group and reported that we would be in for up to 15 $16,000 as long as it had these minimum facilities. As you also know there are other members of the group who are looking for something more expansive which would be more expensive. One of the other um options uh which really only became a a hard option recently is Lakeville is currently building what they call the the first center. It's a primarily law enforcementbased um public safety training facility that would be owned and operated by the city of Lakeville. So it's not a joint powers facility. City of Lakeville would own it. They would have paying members who would have different classes of membership. That facility um is coming online. and it's under construction now and will come online in 2026. Uh they just recently sent out the pricing information for the facility which previously was unavailable. In evaluating that, um the public safety chiefs have determined that that actually would be the better long-term option for the city. Uh there's three levels of membership. There's the capital membership where you pay a proportional upfront one-time fee and then you pay uh you have a 10-year commitment and then you pay annual fee based on the number of officers that you have in your department. Currently would be 11,000 $1,100. There would be inflationary adjustments. So I would assume it's probably going to be like 3% per year over that 10-year period. But even with that cost, um once we get out of the initial year, the annual cost will be less than what we would expect we would likely be paying over at the scale facility if it's refurbished or to pursue alternative training options, which would be peacemeal um in order to meet our needs. It does not have um fire training options like the scale facility has today or will have in the future. However, it does provide some limited training options for fire department. But the fire chief has indicated that given the level of their training needs, the frequency and other available options within reasonable proximity, they should be the driver in the decision and they feel they can meet their needs adequately going forward. Uh even if there isn't a burn tower, for example, at the at the first center. So, where the first center is at is they're looking for people to make, you know, tenative commitments. So, they're looking for letters of intent um or letters of commitment. It's not a binding letter. It's not a contract, but they want to know who's in, who's out so that they can finalize um items with the with the facility. The recommendation from staff is that we would provide them with a letter of intent indicating that we would intend to become a capital level member with the facility. um and that would be the direction we pursue while we're continuing to participate and work parallel um with the scale facility. One thing we do need to point out is our obligations to the scale facility run through at least 2027 based on existing debt um with the facility. And so we would have a couple years of double payments where we would still owe dollars to scale in addition to uh the membership at the first center. I do have to point out though that we're not expected to see huge jumps um and our what would cost at scale because that would come with the new capital improvements and we would anticipate the earliest that would come would be 2028 possibly 2029. So we would expect that the overlap would be at our current participation levels or close to it at the scale facility. So at this point the chief and I would be open to answering any questions that you have and we would be looking for we're requesting direction to provide a letter of intent to the city of Lakeville. Craig, do you have anything to add? I would just say that we'll have to pay the scale the 2026 fee no matter what because the the first center wouldn't be open anyways. So really it's more like the the 2027 fee would be extra if we did do this >> and I'm sorry you said the fire department does not currently use the scale facility. is my understanding that they've used the burn tower once in the last 20 years. >> Okay. >> Um it is used for training and probably would in the future and if they have upgraded facilities, there's nothing that says we can't go there as a pure rent, you know, a user where we would just rent time. Um and speaking, I do think that our limited use over the years has been a result of decisions at a leadership level. the current chief has indicated that if we were continue to be a member there, we would use it more frequently than we have in the past. >> Um, but if that facility is not available to us, there are other options that we like the AEL center up at Burnsville, for example. Um, there are certain mobile training um props that can be brought to us, etc., as well as continuing to just buy time at the scale facility. Yeah, I think they're having a tanker some of their tanker truck brought that they can practice putting out fire on that. So, yeah, Jay was very adamant that they can find other places that they aren't going to use it much in best case scenario. So, I wouldn't worry too much that they wouldn't be able to find something else that meets their needs the once or twice a year that they would use it. And we're still being in a rural area, there are periodically options to do real house burns when you have abandoned homes. And any fire chief will tell you that that's the ideal. But the reason they have these training facilities is because that's not controlled. You can't guarantee your schedule when they're going to come up. This last we hadn't had one for a decade and then we had two last year, for example. Well, I'd like to see a move to a new state-of-the-art facility versus uh al back >> letter of intent. Like does that make us a shoe in because I know there's limited availability like does that just like get us high up on the list or >> I talked to Chief Pollson specifically and he said that he could definitely accommodate us because of how small we are. So even if what they're looking at for the larger agencies, he said that wouldn't be an issue for us. So I I feel pretty confident that a letter of intent would keep us would as long as we follow through on it >> would get us membership there. It's the advantage of being small. They don't have to make a lot of room at the table. >> And I know there's other larger cities that are going the preferred route. And so with the capital route, we're up at the top of the list again still, which >> I like the idea >> because they want Once the capital is kind of established, then they can determine how many preferred they would offer. Um, where he already I think they have a pretty good idea for the capital and he specifically said, "Yeah, we could accommodate you because of your size." >> And it's much closer, right? >> It is a lot closer. Yeah. Especially when half my department lives in Lakeville. So, >> there you go. >> Yeah. I'm a Yes. I'm fine with doing the letter of intent. >> Me, too. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Anything else? We're moving on. >> Moving on. >> Speak to public works or anybody? >> No. Cory didn't have anything specific that he needed me to report. >> All right. Anything else, Chief? >> Nope. Nothing from our end. >> No fire. >> There's a part in your in your uh in your packet uh for happy to discuss any of that and I'd be doing Kate a disservice so I didn't do the dad joke. So, uh, what's Forest Gump's password? >> Jenna, >> uh, one forest one. >> Oh man, that just happened. community development, >> but happy to ask answer any questions if there's any questions in the memo. >> Parks. >> Um, no. As you know, we haven't had any meetings. It does look like we will have an August meeting. Um, the August ventures property, the 80 acres out by the school. They do have a concept plan that they have submitted to staff. So, an early part of that review process is getting feedback from the parks commission related to the parks and trails elements. So that can be brought to the planning commission for their review and then recommendation to the council on the concept. So we'll probably have a August 11th meeting. >> Yeah, I will back up and say I do have one update is that we have DRT meeting on a 80acre concept plan on August 5th. So we'll have the developer uh township representatives confirm that they can come. >> Same project. We met last week, I think. >> Last Tuesday. >> Seems like forever ago. >> I've been on vacation. Um, let's see. We talked about fire rescue days and kind of hash that out. And the likelihood of I think we talked about this at least maybe at the last meeting. Maybe you guys talked about it because I wasn't here about the fire rescue days committee sort of being absorbed back into CC. So that conversation was only had with myself and there was only two other members outside of Jessica being there and Kate was there to provide feedback. So we did not have a quorum to make any sort of decisions on that. Um, so we're kind of we're going back to the drawing board with how we're going to make up the CCEC. I think a survey is going out to current members to get feedback on maybe if they're still interested in being a part or if they're could commit to having somebody else show up on their behalf so that we have a bigger turnout and more help and that sort of thing. So, that's hopefully going to get hashed out a little bit at the August 19th meeting. Um, and then I'll just put in a plug for community picnic, which is August 23rd. I can't be there. I will be out of town, but >> so a good event. >> So, for Andrew and Megan, that is a city hosted item. Uh, traditionally, CC has not been actively engaged. It's basically been city staff and council people who basically host this event for the community. So if you are available and interested in helping out um we need everything from people who monitor bouncy houses to assembling hot dogs. Although I can tell you if you assemble hot dogs, you need to make sure you diet the week before because somehow hot dogs disappear somewhere in the process. >> August 23rd. >> Yep. >> The evening that weekend. >> Yeah. And it's a Saturday. It's from 11 to 2. might be able to come for a little bit. I have a flight early afternoon. >> Drag my wife into it. >> I can hustle. >> Volunteer, too. >> It's actually It's It's really fun. The public works guys actually love doing it because it's just it's fun. You get to talk to people in the community. It's It's just a good It's a good time. >> Face paint, bouncy houses, pony rides, all kinds of good stuff. >> Starts at 11. >> So, put on my calendar now. We we usually have around 220 to 240 people attend every year pretty consistently >> over at Wagner. >> Yep. I'll send a >> Okay. >> appointment out for council members now. >> All right. Anything else or that's it? Okay. Um we only because since it's July we typically don't have meetings for uh this for scale but we did have a brief executive committee meeting which was entirely oriented around legislative agenda setting that up for the year making sure everybody was on the same page and setting up future agenda items. It was relatively short maybe 20 minutes and nothing of note. >> Okay. service delivery. >> Oh, we do not meet in July. >> Oh, and Josh. So, no 35. I assume >> we don't meet in July. Sorry. >> We're off to >> Josh. Oh, >> but he was on 35. might be off in August because I don't have a calendar invite for that either. I just had it in my like G so I'll check. >> All right. Any other discussion need to talk about or you want to >> All right. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I