flag of America to the Republic for it stands one nationisible andice for all. >> Mr. Council to turn on your microphones. Any changes? >> Any changes to the agenda? >> No, Mr. Mayor. >> Uh, I'll make a motion to accept >> second. >> Any discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> I don't see any presentations, proclamations, or acknowledgements. Anybody here for public comment? All right. Move to consent. >> One item. Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make sure that intent was clear that when the council approves the um form for the compensation for uh well owners who are impacted by the aquifer test, the intent is then once I've executed it, we will issue those checks immediately as prepaids. They won't be they'll come to the council in claims, but as a but we'll cut the checks right away. Just want to make sure the council was clear on the intent and was okay with that. >> Motion to approve consent agenda. >> Second. >> Any discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> It was worth the drive, right? >> I'm glad you got your popcorn though. >> A little bit more because I go in a ditch. >> Please do. What was this? What was this for? >> Uh, the annexation. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. I was going to say I was going to ask if there's anything anybody want to pull out of it, but it's all good. Um, no public hearing, general business. None. Um, reports. >> Uh, third quarter financial reports were included in your packet. Were there any questions? >> Not for me. none for me. >> Okay. The next item was a commissioner appointment process. Uh earlier in the year, uh when we were doing our commissioner appointments for 2025, the council had indicated that they wanted to have a discussion related to the appointment process before we got into the thick of it for 2026. Um staff report just kind of gave a brief overview of kind of the background considerations, what we've done in practice, and what we've expressed for intent. um they don't necessarily match up all the time and um at this point it's really putting it out there for council discussion. You guys had requested it. We're just looking for feedback and direction related to the process going forward. Well, we've done it both ways where we've done the interview process and just reappointed them. So, how many seats are up again? >> Um, I don't know specifically for 2026. Off the top of my head, at most it would be four. You'd have two on each commission, but there's always that third year where there's only one >> um commissioner that's up. >> I mean, I I would like to I mean, the way we've been doing it works. I I think to to encourage and reinforce new folks, new voices, new whatever to come in without not I just don't want it to be an automatic reappoint process. Uh we don't have terms, we don't have any of that kind of stuff. So just allowing for that process. Uh I don't know. I mean just I know we don't get a lot of people applying at times either. So then how much do we recruit and try to you know encourage new voices? um not to imply that the current voices are not good voices. I but just always being able to have kind of that positive churn of folks and things like that. So >> I I would have to say that if the uh idea is to continue a process where you're required to it's not an automatic reappoint for the idea of bringing in potentially additional folks. >> I think if you're going to have that discussion, you can't have it without having a discussion related to recruitment. In my time here, I have seen a decline in the size of the pools of um candidates that we have. And I know at times when councils have said, "Nope, we want to get a pool." A lot of times we end up just doing the reappointment because they're the only people that are re applying. >> So, I think that might be something that the council might want to discuss, too, is um how do we go about getting people interested in in the positions? >> Good luck. Uh yeah, >> I mean I I sure other cities and other entities are dealing with the same sort of recruitment process for volunteer positions like this that probably are pretty thankless and or not probably >> are pretty thankless and you know if they do a good job they put in the work. So it's it's an effort and >> I I don't know that there's much more we can realistically do to promote it. It's in the newsletter. It's in social media. We put it on the sign out front. I think if you're if you want to increase your pool size, it's gonna it would have to be active recruitment council people contacting people they think would be a good fit for the positions and actually making the direct and informal ask. >> What about the commissioners themselves doing the same? they can um they I don't know if they have actively in the past and I think um given that it's a political appointment by the council, I don't know their level of comfort of doing that, but if they were encouraged to do so, they may be happy to do it. It's not something that's really come up in past conversations. So, >> is there anybody else no longer do it or where are we sitting at right now? Have you had any feedback? We have not had those discussions yet because we wanted to before we made the ask we wanted to know what the council had decided on process because that's the first question we get when we ask whether or not people are reupping. >> Every year we go through this conversation at the point of time when we're going to post for applicants and if they're going to reup or not. So we're trying to be more proactive this year. >> Well I mean and for current folks I mean I don't think they have to reapply. I mean, they can express their interest, which is kind of what has changed or evolved over time. So, they express their interest and then if multiple external folks that aren't currently in seats apply and want to do it, then they submit their stuff and then there's that kind of that interview process. >> Correct. That's the most recent evolution is if you're a sitting commissioner, you do not have to actually fill out an application again, but you do have to interview if there's interviews. >> I'm still okay with that. >> For sure. >> Yeah. I mean it would be interesting and it's just hard because you know I sit on a few different boards and each of them is a little bit different depending on their interest level and demand to be a part of them but I mean you even get to a point of like what is everybody's experience in and you kind of do we have somebody that knows land use really well or has an interest in real est I mean so then we could but we're not positioned I don't feel unless you want to disagree with that like to have such a selection criteria because we don't have enough people probably fill the seats as it is. >> No, it's like any other position you work with the applicant pool that you have. I can tell you based on my experience that depending on the nature of the commission, um, for lack of a better term, some people are better wired for it. They have aptitudes that are applicable to it. So, as a as a planning commissioner, you need to have somebody who has, you know, the planning part of it, the vision, but a lot and the majority of what they do is actually quasi judicial. So you need somebody that can think in that structured format working within the criteria and policies that are out there and when formulating new ones be able to think that way. Planning commission is a little different. You has added dimensions of budget and policy as well as the visionary aspects of it and the personalities that tend to do well in those are a little bit different um as well. Um, but if you only have two people applying for the spot, you only have two choices. You only have two choices. >> How do you feel the current like makeup without identifying anything and I'm not implying anything, but like just how they're made up now, different personalities, approaches, you know, because I feel like too, do we ever I guess it's a question. Do we ever get in a position where we have a a commission that maybe isn't as functional or as effective as it could be because of some of the folks on there? And then, you know, when we come to a reappoint process, maybe there are folks that we would encourage to not be reappointed. And have we ever done that? I mean, do we do we have a spot where it's we have a body on there to fill a seat and maybe it's not the most effective uh person to be on there? So, um, I can tell you that commissions tend to go through cycles where you have stronger and less strong, more functional and less strong commissions. >> You said it, let's be real. >> It's it's it's natural. Um, we've never truly had dysfunctional commissions and unlike other of our peer cities, that sometimes happens, right? Um, but you do have cycles. Uh, I can tell you um that we have never discouraged from somebody from applying, but I can tell you historically the decision related to whether or not we were going to post was related to the strength of the commissioners that were up for reappoint. Um, so that's as it's vague, but that's as close as I'm going to as I'm going to get. Now, as part of the process, staff does report back to the council and our one-on- ones. um performance, right? Who's been showing up for meetings or not, who's showing up prepared or not, who's contributing in discussions or not. That's reported back to the council and it's also part of the discussion for the interview panel um when that's going on as well. Um but the criteria, the performance criteria that you have for commissioners is kind of broad and few um generally speaking, but it's generally those things. I I still like the idea that we've been doing in the past where if you're on the current commission, you don't have to apply. If nobody applies, then you don't have to go through the interview process. But if there are applicants that come in the door, then I feel we need to interview all of them. >> Sounds good to me. No >> chief. >> Uh busy December so far. A lot of community events. Um I think we're kind of through that and now we're off to the hiring process. We currently have three people in the background process. Um one is almost done. I think we'll have a pretty good idea next week if that person is pretty much a go or not and then the other two just got their background packet. So fingers crossed. But that's kind of the big priority right now is getting people through the hiring process and hopefully getting us new people on board. >> That's exciting. >> Any additional comments from fire? >> No. No. Rich, >> I have two items. Number one, you have a report in the packet. Are there any questions that I can answer for you on that material? Number two, you guys may be aware this will be my last meeting as city engineer. >> My request is, can I keep this placard and take it home >> for my scrapbook? All in favor? >> Thank you. That's it. >> No joke. >> No joke. >> Not even one for last time being here. >> Sorry. >> Okay. >> Will you still be at some of the meetings? >> I will work for another year. >> Okay. If I have something important to present to you as part of a project or Luke gets hit by a bus or something, >> wins the lottery. >> That is a better one. So, I'll still be working on Elqua New Market uh items, but I intend to fade into the background. Go back to my farm in Virginia. Nothing specific. >> Um, no. >> We had the Christmas tree lighting event couple weeks ago. the day after the last meeting, right? Yeah. My children plugged the lights in and they turned on. Thank you, public works. >> Later question. >> Oh, it was a pretty good turnout. It was It was good. It was fun. We don't meet in December. I think by February maybe or March we'll be coming back with the results of the historically participating organization survey and recommendations from the CC on um recomposition of the organization. >> Has there been a lot of responses? >> Um actually with Christmas tree lighting and whatnot, it hasn't been sent out yet. I just talked with Jess earlier and she just has to make a few refinements and then get it to city hall so we can send it out, find contacts and send it out. The goal would be to send it out immediately after the first of the year or before the first of the year so that and give the organizations till the end of January to respond and then the results would be presented to the CCC in February for recommendation to the council. >> Sounds good. Um, we had the last um, general scale meeting was on something so exciting. It's just popping directly to the front of my mind. Um, uh, I believe that the discussion I I can't believe I'm spacing it. Um, from the last scale meeting. >> Yes. >> Farmer or something earlier. >> That is correct. So they were talking about the 2050 imagine plan. Um and they had people representing different facets of the discussion. It was moreformational than presenting anything specific. So they had representative from the farmers bureau. So it was um Brent Mullen. You guys may remember him. He was on the township board but he currently represents the farmers bureau. Longtime farming family in the area. We talked about perspective of farmers and planning and considering them. We've heard stories about, you know, trying to drive down roads that aren't made for large pieces of equipment. I remember his favorite thing was, "Yep, if you put that sign too close to the edge of the curb, guess what's going to bend first? >> My equipment or the sign?" You know, that type of stuff. Um they had um an area real estate agent Randy Kubish um who is very experienced with rural residential and farmland who talked about you know trends within the market and what's happening there. And then they had our Met Council sector rep who was also the lead staff person at the Met Council dealing with truly rural areas talking about some of the work that they've done and some of the considerations that they've tried to um take up as part of the system plan development. Um we had a presentation from trying to remember who the host was this time. Um, but that was probably the biggest item. So, not a lot that was truly directly impactful to to us. Uh, the executive um delivery committee meeting um was before our last meeting. So, I think I've already reported on that. And we had service delivery committee meeting on Monday. and that was um primarily about the um insurance consortium. So a quick update on that. Um we are finalizing the governance structure documents on how that will work. Um, one of the issues that is out there is there seems to be general agreement amongst the uh people indicated they'd like to participate related to the disparity in participation between Scott County and everybody else. They're bringing over half people or more. Um, how do you give them a more than one vote? because for them they fully control their situation right now and they're to participate they're going to have to give up some control. So they want to make sure that they have more than just one vote. So the question has been how do you give them one vote? Currently under statute that's how it works. So there's discussions about how you might be able to work around the statute with regards to how you structure the governing documents or seeking special legislation to leave it up to the entity to decide how they want their vote shares to work. It seems kind of common sense, but sometimes when you go to the legislature that doesn't necessarily mean anything. The other issue is that um Spring Lake Watershed would like to participate and they can't. Their attorney is saying you can't under statute. So it' be another statutory change that would allow them to participate as an organization. The idea is that once the governing documents are in final draft, they'll be circulated to all the potential members for everybody to basically kind of ratify it. say we're okay with it for purposes of proceeding. Um, parallel with that, they're doing updated feasibility study. You guys will recall that they went around and did the feasibility study with regards to, oh, if you stayed on your own, which you're doing now versus going in the consortium, here's an estimate of what the difference might be. Even though the benefits are long-term, it kind of provides an immediate snapshot of where it might what it might mean for you. You recall that they couldn't get the claims data for the smaller cities and so it really didn't mean anything to us. Uh the consultant we're working with has access to a new tool where they can get 90 what they figure about 96% of the claims data. So that would allow them to give a much an actual better estimate for everybody and for the smaller cities. They'll be working on that. I would expect that with in the first quarter after the first of the year fairly rapid succession we'll be asked to ratify the governance structure um will be provided with the results of the feasibility study and then basically it's the it's go or no go um with the exception that they will go out and get actual proposals at that point but by the time we get to May it's going to be a go or no go situation when we had our staff annual benefits meeting, we discussed with staff that this is out there, it's being discussed, the uh what we understood to be how it might be structured um why it would be considered and I did not get any negative feedback from staff or the especially the bargaining unit portion of our staff. I think everybody kind of understands what the what the situation is and the way I presented it to them is this will allow us to continue a similar benefit level that we provide today longer in the face of escalating costs. If that was an appropriate representation of that, let me know. Um uh but that was the item at the last at the last meeting. But so we'll have to commit to something potentially in May, >> May, June. It'll be the hard commitment and you're in for five years. >> And there's would be you would have to and to exit earlier, there would be um financial penalties. >> I mean, it's interesting. I mean, that's I wish health plans could figure out a way to do that, too, because that's why they're not incentivized to do proactive preventative care because they If I'm going to be a UKare member, well, I'm not gonna be a UK member next year, but that was a bad example. If I'm not gonna be a Blue Cross this year and then a Medicica next year, there's no incentive to invest in my health because they're not going to reap the reward of me staying healthy. So, but they kind of tie somebody to it or allow for that commitment. >> Yeah. And so, there will be like Health Partners or Blue Medicica or whoever, but they're not the insurer. they're a third party administrator because it's a self-insured deal. Where there is some uncertainty right now is there does appear to be some division on the county board whether or not they think it's a good idea. And what it really comes down to is what's in it for us. We're already have a what they believe to be a and it is a well functioning plan where we're already doing this to some degree actually to a very large degree and they feel they've been controlling their costs and they've been able to provide good benefits and so there is a benefit to them going into a larger pool but they also are giving up absolute control of their own destiny um to other pe a portion of that to other people and so there is still I I think um a discussion to be had there. A lot of it quite honestly was the group talking to the county. A good conversation just saying this becomes less economically beneficial for everybody if the county doesn't participate just because of your numbers. So we kind of need to know when are you guys going to decide whether you're continuing or not? Because if you're not then that changes the discussion. It's the smaller members. Technically, we could still do it. Um, legally, you need to have at least 100 participants, but the whole idea is getting a larger pool. One of the other discussions that's out there is there have been, I from what I understand, some light discussions about neighboring counties who might want to participate. The recommendation out of the um service delivery committee is let's get it going with the people we know and like and trust before we start making it bigger. Um and there's also I think some concerns with the smaller entities. I would be one of those people although we it wasn't explicitly stated that now you have two counties and given the structure of if you have x number of you the county the two counties could run the whole thing would be the concern. So, I think where it's right now is let's start with Scott County. We have existing relationships and structures. And I think quite honestly, Scott, I suspect the county might feel that way. They feel comfortable with the partners that are in now, but I think it's an inevitable discussion. Um, so more to come on that, but I think right now we'd be looking at just the initial players and not all Scott County entities are looking to come in. I should point out that Savage has indicated that they probably will not participate right away and New Prague has indicated that they probably would not participate right away either because they're comfortable where they're at. >> Is there is there penalty is not the right word, but is it better to be one of the foundational members to incentivize people to join now versus waiting? I mean, they should pay a higher premium or whatever if they're going to wait a year or two. There should be a benefit to taking the risk of starting as like the seed group, the foundational group should It feels like there should be something. >> The specific of that weren't discussed, but the existing members have to vote to to allow somebody in. And the idea is there would be a um a benefits analysis. Like if you're a high-risisk group, we may not at the time we may not want to have you come in because it might undermine everybody else. Um, so there would still need to be an at the time decision about whether or not you would add people um to the group, but right now they just got renewals that are just fantastic and they're like, we're not going to give that up. So until we've run that run that out. So >> Yep. discussion by council. >> I missed my queue. Are you going to do it and you queue it up? I thought we administration now that my text I looked at my text earlier. I'm like, "Oh crap, forgot to add it to the agenda." >> We go now. >> We can do it now. Um well what he's alluding to is Lakeville School District voted not to continue having a voting polling place in the south uh down south here for us. Nearest is in the northeast quadrant of the school district. Um essentially any under under a special election people in Eureka Aladu market have to drive all up north to cast your ballot. Um there was a couple of board members that were politicking to keep something down here uh and they voted not to. Um Josh sent an email to the board anything against but that didn't go anywhere if you like talk about that at all. >> Yeah. >> Your experience with it? >> No. So I mean what kind of fries me a little bit too is the lack of communication, the lack of just proactive anything. Uh, and I don't know the full context, but it sounds like we were we were alert alerted to it as a city like days after the original discussion happened at the council meeting or the board meeting from the previous one and then it was a complete kurfuffle. It's a comical uh board meeting to watch the first one. They were going back and forth and some of them were making just crazy good amendments to whatever and and then so they carried it over to this last Tuesday. Um and again just really it felt like just trying to slide it through as quick as they could uh ultimately. So they're consolidating and and as Andrew said it just going from the 20 plus polling places that they have down to four for special elections. So off election years. >> I I can give a quick overview. >> Yeah, go for it. >> I have a presentation prepared. >> Oh, you do? >> All right. >> Um anticipating that this might be on the agenda. So everything is is as it's been um presented. Um currently Lakeville School District has 20 polling locations within the district for general elections. It's a large number, but it's a large district and one of the largest districts from a student population, etc. within the state. Um that includes pretty much that includes one here in um city hall, one at New Market Town Hall, one at Eureka Town Hall, one at Credit River Town Hall. Um and uh the discussion at the district was, well, we have special elections. The voter turnout isn't as much and there is overhead to having 20 polling locations for a lower voter turnout. And it that discussion from what I understand came up relatively quickly um and somewhat quietly um at the district board and the district staff was asked to provide a number of options. The one that Josh was discussing that was approved was what they called combination of one where they're reducing those 20 polling locations down to four. You can see them here identified here, here, and here. uh the whole blue area portion of the district which represents Alcoa New Market, New Market Township, Credit River, over towards Prior Lake etc. Um all of those individuals would need to go vote at um Trinity Lutheran Church which is just west of Lakeville South. So everybody have to drive up and you'll also notice that all of these are within Lakeville City proper as well. Eureka Township would have to drive all the way up into um central Lakeville, like downtown Lakeville area, in order to vote as well. Uh the discussion on the board for those that were in favor of it was generally well, this is a consolidation of cost. I'll talk a little bit about the logistics of two different counties. Um but it's basically a cost savings. Those that were opposed were generally >> Can you >> I will I will get to that. So, but and the the counter is Yep. But for 75% of the geography of the county, not 75% of the voters because voter densities denser um as you get to normally further than other portions of the district and that that might present a voter a barrier to to voters. So, um the sites that they're looking at is St. John's Lutheran Church, Trinity Church, which is where our voters would go, uh, Lakeville Water Treatment Plant Facility, which is where like Eureka is going to go, and then Hosanna Lutheran Church. So, here's the cost issue. So, currently they're estimating the cost around the special election is $155,000. Combination one, which was adopted, would be about $109,000 versus $136,000 for combination two, which would include voting locations still within Scott County. US basically here. >> Do you have a a slide? And I don't know the answer to this. Uh do we know what the total budget is for the local school district? No. >> So what does 50,000 equate to as a >> I don't I don't know. But in fairness to the school district, they have you can't look at the total budget because certain budgets are specifically tied to certain types of activities and things so to speak. So >> I think Michael would be a good person. I would be curious to know >> he's expecting questions coming out of tonight. >> Um I spoke to him earlier today. So the rationale for combination what I'm not going to read through the whole thing, but operational efficiency. Um a lot of this relates to everything all of the polling locations are within Dakota County. So what has happened is both Dakota County and Scott County used the same voting software which provided for some efficiencies with regards to running the elections. Dakota County has adopted different software for different voting software and as a result um if they're going to run polling locations within Scott County, they basically have to run from an operation standpoint two separate elections. you have different software, you have to get different ballots, all of that type of stuff because you're running two separate systems. Balanced voter distribution. So, they're basically saying, "Okay, we're going to have this many voters coming to this location." So, the numbers are roughly the same and you can operationally handle it. The cost savings that we talked about site capaci site capacity and suitability, they're just saying the sites that they did select have the capacity to handle the number of voters that are supposed to go there and voter communication. And I can and Steph can explain that better than than I can. Um, this is only, just to be clear, for special elections, general elections would still be all 20 polling locations. Um, one of the things to note is Lakeville is the only school district in Dakota County that does not have consolidated polling locations during special elections. Um, Dakota County is replacing aging voting equipment, which we talked about. So, there's a total of 44,000 voters. um 37 voter 37,000 the last general election. But when you look at that, you have roughly a third of that that show up for the last special election, which was 11,000 total or excuse me, 13,000 total. Um 2,000 of those were early voters. This gets to a couple of I guess I would say staff findings. So, one, uh, staff has looked at this knowing that there would be a discussion. From staff perspective, consolidation of some sort makes operational and financial sense, um, for special elections. Um, excluding Scott County does provide clear financial savings and it's easier for district staff for two reasons. It's one system versus two systems that they have to deal with. Um, and when they do Dakota County, Lakeville sta, Lakeville city staff does most of the work for them. If they include Scott County, they don't have that resource to the same degree. So, it's harder for them. It's a more of a burden on their staff. If you think about it, school districts when it's a general election year and they have anything on there, they don't have I shouldn't say they don't have to do any work, but all of the polling locations, all that work is done by the cities because it's a general election. In special election years, they it's their show. They have to do the whole thing. So, the more polling locations, the more complications, the greater demand it is on their staff. Um, that being said, um, in our discussions with Scott County, um, or I shouldn't say discussions, communications because it was via email. Um, there's no real logistical hurdles to having multiple counties. For example, Bell Plain District is in four counties. >> And I was going to say of the 327 public school districts in Minnesota, 115 of them or a third of them span multiple counties. >> Correct. So like so staff's assessment of this is that it's not that there's any true logistical hurdles. It's an issue of what's easier or not to include Scott County or not. And there's a cost issue of about $30,000 difference between the two options. Um and we don't dispute either of those, but it's really an ease and burden versus true logistical barriers and whatnot. Um an additional point from a staff standpoint. Um in the board discussion on this particular topic, one of the justifications that one of the counterarguments to the argument of distance, the barrier of distance um for our residents was that they can do early voting. Um Tom soap boxing for a little bit. So um take it for what it's worth. Early voting is a supplemental methodology for voting to provide greater access. The majority, vast majority of voters vote in person. It appeared that the board members that were in support of not having a polling location down here felt that early voting could supplement that um rather than recognizing that in-person voting is the primary method of voting for folks. Just some commentary. and we're very very well experienced with all of the efforts that have gone into expanding voting accessibility. It seems a little bit odd that the primary method of voting would be further further barriers would put there given everything else we've done with regards to expanding access to voting. Um the other item is that uh when the board was also citing this, it was regularly cited that the option that was considered that combination one was based on the recommendations of Scott County, Dakota County, and the city of Lakeville. >> They said that multiple times. >> It was mentioned several times. I am sure they consulted with Scott County. I am sure they consulted with Dakota County. I'm sure for the reasons that we talked about it's less burden, etc. But again, we talked to Scott County staff, corresponded with them, excuse me, and they indicated that there's no problem with engaging Scott County. I think it's more an issue of how much work it is versus true logistical barriers. The other thing associated with that is I did inquire with the school district, well, why did you consult with the city of Lakeville? Well, because we have to utilize voting locations that are utilized by the cities. Okay. But using that same logic, there's no difference with Credit River, New Market Township, City of Elco, New Market, Eureka Township. And yet none of I can't speak for Eureka Township, but I did talk to our neighbors. Nobody was contacted on this. Nobody was even aware that it happened until a concerned citizen stopped by and none of the entities were ever officially contacted by New York Township, >> even though you had other options. So, unless they knew that they were going to be going with option one, which you can make an assumption if you want. >> Absolutely. It's it's interesting that the entities that were ex that were excluded from having polling locations were the entities that were not consulted in the process. >> Um it's possible that Burnsville wasn't consulted either. They don't have a they don't have a location. Now, in fairness, from what we understand and is observed, the city of Lakeville basically runs their elections for them to a very large degree, handles a lot of the heavy lifting. Um, so I can see them consulting with it, but the idea was that the recommendation came from them and nobody else was consulted in the in the process. Um there are possible political implications and I don't want to get too far into this but we all know that recent board elections were some of those were very narrow number of votes relative to the total votes cast which gets you into the every vote counts type of discussion. Um, and also those of us that have been the community for a while know that some of the past referendums in Lakeville have been relatively close and somehow it seems that the interest and inclusionary nature of the board changes a lot when they think it's going to be a close referendum and they need votes down this way. And this is just a personal comment. Um, I've been here 22 years and I have been involved in multiple long-term planning efforts with the school district and I can tell you based on my experience that there's a very strong geocentric Lakevillebased view of the world with regards to the district organization. And while there have been individuals within the organization that have not been, you know, that are less indoctrinated in that, it is something that clearly exists. And it's also been apparent that the level of interest or inclusion or investment or engagement of our community depends has depended largely on upcoming referendums and how much of a difference our voters down here would make. That's my opinion. So, >> can I ask a quick question? Do we know out of that 13,000 voters, how many came from our area? Yeah, it's on. >> No. >> Okay, here we go. Is it this one? >> Yeah, it's on there. >> I think it would be fair to say that when you look at voter density, you're going to get more voters at those long at those locations up there. I think the question is vote whether or not that overrides voter accessibility and how much of an impact the greater distance would actually have on the number of voters that are going to show up and nobody has data on that. >> So what can we do about it now? >> Well, my big question like what is the solution? If this is the path they're taking, what can we >> Yeah. >> Well, so so I think the first to recognize is it's not our elections. It's it's school board elections. So >> and referendum. >> Yeah. But so >> so it's not it's not it's not us. It's nothing that we control. So I think there would initially have to be a decision from the council of what role >> is responding to this or doing something about it within your lane as council members and our lane as an organization. So that would be the first question. If you feel that it is um responsibility or within our purview to become engaged in this, what could you do? Mayor's correct the vote has occurred in order to change it for the upcoming election cycle um for any special elections that would occur before the cycle occurs again. >> There's one in May. >> Yeah. >> They discussed something about they discussed a special election in May. >> It's been mentioned multiple times. So for that special election, if you wanted to change it, you would have to convince the board to convene a special meeting on this topic and reconsider their vote before the end of the year because they that's when they have to make the decision by it was done at this last meeting because it was the last regular meeting of the year. If that's if you wanted to actually get a change. Now, if you just want to raise ex express displeasure um on behalf of our voters down here and um our views related to disenfranchisement, for lack of a better term, um you can certainly do that, but you could honestly do that at any point. Um I think you can send him an email, you can send them a letter, you can show up at meetings. Um but this is just my opinion. there's a difference if it's coming from a city council or if they're hearing it from their voters and there's a larger grassroots concern about the issue going forward and so what you're doing and I think this is based on the conversation this is the concern here what I've heard is it's not so much it it's about the current election but it's part of the larger issue of um how the the in the optics of how the district treats this portion the hinterlands of the the district. It goes back to that geocentric um view. And if that's the larger issue, this is part of that, for lack of a better thing, it's part of this battle >> to make the point to get traction to issues in the future like facilities, programming, um etc. uh down down the road >> becoming politically relevant. >> Well, and I had sent an email and you can forward it if that's okay to send. Um but I mean I I mean I really think this is uh I mean they didn't even consult. They didn't even reach out. We're we're not like get that fine. We're not their priority but we are a growing community. And um I guess the point that I would like to make is like I want to revisit like any partnerships that we do have. Like this is like pick up the damn phone, send an email, say we're going to have a vote on this. What are your thoughts? What is your feedback? Um reach out to the township, reach out to all the cities, not just us. But I mean it was such an arrogant move. Um and and just completely disrespecting the entire district. And you know, Thompson and Swanson and a few of the the folks on there made some really good >> Thompson fought hard. Yeah, they did. And I I bet and I don't know how you redraw school district lines, but you know, if New Prague is interested, I mean, if they'd rather have the whole community of Ela New Market and New Prague School District, I'll help them. Like, I'll redraw the damn lines myself because this I just >> Is that within our left and right lateral limits? Is that >> is that something we could actually >> Can we initiate something like that if there was voter will? for resisard for our constituents down here. So, >> so um a couple of a couple of things. One, it's fair, I think, to note that it was a split board vote. It was four to three. So, it wasn't like >> failed the first time. >> So, then they brought back additional options. I don't know what the difference >> brought a bunch of options up and they just >> Yeah. >> shut them down. >> So, it was a it was a tight >> it was a tight board vote. So, it's not like it was >> a a clear majority um but a majority. >> Um so, you'd only have to flip one vote actually to get them to to do something else. Um the other point is with regards to school district boundaries. So, as you guys know, I don't know if you guys realize this, but we're split between two school districts in the community. Um, and this is a discussion, the whole discussion of we should have our own school district or we should be all in one school district or the other school district. It's a cyclical discussion that comes up repeatedly. So, I've had discussions with every school superintendent in both school districts over the years on this particular topic. So, at a high level from a practical standpoint, it's very difficult. Um, one superintendent one time used the term even an act of God can't move boundaries on the scale you're talking about. And there's a couple of reasons for it. It's it's practical. One, it's money. So, if you move the boundary, you're losing students, which are income, and you're losing tax base, which is income. No school district is going to willingly give that up. >> Well, no. They want our money, not our opinion. >> Yeah. >> 100%. They want our the money. And before before we develop north of two and before we develop more on this side, I mean I really would like to figure out is there a way if nothing else put the pressure on >> to say don't let it happen then include our voice in it. >> So the second the second item is you do see small adjustments but they're usually equivalent exchange like hey we're going to clean up the boundary in these neighborhoods because there's this weird finger that goes in so we're going to do a little swip swap to kind of make things true up. two um something like that would have to come from a grassroots level. Um I spoke with New Prague school superintendent today. He said New School District is not seeking to take on any additional things. It would have to come from the residents. I think you get into the issue of school districts don't want to get into fighting matches with adjacent school districts. They have working relationships as partners etc neighbors on particular items. too. Um, unless both boards agree to it, it's probably, and this is based on my estimation, it's going to end up in lawsuits if there isn't even a mechanism for it. And I can't see the Lakefield School Board giving all of that up without a fight and speaking practically. They are much better resource than New Prague School District and us to do it. And then the last practical issue is regardless of how we might feel about this particular issue, you are going to have a portion of the community that will never want to go to New because they're Lakeville school families and vice versa. So to get a strong enough majority movement to go is probably politically practically difficult. That being said, um I have uh commitments from both superintendents that if this is a question that we wanted to ask, they would research what that process would be for me as an academic exercise. >> I would love for them to spend some time doing that. >> Um >> so, so that that's what I can tell you at this particular point so I can get the answer of what what it actually entails. Um, it, as you can tell, it doesn't happen very often. >> Um, and I can report that back in some form of an update in the future. Uh, as far as other things that we could do, I guess we can do letter, we can do email. Um, if you have residents that are upset about this, they should they should engage with their school board members, etc. If we're not going to promote the idea of trying to do a special meeting, then I would suggest that a wellthoughtout um approach after the first of the year, possibly at the first school board meeting of the year might be appropriate, but we'd have to know that nothing's going to change and can't change until the next election cycle um to make that change. What's going to happen in May is when they do whatever election that they talked about they're going to do, people are going to show up here and they're going to find out. What do you mean I got to go all the way up in Lakeville? Like that's what's going to happen. I And if you're going to do that, I think you need to educ the community would have to be educated that this is out there. The only reason we were aware of it was because a concerned citizen stopped by the front counter and quite honestly didn't even provide complete information. I had to make some phone calls. So, um, we thank them for that, but Credit River was aware of it because the same citizen stopped there, New Market Township, had no idea, >> um, that and they were happy that I'd let them know. >> Um, I don't know if Eureka Township knows. Um and and so anyways, I I would say that the first thing would be you would need to educate the community that this is out there and see if there are people that and see if they care enough to raise a stake. Otherwise, I think the mayor is right. You'd wait until we get to the next election. People are going to show up here and go, "What? >> I got to go where?" >> So, I mean, I don't think anybody's stupid enough to believe that this wasn't political. Um, I mean, I don't agree politically with a lot of folks that I live by, but I still hate the fact that you're taking away access for voices to be heard and vote in ways that I may disagree with, but that look at that map. You know what that map represents and that is very blue, very whatever. And so now you have a whole entire district that doesn't have a voice in that. And I that's God, it's so wrong. Thank you for taking the time to look into it and bring it to all of our attention. So, >> so >> seems like we're all in agreement. >> And what is that agreement? >> Exploring options. >> Just exploring options. >> I don't think we're going to convince him to do it. I don't think Give me a crayon. I'll go redraw Andy if he doesn't want to do it. Uh >> we're not happy. >> But I mean, I don't think that they're going to go for a special election. I mean, unless there's one vulnerable one. I mean, I I'd be curious. I'll go rewatch who was the fourth no vote the first week and see who that was and if we can't figure out >> I don't I don't foresee that h I mean >> Ryan Thompson just threw his hands up he's like I give up >> after everything he tried for us and >> I would >> I don't think that we could be swayed >> I would say just practically speaking um it if you wanted I would agree that it's unl uh you're going to have to get a board to come in. And I would also say if it was us and we were being asked for a special meeting on an item that was a split vote and took 20 minutes out of a council meeting, >> you wouldn't re you wouldn't even hold the special meeting unless you had at least in your case four council people in their case probably at least six members available. So there's a logistics there's a practical issue of whether or not they can get >> and everything and it's not >> at the same point doesn't hurt to ask >> and it makes point the fact that we thought it it was appropriate to ask. I would also say if we ask we might want to see if we can in that ask see if we can get other support from potentially New Market town you know contact New Market Township Eureka Township Credit River although to be honest their proximity to the polling locations that's closer but if there are other people that would be willing to support that ask to schedule a special meeting it it doesn't hurt um it just takes the time to draft the request along with a rale or concerns associated with it. >> I think it's a waste of time and I'd rather make him live with the decision for a bit and like superintendent is going to have to fix some of this crap now. I mean, this this hurts the relationship. It hurts the communication. So, I will encourage all the voter turnout for May election and any future one to make sure that people get their voices heard. >> Well, and >> what are they? >> Probably to put another person in or who knows if it's a referendum they need more money and They're going to get all the Lakeville folks to >> The other the other thing though is I'm sure they will use that voter. So here's the double-edged sword. If we encourage our people to make the extra effort, >> say it works. See, it doesn't matter. >> See, it works. It doesn't matter. >> That that was I believe that >> I thought I heard that being discussed there that they would, hey, we'll try it. >> And I get that. We'll try it and see what the numbers are and see if it makes a difference. But um but that would be the that would be the double-edged sword to that. >> But if anybody wants to watch it, it was Lakeville's school district's meeting and the discussion started at 3 hours 44 minutes. >> Throw a wrench at your TV. >> So is there So there's a >> agreement. We're just going to wait till >> You don't have a TV anymore. I I agree with Kate. Yeah. Wait till January and then take it from there. >> Yeah. >> And in the meantime, I will conduct research on school district boundary adjustments and what the process is associated with that. >> I I Yes. My first gut instinct is like, yeah, let's do it. Let's pull it away from them. But then you have to think about our constituents. A lot of people are not going to want to go to new priorities. >> They can open. They can open. But the fact that I I'll be honest, the fact that we're even talking about it might get some people stirred up. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But it's it shows what the district thinks of them in their opinion. >> Yeah, >> absolutely it does. But if their kids are involved in sports, if they have, you know, that is going to be a tough buy for people that go to Lakeville that, oh my gosh, the city council went ahead and changed our boundaries and now we have to go to New, >> you know. I'm not willing to to do that unless we talk to our constituents and say, "Hey, this is what's going on." >> And it wouldn't be quick. I'm guessing something like that would be years of con of concerted effort and resources to make it it happen if it if it's possible. >> A lot of people don't know this happened. >> Sounds like a good uh they're going to start talking Hopefully. I mean, we need to all get it out there so everybody that we know knows that this is happening. >> Is it like some times? Amanda's going to write a commentary piece. >> Well, there's some this week >> again, but the it's not uncommon for and we typically haven't done it. It has been part of our normal practice and culture and maybe that's why we get ignored down here. I know I'm so boxing a lot tonight. Um but letters to the editor >> um on the topic um letters to board members potentially um and then means of educating our residents that this actually occurred. Um, and >> are we allowed to put a draft letter out there and say, "Hey, need you guys to sign this and send it to all of the board at Lakeville." >> I would say you start >> draft the letter for people and say, "Here, you don't even have to do anything. We have the letter here. You can go ahead and sign your name to it and send it in." I would say you have to want to be conscious of how political you are becoming as an entity because it cuts both ways, right? Um would you want the city of Prior Lake to put out a draft letter to say, hey, the city of Alpa New Market should or shouldn't be doing XY >> Z. I think it's better coming from someone on the council. >> Emily's waver. Come on. >> Yeah. Nobody responded. >> It wasn't the hot topic apparently. >> I would say if people that you've talked to who have concerns about this issue could be encouraged as private citizens that's going to have a different that to do things that would be good. >> I have seen you know and we've engaged in it letters from like with Met Council on certain policy issues. um uh a council person writing a letter to the editor on the topic or a member of the community writing such a letter. I think those things have impact. Um and quite honestly, one of the biggest things that I've seen, especially with school boards, is one-on-one conversations between council members and school board members on the topic. and not necessarily the ones who agree with us because they're preaching to the choir, but reaching out and contacting those that were opposed to it and having one-on-one conversations with them about it. >> Okay. >> So, what I'm hearing for action items on staff's part is to research. Are we still researching the district boundary issue or not? >> Well, I don't want you to waste your time. I want the school district to waste their time. >> They will do the research and get back to me. they volunteered that they would find out what the process is. >> Yes. As long as it's simple for you to do and hard for them, fine. >> It'll be phone call and reading an email and reporting it back to you guys. So, >> else make a motion to >> second. All in favor?