Everyone please rise for the United States of America to the rep for it stands one nation under God indivisibley andice for all. All right. He changes the agenda. [Music] items on there are existing assessments. We can't hear anything. Sorry. Um, the two additional documents are reallocating the current assessments to the new lot with a new lot within the plat. Yep. Any motions? Motion to approve the agenda as amended. Second. Motion by Josh, second by Kate. All in favor? I. I. Agenda is adopted. We have no presentations, proclamations, or acknowledgements. Before I open public comment, I just want to remind everyone public comment is intended for anything that's not currently on the agenda tonight. So, if anybody has something for public comment, please come up, state your name and address for the record. Once, twice. Okay, public comment is closed. No, excuse me. I don't think they can hear us out there. Did you I can't hear you in the back. Can people hear me back there? Can you guys hear me out there? They can't. Just checking again. Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll try public comment one more time. Just a reminder for those that didn't hear me, public comment is anything that's currently on the agenda tonight is not eligible for public comment. So, um, with that being said, if you have anything, please name and address. Mayor, uh, considering to delay a vote this evening. Is that considered something that we cannot talk about at this point? Correct. Well, we won't take public comment on that. Okay. Then, um, my name is Vita Conit. I live at 983247th Street East in Lakeville. And um I wanted to let you know I have been out knocking doors in Elco New Market and I've spoken to many of our neighbors. Um and a resounding message I have gotten from people I speak to is that they're concerned about the water bottling plant proposal. Um they're concerned that their taxpayer dollars are going to subsidize this. They're concerned about having water for future generations. Um, and also water quality. There were some people that said they were having changes in their water pressure also in town. Uh, which was a surprise, maybe something else. But, um, I just wanted to let you know I I remember talking to you earlier about how um, there were a number of us that showed up and expressed our concerns and we were told there were other people that were thought this was a great idea and that they just didn't come to that meeting. Um, but again, I'm knocking every door. I'm not limiting myself to a D or an R. I'm I'm knocking every door. And everyone that I speak to, except for one person who told me he was an employee of the city, has said, "We're really worried. We don't think it's a good idea." So, I just want you to know that. Thank you. Anyone else for public comment? My name is Susan Mcy. I live in Elco, New Market. Um or New Market, sorry. Um so it's been a while since I've attended one of these meetings. Part of me was hoping that not only would common sense and respect finally take hold, but a sense of duty and responsibility towards this community and the people of the entire state that that would prevail. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case. Elco, New Market City Council, Scott County, the Minnesota DNR, Niagara, and anyone else who has had has been responsible for pushing this agenda forward. You people exhaust me and quite frankly should be ashamed of yourselves. We have Russian submarines and warships conducting missile drills in the waters off the coast of Florida near Cuba. Presidents of countries saying we will have World War II within two to three months. in it. Here we are dealing with the issue of Niagara, which I can only describe as a natural resource blood sucking company that should have been told to take their money and go back to California a long time ago. I would ask Tom Terry, what is this responsible plan being worked on with the DNR that will lay out how it will investigate complaints and correct any problems caused by the city's pumping. I just read that the DNR found that private wells within one mile radius could run out of water. Has a distance limit been set which would pre prevent or p protect private wells within a certain proximity to the pumping stations? Is there going to be a contingency fund set up by the city of Elco New Market as well as Niagara that would pay for any issues to include but not limited to wells drying up prematurely due to Niagara as well as health issues from things such as sediment being stirred up and getting in the water. If there's one thing I know, CYA is a high priority for companies, not to mention a bunch of Washington wannabes who look out for themselves. I'm sure Niagara and the city have protected themselves against lawsuits while leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves. Money, power, recognition. Same old story, different faces. You may have managed to convince yourselves that you're doing this for the greater good, but that saying has worn out its welcome as an excuse to take from certain people for the gain of others. It is said that money is the root of all evil. We all answer to a higher power and will be judged by what we did while here on earth. If you are truly wise, you would do well to remember that. Thank you. Anyone else care to speak under public comment? Uh Jonathan Carlson. I live on Pillsbury Avenue in Elco. Um just had some questions about the water response plan and I don't think that's on the agenda. So, we are going to talk about it. Are we? Okay. Go ahead and ask questions. Sure. Yep. And I don't I don't need to I I need answers later. I don't need answers right now. So, I have questions like um um is there a distance limit put on either quality or well interference? And what's the basis of that um distance limitation? Will the city reimburse uh well owners that have had some impact or have increased concerns and now are going to routinely test their water when previously they had no reason to routinely test their water. Um, if we're testing our water, is there a certain set of tests that we should be running? Is there labs that will have more credibility? Um, what guidance would the city or the DNR provide? Um, uh, um, will the city provide any uh, remediation for those that have already suffered damages from the aquafer test? Um, is the city who we come to? Is the DNR who we come to? What if the city and the DNR disagree about who we come to? How are those kinds of issues going to be resolved? So, those are my questions and I I really would appreciate a public forum. You had a great open house where we had lots of experts to talk about things. Um, I think something very similar like that should be set up given the number of people that could potentially be impacted and the number of questions because I think mine are just a sampling of what's out there. Thanks. Appreciate your professionalism, John. Anyone else care to speak under public comment? Anyone else? Okay, we'll close public comment and move on to consent agenda. Anyone have any items on consent they'd like pulled or quick questions? Motion to approve consent agenda. Motion by Josh. Second. Second by Kate. All in favor? I. Passes. Uh we have no public hearings tonight. Um so general business, we had a couple things. Yes. Under general business, Mr. Mayor, uh we have a request for waiver of fees for Elco Baseball Club. Uh they are uh Linda can talk about the specific event if you have any questions but basically they are asking for a waiver of the fee for their fireworks permit. Um fireworks permit is normally administratively um issued and we will be issuing the permit but there is a $100 fee and they are asking for the waiver of that fee. I just have a question. Why isn't this just administratively approved with both of the pieces of it seeming to be an administrative type approval? Because I think this is a no-brainer. So, I'm just wondering could we not just stamp this moving forward for future things like this? We would need to um establish a specific policy related to this. Um originally we had a very narrow range of where we would wave fees for local nonprofit organizations and a rationale for it. And to be honest, what it's really grown into is every nonprofit wants a waiver for all fees associated with the city. Um, I will ask the city attorney to speak to the topic of waving fees for uh local nonprofits from a legal standpoint. We haven't been challenged on it, but that challenge does exist and there would be some potential defense issues associated with that. So, we've been handling it on a case-byase basis. Um, so yes, you could, but that doesn't exist currently. The permit itself is administratively issued. Waiver of fees that are on the fee schedule are required to be that has to go to council. I mean, we I I don't need the legal uh or anything related to that. I was just curious. I mean, I think just anything to make it easier moving forward and if it's just going to be whatever and I've already taken up more time than I intended. So, what I would suggest if this is a discussion that the council wants, we can bring we can have a thorough discussion of the overall topic at a future meeting. Josh, that sounded like a motion to approve. So move motion to approve resol resolution 24-41. Motion by Josh. Second. Second by Kate. All in favor? I. Before we open up the next item, I just want to address the crowd. It is very important to understand what is actually on the agenda. And I've asked our uh city attorney to speak more eloquently than me, but what we are approving or what we are considering for approval tonight is literally has nothing to do with Niagara. Okay? It has nothing to do with water pumping. It has nothing to do with natural resources. Nothing. It's purely a plat a final plat application. We had approved a preliminary plat previously with the condition of the DNR granting the appropriations permit. They have granted that. Now, we still have to make a decision on the final plat, which is what we're doing tonight. We are going to talk a little bit about water in this conversation, but I just want everyone to be on the same page or at least understand that. So, with that, Tom. Yep. Um, I'm going to ask Renee to come up and give the presentation related to the plat. And then I've also asked the city engineer to prepare a presentation to follow that to talk about the water appropriation permit and the associated response plans that we've had a lot of questions on. Oh, before you Andre, did I miss anything? I know I was going to turn it over to you, but when I explained the plat process, did I miss anything? See if I'm on. No, I mean generally the city needs to approve a plat as long as it's condition as long as it complies with the preliminary plat approval and your city ordinances. Um and the plat is really just a means of uh taking a meets and bounds parcel, turning it into lots and blocks and outlots and ensuring that the um uh public improvements necessary to serve that plat are there and that there's security in a development contract to ensure that they're completed as required. What's the potential consequence if we as a city just decided, you know what, we don't want to do this anymore? Um If if there really is no basis for denial and the plat complies with the subdivision ordinance and the preliminary plat approval conditions, um I think that you would uh be challenged and you would probably not withstand that challenge. Just because you're speaking quietly, if we denied this final plat application and it meets, you know, the criteria that's needed, we'd likely get sued and lose. Correct. Thank you. Okay, go ahead, Tom. So, I'll ask Renee to go through the zoning application piece of this and as I mentioned after that information that I apologize. Um, so Rene will go over the plat, Rich will go over the appropriation permit. Okay. Thank you. Um, and I'm presenting uh general business item 8B related to the Interstate 35 Industrial Park application for final plat approval. Uh, on your on the screen, this map depicts the approximate um boundary and location of the proposed Interstate 35 industrial park plat. Um, on October 28th, 2022, Ryan Company's US applied for preliminary and final plat approval of Interstate 35 Industrial Park. The proposed plat consisted of 119.39 gross acres. It contained one lot, a 28 acre lot along with three outlots and 8.36 acres of road rightway. Two of the outlets would be retained by current property owners and uh reserved for future development. One of the small outlets contains a storm water pond and that would be conveyed to the city as part of the plat. Uh following a recommendation for approval from the city's planning commission and the allowance uh of additional public input at multiple city council meetings, the city council approved the preliminary plat application on April 13, 2023. The city council adopted resolution number 2317 granting approval of the preliminary plat of Interstate 35 Industrial Park consisting of one lot and three outlots on 119.39 gross acres. Um, a city has the most discretion in evaluating a plat against city ordinances and requirements during the preliminary approval stage. Um this is the time to impose any conditions on the plat uh or address any concerns the application may generate. Uh it sets conditions and guidelines under which the final plat can be approved and obtained. After a plat is preliminarily approved. Changes should generally be limited to meeting the conditions outlined in the preliminary plat approval um or uh meeting legal requirements required under city code uh state law or federal law where applicable. Uh the drawing here depicts the approved preliminary plat drawing. Resolution 23-17 is a four-page document that outlines the city's approval of the preliminary plat and includes 23 conditions. Including conditions and the approval of a preliminary plat is common. Most conditions are standard conditions such as the developer must enter into a development contract with the city at the time of final plat approval or uh such as the city engineer must approve the final construction plans. um or various minor design changes that are needed uh to meet city code uh prior to final plat approval. Uh with the exception of one condition on this plat, staff considers all conditions placed on the Interstate 35 industrial park plat to be considered standard in nature. After preliminary plat approval, um, state statute allows the applicant to seek final plat approval. The final plat application must demonstrate conformance uh with the conditions of the prelim preliminary approval and conformance with city regulations in state and federal laws are applicable. The one condition that was atypical to this plat that we don't normally expect to to see in preliminary plat approvals was condition number 23, which states, "Approval of the final plat shall be subject to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources approval of the city's request to amend the city's water appropriation permit to allow withdrawal of up to 365 million gallons of water annually. On November 28th, 2022, the city submitted to the DNR an application to amend the city's water appropriations permit as described. Um, as of April 13, 2023, seeing no further reason to withhold issuance of the preliminary plat uh for for the industrial park, the city council approved the preliminary plat and conditioned the final plat on uh standard items and included this one additional item related to water appropriations. On June 12th, 2024, the DNR issued water appropriations permit number 1984-6141, findings of fact, conclusions, and order of commissioner. The city engineer has uh will provide more information regarding this permit. Um, following my presentation, all conditions placed on the preliminary plat pursuant to city resolution 23-17 adopted April 13, 2023 have been addressed in the final construction plans, the development contract, and by the city receiving the water appropriations permit. The city engineer has issued a memorandum approving the construction plans for the development. Uh approval of the final plat is uh so solely approval of a subdivision of the property owned by the two uh underlying property owners identified on this plat. The approval the approval essentially um approves the layout of the property into lots and blocks. As Andrea mentioned earlier, properties currently described by meats and bounds. This allows the property to be platted into lots and blocks and also out uh lays out the requirements for the public improvements that are needed to serve the lot in the plat. The final plat approval is not approval of the Niagara project. Um it creates the lot that the property owner may sell to Niagara in the future. Um related to the plat, there is an existing assessment on one of the parcels that is proposed to be platted. Um we have created a resolution that just reallocates the existing assessment on a property described by Meets and Bounds onto one of the newly platted lots. Um so the balance of the assessment would just be carried forward to a new to proposed outlot A within the plat. Um approval approval of the plat will have an immediate net positive impact on the city's infrastructure funds because area charges um trunk area charges are always collected in association with new plats and developments will result in a total of approximately $59,000 into various infrastructure funds. Uh tonight the city council is being asked to approve uh five uh six actions. Adopt resolution 2442 approving the final plat and development contract. Approving two stormwater maintenance agreements and then approving a resolution uh reortioning the assessment and approving an amendment to the special assessment agreement. Five items. appro approval of the final plat. Um, forgive me. This drawing just depicts the final plat drawing. If you have any further questions, I stand for questions. Anyone have questions for Renee? Rich, you're you're up next. I understand. I've been asked to give an overview of the 2024 appropriation permit amendment that was just received. I'm sorry. Thank you. I've been asked to give a overview of the 2024 appropriation permit that was just received. We will discuss um two state statutes and Minnesota rules um 26 uh 103g265, 103g287, and 6115730. And those will be explained shortly. Statutes 103g.265 265 U governs the appropriation of water in the state of Minnesota and uh we have just a highle overview of the city's map here, city's water system map. It uh consists of three wells that pump from the Jordan aquifer. That water is delivered to our water treatment plant where it's treated for iron and manganesees. Then it is pumped up into the city's towers and one underground storage reservoir for delivery to customers through the city's distribution system. City currently serves on the order of 1,500 connections. Um and that uh is expected to continue to grow into the future. The um city of Elanu Market system requires the uh appropriation permit that I just mentioned. Our withdrawal exceeds 10,000 gallons per day and 1 million gallons per year, which are the thresholds for any system that uses water in the state of Minnesota to get a permit. Um other than some certain exceptions, which we don't qualify for. Um, so we've had a permit for a number of years. Our permit needed to be amended. Our previous permit allowed up to 135 million gallons a year to be withdrawn from the aquifer. Our recent usage was trending to this limit. So we needed regardless of anything else just on growth to update and get an additional appropriation. A new permit uh was requested and uh approved. That permit allows 365 million gallons per year. Uh we requested that based on continued growth in the city and an anticipated large user. Minnesota statute state statutes 103g287 talks about aquifer pump tests. Um, aquaer pump tests are required in support of appropriation permits in order for the DNS DNR to assess the sustainability and potential impacts of any application. These tests can be waved by the DNR and they often are waved by the DNR, but they are used when there's information or limited information on the aquifer in the applicants area, which was the case here in Elanu Market. It's the applicant's responsibility to get DNR's approval of its test pump plan, which we did. Our pump test um like I mentioned was approved by the DNR. The volume used during that pump test is exempt from our uh our prior permits limits. So, we didn't have a violation due to that, although we certainly went over uh the 135 million gallons per year because of it. We did a two-phase test over four weeks um based on the max well and treatment capabilities that we have. Our treatment plant can treat on the order of 1 million gallons a day. Uh we couldn't run all three wells and meet that, but we could run the two smaller ones together for two weeks and then the larger well alone for two weeks. Over four weeks, we pumped about 42 million gallons of water from the aquifer, which was, you know, pretty much as hard as we can do with our current system. The uh you might note that 42 million gallons is a month in a month is about six times what we might normally do in that same season uh over that same time period with the new permit. Correct? No, we normally pump roughly 7 million gallons a month. In the time of year that the pump test was conducted. Okay. During that month, we pump 42 million gallons. So, roughly six times what we normally would do just from our normal usage. Got it. Just to illustrate that we stressed as hard as as we could which is required by the by the DNR. Just wanted to briefly talk about interference to make sure that u even at a high level this is understood. So there's a cross-section of um the basically a slice through the earth if you imagine that the top line above the yellow relatively flat other than the wetland depicted represents the ground surface. Just below that, there's a level dashed line which would represent the water level in the aquifer when there's no abnormally high pumping going on or or a large user pumping water. You can see uh a high volume pumping well. That might be a city well. It might be an agricultural well. It might be some other large larger than a normal domestic well which is also shown represented and labeled as domestic well. Those domestic wells tend to be shallower. So you can see the high volume well goes quite a bit deeper into the aquifer. The domestic well doesn't go as deep. When the high volume pumping well is operating after uh some time a cone-shaped depression in the water level develops and that's represented by the blue area uh with the black line uh covering it. Uh this doesn't happen instantly. It takes some time. So the the high volume well starts pumping and in our case during our pump test I don't know exactly it was two or three weeks before that full cone of depression uh developed and stabilized at that and that's a point where there's enough water coming in to keep that level there. Um but it does create a a cone. So, if you imagine something like this happening where the blue is down below the level of that domestic well, that domestic well could run out of water uh because it can't reach it. That's interference. We had no interference reports during our pump test, but we did have several reports of quality impacts. Uh we don't know the exact mechanism. We do intend and I'll cover that briefly with our um response plans that we have to comply with. Um but we are aware of those. So Minnesota rule 6115.0730 covers what happens if there's a well interference problem. This stat or rule is out there regardless of any interference plans that we have or otherwise. If there's a well problem caused by a large user, they're compelled to fix it by these rules. However, in addition, Ela New Market's permanent amendment was approved with conditions determined by and required by the DNR. Those two most notably included a well interference response plan and a water quality response plan. So per statutes not complying with any condition is basically not complying with the permit and can lead to suspension or revocation. So these are in place today and have to be complied with. Just briefly, the well interference response plan basically takes the correction aspects covered in the Minnesota rules and adds a proactive element where we're we have to go out and gather data on nearby wells that are believed to be at risk, but there's not enough information on that may mean we have to open those wells up with a licensed contractor, measure where the pump is, measure where the water is, measure how deep it is, record all that, compile that for those wells, turn it into the DNR, We have to also go to additional 45 or so wells that are maybe a little further away believed to be less at risk, but there's not enough information to fully make that determination. We have to get what information we can on those wells, which may include opening, but that's at our choice. or we can simply offer those owners an agreement that protects them if there's a um doesn't they're protected anyway, but it it states what we would do if there's an interference issue, tells them what they should do. Did you say proactive? Proactive because we have to go out before we start pumping a lot of water and do this. So we we um Yeah. So there are time limits on these response plans. Sure. that basically would reflect but it's we do this before we start pumping water before we start yeah we would we plan to start this immediately gathering this so there's there's more wells and then the other thing is within one mile we have to identify all wells that might not be on the Minnesota well index so we have to go through a process to search for and find those identify them get what information we can so that we know and notify those those owners of what's going on. Um, we turn all that data to the DNR. They determine which wells from the information we're able to get are now at risk based on what they know about our aquifer and our pumping plans. They'll tell us which ones they believe are, and we have to approach those owners with notifications, offer them uh agreements, and uh have things in place should an interference problem actually develop at some point now or as far into the future as this permit remains applicable. So, that's the proactive parts, getting things set in place upfront so that there's not a confusion. If somebody's goes out of water, they know who to call, they know what's going to happen, that type of thing. The other part of this is interference investigations and corrections as needed. So if there's someone that we couldn't reach or we couldn't get information and there's an interference that's the plan still talks about how we would u approach and deal with those situations briefly on the water quality. Um there's a another proactive element where we're actually going to go out um before we begin using larger amounts of water um gathering baseline data from at least 20 wells in the area within this 2 and a half mile radius. um preferably on some kind of a spatial distribution, aquifer distribution, so we have a good representation of different conditions that are out in the area. Um there's a suite of different parameters that we need to test for. I don't have those off the top of my head, but there are um probably a dozen or so. Some are required to be tested in the field, some you take to a lab and get the results. So this is basically baseline data before anything happens uh other than the test pumping which I'll come to. Um we have to go out and get this kind of a what's the current situation. We do that all again as the city's usage increases to a certain point and and stays there what we consider a high level of pumping relative to our current condition. might be a a dry summer and and um and a large industrial user, you know, at full operation. We would go out grab that same data from those same wells to see if there's a change because of the pumping. Then again, after that um peak in usage declines, we go out again. So maybe fall comes and and the city's use falls off because of less irrigation. We go out again, get the same data again to see if there's changes and to document background. So, and I sorry if I'm confusing something, but so we're constantly testing, right? We will be sending to the DNR. We'll be doing three base rounds of testing in the first Well, it depends on the flows. So we have to project ahead because we don't know dayto-day what's what's going to but we can make projections based on our history based on you know what we know is going on and there's deadlines that we have to uh do this stuff before that happens and during which we can check because we know the daily flow is what we're pumping and then after it subsides. So, three three rounds of testing, but it doesn't go on continuously unless we get a complaint. Then we might go and if we don't already, if that didn't happen to be one of the wells, which it unlikely would be because there's way more wells out there than 20, we would grab a sample from that well, compare it to this baseline to look for anomalies. But we'd also gather other information on, you know, the well, the treatment system, what happened, when did it happen, uh compare that to backgrounds and try and, you know, determine if we were the cause of it and to what extent. Um and we have to um share all this with the DNR. Actually all of this is you know lock step. Any data we collect is shared with the DNR. Any and for their analysis or their records we have to retain these records and you know for the duration of the permit. Um if we do find something u that was caused by the city's pumping then we prepare and follow a corrective action agreement or settlement with that property owner. And um as far as the pump test, which of course is in the past now, it's our intent that we would follow this same process for that. We may not have the background testing, but we can still do some things to try and assess the extent of the that was caused by the cities and and what the damages are. So maybe this isn't the right time to ask this, but you there was looks like there were seven wells identified of. So that's an interference, not a water quality. But yeah, there's seven that the DNR wants to know for sure. We have to do everything we can to actually get hard data on the pump depth, the water level, the well depth because they're fairly close, maybe not as deep, um, but they don't have all the detail they need. So we have to get hard data on that. There's an additional tier of wells 44 45 that are maybe further away or maybe deeper but there's still not enough information for them to fully assess. We're also responsible to make efforts to get that data on those wells. And then finally the third tier is to look for any wells that nobody knows about within a onem radius of the city's wells. And we have a process um set up of how we're going to do that. Um but uh that might mean visiting looking for buildings, you know, is there a building that might need a well and knocking on doors and sending out mailers and there would be a pretty exhaustive effort to um reveal those wells. Can I follow up on the seven wells that were of high risk? So at this point in the process, what is our responsibility with those seven particularly wells at risk? this point our responsibility is to get the data that the DNR has asked for uh basically you know that I mentioned the pump depth the well depth the the the um aquifer it's actually in that type of thing and then what does the DNR do with it? They're going to look at that data against the data from the pump test and the results of their modeling to see if it still seems to be at risk or if the the the information we provide shows that yeah, it's deeper than they thought or less likely. So, it may stay on the higher risk list or it may come off. the 45 wells or other wells that we get information for may end up on that list where we might have to do more in terms of a upfront agreement rather than more of a notification base. Um or they may be relegated to something that's determined not to be much of a risk. And does the DNR give like a green light or do they require additional like what do they do in response with the information? that's all built into the plans. So if there's certain if they come back and say, "Well, we've looked at all the data and there's now 20 wells that that we think are at risk," that falls into a category where we have to offer those well owners upfront before we start pumping a well agreement that says, you know, who's responsible for what and what will happen if you and what to do if you have low water and who pays and that type of thing. Got it. So I I'm going to ask a strange question. If they if the DNR wants more data from these wells that have had interference, why did they approve the appropriation? Yes. So, keep in mind that we pumped 42 million gallons a month. Even with Niagara online in a hot summer, we don't expect to pump maybe 3/4 or 80% of that in the worst month. They know this. Uh so they deemed that apparently that these there may be impacts. They want us to be prepared for those impacts and have a plan in place what to do. But they also think those impacts are manageable would be my inference uh from from their issuing this permit. Is that even with phase two of Niagara? No, this permit only provides enough water for us to serve Niagara phase one plus f future growth. Do we have a cost estimate on all of this? It sounds really Nope, we we don't. Um I was going to say when we pumped that 42 million gallons, which is more than we expect to pump for quite some time, we had no complaints of out of water interference. We're aware of the water quality. Those are important too, but they're, you know, the DNR felt they were manageable and I we agreed. When did you do the pump test? Let's uh continue on to the You were about to get into I'm about to wrap up, I think. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Rich. Any other presentations or staff comments before we start discussing? No. No, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Can I ask? No, sorry. Council, have you any opinions, any initial thoughts before we or as we delve into this? Sorry, I have a lot of questions. Um, and I I'm not going to be able to make a decision tonight. Yeah, me neither. I I'm of the same opinion, but let's talk through some of these questions. Let's make sure we have we we give before we make any motions to continue. Let's make sure we have a good list of things to give to city staff to work on for the next meeting when this is back on the agenda. So, who wants to I'm just thinking we compile a good list. Um maybe even starting at the beginning and I'm curious trying to figure out I know that the water appropriation permit I'm going to stop and back up even further. Um this is the last time perhaps that we would have any control or say or be able to question. I heard Renee say, you know, the preliminary plat part of the process is the point at which, you know, we have the most impact to put conditions on and and and those types of things. When we put the condition of number 23 in, you know, I think it was for this purpose and to to get some of this information. I read condition 23 to and again, this is my interpretation of it is to just approval, not approval with conditions. And I saw approval with conditions throughout uh this. So that changes it in my brain. Whether legally it changes it or not, I I guess I'm not sure. But with those conditions, then it leads to all those questions that John had and others um you know, and that um Gina just asked about like the ongoing cost or the initial costs of all these studies, the ongoing costs of what these this potential these resource uh plans or the the response plans and what that's going to cost the city and what liability we might have related to that. Uh, a question I have is, um, what if we find out a bunch of things? Can is there a situation in which the DNR says, "Okay, no, you can't have 365 million. You can only have 250 or some variation of that." Then I get concerned that we risk the current and existing businesses, residences, and and other growth and business, you know, new new developments going in. Um, so I guess I'd be curious about that. Um, let's see. if we and again I I guess I'm of the opinion too. Yeah. Can I piggyback on that because you were the cost thing has came up a couple times and it's it's hard to it's hard to make decisions when we don't have any idea what the cost is going to actually be. Uh, I guess one thing I and maybe this is where you were going Josh, but one thing I would like to see is just different scenarios to how this would could financially impact the city if we have, you know, 50 wells that have interference or quality issues or something like that. What does that look like to us? And so that would be something I would want addressed at the next meeting. This one I'm not really expecting staff to come back with answers on. This is more unless you have an answer. You're looking at me like you have something to say, Don. Question. I guess the question is responding to come back with information. My intent was to come back at the next meeting and I I really do want this on the agenda at our next meeting. But um that was what I had. Well, maybe a followup to that then. You know, one of my questions was and maybe I should start with this. If we don't approve tonight, um what's the risk? And I'm not saying deny tonight. I'm just saying, you know, continue and um get more information, wrap a head around it. uh you know, having only had this for 36 hours or whatever, it makes it hard to digest and and think through the potential impact. Um, but is there if it's continued to the next meeting besides an impact to the potential development and whatever, is anything to be thinking about? Just just so we're answering Tom's question correctly, are we all okay with just compiling the list and staff doesn't have to worry about responding to anything today? Well, I guess it depends on the answer to that question because if we need to make a decision tonight, I want the answers to all my questions before I vote on a decision. I think we're going to continue it. I mean, I'm I'm on board with continuing. Kate's on board. Gina says she's on board. So, and I'm fine with that as long as that doesn't put us in a spot where we have like it approves without us approving it kind of thing. Like I don't want that to happen where if we don't take action, it automatically takes action. Right. I think you said we would two weeks would not harm. I don't think that two weeks is going to change. anything with respect to that? What about answering the people's questions? Are we going to have a public hearing? We're not going to have a public hearing. No, this is the what's in front of us really has nothing to do with water. Quite frankly, we're using what's in front of us to gain more information and make sure we're more comfortable with the water. But we're not going to have a public hearing because really this is just it's a plat application. It's not anything more than that. So, um, anyway, and I think some a lot of the questions that were asked were are addressed in the in the plan, but there is, yeah, I I think John had listed a number of detailed questions that I I think are good questions, and I just I want to make sure I have my arms around them, too. So, um, but the questions asked would be listed in the in the meeting recording, so that would be part of the staff's response. And we just got the the pump test technical report actually only a few hours ago. Yeah. And that has a lot of information in it too. I'd like to look at. Yeah. I it sounds like we're kind of on the same page. Um so do you prefer we ask questions tonight or do we want to compile them and send them and then let's ask questions tonight as far as recording them? Whatever Linda thinks is best. Is it easier to write them down? Is it easier to just go back and review the recording? The latter telling us what type of information. Okay. I may have more questions after being able to read some of this. So, yeah, for sure. Um I I did get the questions that Jonathan asked and I would like those addressed at our next meeting for sure. Um and I have them here. I can read them off if you want me to. We have them. Okay. All right. And then the questions on the sheet here, sorry, one through four that were given to us, will those be addressed as well? I have not had an opportunity to read that in detail. Okay. Um, so I I do you have read them off. Why don't you read them off? So the first one is the pump test that was conducted for permit 19846141 did show potential for degradation uh of water quality and water quantity to well owners. Private well owners do not know if they are in the affected area. The DNR groundwater technical memor memorandum dated 52124 states that seven wells are at risk. Another 455 have unknown risk and another 1,300 parcels within one mile of Elco market wells which could have domestic wells not listed in the MWI. Therefore, the risk to these properties is unknown. There is a lengthy and detailed process provided in the response plan documents which the city council and citizens of the city and township deserve to understand. Um, so if we could help lay that out better so everyone understands it. It's not necessarily a question, but maybe more of a dummy it down so everyone in our community can understand. I I don't I I've read the response plan. If you read it, it's fairly straightforward. Um, but there's we we can provide a summary for the council of the response plans at a greater level of detail than Rich just did. I think being that we just kind of got this information that might be helpful. And and Joe kind of hit on I mean the biggest thing that I'm one of the big things that I'm thinking about is the the potential cost to the city and the liability and the risk that we have based on the response plans and the the steps that are in them and all the stuff that's leading up to even turning on the water and that we aren't getting recouped revenue for. You know, I'm less concerned potentially about the after when we're generating revenue from pumping the water if there are things that have to be addressed while we have that extra water revenue coming in. I wasn't anticipating the steps leading up to getting to that point and that's the new stuff in these response plans that like that's where I need to breathe for a second and kind of understand that potential right there. I'm also curious about the um the two and a half miles from our city wells. Is that the only I can give you a quick Okay, that is basically intake area. So if it's within 2 and a half miles of our wells, we automatically respond to those. The DNR decided a geographic limit to what we have to respond to automatically reasonable. However, if someone three miles out has a water quality complaint, submits to the DNR, the DNR finds it credible enough, they will refer to us and we still have to respond. So it's really just a response radius, not a responsibility job. I'm also curious if we didn't have a industrial user, potential industrial user, how much more water would we have needed um just for our regular growth? I think we roughly um added 50% to our previous permit for city growth something that I don't have the exact figure. 75 million. However, uh, keep in mind the city's long-term, and we didn't talk about that at all relative to the benefit of these response plans and the aquifer pump test. If we're going to grow to a city something like Lakeville, maybe a hundred years from now, we're going to need to know this stuff and we would be doing all of these things anyway, 100%. So, um, sorry, you want to go? No. Okay. I I I have another question on the interference brief slide. Um when we're showing the domestic wells in the other well in the cone, are we saying that the domestic wells around us are not deep enough? And if they are not deep enough when we're pumping this much, who's responsible to make that well deeper so that our residents are not suffering? So that's part of the cost that we are asking about. Correct. Yep. Typically what and what I'm told because I haven't done this type of a project before, but what I'm told by our experts, the most frequent way that these wells are fixed is not to drill a new well or a deeper well. The wells are typically deep enough, but they need to put the pump further down into the water column, which is not as intrusive or expensive. Mhm. Well, and and that's where I go back to I'm less concerned about that piece because at that point when that issue is happening, we have the additional revenue to come in and it's more manageable. Now, if it impacts 150 wells, it's not manageable. If it impacts a few a year and we have to make sure that we're responsible because I appreciated the thing in the the the DNR announcement, it's not a zero impact. We know that there's going to be impact. We know there's going to be impact with any development we have. Whether it's traffic, whether it's increased people, increased services of cities, stuff, there's going to be an impact. So, we can't expect zero impact. That's impossible if we're going to grow, but we need to understand better what that impact is. And that's where I don't know if we know quite yet. Right. Yeah. I mean, some different scenarios of what Can we also get a a clear map um with the addresses within one mile and two and a half mile so we know who's in that radius? that would be list probably over. Is there like some sort of inventory list though that's st I mean I see it our GIS department has and we would use county parcel data to find every unique parcel and then we run different screening routines. Um is it platted? Is it in the city limits? that would come out if it's in the city limits except for some that we can geographically identify. Is there a building? Is there information about a building on its site? We can winnow it down to a more manageable number and at that point it might mean that we have to start looking at aerial photos or drive out. Sure. And look at it. So there would be a screening process with this all kind of public information based on your knowledge of the GIS system. Right. Okay. Yep. Is that were you with your question, Gene, are you looking for specific? I think some people don't know if they're not. So, one of the requirements is that once we've got that all identified, we send out a notification to every parcel. In fact, we're planning to send a notification to every parcel as part of the screening process. Um, but to provide a map and a list, you you could just bring up Scott County parcel map and draw a circle and that's it. Do we need more staff to do this? It sounds like a lot of work. I'm a little worried about that, but we've got uh we've got a plan. Would be a lot of automation that would save tremendous time. It's not like there's one person looking up every parcel. It's, you know, because of the power of Scott County's uh GIS system, that's going to save us a lot of time just in screening these down. Um, sorry, did you want to One last question. Where are the um wells located that we're taking that mile and two and a half miles from? Like where's that center point? It would be one mile from any city well. Okay. You have the two downtown going three. So it's going to be an oblong shaped uh figure that's within. They're on they're on the slide. We can So quick question and it might be for Andrea. um legally all this work that we have to do for the DNR before we can go ahead and start pumping this amount of water. Is there any way that we can have Niagara help us pay for any of this that has to be done because it's No. So they're another user on the system just like a large residential residential building or anything else. we recoup this through our fee structure. Well, and I don't disagree with that because I wouldn't expect 1500 households and the developers developing the 1500 households to build that into their costs either. So, I don't necessarily disagree with that, but that's the concern I have of these steps leading up to until the water's pumping and the revenue is coming in. Yeah, it might be different if we didn't give the three million over $3 million in subsidies, but sorry, Joe, but I mean, I don't know if we can. It sounds like a lot of money. We're kind of there with the subsidies. So, who wants to go next? I'll show up for a little bit and let you guys ask questions. You You've kind of tackled all the questions I had. So, I The only thing I had was on the well interference agreement. Um, I don't know, maybe this is just a wording thing and I hate word smithing stuff to death, but says, "Should a licensed contractor find a domestic uh find a domestic well has mechanical, electrical, or functional issues and notes no apparent water level issues? The domestic well owner shall refund the permittee for the cost of the domestic well." So, I read that and I think if I'm I don't know if I'm a township resident and I'm suspecting something's going on with my with my well, I might be a little hesitant. I might think through that a little bit more before I contact the city to before I try and get it looked at. I don't I don't know that I like that. I I don't want to penalize someone for reporting a problem. At the same time, I understand we can't I mean, we could get flooded with spam complaints and we spend all our time in the world trying to deal with it. I don't want to deal I don't want that either. So, keep in mind that the permit is the minimum requirement for us. The council could choose through city policy to go above and above and beyond what's required under the permit, but the permit's going to require us to fix the problem that we're responsible for, not to fix problems that are already exist. So, let's say you're pulling the there's a problem. We pull it. We find that the sticks of pipe going down out of the 12, six of them are rotted out. Um, that doesn't have anything to do with how much water we're pumping, for example. Okay. If we want to do more than what's required in the permit, that always exists. That's a policy question with the council. The permit's going to require what we are is going to cover what we're required to do to fix the problem. Got it. Okay. So, we'll tackle we'll tackle that and work on amending that. Um, there will everyone's just to be clear, there won't be any amending of that term. That's a fixed term. We may be able to add things like access rights or indemnities, some legal things, but the actual terms in that agreement are set now by the permit. Well, we can amend this to do what we want to do. We can do more. We can't do I'm sorry. Okay. Then what do we need? We need a or what do we even pass to do that? So, we'll be coming back to the council with a template agreement. Okay. Um, but that you guys will approve that has to then also be approved by the DNR to make sure that it um follows the general terms that we can't change. Perfect. Just one more. Uh, I mean, I think with these water uh or the response plans, can we make sure that they're tied back to the significant user agreements and just make sure that I mean this is where my head goes to if something comes up with these response plans, they're not referenced in any of our significant user agreements, ordinances, or whatever because they didn't exist when we wrote this. So, I think we need to factor those in uh to the user agreements and and everything like that because if something comes up and we have to comply with the response plan that puts us out of whack for something this significant user agreement that impacts current city residents and or development, that's where I get concerned that we don't have any language in there to protect us. Um so, just maybe we take a peek at that and make sure that those are all okay. We we did verify that and we think that the language is uh addresses that issue. So I guess the the followup then I would have is you know if a response plan then led to a restriction or a suspension of or whatever is that under the force majour condition or in there that then we would stop the significant user so that it didn't impact other residents and things. Yes. Yeah. We have to it it requires How do I say? So, the city has the user is subject to the city's appropriation permit and the approvals required by the um DNR. Okay. I have a question. Um so, if we're not going to have a public hearing, what are we going to do to make sure that everyone's concerns are addressed? We can we can talk about different ways to do that. We're just the actual term public hearing is just open. Yes, sir. I mean, if you want to if you want to drive it, I mean, we've done some of the stuff and I know that others have done wa water specific things at the library. Um, I mean, if you feel we should do more. Let's have a conversation. I think we got to give people time to look at the response plan. And um well, I I just I want to be really careful because we're kind of using the response plan or we're kind of using the final plat as a way to really vet some of the response plan stuff, but at the end of the day, I mean, we do have to separate the two when we make when we take action. Um so that's why I'm I'm hesitant to go too far, you know what I mean? But if just as a complete separate if if you feel we should do something like that that's absolutely something we can have a discussion about. But it's it's not going to be related to the actual plat itself. There is nothing that would preclude the city from holdingformational meetings related to this. Um and the reality is if we're going to have anformational meeting we want to have anformational meeting to the people that are most directly affected which means we have to complete the inventory related to the wells. So when we send out these letters saying hey blah blah blah the city could have anformational meeting that says and if you want more information on this you can come to uh open house on this night and we can talk more about it. There are information requirements as well as notification requirements in the plans. So when we mail out, we'll be hosting things on the city's website, information about well interference, for example, what to do, who to call, but also there may be content in the mailings themselves to provide this information to u you know make it a little smoother transition. I'd be supportive of that. I I think we have to do a lot of that. And to your point, I mean, in two weeks, I I don't know if this changes the final plat approval piece of it. It's to buy time to really think about it and make sure that we have the pieces in place, the significant user agreements there. I don't I mean I don't think it changes whether the final plat gets approved or not approved. I that's not where we need to understand all this stuff first. And so that's what this time I think I'm going to use it for 100%. What happens if the DNR's decision is challenged and they withdraw their permit then? Good question. Because I think there's 30 days or I mean there's a time frame where it can be And that might not be something staff has an answer for at this point. That's not something staff has an answer. That's that I kind of picked up that look. Um, but that's a good point. I mean, that's part of what can be brought back in two weeks. Yeah. What other questions? I'm just stuck on that cost thing. I know that's that's the biggest concern and like this stuff happens but we just I want to make sure I'm comfortable with the plan. Yeah. Well, I mean water's you know it's worth more than gold if you don't have it. I mean water is critical. Exactly. So another just quick question. What happens with a homeowner that is on a well and let's say that the interference with their well is is so bad. I'm just throwing it out there, okay? So bear with me. is so bad that they're supposed that they have to get a new well, but they can't drill a new well because there's a septic and they don't have enough space to put a new well. What happens to that home or if homeowner, especially if they do not have access to city water? What happens to them? This is a question for the future meeting. Yep. I mean, how do we address worst case scenario that that comes up? How do we address that? We that we can bring that information back. I think the scenario where you're unable to punch another well on if you especially if you're banning the other well on the same property is I don't know if that's a real thing. We that will come back with an answer on that. You don't think that would apply in like woodrest for example? No. With with septics you have to have a certain amount of space for it. Wells are very geographically Oh, really? Okay. I mean, so it's not the same as we had with the septic stuff years ago. No, we could maybe drill right next to the existing well. It's just got to be deeper and new. Wouldn't have to be in a whole new location. And when you run into well interference, as Rich indicated, the vast majority of those situations is you're just dropping the pump. So, you're putting another stick or two of, you know, simplistically, you're putting another stick or two of pipe in there to drop the pump down. If the existing well itself is just too shallow, then yeah, you might have to punch another well. But it's I think the situation where you would not be able to provide for it within their property is a highly unlikely scenario. I guess I one question I did have come up was we have this we have this plan. Have we done anything regarding Well, first of all, let me back up. Have we actually I I know there's been anecdotal conversations about water quality issues. Has there been a actual formal complaint to the city forcing us to actually look into it? They were directed to send them to me and I don't have an exact count, but I think what I've received is less than 10. Okay, that's still maybe up to 10, but that doesn't include the list from the DNR which didn't have any addresses. So, we don't know where those are unless we know the person. But the ones that followed up and sent to me is, you know, a handful. And so what are we doing to address? Right now we're compiling that. We're waiting for the go-ahad to start executing these plans and be sending out questionnaires to get information from these people, arranging whatever visits we need to. Um so some of the contact information they couldn't provide to us because they felt it was a data practices issue. So, they contacted those individuals and said, "Hey, we forwarded, you know, we're aware of uh a name and the nature of the complaint for what they provided to us so far, but they said, but contact Rich and provided his contact information." Okay. So, for somebody that's maybe in the in between or hasn't responded yet, we still are going to be mailing out um putting this information out and there'll still be opportunities for them to contact us. Okay. I That is being addressed. I go ahead J. I was going to rant. No, I'm just wondering does the DNR have any liability in this because I mean if they're approving this without knowing, you know, it's seems really irresponsible. That's a value judgment. I And I can't answer for the DNR related to their liability. Maybe Andrea can. Uh, honestly, I I don't know the answer to that either, but I I you don't hear about uh lawsuits related to the DNR for issuance of water appropriation permits on a regular basis. So, I think they generally seem to do their homework and feel that the conditions that are addressed are something that the city can handle and can address adequately. I I think it's fair to say and DNR staff have asked for us. The response plans that were doing a lot of the work on this has not been required in previous permits. Um there's also been th those discussions with DNR staff have also implied that this may be more common in permits going forward. So I think it's fair to say that Elcon's doing the right thing and we're the tip of the spear on what we may say see changing and permitting process going forward. So, how does Farbolt with Geneo Turkey do five times what we're even requesting, what we were just permitted to without having a response plan like this? They I mean, we're still very small on the They're still subject to the interference rules that are in statute and in Minnesota rules. Yeah. But they don't have the more thorough or proactive type plan that we've been required to implement. No. Well, we got to deal with what's in front of us. So, yeah. minor little thing and I'll email you afterwards. Like is there a statutory reference to why they don't think that that's assumed like permission to share that information with the thing that the government entity that's going to fix the issue? I mean that's if we're if they're going to require these response plans and require this stuff, we need to fix that piece so we can remove that step so that residents who make these complaints don't have to jump through 50,000 hoops to get their answers addressed. just if if there is an alleged if they gave the reason of whether I am sure they consulted they told us that because we said can you start providing us this information so we can start getting a better understanding of of where and the specific details of it um and they said we have to check with our data practices people and what they ultimately sent us does not have like telephone numbers and email addresses they told us that to get around that they would be sending they would be contacting those individuals and basically providing them a contact information for the city and directing them to contact um Rich because we wanted to make sure we had a single point of contact with somebody who's directly involved the issue so we could provide the best customer service when those things come in. I just love it when a government entity finds loopholes to get around data practices. That's very inspiring. Any other questions on this? I got to read more than I might. Yeah. I I think Well, I'll just say this before I make a motion to continue. I'm proud of our council for all being on the same page as far as let's take a minute, let's breathe, let's make sure we are comfortable and confident with what we're doing before we take action. So, um with that, I'll make a motion to continue uh Interstate 35 Industrial Park and all related items. Second. You'll need to say state when too. So Oh. Uh until the next council meeting. We good. Yes. Second. Motion by myself. Second by Josh. All in favor? I I item is continued to to the next meeting. If uh to the audience, anyone that um was planning to leave after the this stuff before we get into staff reports, you're welcome to. Otherwise, you're welcome to stick around and go through our staff reports, too. Is there any opportunity for public questions to go on record? Now you can send something into city hall, but we've had several public hearings direct directly related to the response plan. So, um, is there an email address that I should send those questions to? Uh, yeah. What would the best one be? Would it be Tom? Would it be? So, um, ma'am, if you want to wait till the end of the meeting, we can chat with you about that if you'd like. Oneon one. Yeah. But in general, if anyone had questions, they could just contact us city hall and we can direct you accordingly. But we but if you want to hang around um if not I'll get your number and Richard I'll give you a call tomorrow. Okay. I'll leave my number. Thank you. You know what? Let me give ma'am why don't I just give you my emails as well. Will you guys be providing that to other people that have questions? I know I can email you, Rich, because I was one of the wellers that complain about water. Camera, I live in the township and I I have some serious questions about health concerns with this And I get it fine. Public comment is over. But right, if you send something electronically, we'll have a it'll get to all of us and we can respond that way. I may not have forwarded my complaint from the I have some serious questions and I would challenge some of the things that were said tonight about the ability of people to understand some of the comments that were made. The average reading level in this country is about seventh grade. So for you to say for Mr. Terry to say that people are going to understand the legal document I think is a stretch. No, I I I know Tom well enough to say it will it'll be summarized and put in layman's terms. But yeah, your your point's taken. If you can email just go on the city website, find all of our emails and just email it out to all of us. Okay. That way we have it. Yep. We'll make sure answers the questions for you. Thank you. While uh we're going to keep the meeting moving. Um Tom, I'll give you a second. Uh Chief, your first uh your first report officially it's Chief. Don't screw it up. Yeah. I don't screw it up. You'll get a nickname that will never go away. Not Hollywood. Not Hollywood. No, we'll come up with something new for you. Uh, obviously the big thing for us was Chief Jeweler Brady leaving. Um, we do miss him a lot. Uh, we're just kind of adjusting to the the new PD. Um, without him. Uh, we're our staffing is a little off right now. Uh, Officer Barry is progressing well with FTO. Um, but he's not anticipated to be done probably till mid July. So, we are down an officer. Um, so I don't get to work the sweet chief schedule quite yet, but um doing good uh good morale right now. So, um nothing too crazy or big kind of going on for us right now other than just kind of adjusting to the new norm at least temporarily until other things are resolved. So, but thank all of you for your support and um you know, we're going to just keep doing the best we can for the city. Thank you. Welcome to your position. Tom was kind of buying you a minute for administration. Are you good? I'm good. Administration. Um, I don't have any specific items. Is there any questions for me on administrative areas? I think we're good. Okay. Uh, public works has been busy. Um, report was included, but did they was there anything additional? There is an additional item. Um, we want to make the council aware uh that we're planning to uh pave or repave uh the driveway going out to the public works facility. We have dollars budgeted in capital outlay for facilities to be able to fund it. Um, we sought quotes and the company that's already in town doing paving projects uh gave us the lowest quote. I think we're around $53,000. Um, that road of course sees a lot of traffic and increasing volumes of traffic as our activity increases. We had paved it a number of years ago. It was a test project um for uh doing paving, but it was a really thin overlay more so to work out the kinks for um our small paver for doing street repair. Uh and you may recall we ground it up and created a granular base for it in anticipation of paving it again. We're at the point where we need to do a regular pave on that road to make it to maintain it and keep it functional going forward. So, we're just letting you know that will be going forward. go following purchasing getting you know required number of quotes and all that. So engineering I have no report but I'd be happy to answer any questions. I curious an update on the downtown reconstruction timing delays with the rain. No delays with the rain. How are things going? Delays. Rain has cost us probably two weeks conglomerate for the whole season. They think they work on average three out of every five days. So maybe more than two weeks, but the curb is largely in right now. They'll be returning to wrap up curb perhaps tomorrow or Monday and then they'll continue on drive aprons and once that flat work is done, they'll start prepping to pave it. So there is a chance they're trying to see if we can get paid before our community festival. If not, it'll at least be smooth, drivable, parkable, walkable. All right. Community development. Lot going on. Yeah. Um I don't have any um first of all I'm going to let um Brandon talk about hours operation for construction activities just to confirm the direction that we heard from you at the last meeting and turn it over to Brandon. Yeah. So obviously we had a discussion last meeting about grading and construction activities hours of operations. Um so I'm not sure if we all got a chance to read through the memo or if we would like me to go through a short power about it. Um, I looked at it. Does anyone I looked at it, too. And is it accurately depicting what you guys thought? So, yeah, I think we're good. Perfect. I love it. Okay. One other piece of feedback we do want. Do you want us to solicit feedback from the contracting community related to the proposed changes? Not at this time. Uh parks. Anything to share on parks? You skipped over number three and number four under community development. What? Yeah. Um the agenda is different. So just a quick update. Um, there was a memo in your packet uh prepared by Jake just giving you a heads up that the planning commission has been talking about amending the city code related to detached accessory structures. They're just talking at a conceptual level. Uh, at this point, our code basically limits detached accessory structures on residential lots to 250 square foot maximum. And that, you know, is pretty much a small shed. Um the planning commission uh at this point feels strongly that uh that amount should be increased and direction preliminary direction we received at the last meeting was uh that they supported going to a maximum a thousand square feet up to two separate buildings. So people could keep their existing shed if they wanted uh plus build essentially a detached garage. What can I ask a quick question? What made them want to open this up and look at it again? Was there a question that came forward from one of our residents? It the topic was brought to the planning commission from staff because it's something that we do get questions on a lot that uh our size is too small and can people have a second one? Um, you know, in the downtown area of our city, we have a handful of people that have a detached single garage, and because our current code limits them to one detached accessory structure, they can't put even a second shed or a second garage on. So, um, we did research a number of other city codes. Uh, we are at, I think, the lowest end of what anybody allows. um planning commission kind of jumped up to the high the highest end of what some cities allowed. Uh so if you have any feedback feedback now or I'll I'll take feedback to them and we'll we'll continue so we don't get to that point. It will work. It will take us several months to get through this process in drafting ordinances, making sure we have other cross sections of the code cross-ch checked like detached um accessory dwelling units and how that ties in and um but I'm happy to carry any feedback that you might have should just show public comment at a commission I guess. Yeah, I would just encourage them to maybe split the difference or or don't go from one extreme to the other extreme because that is a huge swing. So that'd be my feedback for now. Okay. Yeah. And understand that the every everybody here understands for the public's benefit that the planning commission is recommending body. So whatever ordinance they do recommend to you can can be changed as well. But we'll carry that message. Uh and then I just included the population estimates uh we receive um in their April 1 uh estimates every year. So, and I don't have it open in front of me. I don't remember what it was. 5200 or something. Yeah. move on to parks now. Is there anything for parks? We're good. I do have a question because the meeting was last night. Did Did they talk about uh the pickle ball courts uh potentially? Uh I just find it silly and and maybe this is something I missed and wasn't distracted by other things when we had the discussion. I just I can't fathom why we have pickle ball courts painted and we don't have nets available of some kind somewhere and expect people to bring their own nets. I brought my paddles down there and balls down there and I'm like, "Oh my god, we don't have nets." We expect people to bring their own nets. Yes. So I I can relate the discussion that led up to that decision. So um at the time uh there was a request a strong from the um pickle ball lobby um in the community which is almost as strong as the not Niagara lobby. Um and they wanted they wanted a facility. Uh there was an indoor facility at the school but there was also the desire to have an outdoor facility. Um, they had requested that we take the Rowena Park ice rink and turn that into a pickle ball facility. We had already planned for it to be a basketball facility in warm weather. Um, the initial response was, "No, we've already programmed it. We've already worked to facilitate a regular facility and it's all weather, etc." Uh, they came back again to the plan uh, the parks commission. and the parks commission said, "Nah, we'll we'll take a look at it." And the thought was to uh dedicate roughly half of make the basketball court not regulation and dedicate room for four pickle ball courts. Uh there was discussion about seasonally removable um posts. One uh there was some concerns about how well that would hold up, but every penetration you put into pavement undermines its potential things. So, if you're doing four courts, you're talking like eight posts um in the middle, not even at the ends of of the facility. And it was there was concern about it undermining it. At the same time, the the pickle ball um interest lobby indicated they didn't need or want permanent posts that they uh that there are people who are actively involved and would regularly be scheduling nights and they'll bring their own um portable nets for purposes of of doing this. In fact, they told us that you don't even need to buy any or check out, we'll bring them, we'll facilitate it. So, that was the logic behind it. Um, we did touch on pickle ball facilities at the meeting last night because we're going through capital outlay. And also, uh, if and when the Niagara plat is approved, it will generate $183,000 in park dedication fees for us to be able to use for new park facilities. Um, and that is a substantial amount of money. and we had some very preliminary discussions about how we would use that. Um the discussion and direction from the commission at this point is that uh we would pay for the pavilion building that would be down in Boulder Heights Park that had already been a commitment on the part of the city that we would wait till we had park additional park dedication dollars to do that and some smaller projects. The bulk of it right now they don't want to be hasty about how we use it. One of the options is clearly pickle ball. Uh we also have had requests for some trail segments within the community and we have to keep in mind with the plat with the development residential developments that have gone through just recently at the planning commission um for either conceptual or preliminary plat review. There may be new park land that we need to fund. And the council knows from previous presentations, we've done a lot of work to get our capital outlay in shape to be able to fund existing parks, but we don't have um a dedicated or identified revenue source to build these new parks other than um getting park dedication fees, which our analysis shows in the long term is going to be insufficient. So, they wanted to keep powder dry a little bit and be a little more strategic on how they would recommend those dollars used, but pick off some of the smaller stuff that's out there right now. Okay. So, no nets because the lobbies didn't want the the pickle ball group didn't want it. Um, and that was confirmed and in the discussion. Um, and the and the city's position on it is those additional penetrations can undermine the base for the um, hockey rink we just invest a lot of money in. Find a creative idea to get us some D. What if we had one at the city and people could rent it? Yeah, that is. But then it's then city hours, you know, so then, you know, it's only here till 4:30, 5:00. And then to manage that and administrate that, you know, thinking could we have Wagner Park have it, you know, have a shed or something or something. But then you got people jacking it, messing around and and then that turns into a headache potentially. Yeah. The current measure was accepted by all as an interim measure until we have a regular facility. The pickle ball lobby also has a concern. I just like how you call it the pickleball lobby. Special interest. I'm going to join the pickle ball lobby. Um, but the pickle ball folks in town, their concern is that if we do something with permanent nets, it will allow the city to say, "We have now met the need and we don't need to build a nice a a a regular pickle ball facility in the future." to stand up to the pickle ball lobby. Where where are our pickle ball courts and the hockey rink in Rowena? Yeah, it's it's probably the fastest growing sport in the United States right now." My six-year-old was devastated when we got there and we play. I would say it probably doesn't need to be the biggest priority in the city, but I let's just find some nets somewhere somehow. And I I think the interim measure given the limits that Josh is talking about is the city could look at purchasing nets that people could basically check out if that's I mean that's what we be left there. I get stolen there. I play in shock be the nets are just off to the side. You move them out if you want and I don't know I do um we've spent already based on past but I mean trouble with juveniles and pickle I can guarantee um anything else on this topic. All right. CC meeting next week. Other committee reports. Um, scale exec got cancelled. Need to look up real quick what the scale meeting is for tomorrow. A legislative review from the last session and talk about scale legislative platform. Was it? Yep. I thought it was something different. Oh, yeah. You're right. Okay. No. You know what? I was thinking the meeting host. Never mind. All right. Okay. Uh oh. Do you have anything for service delivery? Service delivery is a relatively light agenda. We'll be continuing our discussion about trying to centralize open burning permits. We talked about I gave you guys a on that previously. Uh we'll be getting an update from the solid waste folks about some changes that are coming down the pike for cities and they're just kind of spreading information amongst other various leadership groups. Um we're going to get be getting an update from the technical team. You guys will recall that this is basically all of the community development folks within the county meet regularly to either work on communitywide topics as kind of like a technical advisory research team and it's also a place like most other groups for them to kind of share information and be collaborative just generally in their topic area. Um they're going to come back and just give a report on what their work plan is really going to be looking like over the next several months. The other thing is they're going to be rep they were also assigned the task of facilitating conversations with township representatives with city and county representatives to talk about the commercial industrial urban versus rural development um topic which has been really big in the county the last couple of years and they're going to report back on where that has progressed to. I35 it was this morning but I was unable to make it. Okay. Discussion by council. I I just have one really quick question. As far as the old PD goes, have we had any meetings with that special group yet? Have they been reached out to to get a meeting plan put together? We will be scheduling a meeting. Our intent was to do it in June. Um quite honestly, it has been a bandwidth issue. We've had other items which have demanded a lot of resources. You might guess what those might be. And so, um, staff's talked about it. We intend to have an orientation meeting hopefully the end of June. At this point, though, realistically, it might be early July. Okay. Okay. And I I did make the atlarge uh citizens that you guys appointed aware that they were chosen. So, Okay. Thank you. One quick thing, but does anyone else have I do have Go ahead. something. Um, so I talked to a resident who lives on Erin Drive in the Kelly Glenn neighborhood. He said that he's witnessed several people almost get hit coming out of their neighborhood crossing over road county road 91 to get to that walking path. Um, and I talked to a few other people who strongly think that we should have a pedestrian crossing sign or or something there. I agree with it, but I think it's something we maybe discuss. So, a couple items. Um, that intersection has come up over the years multiple times. We've done some research on it related to pedestrian crossings. I've asked Rich to be prepared to respond to that because you were kind enough to let me know that it was a question you're a topic you're going to bring up tonight. But I do have to point out that that is a county road and we have no direct authority related to crosswalks or signage on that road. We can make requests um but it's not our it's not our road, but we have had a lot of discussions with the counties on these topics. Um and I'll leave it to Rich. She was going to follow up with the county transportation engineer. So I call Mark to work with very cooperative with us on traffic issues because of the shared interest. Um he had reached out to the city a few weeks ago actually based on complaint similar to that but more about speeds and whether they should do a reduced speed on 91. So he reached out to city to see if we were aware of anything that was causing any traffic changes. We really weren't. Um but then he u so I called him when I heard about this to see what their outcome of that of that investigation. It wasn't a formal investigation. He just looked at the complaint and the current situation to see if it would be informative for your question. That wasn't but did from files here. This was back in August of 2021. It's the last time the county looked. Good morning, Tom. Thanks for inviting me discussion regarding potential future pedestrian crossing locations in town. So, this covered several locations. I'm gonna just jump down to the findings on Aaron Drivean 91 uncontrolled mark crossing. Uncontrolled means there's no signalization at that intersection. We've got two stops. Based on pedestrian traffic count data obtained by the city in June of 2021, peak hour traffic crossing CASA 91 is 12 pedestrians. And I'm just going to interject here. I don't think there's any reason to believe that is marketly changed, but we haven't checked it since 2020. This T intersection is located in a posted 55 mile hour speed zone. The lane geometry on 91 includes a southbound right turn lane and two through lanes. There is a trail that runs along the east side of the highway. The trail connects to CASA 91 on the north side of the intersection. An ADA ramp exists at the trail connection to CASAN 91. Sidewalk is currently in place along the north side of drive. Vehicle traffic along 91 is 6,300 vehicles per day along 91. Wait a minute. based on 2018 count information sight lines along on each side of the intersection are sufficient. Then he added in here's traffic website has updated the average daily traffic count to 5637. So that's a decrease from 2018. That's a common occurrence. He says his travel patterns have changed since the pandemic. Based on this information, uncontrolled marked pedestrian crossing of Cass 91 is not appropriate at this time. The 20 pedestrian minimum peak hour traffic normally required for consideration of a marked crossing is not met. Also given the sign traffic volume crossing width and post speed limit an uncontrolled crossing would need to consider significant infrastructure that could include a pedestrian refuge island andor pedestrian signalization. given the current low pedestrian usage, the ample available sight distancing direction for pedestrians and motorists to observe each other and no foreseeable changes to the surrounding land use. An unmarked crossing of 91 is sufficient. So those remarks and we didn't really see anything that has changed since then despite the 10 additional homes going on. It's one of those frustrating things because, you know, as much as we all want to be proactive and not let situations happen, it's situations need to happen to in order for the county to jump on things. Well, people need to cross that road in order to continue on the path. I mean, the sidewalk leads up to it. Well, uh, first of all, I do highway clean up on that road twice, and I know it can be scary by also, you know, It's not really too hard to be patient and cross. There's also the opportunity, it's not as convenient, but you can go up to the roundabout and cross at the roundabout where speeds are much lower and then go on your way either direction. And that's why we actually made some changes to the design to promote crossing there. Even though good distance out of your way. Um, there are no simple and cheap solutions to making a crossing safe at 91 and Aaron because of the speeds, putting down paint, putting up signs is not consistent with standard practice and therefore no traffic engineer would do that. But it actually could make things worse because people think now they're protected because the crosswalk is painted or something and proceed to walk when they really shouldn't. We want people to feel unsafe. Paradoxically makes them behave more safely. But again, it's not our road. So it's a tough situation. So, so he talks about pedestrian refuge, pedestrian signalization those things help reduce speedification to drivers that they have to stop, but that doesn't mean it will. So, are they is the county going to look at reducing the speed limit? So, that would actually kind of almost make things worse. So, you remember from past discussion, speed limits are not set by the sign. The sign is by the speed limit. Right. Exactly. You can't change speed limits by throwing sign as Minneapolis, I believe, as a resident is currently finding. Sure. Yeah. There there's guid guidance and state rules that basically say if the road looks like this, it automatically defaults to that. And if you want to vary from it, you do a speed study. The state has to do it and they will set the speed at what the speeds actually are. We in fact had a chunk of road portion of Zeres at one point in time. people wanted to slow it down. We did the speed study. The speed limit went up um because that's what speed people were driving. Okay. So, a number of people who live right there brought you know this concern up and I I just Is there anything I mean um ironically and satisfactory educating people on crossing their road safely is probably the most effective thing. cross, how to cross, look both ways, what kind of gaps to look for. It can be hard for a younger person or older person with impaired vision or not as good a vision to judge how fast a car is coming, how far those can be difficult things. There's no doubt. But as far as any hard features that we can put up to protect pedestrians, no, like we couldn't do just a big sign for cars to watch for pedestrians. I mean, they got to slow down anyway for the roundabout. That roundabout is a quart mile away. So, nobody does that. You drive the road, you see. No matter what the signs around you say, they might see the sign, but very quickly they become ignored. I'm sure Craig can back me up. Signs don't change things. So, because it's a county road, if Gina wanted to really be a bulldog and push this, would who would she talk to at the county? Certainly call Mark Callahan. If you want to go to the political political route, you call the county commissioner and see if because generally speaking, and I don't want to over maybe overgeneralizing, but the county is going to default to stand engineering standards, past practice, and their own internal practices when they receive these types of requests. You kind of heard it in the the email at Richbot, right? You would you'd probably want to attack it from multiple Yeah. directions. Mark Callahan's the guy's name. He's the traffic engineer. Yeah. I suppose he would have to No, but I suppose his number and contact information could be found online. Mark Kelly. Well, people ride their golf carts too, right across there, too. I mean, people in Boulder Point even told me that, you know, they would like to have a crossro walk or sign or just successful campaign to have something change there would most likely result in infrastructure improvements at some pretty hefty cost. So, Rich, can you give an idea of what type of hard improvements about pedestrian refuge islands so that they're not crossing three or four lanes of 55 miles of traffic. Those islands will also have the impact of reducing driver speed because it looks tighter and they'll naturally slow down and pedestrian. talking I suppose 100 200 grand something like that and then the land and moving the lanes it has a pretty big impact much more than just signs having no design I don't know but you know those kind of numbers would not surprise me at all I'm trying to look up Mark Callahan's num number quick so we can announce it on public to buy you time. Chief, you have permission to give my kid a ticket anytime or pull them over and scare the crap out of them because I mean, we train our kids to to they go to the roundabout and I track them on the phone and if they cut across I I mean, I pull electronics and whatever. And I mean, even sitting on the front porch today, I heard a couple kids up in the culde-sac come down by us and they go around and they're saying, "We have to go to the roundabout." Mom and dad said, "We have to go to the roundabout." So, I mean, if we can at least push that, you know, the sidewalk ends there. Are you single? All the way up the roundabout, come back into the Christmas Pines and go in that way. Lane. No ride left side. No ride left side. Yep. Mark Callahan's contact information is 9524968367. 496. One more time. 83 9524968367 67. Okay. So, Mark Kellhan and the county commissioner. Any other uh discussion by council? I sorry. So, League of Minnesota cities metro cities public or policy committees are starting in July. If you haven't signed up, sign up. There's going to be a lot of fun discussions. Uh and then uh on KSTP at 6 o'clock tonight. Uh there was a news story about uh the rental licensing legislation that we got passed. So, uh yours truly is on there. I heard I didn't say anything stupid, but I haven't seen it for sure, but we'll see. Uh, real quick, I just wanted to um really just say thanks to Rich, to Tom, to Renee um that have really carried a lot of the or done a lot of the heavy lifting with this Niagara stuff. You all have maybe the hardest job in the city. Um, everyone points their complaints at you. No one ever really thanks you for the job you did. So, I just wanted to take a minute and thank you for everything that you've done, all the hard work, all the effort that you've put in, all the slings and arrows you've dealt with. Um, like I like I said earlier, I'm proud of our council and I'm proud of us as a city for taking a minute and making sure we're all comfortable um and everybody working together as a team. So, that's all I had with that. Any motions to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. Motion by Kate, second by Gina. All in favor? I I mean turn. Thank you everybody.