record. I heard that. I want to call to order the Scott Washer Planning Commission meeting for October 27th, 2025. Um, we can start with the approval of the agenda and minutes. Do I hear a motion or any discussion on number two in the items? >> I'll second the motion. Oh, somebody has to make the motion. Commissioner Phillips, are you willing to make the motion? >> Yes. So moved. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we've got a first. We have a second. >> Second it. >> All right. >> All right. I will do. >> Yeah, you go ahead and do the roll call vote. Perfect. Thank you. >> Commissioner Phil, >> I. >> Commissioner Schmidt. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Frederick's. Commissioner Frederick's. >> Hi. >> No, I saw your mouth move, but I was like, "Oh, it was a little quiet for me." I apologize. Commissioner Phillips. >> Hi. >> Uh, Commissioner Barton. >> Hi. >> Thank you. Commissioners. >> Okay. Did that just approve the both months or just July? June and July? >> The whole We just about sometime last year or two years ago, we we just kind of started bundling them all up together. >> Sounds Sounds good. >> All right. So, we'll move on to new business. University of Minnesota resident survey results. How are we doing, Melissa? >> Thank you, Commissioner. Um, in your packet was a memo and a map and the actual report. I just kind of wanted to go through the memo. I won't go through everything, but I just want to kind of point out a couple of things of how this information can help us with the watershed plan update. Um, so Ryan, if you want to kind of scroll to the bottom of that page. Yep, right there. That's good. Um, so we did this, this is a repeat. Um, so we we did the survey in 2011 and it was a little different back then. we were focusing more on buffers and understanding um why residents um would use a buffer if they live near a a stream um and and their perception of buffers and whether they would be willing to put more in. And then in 2018 we did it again. Um we changed the questions up just a little bit um basically uh because of the things that we were working on at the time, but we did use a lot of the same questions in 2018. And then with this version, it was in our plan to do this again to inform the next watershed plan update. And we really changed up the questions this time. We did um carry forward a couple of them so that we can make some comparisons from the last two surveys. Um and I did kind of point that out in a couple of the responses in this memo, but um I just want to talk about a few of them. So I'm going to go through those um really quickly. So the first point under the category of perceptions of community um you know over 85% of farmers and citizens or lake residents uh somewhat to strongly agree that they think that their city or township they think of their city or township as a community and that's different from past ones. Um, and I think that's important because thinking about cities or townships that maybe we need to collaborate with them a little bit more in the future on, you know, either our education and outreach um program or maybe even um with the tax program. Um, that'll be something that we'll talk about in the next coming months on how to make some changes to these programs even if or if they need any changes. But um I'm going to skip down to um the under that same on that same page um page 11 of the report that said the effects of water pollution on public health are worse than we realize. When I looked back at some of the the past two studies, um the responses in this study actually that this is an increase that people feel that the effects of water pollution um are worse than we realize. And so not sure why that is, but I think this is an opportunity um for us to uh maybe use our education outreach program to focus more on, you know, teaching people about what what pollution they should be concerned about if there's something in our water resources and um and how they can protect themselves or or be more informed about that. the last one on that page um in the study which is on page 14 that water resources in Scott County need better protection. Um we did ask that question in 2018 and it really kind the results kind of stayed the same. Um but I think this is kind of telling for our county board. Um and and I think that our plan is on the right track of, you know, that we're being a little bit more detailed on protection and the protection focus for water resources in this next plan. If you want to go to the next page of the memo, Brian, um I will show you a map of this because this we use this same question in all three surveys um of the water resources in my community are adequately protected. This was actually a decrease from responses in the last two surveys. So people are feeling that, you know, we're not protecting our water resources as much as we were or for some reason that has changed. And so we want to understand why that is. Um, and in a little bit I'll show you the map and we can kind of target where different where these responses came from in different areas of the county, which I think would be helpful for our education outreach program. >> Yep. Melissa, I will add this one was very uniquely um focused in very specific areas. Uh I I thought that was personally I thought that was um very interesting with this particular one which makes targeting easier. Um and then just kind of maybe trying to detail why those particular areas became hotspots for this question over the last 10 years. >> Yeah. Um so with the with the next one that that people feel that local government should be responsible for protecting water quality. That's actually kind of second on the list. The highest responses were that um people felt that themselves have have the responsibility to protect water quality. But second in line was local government. So I just think that that's good information for our board to hear and it just kind of reinforces that we need u more detail on protection. Um the next two on pages 16 I think would be something that we could talk about um when we start talking about changes to maybe our education outreach program um and kind of building more capacity of individuals or homeowners to want to do or to be able to do conservation. um the category of our technical assistance and cost share program. The only things I wanted to point out there were that um you know the greater than 77% of people are influenced by the local SWCD in their decisions about conservation. That's what we expected to see. Um, our SWCD is who works with land owners on conservation. And so, uh, we definitely expected to hear that. That makes sense to us. Um, and the last two on page under the same program little area that on page 20, those low numbers for um, you know, that people would be using cover crops on their land or using drain tiles. uh we'd like to well we'd like to improve the number for cover crops eventually that more percentage of people are using those and maybe decrease the number for drain draining the land. Um but obviously that would be um something that we would work through in the technical assistance cauture program and education and outreach. Um, >> um, one more thing I would actually add before we scroll past this one, again, this was a personal observation of mine that I felt was very interesting, Melissa, was the, um, we're talking about what influences residents. Um, the SWCD, because that's what we help them do, that's what we pay them to do, was number one on the list. Uh, local government was close, but interestingly enough, pretty much number two across the board, most people were influenced by their children. That's what came in higher ranking than federal government, all these other things. Um seed uh seed companies, all of these other things. It was actually people's children that influence their decisions uh about conservation more than almost anything else. So when we support things like outdoor ed and other education programs, I think it has a much bigger impact than we realize it does. And I for me personally, I thought that was really surprising. um we all listen to our kids, but I guess I didn't realize everybody listens to their kids as much as I thought they did. So, >> so it's really important to continue the conservation um in the classroom program. Yeah. Um lastly, the the last thing I want to just mention is those perspectives on water management in Scott County. Um we ex, you know, only about 37% of people believe that we're effective at protecting and restoring wetlands. I think that's due to, you know, a lot of people don't know we exist just because, you know, we're a small staff. We don't really have the capacity to be out in the community all the time. But now that we have a new logo, we have new brand, and we're having a new plan coming up, um hopefully we can increase that number eventually that people will know that we exist and know exactly what we do. So, that's something to kind of help inform our education outreach. um on what we need to change. So that's all I really wanted to point out. >> I think this is Jay Fredericks. I think that's a great point. If you actually look at the data, the almost majority of respondents, particularly in the non-farmer group, when asked all of the questions, their answer was I don't know. >> And so the the the other answers are almost you know, impossible to conclude anything from because that I don't know group is so large. Um, you know, that the other one is almost doesn't have meaning. So, um, I agree that that, you know, because when I first saw the 37 35%, it's like, okay, well, what can you do to get 35% to something smaller than 35%. That's not the issue at all. The issue is the I don't knows. >> Yeah. Yep. Exactly. Yeah. Uh Ryan, if you want to scroll just to that map. So, I just wanted to show you what this map looks like. We are going to have the OOM create a few more, but this is kind of helpful to understand what areas of the county that people um you know, how people responded to that that water resources in my community are adequately protected. The the red areas people don't feel that it's protected. So that would be areas that we might want to look at. So maybe some targeted education. >> Ask a question on this. You know, is there something that the staff knows of that would explain, you know, particularly down in the bottom right corner? I mean, that seems to be, you know, an outlier to the rest. There's a couple of other red dots elsewhere, but that that, you know, that area just seems to be the the big one. Do you have any theories or do you have historical knowledge as to why that is? >> I do. >> Go ahead, Melissa. Um, I I think it has a lot to do with the Niagara Bottling Company that came in in in New Market Township and a lot of people were not in support of that. Um, so and some people are having some issues with their well because of that. So I think that that may have some influence on the results in that area of the county. The other things I would add and again these are things because we say this as a hot spot we will investigate right in the plan. We will we will go into these areas and focus more on you know what how can we bring these up into the green as you might say. A couple other things um it's the Porter Creek area and kind of the headarters of the Credit River area. Those are areas where we maybe don't do quite as much work compared to per se like Sand Creek and some of the lakes. So, it is definitely an area of potential opportunity. It's also an area that um there's been some other conversations about like ditch management in the county and maybe just making people comfortable knowing that just because a reach is maybe not a ditch, it doesn't mean like it's not going to still be cared for and the government's still not there in a different way. So, there's been those kinds of of conversations, too, about abandoning ditches, and maybe that's kind of bled into this a little bit. Um, ironically, Commissioner Wagner would be the one guy I would have asked. Oh, there he is. Commissioner Wagner. Um, so, >> hey, I'm here. I'm here. I'm I'm just trying to tame the kids down, but I'm listening. I'm here. >> It's okay. So, uh, we were just kind of talking about our U ofM survey from our residents on some of their perspectives on local water resource protection and they helped kind of put together some maps of where those hot spots are where there's some like they don't feel we're necessarily um, adequately protecting the resources and happen to just kind of notice that one of the largest hot spots is right in your little neck of the woods. So, from your perspective, >> I you know, when you sent that map, I appreciate you sending it. I can actually zoom in uh where I am and the the very very southern part of Scott County. I see a tiny blip of green and I got the survey, too. So, I'm wondering if I'm the only one that did that. But um from a positive sense I right now there's a lot of animosity from the local residents in the Alcoa new market area with regard to the Niagara bottling plant. I was just at the township meeting, whatever it was 2 weeks ago. And uh and then prior to that they had a meeting in the new market proper which I was not at. But um folks are frustrated and they see uh needing to change their filters on their wells and they see changes in uh arsenic level or or manganese level and they're attributing I I don't know if that's the case but they're attributing it to um the testing that's been done when the bottling plant started and um you know if the if the blame is rightfully so or not. water quality is on the top of the mind among my neighbors. So those are my two cents. >> That's very very helpful. You're actually probably the best person to answer how the pulse of the community is feeling right now over there. So that's really that's really appreciated. Appreciated. Does that help, Commissioner Frederick's? >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So, the last thing I'll just say about this is that this is justformational for today. Um, we will be using some of this information to help uh make decisions on whether some of these programs need um a little bit of tweaking in the next plan or not. Uh, we'll come back to you um early next year kind of hopefully with some next steps or some uh ideas to um present to you to help inform uh what changes should be made in the plan. So, and that's all I have, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Now, that's interesting. Look at those hot spots and you got to wonder what the social structure is there and if they may maybe met at a at a auction or something and the word got around because it's interesting how uh those hotspots down in the left corner there along 19. Interesting stuff, but very valuable, too. Okay. Uh moving on to B tax docket for 2016. Ryan, >> chair, commissioners, good afternoon. Um, so for anybody that um is newer, um I'll give kind of just a little bit of a background of our uh policy manual, which we commonly refer to as the docket. Uh so the the name has changed kind of through the years, but same same concepts and and um ideas. And I should also note like Commissioner Barton, I'm in the middle of a cold, so I might be frequently uh hitting the mute button as I'm as I'm about to cough. I don't think everyone needs to hear me cough. Uh but anyways, um so this is for our cash share program. This is our policy manual that basically we set forth the specifications um maximum cost share rates incentive dollars um eligibility criteria approval process. So it's basically the the document that we go to um when residents are looking to see whether they're eligible for our program or not. we refer to this and it kind of lays out you know whatever their issue is or problem you do we have a solution in here and then that process of actually you know providing technical assistance or providing cost share incentives um to them. So um and then every year what we do is we bring this to the WPC to get a recommendation on these changes and um you know once we get to a point where the WPC is comfortable um with approving it then we take it to the um Scott CountyW board uh for final approval of it. So this is the changes that are being proposed in 2026. So, I'll go through a few of these. Um, and then also there's a couple things of note that I want to point out uh in the docket, but I'm not we're not planning on going through each change um individually. Uh, if anyone has any specific questions, we'd be happy to answer. Troy's on the call as well. Um so what we do is this docket is basically countywide and staff uh meet with all the various watershed management organizations and wershed districts go through these and um and also the SWCD staff goes through it first and then any changes that we've had throughout the year like for instance Commissioner Schmidt um had talked to me about a couple items so I want to specifically call those out later. Um, so going forward, if you have anything, you don't have to wait till the, you know, this point in the year, send it our way and we'll put it in basically a living document. So now we'll start a 2027 one and any changes throughout the year that come up, we just add them into that 2027 so we don't forget, you know, that way we keep a kind of running tally of of things that have popped up. So, um, with that being said, I'll just go through these five highlighted items. Um, so there's not a lot of major changes uh that are being proposed this year. Um, a lot of grammatical stuff. You'll notice a lot of clarifying language. So sometimes there's gray and gray can be good and bad at times, but um, just kind of cleaning things up a little bit is what you probably have noticed is as a lot of the changes that are being proposed. Um, but one item is increasing the percentage from 10 to 25% for trees within a conservation cover planting. um that would be pending any grant requirements. So obviously if it we're using grant funds that grant is going to supersede any language and we've got that in the docket in numerous spots where we can't just uh blow past for better lack of a better term grant requirements. We have to still follow those grant requirements. So even if you know we allow it on a local level going up to 25% if a grant says 0% then that's what we have to follow for those plantings. Um but the idea of that is conservation cover plantings are native grasses and um we feel as though uh you know if if people are wanting to put trees in their native grasses there's probably a better chance they're going to leave it in past the the term their actual contract term. So um you know we don't feel as though we're losing any benefit. If anything, we might be getting um more people leaving these practices in without the financial assistant. So, that's kind of the idea behind why we're increasing that one. Um second bullet, this pertains to the WO. However, I know like Fire Lake Spring Lake was maybe considering doing this as well and so then it might go countywide. Um but this was one that Commissioner Schmidt um brought up. So we put this in the W mo special provision. So there's a section in this docket where if we have something different than maybe the rest of the group, we identify it there. Uh so basically what what we're proposing is that well ceilings can go as high as $2,000 for cost share as long as it doesn't exceed 50% of the actual cost. So that'd be an increase of a,000 going from a,000 to $2,000. Uh the third bullet item is related to the soil health categories. So soil health would include your residue management, your cover crops and nutrient management. And if you remember in August during one of the project updates I uh gave to the commissioners, the SWCD received a grant from Bowser in 2025 for it's the RCPP funding and it relates to soil health categories. And basically in a nutshell what this is is we had to revise some of our language to make it acceptable for a grant. We didn't feel as though revising the language earlier was a substantive change and so we the SWCD did make those changes in the docket and we were just waiting to do them with the rest of these changes for 2026. Um, what it is is actually the costs increase for this, but our local costs go down. So, uh, they were at, correct me if I'm wrong, Trey, they were at $80 an acre. So, then the local end would fund potentially up to $80 an acre for um like cover crops for example, that's increased to $100 an acre. However, the grant will cover $60 an acre. So in reality, we actually cut our local end in half, you know, goes from the 80 to the 40. So it's actually saving us some some funds. >> Ryan, just clarification. >> Yeah, go ahead, T. >> That that's correct. Um, if if we are using the RCP, which is federal funding, then the WO's portion would go down to 40 because the grant allows for up to $60 an acre. If it's only local funding, we would put it at the 60. So the the base rate is $60, but we can reduce that for the WO to 40 when we're using federal funds. >> Sure, thank you for that. >> Um, next item. So the fourth bullet is we're removing the cost share for uh maintaining native prairie and tree shrub establishment. So, we were offering things such as, you know, prescribed burns um in the docket, and this is where you'll probably notice the most striketh through. Um so, we we were offering these, but instead, uh soil and water staff kind of came up with this idea of maybe offering incentives to attend some of their workshops. So, sort of, you know, building capacity within the land owners to take on some of this work themselves. um and you know enable them so that they can continue to maintain these practices you know throughout their contract term and then hopefully beyond you know that they can they've been taught these skills to do the work versus hiring somebody else to do it. Um, and you know, I think some of it sometimes it's scary to for a landowner to do a prescribed burn, but um, you know, the workshops are a really good tool to kind of lay out how to do it, how to be safe doing it, you know, what are all the things to keep in mind. So I think this is a good a really good opportunity here for um you know reducing our costs and also you know educating land owners and enabling them to get more involved in in their projects themselves. Um and the last item is the LG cost share uh program. So for anybody that recalls we started a local government unit uh cost share program. you know, it's intended for cities, townships. If they've got something that doesn't quite fit in our docket, um more so related to like storm water practices, um there's a potential opportunity where we got right now 50,000 set aside, and that's the plan for next year, too. 50,000 set aside. So, basically, it's just putting language in our special provisions of, you know, how much we're looking at, what's the um process, and all that kind of uh stuff. just because it's a a little different. We wanted to make sure to call it out. Um so with that, I guess I'll stand before I move on to the uh items further in the memo. I will stand for any questions uh so far. >> Well, Ryan, it's Jay. A couple of questions. One is in in some of the specific language that's been added or modified, there's some very explicit, you know, number tests and maybe look backs over 10 years and things like that. Does does data actually exist? I mean, you know, so if someone is gonna I can't remember the exact one, but there's one where someone has to say that, you know, they've not done something more than 50% of the time over the last 10 years, how will you even know? I mean, is that, >> you know, >> yeah, >> is that something that's a very readily recorded um piece of data or because otherwise it seems like that's a very specific data over a very long time period that might be hard to actually get to. >> Sure. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Frederick's um great question. So, um how if it kind of relates to like how are we holding uh landowners or participants of this program accountable? We and when I say we, the soil and water is performing um status reviews on a um periodic basis. So, correct me if I'm wrong, Troy, it's five and nine or is it two, five, and nine years? >> Five and nine. >> One, five, and nine. Yep. So, when somebody installs a a project, um we use the soil and water, they go out there and they actually make sure that they're abiding by their operation and maintenance plan. So, every everybody's signing an agreement, too, that they're going to maintain this um project for whatever the contract term is. Most of them are 10 years, but some could be less, some could be more. Um and during that status review, they would be checking things like that. So if they're supposed to leave, you know, 30% residue in Upland or whatever the case may be, you know, they're held accountable to actually performing that. Um, and if it's not being done, it gets identified in that SAS view. It's notified to them, and then there's corrective actions that are taken. Um, and >> the the the one that I was that you know I was looking at you know not to interrupt you but was like you know this is on the filter strips and it's like your eligibility is dependent on that you've grown specific crops and they've grown and harvested in four of the past six years and that you have >> you know the eligible >> forage has not constituted more than 50% of the rotation in the previous 10 There's I mean these are really specific things and that's why I'm just asking are those all readily you know um reported p points of data so the eligibility can be actually verified. >> Yes. Um so Mr. Chair Commissioner Fredericks yes those are um they're in there for a reason. So that's it's called cropping history. um it's a common term with CRP that what what it's trying to get at is we we're not looking to necessarily um take land in certain cases like in that instance we're not looking to take you know uh turf grass your yard and then turn it over into a filter ship where there's going to be minimal you know benefits there. It's already a perennial cover. um and going from turf to native grasses. Yes, there will be a slight benefit but a more significant benefit is taking agricultural land which is you know um a lot of times um you know exposed soil for months out of the year you know when they harvest till they plant in the spring. Um, and so that cropping history is basically getting at we're looking to take some of that agricultural production land and put it into conservation, not maybe necessarily other land use types that are maybe already providing a benefit. If that helps answer your question. >> I'm sure you generally answered it. So the answer I'll just repeat it back the way I think I heard it >> is where there are specific numbers and time periods and whatever mentioned. Yes, that data is >> you know regularly collected and and you know can actually be used in whatever way the language is suggesting it should be. >> Yes. Nope. You've got it correct. We can use our aeroo photography in a little bit. I'm going to be showing when I get to my project reviews some aeroo photography and you can see we have not every single year but a lot of recent years. So if we're saying we want to check to make sure this field was a farm field four out of the last six years we can go back a photography and we can we can figure that out whether it was or was not. >> Um if we need to question I think I you answered it. I'm happy with that answer. Um, so a second question is, you know, have you >> looked at with the changes in language, you know, would it have changed any, you know, recent situations? Would it have flipped somebody from eligible to not eligible? Wouldn't it have, you know, in any of those clarifications, you know, if if the, you know, the past is, you know, the predictor of the future, is it going to change the outcome or is it mostly just to get rid of ambiguity, get rid of those gray areas and make it more specific? >> Probably more the latter. I wouldn't say it. It's not like we're getting a lot. and Troy can chime in as well, but it's not like we're getting a lot of folks that are trying to take like non-agland and enroll it. We have had instances, you know, I used to work with the soil and water and you'd get instances where somebody wanted to take a lowland area, you know, of hay ground and till it up for the next four years, put it into corn and beans and then enroll it in a program. So, so that it it's been brought up, but I would not say that happens very frequently. It's it's sort of, you know, the the the land owners aren't aren't taking it that, you know, to that level, I guess. Does that answer your questions? >> Yes, >> absolutely. Any other questions? Um, I should also point out that why we bring it to you in October is that if there are questions, concerns, you want to see revisions, we still have the ability to do that and bring it to the November meeting and we can re-evaluate it at that time. But if there is not, then we can actually start the process of getting it approved. So, I wanted to put that um in there as well. Um, Ryan, uh, do you want to flip to page two and just kind of mention the committee? >> Yeah, that I was going to get to that. I was I wanted to kind of see if anyone had questions and then I was going to get to the committee and also the reenrollments, too. >> Ryan, I had one. This is >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Uh, let's see what number 1.6A on the payment process. Have you guys run into situations where where staff don't have job approval authority and you know you just feel like it's not necessary or where did that change come from? >> Yeah. Um Troy, I don't know if maybe you want to chime in on that one a little bit. I can take a stab at it, but >> sure. What what was the reference again? The >> uh the JA and whether staff are running into issues where they don't have JA uh in certain situations. I'm just trying to find what um specific paragraph or section. >> Commissioner Barton, where did you say it was again? >> Uh 1.6A under payment process. >> Okay. It'll help us if there's so many changes in here. It's got nice to just focus in kind of jog your memory. >> Okay. Yeah, I can speak to that, Commissioner Barton. So we we haven't had any issues with JA except to say that um there are certain practices for which JA is not given and um or we maybe let's see um where we have one staff member that has JA but maybe another staff is working on it who doesn't uh but has the experience and and knowledge. So the whole concept of JA is is it's really a um it it's rather complicated but it has its roots in federal programming really and it was intended to ensure that anytime cost share funds are distributed public funds are distributed that that staff with appropriate knowledge ability and skill are are planning and design needs according to spec to reduce the um risk that there is uh that may be associated with a particular practice. Uh but back to my earlier point uh there are a number of projects particularly on the natural landscaping front where JA is not even applicable and then there are others where there's there's hardly any risk at all to the project. I'm thinking for example uh cover crops if if that fails um there's no risk or harm to you know safety or public health what have you. Sure. >> So, we just wanted to re relax that a bit where it wasn't that necessary and that would help improve efficiency on our side where there's no risk. >> Sure. All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Thanks, Jo. Um, any other questions, comments? Um, otherwise, we'll continue on with the memo. All right, let me get back up to the top here. Um, so that while I'm scrolling, I remember what it is. Uh, so one of the discussion points that I just wanted to bounce off the WPC is we offer um right now we're currently doing 10% of our budget for reenrollment. Basically projects that we've kind of identified as um a good uh public benefit. you know, it's right next to a water body that might be impaired or um we always use the example of there was an area um kind of northwest on McMahon Lake where it was kind of uh very few uh parcels within the wershed to McMahon were a based and this was one of them and it was right next to the lake and they enrolled it in uh native grasses um and it's just kind of part of the story of you know the improvements to McMahon and that was always one where we said well that is a good example of maybe a project where when it does come out for um you know it's contract term that we might want to go back to them and offer them and say you know would you like to stay in if we we are offering x amount of dollars to you. So this but we've also kind of our our current plan is pretty clear that we want to incentivize change but not really sustain it. Um and so it's a kind of a question just bouncing it off. We're getting to the point now where we feel as though we've kind of told land owners enough more recently that there might not be these reinrollment opportunities to where we if we felt strongly towards it we could probably sunset it at some point. Um, so just basically want to get feedback from the WPC. Do you like the idea of keeping reenrollments? Um, is that something you'd want to see maybe in the next plan or is this something that you know you'd feel comfortable maybe talking about getting away from at some point? Ryan, uh, Clayton Wagner here. Do you all do you have a way of, uh, I guess scoring those reenrollment projects for like from a priority standpoint? >> Yeah. Yep. Um, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Wagner, we do we um we have the kind of criteria um I think it's even outlined in the docket itself um in the special provisions, but basically yeah, it's not everybody. So if we got uh native grass planting on top of a hill and you know the benefits are very minor, we they just wouldn't fit the criteria of of being a priority project. we we wouldn't offer it to them. Um we we're wanting this to potentially just be, you know, those really prime good projects that um that, you know, we really wouldn't want to see taken out. But um you know, that's kind of the question is do we want to focus more on, you know, um moving forward, you know, and and trying to get new ones or do we want to try to retain some of the other ones? Um, yeah, there's there's good arguments for both both sides. >> Ryan, may I add something to that? >> Yeah, absolutely. What we're finding is we apply the the um ranking or prioritization protocol and we get a long list with the most important on top and you know least on the bottom and we've just not had very good productivity in terms of being able to reenroll the ones that are most important. um what ends up being where we're kind of halfway down the the group or even lower and we're kind of obligating ourselves to fund that one because we have the funding and nobody else above them have uh demonstrated interest. I'm not saying it always, but that's kind of been the predominant experience we've had. And it takes a lot of time to first identify all the filter strips that are going to expire, then go through, you know, and and prioritizing them and then reaching out to them. So it it's kind of a level of effort issue as well. >> Um Clayton Wagner here again. Do uh is there any and it doesn't have to be perfect data, but any record of the folks that do the conservation projects and then immediately turn it back to crop land or farmland or things like that? Like how often does that actually happen? >> Uh Mr. Chair, Commissioner Wanganger, that is a very timely question because uh so water staff just investigated that. We we so we have the what's called a key performance indicator and it's sort of some measures that we go off of as as metrics to see how well we're doing. Um you know serving the public or in our case is you know various water bodies or programs or anything related to that. But one of them that we wanted to actually investigate further is exactly what you just asked. How many people are actually leaving them in beyond their contract term? And so we're still kind of um putting that data together, but we are looking at that as well. We don't know if it's going to be a actual like KPI, but it could be just a um good information to be able to pass along to folks or let's say a news article, you know, I'm just throwing out a number out there, but 60% of our, you know, filter stay in after the contract, five years after the contract term, something along those lines. Um, so we are kind of looking at that data, too. Yeah, I will I will add to that in a slightly larger context. Uh, as you know, because our watershed management plan is being updated right now and the tax program being a very large part of our our programming and a very important part. Um, overall assessing how well we've done with the tax program over the last, you know, plan cycle is really a huge part of influencing our current plan cycle. So, we asked the SWC to um assess how the program has gone over the last planning cycle, asking a lot of those kinds of questions. And then, yes, I also asked staff to work with the SWCD to look at our key performance indicators. Um, making sure those also align with county indicators, but seeing if we can also kind of get to the nut, the meat of the nut on those kind of specific issues. And to that end, so that we don't go too far down the rabbit hole tonight uh and ruin our wonderful November meeting, we Melissa will be leading a wonderful workshop with you in November, addressing all of those wonderful questions because that's where you guys get to learn all about how well the tax program's done and provide some input on it moving forward. So yes, your timing is impeccable because this in fact does roll up and feed into November's meeting. Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, way to think ahead. >> And then also, I was just going to bring up uh Commissioner Schmidt, I left, this is the only comment I still left in the document cuz I didn't want you to think I forgot about your question. Um, but the discussion on whether we would want to stretch out a 10-year agreement. So, right now, if somebody does reenroll, it's for 10 years. And Commissioner Schmidt's question was, well, could we potentially get 15 or 20year agreements, you know, um, and we did talk about that with staff and kind of the consensus was like what Troy is saying, we're already kind of going down the list, you know, not necessarily as getting the top target. Um, and people are saying no, you know, some of those people that are at the top are telling us no, you know, and so trying to get 15 or 20 years probably would just lead to less of them being reenrolled. So I I wanted to make sure we at least, you know, that can be part of this reenrollment discussion as well, but just wanted to point that out. >> This is Commissioner Schmidt. I what would be what what is their reasoning for um you know not re-uping? I mean when they get into the program already it's been 10 years and whether that's the prairie or filter strip I don't know if you see one more over the other but u um why did they enroll in the first place and why would they not be why are they not interested in continuing that practice? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, Mr. Schmidt. Uh, it's a good question and it probably varies a little bit by landowner. Um, I would imagine a lot of them that are saying no, it it's probably a financial driver. Um, that they could be weighing the difference between, you know, getting rent um, at X amount or, you know, what we're offering for um, reenrollment. And and kind of my take on that has always been if the driver's financial eventually they're going to it's going to get taken out at some point anyways. You know, whether they reenroll one more time or not, you know, if the driver's financial it's in my opinion, I think it's highly likely that at some point it's going to come back out again. Um, so it it does vary and Troy, maybe you got some insight too that you know you're hearing from staff, but I would imagine the biggest drivers financial. >> Yeah, I I would agree. >> It's just they can probably do better, Commissioner Schmidt, by, you know, renting it out at that point. >> So the reasoning they got into it in the first place was what? Well, maybe maybe their rent wasn't as good, you know, back back then. Um, you know, maybe it was more competitive. You know, the we try to we we try to be somewhat competitive in those rates. Um, but you know, they they do vary quite a bit across the county. And so, you know, what they signed up for 10 years ago is probably close to what we're offering again. and and rent has probably gone up in that time frame. So, um yeah, I don't know if that helps at all. >> Well, if that's the case, then I mean we're not we're not able to offer to offer anymore then. So, it is what it is. And I mean, or are we I mean, are we going to have to keep up with cost or whatever to keep programs in place uh and interest going forward as rent continues to go up? Yeah, I mean we we've got kind of the set rates. You can see them in here um in our special provisions of what we're um we're offering. Um but it that's kind of the crux of this whole question is you know do we want to keep chasing that um for reenrolls or do we want to you know basically just say if if you didn't if how do I want to phrase this if the incentives initially weren't enough for them to want to stay in it long term you know I think it's a fair question is will there ever be that is that ever going to be the case you know and and that was kind of the concept is incentives to change behavior that not to sustain it so you know if if it didn't do it right off the bat I don't know if it will at some point you know >> sure okay thanks >> y >> Ryan it's Jay just a question for my edification Do do these agreements survive the transfer of ownership of the land? So whether that's within, you know, like an estate plan or whether it's the sale of land, do do the agreements survive? >> Uh Mr. Chair, Commissioner Fredericks, uh we have language in our contract that they are supposed to um transfer that over to a new owner. So they are supposed to do that. Yep. And then in a >> sense it's an incumbrance of sorts on the land in the in the event of a sale. >> Yes. So if they exceed $20,000 then they do get recorded on their uh deed. So anything 20,000 or higher it's a requirement of the program to uh record that. So in that case there'd be no excuse. the new landowner should or would have access to all of that. >> Just wonder if that is a potential factor in that not maybe wanting to sign up for something super long term potentially as well. >> Yeah. Yep. That that could be a factor in it. Yep. >> Could I could I add for clarification something, Ryan? >> Yeah, go for it. So, uh, to Commissioner Frederick's your your question, the the contract survives the transfer of ownership, but the responsibility for the um maintenance and any risk or liability for repayment for lack of maintenance remains with the individual who received the cost share. So the responsibility does not travel with the land. Um however there are ways that a a a land owner or participating program who is proposing to sell their property can mitigate that risk and that's probably through a private transaction or purchase agreement or something that that makes the new owner liable or responsible to maintain that practice. or maybe they they incorporate some amount of uh financial compensation to cover the potential non-maintenance and liability that the seller might incur if the new owner doesn't maintain the practice. But I just wanted to make that clear is that that responsibility remains with the recipient of the funds. >> Okay, good. Thank you for that. Any more thoughts on the the reenrollment? Status quo is fine, too. Then we can um leave it. All right. Well, um I guess noodle on that for for another year and then we'll kind of see um you know, if there's stronger thoughts next year. We'll still leave it in there for this year. U maybe come back with um you know another year's worth of data just to kind of see. Um so I'm going to jump back up to the memo and we'll finish it out with the um the committee. So in years past we actually had a tax program committee and we're looking to resume that next year. Um the committee is intended to review more substantial changes and updates to the program. Um so if all of a sudden we were proposing something big, this committee kind of gets out in front of it. Um and you know massages the language a little bit before it kind of comes to a meeting like this. So the thought was we should bring that back. Um and just as a heads up um it's been typically comprised of two members of the WPC uh serve on the committee and then two members of the SWCD board and then along with um you know what we currently have is SWCD and WO staff. So there's more to come for that but I guess if somebody maybe had strong interest um we could you know look at um if you wanted to potentially be on that that committee. So um so I guess with that I'll stand for Jane is the one thing I I would note though is as we go if if the recommendation is to approve this um I would just want to make a note barring any substantial changes. So we do go through this again and there could be grammatical things there could be clarifying language but but we're not necessarily changing anything substantial. So, I just want to always make that clear is that um there are still minor minor changes that occur after this if approved. >> All right. >> Are we ready? I'll look for a motion to approve. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead, Joe. >> Barton, I would uh make a motion to approve them as presented in the packet. barring any major changes as Ryan notes. >> Okay, we've got a first. Do we have a second? >> Question. >> Right. >> And I will do roll. Commissioner Phil. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Schmidt. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Frederick's. Hi >> Commissioner Phillips. >> Hi >> Commissioner Barton. >> Hi >> Commissioner Creer. Hi Commissioner Creer. >> Oh, still there. I saw him join. >> There he is. And Commissioner Wagner. >> Hi. >> Thank you, commissioners. Bount is >> 100%. >> Okay. 100%. Awesome. So motion carried on that. Uh fine piece of literature. Nicely done, Ryan. That's uh interesting stuff. Okay. Next on the agenda is the uh Troy, you're up with the information on the Scott SWCD report, please. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the report you're seeing in your packet is actually from our SWCD board report. Uh, I was out at a conference last week and didn't get a paired down version of this for your packet. What I normally do is take out anything that's not germaine or related to the WO and that's what I present in your WPC report. Ryan was kind enough though to get something in for the packet. However, as you can see, it does include a lot of um information that may not be relevant to the W mo. As I go through some of the highlights, I'll just u provide some of the W mo related items as I do. So, with the tax technical assistant cost share program requests, uh we have around 137 active service requests at the time of reporting. Um about 87 of those are actual projects. So the numbers are tailing on a little in the lower end. Uh we went through a big slug of them uh last year and then uh earlier this year uh and so we see generally see that cyclical nature of the number of requests. Um so it's not too alarming on that. What I can point to that that is uh something um substantial is with respect to the soil health and cover crops. Ryan mentioned earlier about the RCPP grant. Uh that has helped us tremendously. You can see these numbers don't reflect everything in this year as of yet, but already we're blowing past our historic um numbers uh for this year on cover crops. So, uh some of the impact that we're seeing um is is can be visualized there. Now one thing that I noticed from uh an earlier conversation regarding the survey about 406% of the land owners I believe was the number intend to do cover crops that might that even though that's less than half that's an amazingly large number uh to be honest with you we don't we have less than 10% currently. So if we can look forward to 40% 46% uh that may uh implement cover crops that's that's huge. You don't see that number. It's quite rare. So um that's good news. Equipment rental program. Uh this is just indication of how many folks out there the producers who are using practices that are related to soil health uh no till or cover crops they all use our equipment for those purposes. So that number for this year 2025 as of October is already approaching uh the high levels we've seen in the past and so we expect that number to be at or above actually last year's number as well. So that's another good news story. Um I'll skip over to the open cost share grants. That's that blue box on the right lower right there. Um so the W mo we have 400 over $460,000 in in awarded grants um along that's a grants as well as local general money. Uh we've encumbered 4 426,894. So about 93% is spent. That leaves us with a small amount which is good. That means we're out there. We're spending these funds. Uh the large amount for Stone Water is reflective of that RCPP funding we got which was quite substantial. clean water education program. We hosted our outdoor education back in September. We had 887 students across 12 schools. That's down slightly from our normal which is above uh one or 1,000 or,00. There was a few schools in Shakipi that couldn't attend due to budget cuts. So hopefully that's that's a not perennial but more or less a oneoff. And we um also had one school in Jordan that didn't that we were trying to get to um commit this year that they just couldn't again. So overall our numbers on youth education though are above normal or average. Um and the reason is because we're doing more what we're calling conservation in the classroom. So there are a lot of um schools out there where they are unable to attend that outdoor education field event and so we're bringing it to them. Uh it doesn't cover all the same uh topics that we hit on outdoor education day but it is very spec topic specific and so we can reach a large larger number of students by going to them where they're unable to attend this event. >> So we can report those numbers. Yes. Sorry. >> Oh, sorry. I was going to have you scroll back uh when you're done with this one. Sorry. >> Yeah. Uh Ryan's controlling that. So, go ahead, Ryan. >> Right there. Yeah. >> Um so, I just wanted to just again draw attention to um fortuitously and since we have everybody on there right now, um this really gives a good perspective when you look at all the different grants that we all have and are working together to get implemented um within the county. uh you can see that there's a lot of of agencies doing their part to come up with you know just over a million dollars in grants but then also kind of understand where the WMO's role is in all of those cost share grants. You can tell that we're um kind of very similar to the SWCD that both of us are running neck andneck for almost uh almost 50% maybe 40% each. Uh so uh we're moving a lot of grants but individually but then also together um that's a lot of grant funding that we're we're pushing through this county as a whole. And since you had it up there, I just thought it was worthy of a of a notation. >> Well, it's a good point. The vast majority of the funding has always been with the Scott W. Mo uh for last couple decades and it's actually a little bit skewed. this report here, Vanessa, the the amount that soil and water showing is normally lags pretty far behind the WO. It's just that we got those federal funds that kind of boosted that number up, but normally the tooting your own horn thing is even more true for the WO under normal normal u circumstances. too. >> But the uh tax program, we're talking about that big old docket. That's that's, you know, looking at a large part of that $1 million is um being um policied through that tax docket. So, >> correct. >> Yeah. Thanks, T. Um the last thing I'll mention before I move on from the clean water education program is that every year we have conservationist of the year which if you attended the uh the um tour you got to meet those folks with the exception of Christian he wasn't able to attend but I just want to report out here that the oldenber brabeck farms were uh nominated by Scott water as the as our nominee for the state conservation award and they were already identified as the area for uh winner, which means that of all the metro counties um that submitted uh in this program, statewide program, Oldenberg and Ray Rick Farms was a winner. So kudos to W Mo and our land owners. And by the way, this is the third year in a row that Scott Soleno, a Scott County uh uh nominee was selected for the area at the state level. >> That's awesome. And not to interrupt here quick, but I saw uh Mr. Sure. Commissioner Phillips has his hand up. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Um, and Ryan, I I just want to say I had the great privilege of going to one of the outdoor educations. I think it was two years ago with my daughter. I was chaperoning her class and um I got to, you know, see all the presentations there. It was I thought it was I thought it was great. you see a little bit about recycling, conservation, water conservation, soil conservation. Um, I just I thought it was a great thing and uh I just want to say bringing it to schools that can't make it, I 100% support that. So, um, and you know, we I think we mentioned earlier in the meeting how we're learning from our kids, and I think we we do learn from our kids because, um, I don't know. Um, but anyways, I just wanted to just say that um, how how much I thought that program was a was a real positive thing for all them uh, all the kids who attended that. So, thank you for all your efforts for that. And by the way, Ryan, I remember your presentation. And I remember you the what blew me away is how much water it took to make chocolate. >> Oh yeah, >> it was I don't remember what it was, but it was a lot. >> I Yeah, I can't recall off the top of my head either, but it is a startling uh number that maybe nobody has uh answer that correctly so far. >> Yeah, >> it's higher than blue jeans. It's like way up there. >> Yeah. So anyways, thank you for the efforts that staff has put into it and I think it's a great program and hope it continues for many many years to come. >> Great. Thank you for that feedback. >> Thank you. >> All right, Ryan, let's scroll down. Um I'll hit the water quality. So, there's a couple of um uh water quality monitoring sites within the WO. Uh the ones that were um in the WO that were funded by MPCA are under the SWAG section. There are seven streams we're monitoring, six of those are within the WO area. Uh we're finished up with that uh seasonal monitoring. Next year we'll do the streams again uh for two so we'll have two years in a row uh groundwater observation wells. So we collect uh measurements at uh 19 wells on a quarterly basis. Um we collected eight of the 19 for this past quarter and then we're doing monitoring lake level monitoring for the city of Prior Lake on Markley Lake. So that's not funded by the WO but it's certainly within the WO and I don't I'm not sure but Vanessa correct me if I'm wrong but is not the WO involved in like a study or something related to Mark Lake? So there's a nexus there. >> Yep. That's been completed. It the study addressed uh the pumping and the opportunity and the options to um manage the lake level of Markley. We can talk about it at another date, but you're right. Uh we did collaborate with the city of Prior Lake uh and city of Credit River and we do contribute of uh the county actually contributes a third towards any pumping costs that are needed um depending upon the annual rainfall. >> Thank you for adding that uh precipitation monitoring. So we have volunteer rainfall monitors scattered throughout the county and we have one site here at the Jordan Field Office where we collect and report that data in our monthly reports. And you can see for the month of September, our uh monthly total was uh quite below our average for uh for September. I think Ryan, with that, I'll conclude and just kind of stand by for any questions. Any questions? I just did a quick Google search. It takes approximately 450 gallons of water for a single chocolate bar. Wow, Mr. Chair, that's startling. >> It really is like I'm glad I don't eat chocolate. Wink wink wink. Right. Okay. Anything else for Troy? Okay, we can move on to staff reports. >> Uh, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Um I'll I've been long-winded enough with my tax uh talk, so I'll try to get through this as quickly as possible. Um our EPA grant, our phase one, we just received the closure document that was sent to us. Um and have received all the payment. So that grant is officially been completed. Um so we've already started phase two of that and I've got an update further down for that. But um it's great. We we did everything we said we were going to do and um it's officially done. Uh the Pika Creek uh CIP. So if you recall, we were doing some maintenance work on the turf reinforced mat. And I am going to stop sharing this screen and I'll share with you some pictures of the work um uh that was done. So just bear with me. Um I'll try to keep it brief. Sorry, it's tough because you got to open windows and shut windows. So, um what this was was basically uh the area where you see with new uh blanket there's actually blanket through this whole um area. So, this is where the the TRM is located the existing TRM. What happened is where you see this uh the straw um and the coconut uh koer blanket up on top. It's the two rows here. Um that that area kind of sloughed. It came down the slope. Um and the reason was we didn't have anything down below. We added this rock that you see here to kind of prevent that sloughing um or reduce it in the future. And they actually added u percussion anchors and drove them into the ground several feet. And I'll show you another picture of what that looks like. But there's basic this whole area just scattered with these percussion anchors. What it is, it's a plate that's going to pull that blanket and keep it tight up against the slope itself. Um, this area was also TRM up in the upper right kind of corner, top right corner. Um but that didn't have any sloughing because we had uh toe protection down there. So this area was added during construction. Um and you know now we would know in the future if adding something like that you know we do also have to add that toe protection too. So we learned a little bit with it. Um but overall for you know close to 3/4 of a million dollar project u this is pretty minor in the whole scheme of of kind of touch-up work. Um so I'll stop sharing that. I'll show you the percussion anchor and then I'll also just show you um where exactly that's located so you have that spatial reference to it. Okay, that's the anchor. Um so basically they drive that down. It's like um um a larger version of a duck bill anchor if anyone's ever worked with those. It's basically a long cable. Uh you p pound it down with a pilot rod and then once you get it in place to where you know you met the depth that you're supposed to, you actually pull back up on it and it it takes that anchor from going you know vertical and actually pops it into place so it goes horizontal and it's just that it's giving it more of a friction for being able to be pulled out. Um, so and then this is kind of the the method that they were using to do the pull out uh test to make sure that they hit the hit the specs that they needed to. Um, so we'll stop sharing that. I'll quick show where it is on a map and then we'll move on to the next one. So map of Scott County, we got 169 here. Sever maze. Um, that's right here. So our project is located just kind of southeast of there. Um, and it's this ravine. I'll throw on the contour so it makes it easier to see. So, this ravine here is the Pika Creek uh ravine. And where that worked that I was showing you is actually on the very very upper end of that project. So, um, this would be the last landowner that worked with us. And that was on the I guess it' be the furthest upstream land owner, I should say. Um, and so that work is kind of right right there on their property. Um, I'll continue moving on. Um, Cedar Lake Township, we've been working on a culvert uh where they've faced beaver issues and the beavers are building a dam at the lake outlet. And so, just keeping you informed. We are in the process of getting the contract reviewed uh for that. And um also the township is working with the land owner on establishing an easement for 10 years for the maintenance of that. Um, so both of those things we're hoping can get done um here shortly. Uh, the consultant wants to actually do the work still this year and we would like them to do the work as well. Um, but this is Lenin Lake and the outlet for Lenin Lake is located right here. Um, and as you can see, this parcel is uh it's actually a private uh land owner. Um, and so it's it's not uh not technically in the you know the public water. So we would need that easement there. Um, and they're proposing to put a fence structure that is trapezoidal in shape and it'll uh deters beavers from wanting to build a dam uh in front of that that culvert. So, um, so we're going to see if this works and I think if it does, we might have maybe an option for any future issues that are similar. Um, EPA phase two, our amendment is still being worked on. Uh, just as a heads up, we are using uh federal funds, so the government shutdown may impact the timing of when that could be completed. Um, but we are still continuing to work on that amendment. Um and we will get it over to MPCA staff to review once we've got everything ready to go. Um we did a assessment uh basically or I should say a site uh visit on a ravine in Credit River. U basically this ravine flows into Credit River or County Ditch 4. Um and basically it was just kind of um we're we're working with the land owners out there. um maybe not all the land owners are necessarily interested in the project. So, but the there's two kind of downstream properties. I'll show you um here as well. I think I'm still sharing my screen. Are am I where you can see the GIS map? >> Yep, we got it. Good. >> Okay, perfect. Um so, basically, you know, we're looking to put this into the new plan. um but that it's not really going to, you know, do much for them short term. So, I just kind of offered I would walk it and just kind of do an assessment, just kind of look at it. Um see if there's anything that really stuck out. You know, I I wouldn't necessarily say that. Um this is as I flip on the contours, you'll see this is the ravine right here and then it flows into this is Credit River/county Ditch 4. Um, and so, you know, there's just a little bit of a, you know, sediment plume from this ravine that heads into the the creek. Um, um, you know, not obviously great for flow through the area, but, um, you know, we can't really do much. It's not in our current plan right now to do any, you know, project out here, but we're looking at adding it to the next plan. And um I kind of just let the land owners know, you know, we're probably going to go a couple years with not really um hearing much from me cuz there there's not really much we can do. Um but in the meantime, we're just kind of gathering some data um that if we ever were to pursue a project that we've kind of got that that we can pass along to the consultant. Um and I'll my last screen share I believe. >> And Brian, I'll just add one more piece to that. Sorry. Um, just a reminder that all of our CIPs are heavily grant funded. So, uh, as much as we would love to just run out and do any any ravine project at the drop of a hat, uh, it takes some time to, um, gather funding and the biggest piece of that is to have it in our watershed management plan. So, much like all the other CIPs, um, it's just a matter of just getting through that process of being able to make it eligible for funding, getting the funding, doing the design, gathering the data. But in the meantime, that's really hard. a lot of times for residents to digest and we want to keep them informed that it is a process. We haven't forgotten about them. We're doing it as quickly and e efficiently as we can. So, that's kind of what Ryan was alluding to in that >> Yeah. >> not letting them feel forgotten, letting them know that we're still working on it diligently. >> Uh here's just a an area. It's probably more severe the erosion in this stretch. Um, I didn't put a tape measure to it, but if I had to estimate, you know, these side slopes are probably 15 plus feet, maybe even 20 plus feet. Um, it's it's really high and it's vertical. Um, and you know, nothing's going to grow on a vertical slope. So, um, so yeah, I guess there might be more to come, but just wanted to share the results of just, you know, letting you know we're looking at this, um, if any questions were to pop up. So, um, I got one last update. Um, so I I think we talked about this before where we were looking at the potential land sale of a project that we did. Um, we purchased some land for a phase 2 CIP that we did back in 2017, I believe. Um, and just letting you know, we've at least initiated that in a process. you know, we had we had always said that at some point we were looking to well, we'll look into selling the land. Um, and we just kind of kicked that off. So, we're we're learning as we go. I've never sold land uh before um for the county. So, um for the WO and so just letting you know, keeping you uh informed. And without any pretty questions, >> I would only add for those newer commissioners, the WMO generally does not strive to own land. We may have some really long easements uh due to grant requirements that might take 30 years, but we're really not in the business of owning land. So, for us to own a piece of land, um it's pretty rare. So, that's why we also don't really necessarily know the process in selling land because of course we don't generally own land. So, Any other questions for Ryan? >> Okay, Melissa, you're up. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, okay, my notes just disappeared. I got to bring you back up. Uh, really quick, just a couple of updates. Uh, survey season's over. Um, I was extremely busy this year again with Watership Plan Update on phase two. So, we hired Bluewater Science um to do a lot of the surveys for me. I don't have all of those reports yet or the invoicing, but I did send them a reminder email. Um so, as soon as I have those, I will um provide you an update on on some of that information. Um the camp program, the lake sampling program, I picked up all of the lake samples and the kits from most of our volunteers. I have one more to coordinate and pick up from um McMahon Lake, but as soon as I get that, then that'll be um done with for the season. And then my last update is on the watershed management plan update. Um as Vanessa kind of uh brought up a little bit earlier, our our next big topic to go over with you is the technical assistance and program. So, our plan is to have an in-person workshop in November for the WPC. It'll be a joint workshop again with our um the Scott SWCD board, and we'd like to have that at um the SWCD office. We think that would be um fun to have you be able to see that. Um Troy has completed an assessment of the program um and we'll we will include that in the November packet for you. Um it will be interactive again. So we'll have some exercises for you to do um and some questions to answer to kind of help us inform if the program needs any kind of modification. So that's all I have for updates. >> Right. Thanks Melissa. Any questions for Melissa >> or Ryan? And I got to say thanks to Ryan. I forgot to say thanks to Ryan and Melissa. Thank you too. A lot of work goes into this. >> No problem. No problem. Okay. Uh, next up is the administrator's report. Vanessa, >> thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair and commissioners, I just actually have a couple of updates. Um, first of all, uh, like Melissa said, our next meeting is going to be an inerson meeting at the SWCD offices. That's at the fairgrounds. Uh, it's in the building at the fairgrounds, kind of that main one. So, if you haven't been in there yet, that's also the location of the extension services. So, it's also kind of a fun little building to visit. Plus, you'd also get to kind of see where the S SWCD offices are if you've not seen them before. So, it's also just kind of a a a great opportunity to get out and maybe see something you haven't seen before. Um, we will conduct a little bit of business, very very short meeting ahead of time, um, to go over like the budget for 2026. That's when the final budget is brought to you guys for recommendation going to the board. Um, but that's maybe the only action item necessary and then we would just move into the workshop. Uh, we promised to bring lots of snacks, lots of good things to drink. Maybe Commissioner Wgner's uh, family might be dropping off more snacks. Who knows? Uh, but we promise to make you feel uh, wellfed. Uh, we'll have food, uh, lots of beverages. Uh, promise to make it worth your while. Um, so that's kind of what's coming up on that one. Uh second again too if you could just uh Oh, >> so just confirming that's the 24th of November. Is that the date? >> Yep. Thank you, Commissioner Fredericks. Uh the the second one, again, just a really quick reminder, uh if you haven't reached out to let us know your preferred contact method, uh just if you like texts or calls or emails, please let us know. We always want to make that as easy for you as possible. Uh, so if you haven't gotten back to us, let us know. And then the third one is a kind of a fun thing. It's come across my desk. Again, this is something that comes across my desk on a rather frequent basis over the years. Um, I'm going to share my screen. Uh, Ryan, could you stop sending or sharing? All right. All right. Perfect. So hopefully you all can see this. I thought this was also very appropriate for the time of year. It is October. That is not pureed pumpkin. It looks like pureed pumpkin which is why I thought it was appropriate for October. But this is actually what we often get a lot of calls about, especially at this time of year. Uh it's their calls are always coming from like a pipe or something near a pipe or a culvert or a wetland. Um, there's always a wetland adjacent somewhere nearby. Uh, and the reason why we get this call is because you've got this gooey orange pured opaque guck, just gooey stuff floating in the water and people are obviously concerned maybe somebody's dumping something, you know, is there some sort of chemical spill? What's going on? But in fact, this is actually a naturally occurring process. This is actually the um byproduct of kind of an iron oxidizing bacteria and it's always associated with wetlands and generally pipes. So wetlands are kind of funky in that obviously they're anorobic environments because with all that water just not a lot of oxygen. Well that creates a lot of iron oxidiz rust. You'll see a lot of wetland soils you break them apart they tend to be kind of red and rusty. Well, it turns out on this great planet of ours, there's been this bacteria that's decided that this is actually a great food, which is kind of funny. Um, but, uh, as it digests that food, it also produces, um, a really delicious ucky, um, gooey orange mass. So what it really is, it's just the byproduct of this iron oxidizing bacteria. Um either and a lot of times the reason what happens around pipes and culverts is because obviously a lot of those are metal inside. And so if it's in a wetland and it's a pipe or culvert or it's just near a wetland in general, you'll often see this slimy pureed pumpkin. It is not coming from the Barton pumpkin farm. I promise you. Um they're not pureeing their pumpkins. Uh so uh it's a great kind of Halloween thing that comes up a lot. It comes around the desk a lot this time of year. It's just something fun I like to share. Works great on pub quiz nights. Um, but it's a natural process. The nice thing is when the bacteria is able to consume and kind of process the additional iron, it doesn't it no longer is locked in the soil. So, it's allowed to just naturally dissolve through biological processes. So, that's great too for water quality as a whole. Looks weird, but anyway. And with that, I will stand for any questions. >> I have something. Vanessa, >> go ahead. >> Um, this is Commissioner Phillips. Um, I just wanted to I don't know if this is I realize times is short right now, but >> um, if we have a moment, um, I just would like to bring up uh, something I was thinking about um, since we met on our field trip. Was it a month ago? No, it's two months ago. um when we met with the lake association and the um conservation award winners and had the field trip and something that I was thinking about was the lake association um they had some feedback for us and something I heard loud and clear from them was um was the fact that they felt that there's a lot of weeds in the lakes and I realize there's weeds in lots of lakes Um, and I know we have the AIS inspectors out there periodically um throughout the summer and that's great. Love it. Um, however, they can't be there all the time. And I, many of you may know I'm a active boater and a fisherman. I use a lot of area lakes and I was at a a lake recently. I was on Lake Mitaka and I came across this boat boat boat cleaning station at a public water access and I use it and I actually seek these out because for me it's a lot easier to clean my boat off and these boat cleaning stations they um they do a lot of good things. I think they make it easier to get the weeds off the boat. Um, you know, including, uh, you know, the the AIS species we're trying to keep keep from lakes. Um, and can I is it okay if I share my screen real quick, Vanessa? I got a picture of it. People want to see it. >> So, let's see. How do you do that? Oh, here we go. Screen share. Whoops. I don't window. Here we go. Um, so there's a there's a boat cleaning station right there. Can can people see that? I don't know if you >> Yep. >> So, it's it's a simple one. There there's fancy ones. There's there's simple ones. There's uh all kinds of various ones. If you look at that picture, it's kind of basic, but it it does a great job. There's a little salad tongs on there. maybe I call it a saddle tongs, but it's about a three-foot tongs and reach under your boat and get them weeds out easy. Um, personally, I think people don't clean their boat off. They don't spend the time they need to. There's a little light on there. You can't really see it, but there's a little solar panel on top. Um, and there's a little brush. I don't really use a brush much, but people can use a brush. I like the the salad tongs is my favorite tool. you really can reach around and get them weeds off. So, I was just wanted to start a discussion and I wanted to um just bring this up at this meeting and just see what people thought about possibly looking into the idea of putting I'm not saying every public water access we have, but maybe just starting with maybe the most used and just seeing what the feasibility and the cost and and what would it take to install um install one of these at I personally I like to I I really like them. I'm a big advocate of them, but I realize money's tight and you know everywhere every jurisdiction has it's tight right now. Um and maybe this isn't the year, but maybe we could afford one or two and maybe but this could be a longterm thing. But um I was just wondering if I uh uh if if staff would be willing to um to uh see what the feasibility of installing these in terms of is it even feasible? Can we get permission? Could we get some um could we get some partners in this um uh the county um you know SWCD? I don't know if that would be but uh um you know other conservation that maybe the lake lake association and but essentially kind of look into what partners that we would potentially have here. Um but I I that's that's what I wanted to bring up just the idea of possibly installing looking into the feasibility of an of of installing a boat cleaning station at at least starting with our most used lakes in our in our wershed. Yeah. So, >> absolutely, Commissioner Phillips. Yep. This is exactly why we appreciate having a WPC because you guys will come up with these ideas that maybe just haven't really occurred to staff or we haven't looked at in a while. Uh, so staff will definitely look into this and we can bring it back to you at another WPC meeting. Uh, probably won't be November because of the workshop, but it would be one of the early meetings in 2026. We can bring you um all the different uh things associated with it. Uh, we don't know much about them at the moment or the costs or anything. I know Melissa probably has, but hold on. We'll get to it at the next meeting when we bring it up. I know. Um, since we haven't really talked about it, but we will definitely bring that all to you at another meeting in early 2026 if that'sable. >> That'd be great. And I I know everyone's busy and I don't mean to give you more work and I don't want to stress anybody out, but if it could be worked in at some point, that would be I I think it'd be great to just at least start the start the conversation. >> Commissioner Phillips and members of this committee, I I kind of like them, but uh with any good idea, we need to know the price on them. So if there's a I think that's what you probably talk about, Vanessa, is if we can get a price on these and all that. The Yep. Then it's the animal you know versus the animal you don't. I was going to say enemy, but animal you know versus animal you don't. Right. Oh, Bruce has got his finger up. Let's go, Bruce. >> Yeah, we just put one in on u upper or lower prior in Sandp Point Beach and we worked with the DNR to put one of those in once. We we redid the ramps there too with some funding from the DNR. So, if you contact our staff, they'll give you the information, what it costs, and uh the funding participation in the process. So, >> glad you jumped on, Mr. Looney. Thank you. That's awesome. >> Mr. Chair, can I just make one comment quick? >> Oh, go ahead, please. So, I have looked into this for many years and I can wait to another meeting to give you input, but the reason why we haven't put one on any of our lakes is because the DNR only allowed them to go on lakes that had a zebra muzzle infestation. So now that Cedar does, we can revisit it. But that's why we haven't put them on our lakes because the DNR would not allow it because they're all DNR owned accesses unless that water body had zemer infestations. >> So So it have to be on private property. That makes sense. Okay. I was say, how does a DNR control that? It's their access. Okay, I get it. We'll we'll look into all of the different pieces, get it updated information and bring it all back to you for sure. >> Good stuff. >> That'd be great. You know, the DNR I I would just respectfully say um if we're trying to prevent things from getting into the lake, you know, let's maybe not wait until it's in there to prevent it. And who knows what other things we could prevent from getting into this lake. We got >> these AIS species. They they seem we kind of seem to be more and more every year, but we could be preventing. We don't know what we're preventing from getting in there, but it's just I thought something would be a good use of, you know, WM WO dollars to preserve these lights. So, >> absolutely interesting stuff. I like it. All right. Thank you for that. Uh Vanessa, anything else? >> No. Uh Mr. Chair commissioners uh you can if you're comfortable or you can make a motion to um adjourn the meeting and I can do roll. >> I will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> Commissioner motion to adjourn. >> There we go. >> Looks like Commissioner >> Frederick seconded. Okay. All right. I will do roll. Commissioner Thi. >> Commissioner Schmidt. >> Hi. Commissioner Frederick's. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Phillips. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Barton. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Kreer. >> I. >> And Commissioner Wagner. >> Hi. >> Thank you, Commissioners. We look forward to seeing you in person with lots of delicious snacks and lots of coffee in November. >> Thanks, everybody. >> Thank you. Thank you.