Schmidt. Commissioner Schmidt, this is Clayton Wagner. I'd like to motion to approve the amended minutes as amended uh by the recommendations of Vanessa. Thank you. >> Um I do have to do call roll call for those commissioners who are here. So, Commissioner Schmidt, >> hi. Commissioner Phillips. >> I, >> Commissioner Wgner, >> here. I >> And Commissioner Frederick's >> I. >> Thank you. >> Okay, I guess uh we go into new business then. Um, fall conservation tour for Ryan. All right. Sorry about that. Um I I'll leave the video off for now just because now we're actually recording and I think if I start the recording I don't think anything good happens if I get booted off at this point. So let me >> I'm not seeing your screen yet either. >> Let me know if you can see it now. >> There it goes. >> All right. So let me scroll to the conservation tour. So, this is a mark your calendars. Uh, so for any new commissioners, um, uh, we changed it now. It used to be an annual tour, but, um, it's going to be every other year, uh, going forward. Uh, so last year we did not have it. Uh, this year we have our fall conservation tour where we partner with the SWCD, the W SWCD, and we kind of come together and and put on a tour. And every year the theme is a little bit different or the spots that we actually go to are different. Uh this year the theme is kind of surrounded or surrounding um lakes and just lake management. Um so various aspects of it. Uh we'll touch on you know probably some of the water quality monitoring um you know lake water levels uh shoreline practices you know maybe even some of the you know watershed practices as well uh that would contribute to the lake. Uh so basically everything is kind of a lake theme this year. uh the uh hope hopefully it's fun to everybody, but we're looking at getting a boat tour actually on um Lake Odow is the the likely spot that we're going to go. And I say likely because we have not secured the boats yet. Um so this is more or less just save this date. Um this is kind of when we're looking at for the conservation tour. Uh more details to come, but uh theme lakes and we're thinking about doing a boat tour. Uh timing is, you know, the same as most years. It's uh 3:00 to 7:00 p.m. So, this will replace the uh September WPC meeting. So, this is a week earlier than our normal meeting. Uh and it is on a Monday afternoon/ing. Uh there will be dinner provided as well. Um, and we're still kind of working out the schedules based on how many boats we can get that, um, we'll give you more details as we kind of figure things out, but uh, this is just to kind of mark your calendars. >> Yep. So, and then just a little bit more or background. So, first of all, we will have to post this so that folks know in advance that we've have a different meeting date. Um, second, uh, both the residents around Lake Odow as well as those around Cedar have reached out to us every year asking if we'll come out and do a tour of their lakes. They want you all there and we've uh, generally it just hasn't quite worked out, but we really wanted to commit to giving them a tour within, you know, a reasonable period of time. So, um I will definitely say this is very resident driven. Uh and to that end, the residents have always said, "We will provide you the pontoons." So, now we're going to see um if that will in fact be true. Um and if that works out for them. So, that's why we're not 100% committed to which lake, whether it'll be uh uh Thor or Dow or Cedar. Now, we did do a thou because they did come to us first and have been coming to us first. Um, but the backup is cedar. So, that's just a little bit more history on on kind of the the background of that one. It'll be fun. Um, we'll still do the dinner that'll be on land. They won't and the conservation um awards will be there as well uh still as part of this, but uh the tour part will just be on the water. >> Okay. Thank you. Sounds like fun. So, um, next next would be the >> Hey, real real quick. That sounds great. Looking forward to it. Question. I thought we had said that we were looking at also doing a field trip to the ravine uh stabilization project when it was done. Is that something that is also potential coming up or um is that not going to work out? >> No. Uh, great question, Commissioner Frederick's. I think we still are hoping like if the fall works out and everything is looking good in the fall. Um because it's drier in the fall uh and the vegetation's tamed down a little bit uh that's usually the best. If it's not looking good in the fall, uh we might postpone it to early spring. But yes, we definitely want to get you out there to that one as well. Um because it is just an excellent project. Uh and that would probably be also like before a WPC meeting. So we would do, you know, we would either meet first and then and then um go do that site visit or, you know, do the site visit and then meet. It would be a shorter meeting portion of the meeting. >> Okay, that's great. It's just for new commissioners, is I think just the more to get, you know, >> Yes. >> hands-on with your own eyes uh exposure the better. >> Yeah, definitely agree. and thank you for that. >> Okay, next topic would be the water uh activity for the water body prioritization. >> Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. Um so in your packet was a memo that I put together um talking about um how we are proposing to prioritize our water bodies in this next plan. Um I if if you had a chance to read it, I start out referencing the county board's strategic plan and one of the strategies in there that we're, you know, we're trying to be um in alignment with the Scott County Board plan. Uh but we also have a vision um that we've had this vision for many years now. Um so we've got five prioritization categories um that we're proposing. Um and it's really, you know, these categories are really kind of carrying forward from how we prioritized improving um water resources from the previous plan. Um but in addition, we're adding more detail on protection and how to prioritize that protection and adding some criteria for each category. Um, so if we can just we'll just start with the different categories if you want to scroll down to the next. So we added a bit more detail on our protection um category and really if you had a chance to read through this really some of the highlights of it are these are water bodies that are not on the federal impaired waters list. Um the focus on these waters are that they're healthy within the watershed that that they're located. Um you know they serve a function. Um some of them might help with flood management or flood prevention or groundwater recharge or help uh with water quality downstream or with wildlife habitat. And if you've had a chance to read the write up because this one's a little bit longer. you know, some of them might not be pristine. For an example, Odow Lake is one of the best water quality lakes that we have in the county, but um it also has a mercury impairment. So, I talk about here that, you know, some of these might not be pristine, but we might still think that they should be on this in this protection category. Um we do not have any of the water bodies that are um or any of the segments that are a county ditch um under this category at all. So no county ditches are under a protection category. Um, and we also kind of put in here that this the Scott Mo may choose to prioritize a water body here for other reasons such as, you know, if it's going to build resiliency against other um primary threats that maybe maybe we might want to choose to put it under a protection category. Um and so if you want to scroll down a little bit more to kind of the list of the criteria that this is just a list that we came up with. Um and this is u part of the voting that you'll do in just a little bit um of a list of this criteria that we feel like goes along with a protection um strategy. So I think those are pretty self-explanatory. Does anybody have any questions about any of that criteria that we listed in here? >> Oh, and Melissa, you might add that a lot of this carried forward from the last plan. Yes. >> So, a lot of the items on these lists as well as these categories are are very much carried forward from the last plan. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Hey, Melissa, it's Jay Fredericks. It's not a question about the criteria, but when I was reading through this, I couldn't help thinking about, you know, it would be great if there's a sound bite statistic to kind of deal with, you know, kind of investing a dollar in prevention versus what the cost is of remediation, you know, if you don't invest that prevention dollar, you know. So, kind of like a a preventative maintenance versus repair um type concept. Is that kind of sound bite something that either exists or could be created? I just think it's a really nice way of, you know, selling the priority of the prevention versus, you know, the latter later ones which are more about, you know, fixing something that's already happened. >> Yeah, that's a good question. Um, Vanessa, do you want to address that at all? >> I do. Uh, but let let me think about that a little bit and get back to you. Um, I like the request. I see where you're going with that. >> That's great. >> Yep. >> Yeah, that's great. I'm not looking for an answer right off the top of my head, but if you get my point, you know, when you're presenting these priorities, um, I just think it's a really it if one could be creative and, you know, doesn't have to be an auditable number, but just something that would kind of it could be like a rough order of magnitude. you know, the cost of remediation is three times the cost of prevention or just something that that communicates that point because I think I mean that's why it's the first priority I think. Um but just kind of putting something behind it that people can put their head around. >> Yep. Nope. I like that. I um we have obviously several metrics that we use to measure the cost of repair, right? Um it's more at getting updated numbers for some of those costs of protection. Um we know that we've seen them in the past. We've looked at them pretty consistently. We know they're there. We know obviously there's the cost is significantly less for staff time, right? Because we're not out there construction. There's no construction costs. Uh but um and finding a few that finding the right handful. So yeah. No, I think that if we could just uh get back to you uh definitely we would be happy. That's great. >> And I'll just re-emphasize the point. I don't think you have to overengineer the number. I mean, again, I'm thinking of it like in a business setting. >> You know, it doesn't have to be calculated to, you know, whatever. It's again more conceptual and representative as opposed to, you know, an actual math number that people are going to, you know, check check your math. Awesome. Okay. Um, so then again, I I listed kind of all the water bodies that would fit into that category. We do have a map, but I'm going to just continue on with the next couple categories and then we'll show you the maps. Um, so the second category is restoration of impaired waters that have an approved total maximum daily load study. Um so kind of the highlights of this category would be these water bodies are on the federal impaired waters list. They do have an improved total maximum daily load study um which that study develops waste load allocations and load allocations. So waste load allocations are kind of that water and pollutants that are coming out of the end of a pipe like a wastewater treatment plant or any other kind of industry. And load allocation is non-point source pollution. So anything that runs across the landscape and into a water body that's non-point source pollution. So um so the TMDL is created to understand what the sources of pollutants are to the water body and how much each pollutant needs to be reduced in order to bring that water body back to um meeting water quality standards. So that's kind of the highlights for that category and the criteria is a little bit different um in this category and I'm just wondering instead of going through everyone I'm just wondering if anybody has any questions about any of the criteria to make sure you understand it doesn't sound like it. So we'll go on to the third one. You can scroll down a little bit more. So the third one is again restoration of impaired waters but that do not have a total maximum daily load study. Um and so these are waters that are on the federal impaired waters list. Um these are really waters that are impaired for a biological impairment. Um so they're not meeting macro andvertebrate. um species and numbers that they would normally have in that type of water body or that they're they have a fish impairment. So, they're not they don't have the type of uh fish species or fish numbers that they should have. Um um and if you could scroll to the Okay, I just want to be able everyone to see the criteria. Uh, one of the criteria I just want to kind of point out and it was just an idea that we left but I just wanted to point it out is that one of the criteria was uh water bodies with sufficient data to know the current impairment status. Is that still there? Oh yeah. >> Yep, that's there. and probable cause of impairment where the active where active data collection or other active projects are not currently taking place. So an example of that would be um maybe this would be a good time to scroll to the maps and then we'll come back to the last two categories. So Ryan, if you want to scroll down so we can start showing the maps. So here's what the if you can show the Yeah. Okay. So here's the first C category of protection protection of unimpaired waters. So these would be the water bodies that would fall in that category. >> And and just for clarification or for those who are on the phone uh who might not be able to see the map or remember the map very clearly um it does it contain quite a fair number of water bodies in the WO. We are lucky. We have some pretty high quality waters and we would like to keep them that way. Um the the more that are on this list, the better for everyone. Uh the stream segments are the pieces that might be hard to sometimes wrap your brain around uh because they are stream reaches. So, uh, while Sand Creek as a whole is quite a large river, uh, so is Credit River, um, there it's actually the state breaks it into pieces. So, what you're seeing on these maps are actually different pieces of those rivers uh, that are ranked differently. So, that's why it looks kind of segmenty, like somebody dropped ramen noodles on there. Okay, if you want to scroll to the next map. So, this is the impaired waters with an approved TMDL. So, there really isn't a lot of them. Oh, not surprisingly, there are some of our more uh heavily publicly used lakes. Um, you know, there's just there's just more going on around those water bodies. So, uh, that is not out of line with what you see across the state and what you see across the metro. Um, [Music] okay. Scroll. So, this is this is mainly the biological impairments. Um, so there'sn't very many of those. And then we'd like to include the national wetlands inventory under protection. Now, this is showing everything. We did not have time to have GIS remove some of the water bodies that are already covered under some of the other categories. But as you can see, the National Wetland Inventory would cover a lot of different water bodies under the protection category. It might seem like we're very wet, which to be fair, I mean, we are generally a wetter county versus uh the high prairie lands, but um at the end of the day, we still just like the rest of the state have less than 2% of our original wetlands left. So, it might be even less. Now, Troy, do you have an updated number? It's a It's um we don't have nearly what we used to have. So, >> So, Ryan, if you could go back. They have the same number but >> a memo under three. Three. Okay. Um and just show all the criteria under three. Okay. So the idea of the criteria for water bodies with sufficient data to know the current impairment and probable cause but where active data collection or other projects are not currently taking place. So some of the water bodies we we know what the impairment probably is if it's doesn't have a TMDL because of just the surrounding landscape or that water body might be in a highly erodable um soil area or uh credit river for example has a biological impairment But um um it also has kind of high chloride, but it's not listed for chloride. So So that's the idea behind that criteria is it's a water body that we we kind of know what's going on around in the watershed. Um, so we we already have enough data to understand that what the impairment status probably is, but but there might not actively we might not actively be working on it or have a project on it. Now whether whether we should keep that criteria in place or not, if you don't think so, speak up and we can take it off the voting before we start the voting. But um that's kind of the idea behind that criteria. >> I might Melissa might actually just jump in and say leave them there for now. Um another way to look at it too for the newer commissioners that maybe aren't as familiar with the older plan yet is this one builds off the idea that uh don't wait to do another study before taking action when you feel like you have sufficient data to move forward. >> That's really where this is kind of coming from. It's like do you how much data do you really feel you need in order to do something? And our previous plan was always if you feel like you got enough sufficient data to move forward, take action, get projects in the ground, physically get those pollutants out of there. Don't wait for just more data if that's not really likely to provide you any further information. >> Good point. Thank you. Okay, two more categories. uh groundwater was very important um that we heard in the phase one feedback. So our priorities for that and we don't really have this all written out yet but would be groundwater sustainability um groundwater recharge for those high value resources focusing on groundwater quality and then groundwater source protection. Um, and then for wetlands, Vanessa, would you want to talk through the wetlands? >> So, wetlands have always again been a top priority in the WMO. They were in the last couple plans. They carried forward in this one as well. Um, again, the wetlands are there to recharge our lakes and rivers. They protect us from flooding. They're just kind of hardworking uh little ecosystems there. Um, so the more we have generally the better we are, they release water and drought, etc., etc. Uh, that being said, we didn't necessarily provide a lot of detail in the last plan as to how we would prioritize our wetlands. And if you recall from that brief little map, uh, we have a lot. So, uh, this time around, we're still staying consistent with the last plan, but we're just providing a little bit more language as to which wetlands we would prioritize. And to that end, um it's really first and foremost again trying to understand uh what the quality of the wetlands that we have in place. Um really lowquality wetlands while it might be a wetland might not be serving its maximum function and to get it to do so um may not be our our best effort, but we don't know that until we understand the wetland. So it's just doing a baseline health assessment. It's not a deep dive or study, but that's really one of our top priorities. Um, again, it's just increasing our wetland acreages by trying to hold on to those that we have. Um, but prioritizing them primarily for water retention, um, which is more of the flood protection, uh, recharge, which is again recharging our ground waters, uh, wildlife habitat, pretty much those that can provide multiple functions. So, wetland that's only doing one thing is not as good as wetland that's doing many things. And then of course prioritizing wetland uh connectivity so they function better when they're connected to each other and connected to our lakes. Um and then again, you know, protecting those from storm water runoff. That's more again protection versus restoration. If we can keep it high quality, we want to keep it high quality. Um now, we don't do a lot in the flood plane in the past. Um, but it is worth putting in there that if something's already in the flood plane, you might as well maximize the effectiveness of the flood plane because there are already a lot of restrictions in flood planes. So, it's kind of a killing two birds with one stone. Why not go ahead and then preserve those flood plane wetlands um and and just increase more storage within the flood plane because it's already not that a great place for development or anything else as it is. And then um the last piece is preserving wetlands directly adjacent to bluffs and high value resource areas. uh wetlands uh adjacent to bluffs uh as they stand do a great job of protecting bluffs. When you start messing with them, they really impact the stability of those bluffs. So, it's again, it's a twofold. I see a hand raised. Oh, Commissioner Phillips. >> Yes. >> Hi. Um, this is Commissioner Phillips and I just want to ask a question about the federal I think it's a federal program regarding um, wetland credits where companies can buy and sell credits. I I know for a fact a resident down on um in our watershed um in my when I was working for Scott County, I was working on his property on the septic um and it was down on 8 and and 27 there, southwest corner, that farm there, Kane's corner they called it. and he he had a whole bunch of wetlands installed and are I'm sure you're aware of that program, but I was just kind of wondering how how does that do do we does the watershed track that or how does that how do we play into that or do we play into that at all? >> We do um and at different levels in different ways. Uh short answer is again through this work we prioritize uh by increasing wetland acreage. Um we would probably prefer to help fund a wetland restoration that allows us to have credits basically run a wetland bank. Um but to that end um we generally if the SWCD is already doing that we'll let the SWCD do that first. So Troy, what year was it that we did the Helena Wetland Bank? What year was that tour? Is that four years? >> It was I want to say it was the first year we we were able to after the COVID shutdown. So I want to say 21 or 22. >> I think 22. >> Yeah. Um so to that end, yes, we we do definitely prioritize wetland banks um for that effort. Um, also because our LGUs, including the county, um, would like to utilize those credits and the state available credits can always be questionable at best. And at the end of the day, if you can buy credit within the watershed, it's probably better for the watershed because you're not losing wetland acreage locally. But maybe that tiny little isolated reed canary grass wetland is of less effectiveness than a larger wetland bank in the same subshed, same drainage area. So um it's kind of a multi- approach, but yeah, we definitely do prioritize it. Sometimes through supporting banks, uh sometimes through our standards to prioritize just large tracks of wetlands, not allowing people just to go to banks. uh sometimes through creating our own. Does that answer your question? >> Yeah, thanks for that explanation. I it's I know it's a complex uh answer, but yeah, it does shed light on it. Thank you. >> No problem. >> And sometimes people just like to make their own wetland, which is kind of a different thing altogether. They liked it for ducks and other fun things, but that's kind of a different animal. That's more of an aesthetic wetland, landscaping wetland. Um uh just the last thing I would add on here uh was that we did put an asterisk just reminding folks in general that when we talk about water retention again we are not talking about the installation funding or management of a water body outlet inlet or control structure. We do not manage water levels that is aligned with the county policy. Um that is not our job. That is not the intent nor goal of this. So, nor would we prioritize turning a wetland into a lake, which you legally can't do, but we wouldn't do it anyway. Okay. So, I've got a little voting exercise for you. Does is there any other questions before we move on to that? >> I think we're good. >> Okay. Um, maybe I can share Ryan. Okay, move a few things here. So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to put a link in the chat so that you all have access to find the chat. There we go. So, if you go in the chat, you can get the link to this voting thing here and everyone on the meeting is welcome to do this. So, we'll just wait to make sure that everybody can get in first. >> It's a pop out window, right? It goes to my browser. Mentimeter. >> Yes. >> Open it like three times. Okay, here we go. And we do fully disclose that although we have as staff done these a lot at at uh meetings and workshops and trainings, we have not done them for the WPC before. So you are our first guinea pigs. I see there's six people in pretty good. That looks like a good number. Uh, keeping in mind Commissioner Frederick's is driving so >> right >> is not Yeah. >> Is anyone trying to get in that's having any difficulty or I'm able to bring it up. >> And now that you're in there, do you see the first question? Is everyone who's in seeing the first question? What criteria for protecting water bodies should be considered? >> Yes, Melissa, I do see it. This is Phillips. Sorry about the delay there. >> Okay, no problem. >> Had to click over. >> Yeah, no worries. Um, so I see we got seven people in. >> One of them is me. So, >> Oh, okay. So, go ahead and start choosing. You have up to eight choices. There's more than eight cho, you know, more than eight options, but >> I will not be voting. I'm just making sure it's running. >> Okay. And the the first uh question for those of us who aren't able to see it uh actually says what criteria for protecting water bodies should be considered. So that is aligning with that uh first tier of protecting water bodies. Um we know we have you know kind of quite a few on that list that we carried over from the last plan. So, we just kind of want to gauge um how comfortable you are with that list again and and um if there are any that just aren't resonating with anybody at all, we might look to see if they're either not worded properly or if we just drop them all together. >> I know there's a lot >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I was I was just going to say I know there's a lot to read through. We've got three responses. So, we'll just we'll give you we'll give you time. Got some time. So, once you make your choices, you'll have to hit submit on the bottom for it to register. We should have had background music prepared. Darn it. >> Yeah, Jeopardy music, >> right? or or or some sort of like nice, you know, band live at Savage uh a you know, auditorium, something like that. Like, we should have got Commissioner Beers out here. A man, I'm really dropping the ball. We totally should have got Commissioner Beers out here to play our background music. Ah, I know one person is you, Vanessa, so I'm wondering if it's counting me. I've got five responses out of seven people. I don't know if it's counting me. Is anyone still reading through and >> I just made my selection. It might take a second to get through. >> Okay, >> that would be the right amount, Melissa, based upon everything. >> Okay. I just wasn't sure if it's counting me out of the seven. And I know it's counting you out of the seven, but >> no. No, I counted uh based upon all attendees and everything that were that's the right amount number. >> Okay. Okay. So, we have three questions. So, I'm going to go on to the next one. So, what criteria for restoration of impaired waters with a TMDL should be considered? So, here's the criteria that if it if it has a TMDL, what should we think about? And I think you have six options on this one if I remember right. >> Yep. Yep. So the first category was protection and this one is now restoration. Um, and again, these are waters that are impaired or don't meet the state water quality standards for common pollutants like phosphorus or sediment. These will be some of the more recreationally populated lakes that we all know and love like Cedar. Um, but it also includes large uh pretty large reach of Sand Creek. And in this one, one of the criteria I added was um addressing Commissioner Frederick's comment at the last meeting. So, one of the criteria was that implementation would provide the likelihood of achieving demonstrable results. So hopefully that gets at what you were um mentioning, Commissioner Fredericks, at the last uh meeting. >> Yeah, I think it does. Thanks for doing that. >> Melissa, could you explain the um the fourth one, water bodies by stressor causing impairment? Yeah. So, so it would be looking at um what stressors are causing the impairment for that water body. So, prioritizing by the stressor. >> I think they're looking for what what is a stressor? Definition of what is a stressor? >> So, a stressor can be a pollutant. It can be um something like uh connectivity of the stream. Um you know, if it's not a meandering stream, if it's like a a ditch section and it's straightened, that could be that could cause the impairment of like uh macro invertebrates. Um a stressor can all also be like flow a flow concern. Um, oh, what else? I actually went through them at at the last meeting, but I don't have them in front of me. >> So, it would mean like when we're evaluating which we uh might prioritize one over the other. Um if all else L's being equal for between two projects, we would choose a project based upon a specific type of pollutant if we were valuing that pollutant higher than another kind of thing. Or we might prioritize uh highly connected reaches over disconnected reaches if stressors were an important ranking criteria. perfect. I think that's everybody. There's one more. So, this is which criteria for restoration of impaired waters without a TMDL should we consider? I think you only have three options with this one. Should be Yes. So then yeah again for our commissioners who are driving or friends that are driving again these are this is the the third tier of res restoration. Um, again, these are impaired waters, but the state hasn't set what that impairment level has to be. Um, and what that generally means are things like there's not a full plan in place that the states help put together to address how to reduce that impairment. um our cities or townships aren't required to specifically do actions um to reduce that type of pollutant. Um they know it could be coming, but at the point they're not they're they're not regulated to do so by the state um above and beyond the other good work that they're already doing. So, and it doesn't mean we don't ever do anything for those water bodies. We certainly do. Um, we work we work across the board, but um, you know, we're trying to maximize the efficient work that we do and the funding. So, so just showing the results here. Here's the protection um, first one. And there's definitely some that have kind of risen to the top. um of being most important. And of all the ones that were listed, I guess I think we had I think 12 total, but we had you choose eight. Yep. Um, >> so then >> I guess, >> oh, I was just gonna say and and of course we will uh make this still available for those that can't do this quite yet. So for the second one, restoration, if it has a TMDL, there's definitely a couple of them that grows to the top there. This I would I was hoping this was going to rise to the top. That was kind of our number one ranked criteria in the last plan. >> Yeah, imposes a a human health and safety risk. Um has pretty much been a top priority for the WMO for the length of its existence basically. And it also again aligns with the county's priorities as well. So yeah. Okay. Well, thank everyone for doing that. I guess the last question that I had is does anyone have feedback on how many of these criteria should be for the water body to to meet that category? How many criteria should it meet? We were thinking about putting language in there saying if it has at least two of these criteria or three of these criteria, it does anyone here have an an opinion or input on should we have a number of how many criteria it should meet for each category? And and for context, we didn't ask in the last we didn't have a criteria number in the last plan. We basically ranked them based upon the criteria we had. So, uh we're just double-checking with you this time around just to make sure there isn't a number you want this time. Um a limit This is Commissioner Phillips. Um, I'd say it the more the criteria it has would be, you know, maybe a higher priority, but I my initial thought on this was if it has any of those criterias, it should be eligible, you know. Um, but yeah, if it has several or two or three or four, I think the priority should go up just my thoughts there. Well, that's good feedback. >> All right. Thank you, Any other thoughts? Okay. Well, uh we can take a look at other plans and see if anybody else has done something similar and bring something back to you to uh to discuss and and tell us whether you like it or not. and we should move forward with it in the plan. But um that's all I had for now. So thank you so much for participating. >> Thanks Melissa. >> All right. Thank you. Thanks Melissa. Uh next would be the administrative report. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Commissioners, um just real quick, uh few updates um just so that you kind of know where we're at on things. Obviously, staff has been working uh very heavily on updating the wershed management plan. We are in year two. Uh we need to have it done before 2026 and this we're still on target to try to bring it to the board before then. Uh with that being said, uh we are a scrappy little agency. Uh if you kind of look at our staffing compared to a lot of our comparable uh brothers and sisters out there, we carry about half the staff that anybody else does. So we are scrappy, but that also means times like this when we're doing a major plan update, uh it puts a lot of extra pressure on us. Um there's also been a lot more regulatory requirements and things that we're required to do each year that just keeps increasing. So, uh, we're looking for ways to kind of stretch our capacity right now, um, just to kind of try to keep the basics covered. So, that was why Melissa kind of brought forward bringing on a consultant to help with the watershed management plan. Uh, since we have the funding available in our current budget to do so, um, that's what we're going to do. Uh, because it doesn't require an amendment to our budget, it's within our approved budget. um it'll help uh free up some staff time just so we can um reallocate that time to our other requirements that we have to get done. So um certainly we're very scrappy um uh but that's where um we're trying to kind of make up that difference right now. So that's kind of one thing. Uh our MDH grant. So, just as a reminder, we're doing a grant in conjunction with both Dakota County and Washington County to provide Roro systems to residents that have high cyanazine in their drinking water. And cyanazine, for those of you who aren't familiar with it, uh was an agricultural chemical used um many years ago. It was uh deregulated in like 80sish. Uh but obviously, it's still finding its way into our drinking water reservoirs. So, um, MDH, uh, actually did all the footwork again on this. They are the ones that identified most of the residents. Uh, so we've been running this grant for about 8 months now. Um, we had some really good responses from those that were eligible. Um, it has kind of dropped off, kind of leaned up a bit. We have a little bit of money left, so we're hoping to do another outreach to those that are still available on that list. um to try to see if you know they're open to putting in an RO system. Um and again, the grant covers the whole RORO system. It's roughly about 2,000 per home. It's one faucet, usually the main drinking water faucet, but um so that one is slowed down a little bit, but it's a uh great uh yes, they're like an under the counter one generally. Uh Commissioner Phillips was wondering what type of RO systems. Um, so MDH uh sets those all those parameters. Um, and they are pre-approved. You have to have a pre-approved installer, but just an update on that one. Uh, we had a lot of interest at the beginning. It's kind of quieted down a bit, but we're still hoping to use the whole grant. Um, again, budget for us, for those of you who are new, uh, we start coming to you in August with our proposed budget for 2026. Uh the role of the WPC again is to review the budget uh and make comments or recommendation to the board. Uh because the WO is a special taxing district. Uh it's on its own levy. Uh it has a kind of a unique budget process which means you get to hear about the budget a lot uh more than maybe some other agencies do. Uh but uh uh so we'll start bringing that to you in August for 2026 and then obviously that goes to board in September. Our levy has to be pre-approve a preliminary levy has to be approved by the end of September and then final levy must be approved by the end of December. So the WPC makes a recommendation to the board and the board is the one that actually officially approves it. Excuse me. Uh, couple of other updates. Uh, one's fun, one's less fun. Uh, our we do a large collaboration with the SWCD and cities and townships at scale, which is the county's um larger communities of local agencies. And we do have a new water group. So Parlake Spring Lake Wershed District was kind enough to lead that this year because again we're in the middle of our plan update and just don't quite have the staff time to do it. Um they're taking over for Troy at the SWCD who was kind enough to lead it last year. Uh and so that's getting up and underway. We're going to go through the priorities of that group looking for what are the shared priorities we have in water resources between all the agencies in the county and see where we can be efficient and collaborate. uh and maximize our work there. So, that's coming up here. Uh I think she just put it up for September, August, September time. That's neat. Um the other actually there's one more fun thing. Uh Lur Minnesota River Wershed District uh did reach out to us asking if they could do a presentation on their kind of their vision and their mission and how they kind of want to approach their work moving forward. Uh so we gave them the option of attending either this meeting this month or next month. Um this month didn't work out. So they'll be coming up in August. So we will have a special guest. Um they'll they'll be able to um present on that. Looking forward to it. Uh it's really fun when we get visitors like that to to come to our meetings. So we'll have a special guest next month. And then the slightly less fun and exciting things. We've had a significant increase in violations of county ordinance. So, this is not really WO stuff per se. This is more county water resources. Um, it happens in the regulatory world. Uh, in this case, we have this kind of lingering group of uh erosion and sediment control sites. Uh, usually it's our small building sites. They didn't really finalize uh the site. They never really finished stabilizing it. So, it's just continuing to erode. They're not maintaining the erosion sediment control perimeter and you know, the builder or whoever for whatever reason has just kind of walked away at this point. Um, and we do charge a small fee and do collect an escrow, but the problem is it's not enough to really entice them to finish doing what they're supposed to do. So, we'll have to look at revisiting the county ordinances for 2025 to update or 2026 uh to be just a little bit more aggressive uh have a little bit more teeth. We've not you usually had a little bit more teeth um in adding maybe a couple of fines or increasing the cost um tying the cost to the builder um not necessarily the land owner or vice versa. um you know just we're just going to have to kind of update the teeth on some of our ordinances. The other one we're running into uh quite a bit more frequently now are shoreland violations. A lot of folks who are just doing a lot of clear cutting, especially around the lakes, um working in the water, doing things that they really shouldn't. Try to reach out to them to help get them back on track. Not really interested, per se. struggling with trying to get them back into compliance. The struggle that I run into is it's it's really hard to go to somebody and say, "Hey, your builder was supposed to do this. They didn't. Now you have to do it." That's a very hard conversation to have. So, looking at rewriting the ordinance to decouple basically our version of the permit, so they have to come in in advance to avoid that situation happening later on. Um, so, uh, just we're really really, um, softer, you know, generally compared to most of the other counties and cities in the metro. So, you know, bringing our standards up a little bit, putting a little bit more teeth in the work that we have to do from the regulatory side is probably past due. We always wait until it's been very clear that all of our efforts to reach out and work with people and provide information and educate are not getting us the results we need when it's become kind of clear that uh folks just really aren't quite going to do the right thing. So for those that aren't, we got to have kind of some things in place to ensure that we can get the right things done. So, sorry, I don't mean to end on a negative note, but uh with that, I stand for any questions. >> This is Commissioner Phillips. Um um I just question on that. Uh are you kind of talking like additional like steeper fines, higher permit fees, or kind of what were you kind of thinking for putting more teeth into the ordinance? Great question. So, a couple of things we will bring forward or like board to review are yes, we don't have fines. Actually, uh the WO uh sorry, not the WO, county of water resources, we don't actually use fines because we've not necessarily needed them in the past. So, yes, one of those would be to have fines. If you have shown you are failing to be compliant after multiple warnings, there's now fine. There would there be fines. Um, we last year implemented a couple of after the-act permits which are more expensive because honestly it's more staff time to administer after the fact permits. Um, and so when staff work on an after the-act permit, something that has um gone arry, somebody who's done something afterwards, if you pay the same price for the after the fact permit than you would getting it ahead of time, doesn't cost you any different, but it's count it's costing everybody else a lot more money because at the end of the day, the staff time has to go into it. So, I guess another way to look at it is if we're not recouping our costs in those after the-act permits, it means everybody else in the county is paying for that person's violation because the staff time necessary is just higher. So, yes, we would be increasing after the fact permit costs. Um, probably also increasing escros. Escrows are securities. they have to be returned and always are if they are unneeded. But increasing a security basically saying now we're holding more money to ensure that if the reality is we really did have to go in and do these studies ourselves, we would have the funds to do that. Our current securities, our current escros do not actually cover the cost to replace or restore or stabilize. They're just not they're enough to just cover the SWCD staff cost. Um, so that would also be the third thing. Um, but primarily it's also just decoupling the erosion and sediment control type permits and putting them first. So they have to get them before they, you know, somebody might go in for a building permit. So it's like very clear, not an after the fact. Trying to help homeowners know what's there rather than having to find out afterwards. I think that's a great idea. >> I was a victim to that. >> No, I I had a home built and uh all of a sudden I get an email from um C County and Water saying there's there's a erosion. You need 75% um vegetation. And I'm like, what? Tell them tell my contractor. I didn't do anything. Anyway, so I'm on board with that. >> Stop it before it happens. >> And and to be clear, we don't make money on these. These are not we we don't even break even. Even if we raised our fees, we would not break even. Um it's basically trying to ensure people are really doing what they need to and that we have the teeth to help ensure that they do what they need to so that homeowners like you are not caught unawares when they don't. And then we have to work with you. And that's literally what we're trying to avoid. I used ignorance, which isn't an excuse, but it was my excuse. Anyway, thanks. >> Yeah. So, it's just echo that comment. And you know I believe in uh consing the right behavior as opposed to punishing the wrong behavior and speak successful and then also doing whatever you're doing and everybody's excited and you know the builder is trying to get going or whatever. I think it's so much easier to get stuff done as opposed to, you know, once they're done and they've gotten paid and they're moving on to the next thing. So, just section. >> Yep. Yep. And and by and large, things won't really change for the folks who are just already doing the right thing or able to follow the existing ordinances. It's these are more measures to just catch those who are struggling. We'll just put it that way. Sounds good. Vanessa, this is uh Commissioner Phillips. I, you know, I've been in enforcement for 23 24 years. I'm a inspector and I know it's tough sometimes and and I'd say about 10% of the people, you know, sometimes, you know, maybe non-compliant uh want to hear what you have to say and and sometimes you need you need need some more teeth. I just my only I just um my thoughts are on there is, you know, try to educate as much as possible first, which I I know that's what you do already do. Staff does. They do a great job of it. and um you know just try to um educate first. um everything you know kind of last last effort would be I think to you know use the stick so to speak you know um but if any everything can can be done to avoid you know using the stick so to speak uh um I I think that should be done first um uh but if it's implemented in a fair way I think uh you know uh you got these rules and they you know they need to they need to be followed you know so it's to the betterment of the environment so but yeah those are my comments there I think education can be used first as much as possible I um you know and uh and long as it's done fairly I think uh yeah could should be get getting good results at that point so >> thank you commissioner Phillips Okay. If nothing else, uh I guess the last item on the agenda would be uh adjournment. We would need a motion. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> I will second. Clayton Wagner. Second. >> All right. And I will do roll. Commissioner Schmidt. Hi, >> Commissioner Phillips. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Wagner. >> Hi, >> and Commissioner Frederick's. >> Hi. >> Thank you, Commissioners. Very much appreciate it, especially your flexibility this evening. And um I hope you have a great night and a great week. Thanks.