So, we're looking at a concept plan just north of Clear Lake. As an overview, uh this would be an open space planned unit development. So, uh we're looking at 22 units at approximately 45 units per acre.

The first area and primary area is the water supply. So, as you see in the concept plan, uh on that 2,000 ft culde-sac, there is a water man that would support water service for these proposed units. Uh that's a 2,000 foot long dead-end water man that's being proposed on the concept plan. Um that is that is much longer than what the city's um engineering and design standards would allow for um uncertainty.

this would be a reversal of a long-standing city policy about not allowing for wells in new development. Uh you see the water map on the right side of this slide and there's a considerable amount of water man that's been built throughout the years in this area. Um so having private wells would also um kind of be under underutilizing that existing public infrastructure but also uh they could be at a slightly higher cost um due to possible contamination in this area or concerns about POS.

I'm pretty firm on my end in terms of you can't have a deadend water line, especially that's 2,000 ft long. Um, and it is true, we have been extremely consistent, 100% consistent. There have been no new developments that have been on a a private well since PAS was discovered. In this case, uh, we have within a quarter mile, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, seven, uh, well advisories directly on the west side of Keats and we even have two just to the east of this development. So, I I wouldn't have expected it even 5 years ago, but we have POS in this area, and it shouldn't be there, but it is. So, I I would agree that private wells are not a solution.

If it's if it is a water man if they're being served by water um then absolutely the storm water reuse um especially for uh the lot size the the storm water reuse is going to be critical for me to see that in there.

It's pretty hard for us as a land developer to be looking at a sewer line that goes right by our property and not really asked to try to get connected to it.

To to site the the uh facility in this proposed location, we do need to do a comp plan amendment. We've been in touch with comp the that council about that and we do need to bring the sewer over to that to that parcel as part of the project um to get this done.

The issue before the council is the uh property owner requested that you consider expanding the MUSA to a portion of their property. Um, so is the question is should the council consider purchasing the 8.2 acres and only include the portion of the Musa or include additional acreage into the Musa and if so, how many acres and at what density?

Um if you were concerned about lowering the overall density. So, the next step is to um, one of the things we're talking about is going to a close session obviously to discuss everything um, in terms of moving forward on this project.

If if we weren't in such a a dire situation with the water and wanting to move to get the the treatment plant here. I think this would actually make more sense to wait until the comp plan to work through that. Yeah. this is an area that makes sense for expanding into the music, especially with these new requirements that it looks like are going to be coming up. Um, with that being said, we know those requirements are coming up. So, like again, I'm not it wasn't part of the last comp plan, but I mean it seems like this would be a reasonable spot, especially given the water situation. So, I know we're kind of expediting it, but it seems like it'd be moving in this direction regardless.

We've just we've never expanded the MUSA for residential purposes of this size and scale outside of the the official desile comp plan process. And that this isn't this isn't a I I think this is one of those ones where there's going to be a lot of feedback and perspective that's going to be valid um from those to the east and to the north.

growth in workload for the department has really outpaced the rate of population growth. I think for most people we relate to population growth when we think progrowth of the city. But if you go back to about 2013 I think there were a thousand uh water accounts in the city. Now there are 3,600. There were about 30 sewer accounts. Now there's I think about 2500 or so. Um so that level of growth has really been exponential.

Our recommendation around staffing for the operators is to increase staffing by two operators and one lead operator. Uh that second lead operator will help reduce the span of control for the lead operator position. Um, ideally that second lead operator if we split into those two work groups during the summer that they would be assigned different work groups the Monday to Thursday and a Tuesday to Friday.

We would recommend that Beehive be implemented as a full computerized maintenance management system or CMMS for the department. Um, issue tablets for the operators in the field so they can receive work orders in the field. they could be issued work orders from the office. Um, and it's also very important that they uh training for beehive would be a proper investment made in that everybody knows how to use it properly.

There's no basis for adding positions based on any measurable workload functions. It's just we think you should add three. We should either had a mechanic or contracted out. But, you know, based on what? One mechanic enough? Is one too few? is one too many based on equipment age and type, you know, vehic vehicle equivalent units and maintenance repair units. Very simple, but there's none of that in there. So, how do you have confidence in a report that recommends hiring people that has no basis for the hiring other than we think you should?

Beehive um Adam and I have already implemented our task work order system through that and we're using it uh the best we can right now with the time that we have, but we are um training staff to enter and do completion. Um that'll obviously help us track what's not getting done and the number of tasks.