I've prepared a a pretty brief presentation uh on this just providing an overview of the concept plan that's in front of the city and then um trying to dive in a little bit further into the areas where where staff need uh feedback from the council and uh before uh moving forward that guidance would be very helpful to not not only staff but also the developer. 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 developer, in this case, Twin Cities Land Development. The total acres of these three parcels are just over 60 gross acres with about 12 13 acres in Clear Lakes. So, that leaves us with, you know, a non uh lake area of 48.7 acres. Uh, and as as the acting mayor mentioned, there is uh no action to be taken on this. We're really just looking at this advisory feedback to to really dive into water service and um questions also about storm water reuse. Okay. So, a land use analysis. Uh this is something that staff does with all concept plans. For this one, we're looking at a collection of parcels that are zoned agriculture. This u development would then be zoned open space PUD if it were approved by the city. um this area, this these parcels are obviously within that shoreland overlay of Clear Lake. And so we're looking at um various impacts that I'll go into further detail about. And lastly, just if you're looking at the comprehensive plan, this area has guided rural area development. So up on the screen is the proposed concept by Twin Cities Land Development. you'll see the 22 single family units proposed on a 2,000 ft approximate uh culde-sac. And so that culde-sac does not have uh any other uh connections and it would have as proposed in this concept plan water main running under that public road. Um you'll see the things that you you'll you'll typically expect from open space developments in this project. So it's got uh proposed to come with a community septic system to serve the units for sewer and it has buffers uh surrounding all the units and buffering them from adjacent properties and vice versa. 50% open space is proposed as part of this project and that 50% is the upland area. Um there are a couple of storm water ponds proposed just north of Clear Lake to to manage storm water. So in terms of the units, what would you expect to see? The developer provided a narrative and these are just a few of the different units that are provided in the narrative as an example. So looking at whether the project meets the OPU minimum criteria, uh we have to look at the the zoning the lot area and we're looking at all three lots together and uh making sure that lastly it's in single ownership and this project would meet all the city's minimum criteria for open space developments and the land use as single family is something that is allowed in those developments. Looking at the open space design standards, uh we first start with the density of the project, which in this case is exactly at the maximum of 0.45 units per acre, 22 units. The lot design, um for the most part, this project either meets the criteria based on just an overview of this concept or we need a little bit more information to confirm that it meets. So, I just want to mention here um to make sure that I hit that the lots would be over 16,000 square feet and um over 100 feet wide. Those are some of the the basic criteria for the lots. We also look at development standards in opuds and this is an area where uh we don't necessarily have enough information at the concept plan stage to verify conformance but uh it does appear that you know the development can uh meet these provided that more information is provided to substantiate that. So we're talking about things like um the open space and making sure that there's an appropriate easement over that. um having a septic system, we need to just verify that there's information the community septic would meet this this the standards for the for the city or the MPCA. Uh looking at building standards, uh it appears that the buildings proposed on these different lots would be able to meet the setbacks. Uh landscaping, again, that's not something that we review at this stage. Um impervious surface, we we don't have, you know, that level of detail either. So there's a few things but it looks like relatively straightforward project and that it can meet the city's requirements shoreland overlay. So this is where uh we have to also review against u a lot of different standards for impacts on clear lake. Uh first of all the land use would require an additional cup be requested for a PUB in a shoreland area. uh the lots generally appear to meet in most cases but uh would require uh what's called a shoreland PUD and so that's flexibility that is a that is provided for within the shoreland ordinance uh and this development would appear to meet the the minimum criteria for shoreland pods. So relatively straightforward um review for shoreland overlay and opud standards. This project was presented at the concept level to the city's parks commission. Um there was a discussion about whether a park is necessary in this type of development. OPPUDs have really large lots and they have large amounts of open space. So there was a decision that um for this particular project cash inlue would be a better path forward to support the city's parks and trails system. A number of the city's review staff were able to review and provide comments and those were included in the report. So I won't go into great detail here except for I do want to get into some of the comments that also relate to the city engineering review. So this will this part of the presentation will kind of shift into some of those areas where we're looking for feedback from you. 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 deadend 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. So, we do have some obvious uncertainty about the surrounding areas. Uh, we don't know how and when they may develop, if ever. Uh, I would also mention that the city has a long-standing policy on uh new development requiring new projects to connect to the city's water supply system. As you know, there uh there are contamination issues in Lake Elmo with POS and other concerns for the water supply. Uh, this leaves the city with a few general considerations. Um, not all the options are are great options, but u I've attempted to kind of break things down a little bit and we'll talk about each of these in a little bit more detail. So, the first option is to um say that we need an extension of the of the water man from an existing area so that we have a looped system. Um, that would be the the first option is to have this system not be a dead end. Uh the second option is to allow for a dead end and we'll talk about what that would look like. Third option is to consider allowing private wells to serve these properties. And the fourth is to uh consider the development premature because there's not supporting infrastructure. So uh on the water main extension, um it might be kind of difficult to see on the screens, but this is the city's water system map. It shows where the water manes run throughout the community. And in this area, um, I've attempted to show a couple different ideas for how connections could be made. Um, on the screen, you'll see the cursor pointing to this red line that's supposed to be that dead end water man. Uh, in the dashed lines, these aren't any particular alignment. Just looking at what, you know, makes sense, you know, right off the bat here. Looking at two different possibilities for how this development would connect into the city's water system. One option is to connect to the north to the Hidden Meadows development. There's one property owner in between this development and uh the city's water man. And the other option would be to run a connection to the east. Uh there is a water man present at the 50th Street North and Lake Elmo Avenue intersection. Um, if you're looking at deadend water manes as the the next possibility, um, this is something that is challenging from a public works perspective in in particular because you have uh concern about having stagnant water. And so what that would require is periodic and potentially frequent flushing of the water man um through val certain valves that are built into the system. And that does have the potential to um waste large volumes of treated water uh when that flushing occurs to eliminate concerns about stagnant water. Uh a couple of conditions that if this were to be considered um should be strongly considered would be um phasing of of the development requiring that the building permits at the very east side of the development get issued first. Uh, another possibility is if the city is looking into storm water reuse, having that flushing of the city's treated water at least go into um an irrigation a pond to be used for irrigation. Another option, again, not a great one, is private wells to serve these 22 different units. Um, this would be, this is an important uh point here. Uh 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. Lastly, um it does appear at this time it it is possible that the wells could qualify for filtration under the MPCA grant, but that would need to be confirmed later date. So, those are the kind of three different options um that the city has for for water. And the the last option that I mentioned was to consider the project premature. and it would be premature if um for example the water main extension were required and and that couldn't happen then it would have to be premature. Want to really quickly talk about storm water reuse. So this is something that the city has required in a number of um recent projects and so I just wanted to make sure we made space for that question. Uh is the city council looking for storm water reuse out of this project? Um if if it's a yes then if it were to move forward staff would be looking for that to be shown in the plans. It brings me to my one of my my last slide here feedback requested. So number one um how should the development be served by water? Number two um how should we anticipate the city council would require storm water reuse? Um are there other parts of the project that the city council would care to comment on or um and in addition to that if there are any other considerations for parks as an example. So that's what I have again this is just advisory uh the next steps if this were to move beyond uh this conceptual stage would be for the developer to move forward with their applications for preliminary and plat and pud. So, with that, um, I I would note the developer is here if you have questions for them. Otherwise, I'm happy to take your questions. >> Thank you, Nathan. Any questions for >> in in the memo, you talked about the projects within the Shorland Overlay District and that the minimum lot size would be 80,000 square feet. >> So, >> but they're proposing something less than that. >> Yep, that's a good question. And so, um, the the the city's shoreland overlay ordinance, I'm going to go to the map so you can see. Um, the city's shoreland overlay ordinance creates a thousand foot buffer from the ordinary high water level of Clear Lake. And Clear Lake is noted as a natural environment lake. And in addition to that, this area is not sewered. So, those two factors, um, there's a chart in the shoreland ordinance that assigns the lot area, the minimum lot area based on those factors. This would have an 80,000 foot square foot uh minimum as you mentioned. With that being said, the shoreland ordinance does also have a process for flexibility to h allow for developments to have a smaller footprint uh for their units. And so that's the process that this developer would be utilizing. In that case, what we do is a taring analysis where we look at uh tiers that are fixed distances from the water and we we review for the density of units within each tier and we did that analysis and even got the DNR to agree that we did it right um that it would meet. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> I'm glad you did it right. >> I was happy to hear that as well. So, >> Nate, correct me. Well, inform me. We I remember the similar the shoreland density levels on the project that was proposed near 94 on that lake. What was that project called? >> That was in the Kramer Lake, I believe. >> Kramer Lake. >> Thank you. Other questions for Mr. First. >> Uh yeah. What would the uh impact on the lot to the north be if the um extension of the water man had to be run through that lot going to the neighbor to the north? What would that look like? >> Yeah. So, um, that would be that would have to be a private discussion, I would think, between the this developer and and that property owner to see if they can secure the ability to to get through there with the water man. >> So, >> so they'd have to >> Yeah. >> some of the land or >> I would think an easement at a minimum. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> One more question. Go ahead, Nick. >> Thank you. So when you're if you the other option was running the water man to 50th and Lake Elmo a was that correct? >> Yeah. Sorry I'm trying to go back to my slide >> here. So yeah there's there's two possible alignments just to my eye. Um the other alignment if we weren't to go north to connect through to Hidden Meadows would be to go almost due east. Uh there is a water mane that um exists at that intersection. >> Okay. Now, if you were to go east, do you have to go through more or less people's property to get to set location? >> Um assuming that the water man would run along 50th Street North, like under the under the street. Um I think we would only be looking at looks like to me on this parcel map just one property would be the same but that distance is considerably further I would say. >> Okay. Got it. >> And the developer would be covering the cost of that water main extension. Correct. That'd be their responsibility. >> Yeah. Typically in Lake Elmo the policy has been that development pays for for the the utilities that are needed. I didn't see any mention of this, so I presume my search was decently correct, but there wasn't any mention of trails or green trails along the shore of the lake. Correct. >> Yeah, that's something that I think we would want to take a harder look at if this gets to the kind of next level of the review. you know, at the preliminary plat stage, we might be looking at how how do they provide the trails that are required by the ordinance and where do they provide them? Um, that would be a really interesting trail in the open space around the lake. >> And then Marty, your memory is probably better than mine. I know we've had well I've had discussions at least internally in my brain but what have we talked about with Keats in terms of ever the idea of a trail along Keats? Obviously this will be one property for one section but do we have that in the CIP as even a hypothetical? Uh there's been some discussion definitely about getting people down to 47th and then in the future 47th would likely have a trail along it heading east and west. So there isn't necessarily a plan for it, but there's it's been discussed many times and it's on a more or less of a watch to do in the future. >> We've never got to the point of a a fiscal analysis on that >> design or anything. No, >> thank you. >> It would it would definitely benefit by grabbing a lot of those neighborhoods and then getting them into town. So, it is a desired location for trail. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, just in trying to understand the options here a little bit better with the wells. You mentioned that the concern there is it's a little bit of a it's a reversal of the policy that's been taken. Can you maybe just give a little more insight on that? I mean, is that like a legal issue? is that um if if we reverse that I guess. Yeah, if you could just talk a little bit more to the concern of >> Yeah. >> making that switch. >> Absolutely. So, I'll just kind of reiterate that. Yeah. Again, the the city's long-standing policy has been that um new development is to have a city water connection. And I think I'll ask Jack to help me out a little bit here with some of the history of that policy and how it's been applied. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you, councel. um got to take you back a little ways to probably get you up to speed on this one. >> Thank you. >> Um if you just think of a uh let's go interior to uh smaller you know cities first tier suburbs things like that most cities in a metropolitan area the entire city is the Musa. So as you grow you extend city and water efficiently with all developments and you just build contiguously and you just keep building out your system. And so the general in your in most cities there's very few areas where if you build you connect to city water and sewer and that's it. Lake Elmo is very unique going way back we had very small area of Musa. So coming out of the uh 2005 um lawsuit with the Met Council you defined a Musa area around your old village and you defined a Musa south of 10th Street. Those were the only two areas that were to get sewer and water. Um and then in 2004 right about that same time there was the discover of PAS. So very little was known at the time and the city developed a policy where we need to any new development any growth needs to be on city water and that's why if you look at that water main map you see places like sanctuary discover crossing tapestry farms of lake elmo all across these are all all your open space developments they all put water in as they as they developed um and so um it was done kind of inefficiently because They're big lots. They're they're not your standard standard growth. But that was the policy of the city faced with the this unknown of how to deal with PAS. And once now as a city, once you're committed to growing a city utility, you need to grow it efficiently on the best interest of the entire community, not kind of oneoff here and this property and that property. So you're you're kind of looking at how do you build the system out? How do you make sure when you build it here and you build it there, how do these pieces get connected? So, that's kind of what you're faced with doing. Um, we were pushing forward. Um, more recently, we came out of the 3M settlement. We had a plan to connect a lot more neighborhoods. We connected about eight or nine additional neighborhoods to city water. And then just recently, the last two years, the MPCA put that plan on pause. So now there's a plan in place to if there's a private well and there's um and there's a PAS hit, the MPCA will put a filter on that in perpetuity there rather than extend city water. So there is the possibility of the city now with this new information probably needs to as part of your next comp planning phase to revisit this and look at your city as a whole and decide is where is water appropriate, where is it not? But but right now we are in this mode when we you know we have this policy of new developments you connect to city water. >> Okay. >> That was a very good history. Thank you. >> Question on if if we go with a dead end water main which you know we know is not recommended necessarily. Is the cost of flushing it and maintaining that dead end a cost that's paid for by the utility as a whole or is that paid by the development every time it's done? >> Uh, currently there's not a policy for that. So, it's flushed at our expense by public works. Jack, >> one one other consideration with the the flushing policy is you're also when you're looking at your appropriations permit is we're we have efforts in place where we're trying to bring down the per capita water use. Um so it's kind of difficult to look at a system where you're knowingly going to be wasting water on a regular basis. >> Go for it. in the um in one of the extensions of the water main, the one on the lower part of the map where it goes over to uh Jess's hideway then goes across to near well number four. Are those properties along there developed or the undeveloped? Do we know >> the properties that the the one parcel between I'll call it this proposed development and the 50th Street North corridor where you would have the water man um is currently used for agriculture. It is possible that property could develop as an OPPU under the current land use rules. So it could be developed in other words in the future if that property owner decided to move forward with that. >> So if we were to look at a water main extension in that case there could be future potential connections that could offset the cost of that extension >> possibly. In when I was in Spokane, we used to call those latecomer agreements. And so the developer would put in the line to make the loop or oversize and then when future developments hooked on, they would pay a late comer's fee to access that water which would then be reimbursed to the developer because they put the cost of putting the water main in. >> More questions or we in the feedback stage? Maybe it'd be nice to hear from the developer on I mean there's a few options there on kind of their preferences and their thoughts on it and um yeah maybe just talk about the development a little more. >> Come on up. >> Excuse me. Uh Council Ben Schmidt Twin Cities Land Development. Um yeah, happy to answer any questions. I think relative to water supply um we certainly understand some of the challenges right for you as a city and us as the developer I mean given the you know potential for PAS out here and the fact that there's a water man that runs right by the thing I think it's doesn't make sense to have private wells I think it should be on uh city water then the question just becomes the feasibility of looping it um you know we had talked to staff about do we loop it within our own development. I mean that does get it back to the main. Obviously it's not an ideal situation but one that maybe could be accomplished. I think that the challenge for us becomes in trying to loop to either Hidden Meadows to the north or to the well site to the southeast is just going through other people's property that obviously we don't control. Um Hidden Meadows going to the north. The city does have a parcel there that actually connects to the road and so it would be just one property owner that we've got to get through. I think I I think I disagree with Nathan. If we go to the southeast, I think we got to go through two or three in order to get to technically get down to 50th. Is it 50th? Um and so that's just our concern. And obviously it's a cost concern as well, but when we looked at the fact that we'd have to loop it on our own property anyway likely. And so, you know, the cost is a concern. The bigger concern is just the ability to get it done. And, you know, if it's the city's pleasure that, hey, it's the only way we're going to let it develop, then these parcels may just be undevelopable. And the the challenge, I think, becomes just who's the first person, you know what I mean? it becomes are they all undevelopable because no one can ever kind of be first. And that's what we looked at is what are maybe some potentials to allow someone to be first. And obviously you get a water man uh to the east and then it becomes a little more uh feasible for some of these other properties to develop and off they go and the line gets looped. But it's hard to be the first guy. It just is. >> Okay. >> Any questions? Thank you. >> All right. Appreciate it. Thanks. >> Thanks. >> So, I believe there were two main points staff was looking for feedback on. One was the water line. Second was water reuse. Sounds right. I can start it off as well. Um, they have every right to ask for this and it's the OPUD allows for a lot of this. It doesn't allow for all of it though and we were we already had one that was similar at Kramer Lake and that didn't get past uh sketch plan in part because of the density in the in the different shoreland overlay layers. Um, I 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. Um, I would slightly enjoy having private wells there just because the White Beer Lake lawsuit, but uh, in this case it we we're pretty consistent in terms of city water. So I it's you got to build it right and it can't be looped in in terms of storm water. We've also been extremely consistent. Uh, every development I can recall in the last couple years except one, whether it's business or residential, has had storm water reuse, specifically because of the White Bear Lake lawsuit and because it's good practice, is simply good practice to conserve water. Um, our residents believe in it, we believe in it. So, I I think those are two very firm concepts on my end. Um, and I'll I'll leave it at that for for now. I know we we've had a couple pieces of feedback come in. I've had a couple phone calls as well and appreciate all of you who are here. Obviously, it's not to listen to our future agenda item item. Um I presume it's for this item. So, thank you for those who are here. Um some of the feedback that came in was concerns about traffic on Keats. So, I guess a question would be there wouldn't be a traffic study until the application is made. Correct. And would this even qualify for the need for a traffic study? >> Um I don't know that it would warrant a need for a traffic study. I'm going to look over at the engineering staff. >> I don't think the number of units. >> Yeah. So, it's pretty low. >> And I I will say like the owner has every right to ask for this process and it it does qualify in many areas for this. The density for this is less than the density of tapestry. I was counting the numbers and that's slightly nearby just the southwest. But there are things that have to happen in order to at least move along the process. So I unless those things happen, I I am very skeptical. >> Well, I'll just I'll touch on the two points for uh the water and the um the storm water uh reuse. You know, as far as for the options, the um I I I very much agree the dead end um just isn't an option for me at all. Um I I personally I'm I'm actually okay with with the thought of wells. Um, unless I'm missing something there, like as far as the the legal standpoints from the city being liable, I I I don't think the city's liable for that. I mean, it's pretty well known. Um, you know, hopefully the developer would be very open and transparent of um that these lots have PAS contamination and then it's on the people who are purchasing those lots uh to make the decision one if they even want to move into that lot because of it. And that's kind of a risk the developer is taking um if that was the case. Um, and then two, you know, there is the the option um, like Jack was saying for the the filters. Uh, we have one at our house um, in perpetuity. Again, you know, I guess there's always uncertainties if if that will last forever and um, you're kind of on their agenda for how often you can get the filter replaced. And so, of course, there's downsides to it, but I'm open to that. I guess my only concern is if we would go down that path. Jack mentioned this, maybe that might be a better thing. Um, it might be premature than until we have the comp plan. Um, just to make sure that we're planning this out versus putting private wells in a a neighborhood where maybe we do actually see the need for having um a water main extension. So, I guess if we went that well direction, I don't know if now is the right time. Um, as far as for so for me, either the private wells or the water main extension, um, it seems like going north would make the most sense. Again, unless engineering, I'm I'm missing something there from a water pressure water system standpoint. That seems like that'd be the most effective efficient way to loop it. I don't anything there from a maybe that's further down the road. I I haven't loo we would have to look at it in more detail, but um for we would want to we would want to loop it from the end of the main, not the middle of it as as it's shown. Um >> got it. >> Rather than leave a dead end, >> you'd have to I guess it would still be probably through one property. But >> okay, >> but either one probably could work for the purpose that we're looking at. So yeah, I mean I guess that's that's my feedback for the developer on it is um the the dead end not an option. I don't think the the option that the developer brought up as well of um looping it just back from the neighborhood. I don't think that's an option that's feasible um or efficient um for the city's standpoint. Um and then from the storm water reuse obviously if it's wells um I'm less concerned with that. Um 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. >> Nick or Nick Sandwich. >> No more questions for me. >> I would concur with the other city council members that I think we have to loop the water main. Um um I leave it up to the engineers and the developer determine what's the best way to do that. I think um I go back to my latecomers thing might be an option, but I'm not sure that that works exactly because it but it it would seem to be somewhat unfair to the developer to have the loop go in and future people hook on and he's bore the expense of putting it in. I think we need to have some thought about equity in that discussion if there's a loop put in. Um I think the storm water reuse for irrigation is also a requirement. We've gone that way everywhere and we have this water problem we're trying to address. I think we're going to um be looking at more of that in existing areas to try and get down to that 7090 that we're going to be required. So it's a great development. I I you know I don't want to have you leave thinking we're completely shut out on it but I think we have some challenges. I'm also person if we work together I think we can find a solution to those and the trail item as well. I I'd be very curious again it might none of this might happen to begin with the feedback might be taken in and people might walk away but I would be very curious about the trail aspect as well. Yeah, just really quick, U council members. So, one thing I didn't mention that I should have was that the parks commission did talk about a trail being located along the um east side of Keats for for this project as part of a you know a new trail corridor along Keats um and that this development um could be given a 25% credit for inclusion of that that particular trail. So, just wanted to mention that >> hypothetically in order to meet the shoreland requirements for the uh square foot size, how many fewer lots would be necessary then to meet the the shoreland overlay requirements for the lot size? >> Uh you would not see many lots. I mean, you're looking at 80,000 is almost two acres a lot >> and these are four. So, be cutting it by probably half or more. >> Yeah, probably more. He's got 16,000 square foot per lot >> and the shoreline's 80,000. So you take five of the current lots to make one to meet the shoreline. >> 45 lots. >> I don't >> multiply in my head. >> I cannot and I'm not going to try. >> See the calculator. >> He's an engineer. I'm a teacher. I don't do math. Um as were you on the council for the Kramer Lake? >> No. >> I lit Well, I'm old. Okay. So in that case, I mean, yeah, we didn't get past sketch plan and a primary reason was the density within the shoreland overlay and the basis of that was additional impervious surface. It's a lake and it was in a an area that the council felt should be protected. I don't know if the council feels the same way here, but that that happened with with Kramer Lake and it was kind of fitting a square peg and a round hole, which I don't think is that different here. It seems like there's with the the parcel shapes where the lake is. Yeah, there are absolutely difficulties here, which is probably why it's never, at least in my time on here in planning commission, come up for this. Um so yeah there absolutely are challenges but I I think we've >> and that is I again I know we had this conversation with a different one of the opuds where um you know the the um the minimum size versus what they were asking was just so drastically different in the last situation it was hey our our maximum density was 045 and they were asking for double that and it was just such a a wide range and I guess you know obviously you brought this to the DNR already and they kind of gave the hey this is all right. That's it's such a drastic difference there. I mean >> yeah just on that topic so this development is consistent with the city's OPUD ordinance for lot area. So that's that's working that's compliant. What the challenge is is that the shoreline overlay has such large lot sizes that are required >> that it forces almost any development in the area of a water body to go through that shoreland PUD. There is a process that's afforded in the city shoreland um or PU, you know, ordinance through a shoreland PUD to reduce the lot sizes, but the development has to meet a tiering analysis like I mentioned and >> and that's been conducted. >> Yeah, it's been done. Yep. Okay. >> And it meets >> and what are they looking for in that tiering analysis? Is it the impact on the the lake on the shore? Like what's >> Yeah, it's the density and proximity to the water. So you think about um how how basically it's like spreading the units out in a manner that's appropriate. And in this case, we've got an equal number of units in tier one versus tier 2. 11 units are allowed per tier. 22 lots. >> Okay. >> A similar thing happened with uh Northstar. >> Okay. >> They have tiers there around Sunfish Lake. >> It's exactly the same process that Northstar used. >> Okay. Do you have enough feedback for staff purposes? >> I think we do. >> All right. >> No other comments. All right. Thank you. Three. Speaking of PAS, water treatment plan proposal 10th in Inwood, Mr. Griffin. Thank you, councel. Um, wanted to uh present to you sort of our preliminary site layout for the South Water Treatment Plant that we've been working on the last couple years. Um, and then u talk to you about our our next steps. Um, so I'll start off by um and as you may know, we've been looking at the site at the intersection of basically Inwood and 10th Street. Um, and we've shaded it in red there. Um, you can see sort of the the pinkish area is what we've identified as the site right now and approximates it's about 8.2 acres. Um, and we have sewer available just south of 10th Street at Inwood Avenue. Um, and we have a 12-in sewer coming north on Island Trail, which is just below that property that's listed at 8830. Um, it's coming it's stubbing up right about there. So, the treatment facility does need sewer. Um, so 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. Um and so um once we identified this site and did some preliminary investigations uh we met with the property owner and one of the asks um what from the property owner was to do additional area some portion that this property owner um there's several parcels but they own the the area that's shown in the broader red outline. Um and they were asking for some portion of that to also be included uh in the expansion area. So, I'm here tonight. I'm going to walk you through the details of the site layout and then I'm going to turn it over to Jason to talk about what that might look like. So, the first thing we did, one of the bigger things we had to look at is we looked at the county future county rightway considerations. Um, we want to make sure we're not building too close to in an area that impedes the the county from doing future roadway expansions. Um, so we looked at both Inwood Avenue and 10th Street. We talked to the county, looked at their comp plan, what their requirements are. Um, and near the intersection of Inwood and Tenth, they have adequate rightway. Uh, it's a full signalized intersection with all the turn lanes. Um, so along 10th Street, we've identified that no additional, uh, rightway will be needed for future improvements. Um, when we looked at Inwood Avenue, um, near the intersection, we found the same thing that we have an adequate rightway. as we move north um you can see there's sort of a shifting in the road and uh and narrowing of the rightway. So in order to maintain that required 180 ft of rideway for future improvements, you can kind of see how we sort of etched that in to to have that area. So we work that into our sighting site plan as a as a starting point. Um so this is the site plan that we've come up with so far. Um if you can see there's sort of a green dash line sort of meandering around that site. That was the next complexity we have. That's a watershed divide between Valley Branch on the east and south Washington watershed district on the west. So um we spent some time last fall meeting with both watershed districts. They were very collaborative in figuring out how this site would get permitted. Um we also had to address um how when we when we go to construct this when you do a well um you do a test well and then you do a full well and in both processes you do you develop the well which means you're pumping to waste and then you do test pumping which you're pumping to waste again for 24 36-hour periods of 1500 gpm. So it's large volume. For any of you that might have been around when we did well five, we were pumping that discharge to get pond. We had neighbors concerned thinking, you know, thinking that the water was rising, different things. So, we were gauging that level through the whole time. So, we were trying to figure out where are we going to discharge this water. We worked at the wershed districts. Um what the the general conclusion is we don't have storm water management designed by any means, but we've we've worked on this subject long enough to feel that the site is feasible and that we have a workable plan. We'll be end up taking those discharges uh at the intersection. You see blue lines. Uh those are existing culverts. We'll be taking the water underneath that which goes to the south Washington district and goes to Armstrong Lake. um it's already has PAS contamination. So, the fact that we're pumping PAS water isn't going to have concerns with that also. So, those were those were some pretty big issues and concerns we had out of the gate that we've that we now feel comfortable moving forward with this site that we can we can get this project done. Um the other um the next the next piece we looked at was site access. Um we're near we're building on a major intersection and you can't come in uh into those turn lanes. Um so you can see the access road. We're planning on coming off of the water tower road. Um you see the water tower site and then you see we have also have a dedicated 80oot rightway. When we purchased the water tower site, we have an 80 foot rideway that was intended for a road into that parcel at that time. Um, so what we ex what we were planning to do is bring a driveway off of that road down into the into the facility. And then you can see sort of parking in there and you can see a s circulation um that's intended to be able to navigate um large trucks um for chemical delivery and periodically media replacement. you're bringing in potentially semi-type trucks that circulate drive into the building and drive out the other side and circulate through the site. So, um looking at the site from uh storm water management circulation and and all of the above and then access um up by the water tower. Um the next thing we were looking at was um the building size. The water treatment plant we're um estimating it needs to be 150 by 200 feet. Um, and so you that's the red square. Uh, there's also some dash lines to the north showing potential room for future expansion. If we need to even grow the facility more in the future, we can add another well and expand the facility out. And that north wall would be built as one of those knockdown walls for for easy expansion. Um, and the height of the building is also an issue. um from the standpoint that when you build treatment plants, you tend to bring the water in up high and you and you bring it down through the process. You bring it through the pressure filters and at the end you you put the water in what you call a clear storage underneath the building. So, usually the building has a basement that's a big clear well storage tank. Um that those tank elevations have to be above the groundwater and above the high water level of those adjacent wetlands and things like that. So you can see the the dark brown contour line. That's the high point. So that was the other thing in the sighting of all of this parcel is we really found that we need that we need to build on that high point. Um so the the building will have some size and scope to it because it it's going to be a two to two and a half story building and it's going to be built on the high point um in in that in that location. Um and then what we don't show is the utility layout. There's going to have to be the sanitary sewer that I mentioned coming from the east along uh the north side of County Road 10 getting to the facility. You're going to have well six is planned to be on that on that site and then that has a raw water line to the treatment plant. Eventually, we'll have well seven presumably to the north. Um maybe at the water tower site or ridge park um that has a raw water line coming down to the facility. And then you have the um connecting water manes distributing the water out to the system where we'll be connecting both to 10th Street and um Inwood Avenue. So we don't show all that piping because it starts to get pretty messy, but we've been looking at that as well in our in our layouts. Um, so that's kind of where how we fit this in here. And you kind of see that odd shape that I showed you on the first slide. Uh, and why we have and and then, oh, I didn't mention you can see the storm water basins we show hugging along. Uh, those are the blue square. Basically, we have a bio retention filters. We have wet pond um, and a vegetated swale type of feature. all with a treatment train for the storm water management for the site which would then discharge to the Armstrong Lake like like I mentioned before. So that's kind of the site that we have laid out right now and and how we came up with the the 8.2 acres. Um so then the next next steps we've we've done enough that we're confident recommending this moving forward. We met with the property owner. The next steps would be to um for the city to execute agreements with the property owner. We need a right of entry, purchase option agreements. What what we really need to do is to go to the next step of due diligence and that that would include a full topographic survey um doing geotechnical soil investigations of the area and then also um constructing a test well. So when we did test well number five, I believe it was about $40,000. So, you know, this this is where the city gets into really starting to spend money on this site, and that's the purpose for the um getting serious with the property owner, making sure we have a willing buyer, willing seller type of thing. Um, but we still don't want to purchase the site yet until we do these due diligence and make sure that the site works um with with more detail. >> For soil testing and some of that analysis, I mean, is there a chance that there's cursed here or karst? We we don't believe there is, but I Yeah, I don't know >> because I assume that'd be worst case scenario. >> Yeah. >> Solid. If there was, I assume we'd also communicate that to the land owner. >> Yeah. We whatever we investigate would be available to the land owner, whatever those reports are. But I I can take questions on the detail of the site now or just we can do questions at the end and let Jason do his part. All right. So, 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? So you can see the Musa boundary here at the bottom is um the green section and then the blue section um is where the water treatment plant would be located and the request from the land owner. So you can see the acreage left over the south below the green line is 63 acres. Not all of it's buildable and that does not include the water treatment plant. They also own the property to the north. So if you're just looking at land use, it's rural area development. The base density is 10 acres per unit. An OPD would be 6 units per acre at this site. So it's 63 acres. It would be uh roughly 38 houses. The request would be to move to low density residential. That's 2.5 to four units per acre. And based on what they provided us, it was the net buildable area is about 51.4 4 acres which could result in anywhere between 128 to 205 units. They did provide a concept plan. This concept plan hasn't been reviewed at the same level as the previous uh Clear Lake. This is just an idea of like what could be at the site and what the densities look like. So this is 2.8 units per acre. Um it's 144 units, 113 single family housing units that are to the east. 32 twin homes which are allowed in the comp plan for this area that those are the units closer to the water treatment plant. So they would also need PD flexibility for lot sizes since LDR requires at least an 8,000 foot lot and a 60 foot lot width. Um and the same with the two two family. If you look you can see the green numbering. Um there's black and red kind of gives you an idea of the type of lots that they're thinking 50 58 65 foot frontages that would fit large storm water area. You also see wetlands on the site. So they would have to have buffers from the wetlands. Those are netted out in the density the wetlands and the buffers. >> Are those wetlands considered shoreland overlay required or are they just wetlands? >> They're just wetlands. >> Okay. And then the most important thing from our perspective that we look at and obviously the council needs to look at is our plat monitoring. So the Met Council sent over in March um where we currently are as a city and that's 3.88 units per acre. Uh based on what's going to occur at the 2050 comp plan, we need to make sure that we remain 3.5 units per acre. As a minimum, it is going to go from 3 to 3.5. And the chart on the left the bottom is most important at the overall density in terms of what is set as the density log is 3.15 currently to a max of 5.55. This would bring it down to 3.11 to 5.47 but we would still be you know closer with the 3.88. It's just something to consider because the range could be 2.5 to four. Um, and if the council wanted to consider even higher density, like a portion of it medium density, that's something to consider. 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 there's questions specifically about um the Musa property owners here too. Um so it's anything related to the density or the expansion. >> Were those the the drawings that you had on there? Were those from the the property owner? Yes, because we basically wanted the property owner to show what the density would look like and then you know concerns about how low like if if it wasn't cut to come in at 2.5 which is the minimum we wanted to show kind of what that would look like and if you want to consider going up to four you're going to have to add considerable amount of units to get up to >> and that's the low density right there. >> Low density is 2.5 to to four and this is at 2.8. >> Okay. And then could you go to the next slide or Yeah, this one. I'm sorry. Could you go through this again? >> Um, and talk. So the 3.88 units per acre. That's where we're at currently. >> Right. So every time we approve a plat, >> okay, >> they have a better understanding of the units that are existing plus what is going to be built. >> So that's in the MUSA total as a city. We're at 3.88 units per acre right now. We need to stay above 3.5. Could you talk me through then the portion on the right where it talks about the net acres, min units, max units and how the overall density changes with that? >> So I just included the new numbers into if you look at the left it says low density residential and there's 224 net acres. I just added that and then added to the range totaled it up and just made a smaller chart so we're not changing the entire chart. Essentially, this chart will have to be updated for the 2050 comp plan. And where it says overall density 3.15, that would have to say 3.5. So, there are going to be choices to be made in the future of do we want to have higher density, more acres for higher density? Should the minimum go from 8 to 10? There have to be ways to figure out how to bring it up to 3.5. Um, but for now, we're at still at three. Are there questions for Jason or for Jack? So, actually, one more question on this. So, if if we have more development before the 2050 comp plan is uh finalized, does that change what Met Council is expecting us for our um the units per acre? I mean, so for example, if this um development went through and we ended up doing at the lowest density possible and therefore our, you know, our current units per acre dropped down, would Met Council consider that and re um calculate what our 2050 comp plan needs to look like or that set? >> Well, a couple things would happen. If it it can't drop below three. So if you were add acreage here and it's at 3.15, that's the first thing that you couldn't see. But regardless of if any projects are approved in the meantime, you will have to meet the 3.5 in 2050 as a minimum. So regardless, we're going to have to figure out a way to get the 3.15, which if this were to be approved would be 3.11 to 3.5. So if we develop at lower densities now, we're going to have to develop at higher densities later to make up for it. >> That that's correct. I think I think that would be correct. You basically regardless are going to have to probably increase highdensity residential from eight to 15 to like 10. That would be an easier way to kind of boost those numbers. And then it may not actually even add units to the city. It's just in the table it would add units. >> The hypothetical table >> and you had mentioned staff's intent was to have a closed session to discuss this >> in terms of I definitely if want comments if you think this is something move forward with uh we will have a close session um soon to discuss it. If you want to ask questions to the property owner, you can ask questions to the property owner. But definitely >> so there will be a close session at a future meeting >> no matter what for the purchase for a potential purchase >> maybe. Yeah. question for the develop or for the um the the owner the with the opud as an option. Um is that something that's considered by the the property owner developer? Are they set on going with the uh the low density residential? >> I think the owner can talk to this. I think they looked looked at an OP on the site and I think the soils are challenging for septic. Um, but that would be something that they could provide information on. >> Might be good to hear on just hear from in general plan and >> kind of hopes and visions for it. >> Um, my name is Paul Shrier. Um, represent the owners of these properties. Um yeah, we did lay out a a lower density um septic lots, etc. Pretty disappointed in our soil tests for making some of it work. Um we did not, you know, not to use a pun, we didn't dig very deep into it at that point because um this process was going on. Um, it was quiet for a long time. I think uh probably quiet from October to a month ago. Maybe it was longer than that. Um, but as you can see, Jack was pretty busy with it. Um, so that's kind of, you know, supp supplemented all this or supplanted all this. Um, 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. You know, just being as honest as I can. Um it certainly looks like a site that you know works well and um but again as far as you know being you know we're not the most unwilling seller in the world but again just to be perfectly frank it doesn't do a lot for the rest of our property put a water treatment plant on the corner. Um, so we're certainly looking for, you know, to cooperate and, you know, I don't like the term win-win. I rarely use it. Um, but we don't have the same interest, but I think we have pretty parallel ones that we can hopefully get stuff done here. Um, as far as the concept plan, we're, you know, Matt's firm drew it up at the request of staff again to get an idea of what we'd be looking at. There's, you know, It's very preliminary concept. I mean it's we we were um we didn't modify it's basic we changed the town homes to twin homes at the request to staff. But again it's frankly I guess I want to hear if council just completely hates the idea before we spend more money tweaking it. Right. >> On what side were the soil soil tests not great? the north or the south, the east or the west, or just the entire site? >> Pretty much the entire site. >> Does that impact our needs or are those tests so shallow that it's >> shallow tests? Yes. Um and and I don't know, but is the real answer. >> Any additional questions for the land owner? That's all I had. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Was the Musa boundaries are on both sides of it right now? Uh the east and west side of it. >> Just the west and south. >> Just the west and south. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> So really, it's been 10th Street this entire time with the exception of the new school. And then obviously Oakdale has it on the north side of 10th. So you need feedback or additional questions. Well, I mean I'll start with I'm I'm in I'm very open to this. I mean, obviously we put a lot of work into figuring out where's a good location for um the water treatment plant and this was one of those locations. Um it seems obviously there's more work to be done still to make sure um if it if it's not a if it is a good location for it, I think that um this actually could be a win-win. even though I know he doesn't like that. I I think this could be um so I'm I'm I guess I'm open to having that discussion. I think there's a lot of um I think there is a lot of benefit if we provide the land owner this expansion of the MUSA into their area as well. And I think that's going to be important to remember. But in general, I'm open to this Nick, Nick, >> I would just echo the same thoughts that I'm definitely open to this. I think it's a great layout and I think it'd be ultimately a great addition to the city and it's a great spot for the water treatment plant. I mean, I'm open for further discussion on this as well. >> I agree. I'm open to further discussion. I'm a little concerned about the density and where we're going because of the pressure we're under. Um but I think to continue discussions would be best for both and sending the muse I think makes sense. Um we we have that site lined up. I think that you including the other parcels in the muse expansion makes it uh a better project for everybody. >> I do have something to add too. I was as I was thinking about this is again I this I kind of mentioned this before in the previous one is >> if the um 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. Um, so that is just I guess my one other thought with I I normally would have preferred to just wait for a comp plan um to discuss this, but given the the situation with the water and wanting to get this resolved sooner than later, I think it's worth considering. >> Jason, Sophia, Nate, smart people. Um, we have in our budget for this coming year and even the next year projected when we start to bring on consultants to help with the comp plan. When really are we starting the conversations? When are we having those the meetings, the collaborations? Are we talking 2026ish? >> 2026. 2025 we should have the consultant under contract and moving forward at the end of this year. >> So really we are not that far away from the 2015. I mean, we've already we've gotten the projections from Met Council and obviously they're starting to send stuff out about 2050. I mean, I I'll be honest. I'm I get why the question is being asked. I personally wouldn't have asked it. It's this is a public health and safety issue and the 2050 is right around the corner. So, I'm I'm surprised he was being asked, but I I understand why a person would. I personally wouldn't. Um, it's a great site. I I would agree. To me, it's part of the transition between from 94, we have a higher density, then we have um med low density at Island Trail, and then we have the park reserve to the north. To me, this would fit with the our our citywide aspects of transition and where OPUD would fit much better. Um, if the soils are what they are, that's obviously understandable. But I I always thought that when we were getting to our 2050, that would be a logical thing. I didn't I would not have anticipated that um a question would come in to sewer that large of a section because there are other buyers who are looking for large quantities of lands. There are sports teams that are looking for large quantities of land. There's multiple athletic teams that are looking for that amount of land that don't need sewer. So, if someone is looking to do that, those opportunities exist. Um, we need the treatment plant. That's not in doubt. So, when we do get to a close session, I think we'll have some some additional conversation. I I don't know if there's additional info I can say in open session. Just to be clear, the the Musa expansion would just be that southern half of the the lot. Is that correct? >> No, that's correct. >> Okay. So, like that little less than the top half would be still zoned. Um, do you remember what was that? What was it zoned just on the north part? >> Is that rural? >> It's rural. Okay. Okay. It just seems that we we have the issue with the water. We need the site. Working with the owner of the site and the developer to come to something that works for both of us seems to have a lot of logic to me. I recognize we have our challenges, but I don't think this destroys those challenges. And I think there's ways to work together to get what we both need. Um, and walk away from the saying, you know, we all we all came away from this with something that helped make the city and the, you know, and the and the expansion better. >> And I don't disagree with any of that. 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. But you are entirely correct. This hypothetical does benefit both both sides. I you are correct. >> And I think if we look longterm is going to get developed. >> So we may be seeing development occur sooner than it might have otherwise happened. But looking at its location, it seems like it's inevitably would be developed at some point. >> I don't think you're wrong. >> I never am. Do you kind of feel like we are you thinking wait till the discussions for the comp plan 2050 are set? We need the land. We We need the land. I again I'm not thrilled that this is the conversation that we're having. Um I'm not because we're going to pay a fair market price for it. Not we. the settlement is and those dollars are being used to protect people's lives. So, I'm just surprised that we're having a conversation to change our comp plan to protect people's health. That's that's my frustration. But, as the three of you have correctly indicated, we need the land. You think it's a I'm not quite understanding like you think that the amount of land that is being asked to be added to the muses is a little bit I think it was surprising to myself. >> Okay. I I could have seen, hey, eight acres there, we'll do eight acres and we'll ask for it to be uh along 10th streets and have it be business commercial. you know, something that is going to have a higher resale and is expected as close to an intersection. But again, the three of you have spoken and I you're not wrong. I don't disagree with you. I just >> I think that's a fair I mean, I I'm not set on like it has to be that. I mean, I think that's a fair argument of is is you know, the city acquiring 8.2 2 acres and then 51 point or 63 acres being added to the Musa. Is that a fair trade? I you know I I don't I think that's a fair question, >> especially when it's already been going to be paid fair market value with valuable settlement dollars that are onetime dollars. >> The 8.2 acres. >> Yeah. And then obviously the value of the other 63 acres is going to jump. >> Yep. >> Pretty significantly. >> Yes. >> I wasn't thinking about the I was thinking that the city was paying for it. Um and I forgot that that is paid for by the um by the fund. And that is a good point. I mean, that was my thought is, you know, that's a are we going to be is the I guess I want to be careful what I say here, >> but I just Yeah, that I think that's a good point. >> We talk about the price when we get into our >> Yeah. >> close session, but >> I'm just looking at the concept is all I'm focusing on at this point. Not price or other things, just the concept. I think you have a majority present who are in favor of moving the conversation forward. >> Okay. >> I believe staff probably would like to have the close session sooner than later. >> Let's do that. >> Check. >> Um and assuming legal is available next Tuesday before the meeting, would that work or do we want to push it off? >> I think June 3rd. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. So, do not go golfing June 3rd. Okay. >> Noted. >> And the mayor will be back for that meeting as well. >> Yes. >> Thank you. And thank you, Jack and team because obviously this has been a ton of work to get the design. I know that the two watershed issues was massive. Obviously going back and forth with trustees. This is a ton of work and I to all those who are watching thank you for that because it's it's highly necessary and your work is uh definitely understood. Uh let's talk about the U of M test seed plot. Oh no no no let's talk about the public works operational assessment presentation. I'll just say um acting mayor and council that staff has been working with Rafelis since January on this operational assessment and so now we have uh Scott Parker and Brian Kersh with Rafelis to give us their recommendations. >> Right. Thanks so much Nicole. Appreciate it. Uh Councilman, thank you so much for taking some time to have us talk about your public works department. Uh we did an operational assessment of them over the last about four months or so. Uh want to start by saying uh how impressed we were and how much we uh we really enjoyed working with with Marty, his team, Nicole as well. Uh high quality staff and I think it's something you should all be proud of. So um as Nicole mentioned, I'm Scott Parker. I'm a vice president Raf Tullus. Uh we do these type of organizational operational assessments kind of all over the country uh for public works uh departments. And tonight's we're going to talk about basically three things in the agenda. We're going to talk a little bit about the project itself, give an overview of it. We'll then go into our observations and then some analysis and some recommendations. Uh at that I'll turn it over to Brian at observations. Brian was the uh lead project manager for this. I was project director. So, so the overview of the project, we essentially had three sets of goals. The first was to look at your processes, policies, and technology and and evaluate staffing and organizational structure. And then ultimately I identify some opportunities for either improved efficiency, effectiveness or both in your operations group. And that's kind of the gist of the whole thing um with broken down a little bit more into actually the work that we did. So essentially that was subdivided into four steps. Obviously we began the engagement. uh we do a lot of context understanding uh which which involves a very significant data uh collection and review process. We also do a lot of staff interviews from multiple levels of the organization. Uh and then obviously reviewed that information and created an asis state uh that documents sort of where you all are relative to the organization strategic goals, your growth possibilities. We've been hearing a lot about these tonight and some of the things that you're doing now from a level of service perspective. Uh from there uh we look at best practices uh in the utility and in the uh infrastructure management industries from lots of different sources and then we ultimately prepare a ser list of uh preliminary observations and recommendations and then uh go through a process where we actually validate the findings with department leadership uh to make sure that we're not missing anything. That's done through several iterative steps. Um and then from there we ultimately prepare a report with findings and recommendations. My understanding is that has been uh delivered to you all. you all had chance to look at it as it relates to tonight's uh presentation. So, uh that's essentially the the nature of the work that we did. And from there, I'm going to turn it over to Brian to talk a little bit about our observations. >> Thank you, Scott. And thank you everyone for having us here today. Um these next three slides or so are just general observations to kind of provide some of the context for our findings and then we'll go into the section labeled analysis and recommendations. Those will contain some more specific observations that relate to the recommendations that we're we're making. So just some of the general observations um you know as pretty much everything and we're talking about in this meeting here tonight it's all comes down to growth. Uh it's the number one workload driver here within the department. Um and I want to point out specifically that 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. Um some very good news is that we found the department provides a high level of service. It's identified appropriate uh service level targets and it meets those targets. The bad side of that is that that sort of stress and workload is being done at a somewhat unsustainable pace and certainly as you grow farther or grow more uh that will become increasingly unsustainable. Uh, another good side of the coin is that most of your infrastructure is new and so it's easy to maintain. Uh, but unfortunately as it ages, even if you do the right maintenance steps, uh, you're just going to spend more time on reactive maintenance. So, you're somewhat living the good life now to an extent. The department last created an additional operator position in 2019. And so, that date will stick out for us a little bit. And that's important to us because the operators are the ones frankly that are generally out in the field turning the wrenches uh doing the things that need to be done. So we we think about 2019 a lot. If you look just from 2019 to 2023 in those four years we saw a 74% increase in sewer customers, about a 40% increase in sewer pipe length and water customers, a 55% increase in water pipe length, and a 23% increase in park bridge. That's just 2019 to 2023. Obviously, there's been more growth in the intervening two years uh and all at during that time period with the same number of operators. We have a number of versions of these graphs in the report, but this one really distills down uh what we see quite succinctly where we look at the number of sewer accounts served per public works FTE and we see that it's been just a a I don't want to say exponential growth, but it kind of is. So from 2019 when we first got or last got a new operator serving 131 uh accounts per FTE by 2023 it had to grown to 228. Obviously that's grown further since then. So that really provides the context that we find ourselves in and and these sorts of things that I've just mentioned in these three slides are really probably what brought us here uh to do this project for you today. So just going into some of our analysis and recommendations. Um you know just some of the observations related to this first recommendation. A lot of the work that public works done does is seasonal or periodic. They're annual things that get done. Whether it's paving, whether it's exercising valves in the system, whether it's jetting the sewer system. Um, one thing we heard from operators is that communication is very task oriented and not so much projectoriented. They don't get get to see the bigger picture. Uh, so our first recommendation is to create an annual work plan to help articulate when significant work initiatives are scheduled or expected to take place. Um, ideally this would identify which weeks of the year these major undertakings are taking place along with the staffing and res uh staffing and resource requirements to do them. Post the plan in the workplace and of course review and update periodically and we'll come back to this recommendation uh in just a second. We heard a lot about PTO. This is one of these areas where strain is showing in the department and there has been a tension that's kind of built up over the last few years between operators who want to take PTO and the department wanting staff there to get work done. Um, and to kind of put this somewhat into context now, there are enough operators in the department that if you take the amount of PTO that they have as well as sick leave and spread it evenly throughout the year, there are there's one lead operator and eight operators, you would have at least one person gone every day, every workday of the year and more than one on a few days of the year. So obviously they don't spread out their time off like that. demand for PTO's clustered around holidays, summer school breaks, etc. Um, and another wrinkle to this that we see is that in summertime, the department runs a summer schedule, nine hours a day, four days a week, Monday through Thursday, and a 4-hour day on Friday. Um, management believes, and we've certainly believe too, that those nine hour days are more productive. Just being out in the field longer, you get more done. you don't have as much start and stop time for lunches and breaks, etc. Um, the flip side is that everyone wants Friday off because that's a three-day weekend that they can get for four hours of PTO and and who blames them really. Um, so we've got a couple recommendations related to this one. would like to in those summer hours especially separate the operators into two group work groups, a Monday to Thursday group and a Tuesday to Friday group and move them to a 410 schedule. We think that'll be more efficient and more productive for each operator. You'd be getting everyone a three-day weekend except uh there's always one operator on call each week. Um they would obviously not have that three-day weekend. probably would expect to see a little bit of reduction in demand for PTO just in the summertime. Um, and like I said, this is likely be a more productive uh work schedule for everyone. And then we'd also want to go back to that annual work plan to revisit PTO limits in terms of how many people you can allow off on a given day. um use that annual work plan to determine what your minimum staffing levels really are or should be uh during throughout the year, but also to use that sort of uh consideration of need to allow people to have time off to make sure you're not overscheduling major projects at the same period of time. Um another strategy could potentially be to plan for low power weeks around holidays. assume you'll have more demand for PTO and make sure you're not trying to, you know, have that week to to exercise your valves in the water system. Um, as we've talked, as I've mentioned a few times, the workloads have obviously increased over the last six years and operator staffing hasn't. Um, as I mentioned, there's a lead operator. It's not a supervisory position, but it sort of is. It's at that kind of introductory supervisory position. If you consider the operators that he works with as his span of control, that's awfully high at eight. Uh particularly at that sort of introductory level of supervision. Usually you see that more of a kind of a lead crew operator and they see a crew of four or so. Um, as we saw with the uh discussion of the water treatment plant, uh, that will complicate the system that you currently operate. Um, and we heard from some operators because they only really when they're on call, I should back up. They rotate uh their weeks on call. So, if they're nine operators, they're on call once every nine weeks. If they're not on call, some of them don't really work with the treatment system at all. And so they don't feel terribly comfortable with it. They're just not around it and exposed to it as to build up that sort of comfort and expertise. And if we end up hiring more operators, uh, doing rounds become less frequent for each operator. So now it's once every two months or so. You could add a couple of operators and it's more like once every three months. Um obviously that's harder to train new operators, hard harder for people to retain knowledge, harder to gain a feel for the system of which it's now becoming more complex. So 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. Given the budget season, the timing and all that, we would recommend aiming to fill two of those positions this year. uh prior uh prioritizing the lead operator and one of the operators and then perhaps the following year then add the second operator. As I mentioned there's concern about familiarity and building up expertise within the treatment system among those that do rounds. Uh there was a question that was posed to us as to whether or not the department should really split into a utility group and a non-utility group doing parks and streets. We prefer the flexibility that public works provides itself and able to move staff amongst those different functions, but recognizing that you don't want to have people not working uh or working very infrequently with the utility system, we would recommend designating about six operators as utility specialists. Um we would ideally limit these to the higher uh grades of operators. Um and so it would rotate amongst these six people. Each one would be on call once every six weeks. It would help build up and concentrate that expertise. It may require some incentivization to entice operators to take on that extra badge. uh there's a growing trend within the industry that people don't seek out overtime like they used to a few decades ago and I think we're seeing that a little bit here as well. So there may be some either policy changes in terms of who gets called in for say snow removal first. It may have to come down to a slight modification of pay. Uh but that is will have to be a discussion amongst uh staff and perhaps the union. Um the city did recently lose an admin assistant who was working part-time for public works. There is substantial need uh for clerical work for work that is currently done by the director and assistant director uh that could be done by someone uh doing more administrative staff type tasks. Um, ideally we'd like to aim high for someone in terms of skills, in terms of working with computers, being able to read a GIS map. Um, we'd like to make the most use of their skills, particularly as they first come on. So, I think it would behoove um, staff to help develop binders of SOPs to help them take on as many tasks as possible because a lot of things that walk through the door probably aren't, you know, an every day, every hour sort of thing. Um and we would recommend starting them somewhat partially at uh in public works versus the general fund and perhaps over time if they can prove themselves more to public works take on more roles readjust that in the future. Um there is a question about what to do regarding auto repair and maintenance. There is some light vehicle maintenance that's being done in the department not by ace certified operator uh mechanics. However, we would recommend that the city ex either hire a certified mechanic, which is unlikely to have the need for that amount of light duty maintenance, or to explore signing a service contract with a local vendor. Um, auto repair is not really a core function of public works. Um, having non-certified mechanics work on those cars, I think, can expose the city to some liability. Um, and there are oftentimes cost advantages to signing those service contracts. Um, the city's mark the city's parks master plan calls for a parks director. It's very explicit saying this is a highest priority. This needs to be done. Um, however, it doesn't really give guidance on the role or the scope of the parks director position. Um, we don't think the city is at a point where a separate parks department makes sense and it's rare to have a parks director without a separate department or staff. So given that we really think that the city should be intentional uh and bring some stakeholders together to collaborate as the proper role and scope of what sort of position this parks director or whatever it should be called a parks manager, assistant uh director for parks in the public works department, what that role should encompass. Um, so we'd advise bringing together like the parks advisory board, council, staff to help come to agreement as to what this sort of role should uh should entail. We looked at technology in use in the department. Um, city uses Beehive as an asset management system. Appears to be well uh implemented. However, it lacks a parks module. I'm told it's probably maybe $7,000 to add that in. Um, it's not used as a work order system currently. Uh, nor do operators use it much in the field outside of as a GIS uh, system. 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. But once you're issuing work orders, you can track the work that you're doing so much better. You'd be making the case for more operators in the future as you need it. Um, you know, we all get the technical training we need to do our jobs, but sometimes we're left to figure out the supervisory leadership training. Um, we recommend that anyone in supervisory role in the department be given access to uh leadership and supervisory training to help uh foster the soft skills necessary for their roles. And then finally, uh, our last observation recommendation. There were some questions about safety. I think some of the, uh, stress and strain of trying to get work done and getting all of our service level targets met, uh, may sometimes c come at the cost of staffing at the uh, in the safest manner. So, our recommendation is to work to instill and sustain a culture of safety. That involves here for us uh ensure ensuring appropriate staffing for various activities uh and developing SOPs and guidelines for safety that are mut mutually agreed upon by both staff and leadership as to how standard jobs get staffed and then also provide appropriate channels so that unsafe activities can be reported. This will most likely be through HR, but removing that sort of uh reporting mechanism from outside the chain of command. And I realize I blitzed through that pretty quickly. Uh we're last in the meeting perhaps. So uh but we would love to have if you have questions, want to have a conversation, discuss anything uh further, fire away. So the amount of FTE in 2019 was 131 accounts per FTE and then we added another operator. How many accounts per FTE would you recommend? That's a good question and that is also a trick question. We uh so we do a lot of benchmarking. In fact, I do almost all of the benchmarking for our company and we get a variation of that question. How do we compare based on common benchmark metrics, right? >> And first I'll I'll also say too the way we technically calculated that is not quite the way that you normally do it because here we used >> uh public works FTEES. Normally you're looking at sewer accounts per sewer FTEES. So it's kind of diluting that that number. But the real answer to your question is we never recommend the number of FTEEs based on an artificial metric um or not an artificial metric but a calculated metric of accounts per employee. It can provide a guideline. It can tell you when you're kind of outside of the norms of industry. Um but really what is more important is asking what are service level targets and are we able to meet them with our current staffing. So some of your service level targets in the sewer system are things like jetting all of the lines every I think three or four years. I think one-third or one/4 of the city is jetted each year. If you're not doing that, you're probably short on staff. Most public with the public works department, it's a little bit fuzzier because they're doing three other things too, right? They're handling parks and streets and water. Uh so we have to look at the organization as a whole. But I put that slide in there to show you that you know what, this workload demand has grown per employee by quite a bit. Uh but it's not something where we would ever take a number and say now you're at the right number of accounts per FTE. >> And another question about the four day work week. >> Yeah. >> What would be your recommendation for choosing who gets the Monday through Thursday and who gets the Tuesday through Friday or would there be some type of rotation? >> You know, I thought about this. I don't know. Um, you know, would would guys want to be able to swap back and forth so long as they're working four days in one week if one week they're on a Monday to Thursday and the next week they're on Tuesday to Friday and then they've got themselves a four day weekend, right? If that works. Um, but then they'd have to follow that up with a two-day weekend. I don't think there's an explicit recommendation from our perspective. I think that's going to have to be settling down with staff. >> Yep. >> Uh I don't One of the things I didn't really see in with the union here and with the operators was a real sense of seniority where guys are saying I I'm here first because I've been here the longest. I don't know if that's something they'd want to want to do or if people even have a preference. >> Got it. Thank you. Mhm. >> So in your proposal in task three, you specifically said you're going to benchmark Lake Elmo against pure communities and national benchmarks. There's not a benchmark in the study anywhere to be found. >> We we removed uh some of those benchmarks because one, like I said, we don't want to go uh to compare public works departments to other public works departments because they're just too disperate in terms of what they do. Um we also don't know levels of we also don't compare well with levels of service. For instance, your utility system has um has just sewer conveyance and because it's just groundwater currently a very simple treatment system. And so unless you find particularly um two utilities that are doing exactly the same thing as well as a park system of roughly the same size providing the same services, you don't really learn much from that. Now we did and I don't know if we have the we do have the full slides here. I'll show you. one way we can is showing there. >> Yeah, we we did not get those. >> Yeah, >> they're in the report. >> So, no, I don't know that that this one is in the report. We create we did some other comparisons >> um with in this case these are national benchmarks. This is sewer customer accounts per allocated sewer FTE. In your audited uh financial report in the statistical section in the back, uh it allocates the number of FTEEs in sewer and in water parks each year. We took those allocated sewer FTEES and did just that with um with the data we had available sewer accounts per allocated sewer FTE. Now, we didn't include this in the report or the pre presentation before because we don't know the basis of that allocation at the end of the day. Um it's hard for us to really vouch for that number as being consistently determined each year. But if we do that and this number of sewer customer accounts per allocated sewer FTE would we would do in the the industry it's just sewer customer accounts per sewer FTE um or sewer employee. We see that obviously it starts very low in 2012 and 2013 because you had very few accounts there only like 30 accounts in 2013 I think you allocated like you know 0.9 7 FTEES in 2013 to now when it goes up to in 2021 it was 1845 accounts per FTE which means you're only allocating probably off the top of my head one and a half FTEES for the year. Um, these horizontal lines going across are the AWA benchmark survey results. They do a benchmark survey each year. This is from their 2023 survey. They report values for the 75th percentile, median, and 25th percentile. Uh, as you can see for the last few years, been way beyond the 75th percentile. Um, but because this is a sewer conveyance only utility, I don't think that it tells you much. Most of those respondents are probably conveyance and treatment. Frankly, >> excuse me, I'm confused. So, the these are the you're saying the city of Lake Elmo >> currently has 134 accounts per FTE, sewer FTE, >> per allocated as of 2023. So if you look in the ACFR in the very back there's statistical section and it lists the number of of FTEES that are allocated for various functions. >> Where is that located? I'm sorry I'm not seeing it in the report. >> The the ACFR. >> Oh and oh in the ACFR. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So using those allocations >> those allocations right >> whether Okay. We don't know if they're right or wrong. >> Well I don't know if they're right or wrong but they they fluctuate each year a little bit. So if you if you were to look between 2021 and 2022, uh I think they allocated more FTEES that year. Do we do I know the basis of that? Do I do I know that that's based on doing more work in the sewer system that year? I don't. Um and so when we do this based on an allocated FTE, I think it really muddies whatever message you might draw from it. Um so we did not include these particular charts in the report but we did look at them. >> So in essence there's no benchmarking done >> there. There was benchmarking done. Does it tell you anything meaningful that I think would drive the recommendations that we're giving you? No, I don't think it does. >> So when you recommend that we should add three operators >> that's based on trying to meet levels of service. But based on what if if they're not benchmarked to anything like for instance you we may come back and say in the city of Lake we have 90 miles of streets. >> Mhm. >> So it would take four FTEEs to maintain 90 miles of streets. I'm just making a number up. Okay. >> And we have 50 miles of sewer. And if you compare that to national and pure cities, it would take three FDEs to maintain 50 miles of sewers. and go through each of the functions. You could then total them up and say, "Well, in the city, you should have 18 FTEEs in your public works department >> based on benchmark averages to maintain your assets." >> We never ever go based on a formula like that. >> But how do then how do you know how many we need? You said we we should add a mechanic. Okay. Is one mechanic sufficient to maintain the number and type of equipment we have based on what analysis? >> I did not say we should add a mechanic. said either hire a mechanic in order to do work that is done by a certified >> either hire a mechanic or or go to or go out for a contract. >> Okay. So, if the option is to hire a mechanic, is one enough? Is one too many based on the number and type of equipment we're maintaining? >> No, I don't I don't think if you're hiding if you're hiring someone for a light duty uh maintenance, I don't think you have enough vehicles to keep them busy. >> It's just hard to have confidence in numbers that aren't backed by any type of measure of the workload. >> Again, when we benchmark It is always descriptive, not prescriptive. >> Well, I just, you know, I think you that was part of the proposal that you made. It was in the cost. We didn't get any benchmarking in the study at all. Um, 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? I think what we've discussed or discovered in our interviews with staff is that the way in which they are doing their jobs, the way in which leadership believes that they need more people to be able to get the work done. When we look at the number of uh the span of control of the lead operator, we believe that at the very least another lead operator and another operator is justified. Now the another advantage to say waiting on that second new operator is you can determine whether or not you feel like you need that position. Um but again as I've mentioned again we go for levels of service and can the work get done in a safe effective and efficient manner and when operators feel like they can no longer take time off because people have to be here then we have to question whether or not there are enough people around to do the work that's being asked of them. So I guess I'll ask in a different way then in terms of the service levels because I operate in the public sector and I operate based upon service level agreements. >> What's what are some of the service levels that are not being met in terms of expectations? I think right now as I go back to a very early slide, those service level expectations are being met, but it's being they're oftentimes being met with fewer people on a task than it would take to do it safely. So two people instead of three if you're operating a wood chipper for instance or guys feeling rushed and entering combined spaces when they shouldn't. So based on that, based on the amount of growth that has happened since 2019, the last time an operator was added, um it's our feeling that adding these additional operators or lead operator is warranted because I I subjectively believe that there's a need for additional labor. I was presuming that in this audit we were going to get the objective. >> You want I think I mean if you if you'd like a a really good example you might look at this slide right here. Um if if this is if this is what you're sort of looking for um my my take just for the record I used to be in utilities. I ran I ran them was in in this space uh for majority of my own career. The issue with benchmarking is uh typically speaking you're looking for something to the effect of um can we do what we are asked to do by our public in an efficient and an effective manner. What I see when I look at these numbers is exactly what I think I hear you're you're saying which is um well from the trend analysis uh we're adding a lot more people and customers to our service delivery profile in sewer right now than uh we were what's that five years ago given the projections of growth in your community going forward given what you're going to be asked to do. You're adding new treatment facilities. You're going to have, from what I saw tonight, you're going to have new water lines. You're going to have more roads. You're going to have more things that are going to impact uh that delivery of service and that scope of service. You're going to need more uh you're going to need more staff to be able to accomplish that. And that seems to me to be proven out at least in this number and all the other numbers that are in the report. Everything that we saw said that you're growing in your service profile and what you need to be delivering. That's the reason we didn't say add 10 people because if I if I just looked at this number, I could probably justify that based just on one number. The idea though is to look at the ecosystem of what you're trying to do back to service level. Service level is essentially level of service is what am I trying to do relative to the resources I have in my availability. Um, I'll use the mechanic. Uh, you you don't have to add a mechanic. It doesn't take a benchmark to say that. However, however, uh, if you choose to, the reason you would choose to, it doesn't it's not based on on a benchmark. Uh, would you would you like to incur the risk of having someone work on your vehicles, your equipment who is not certified, and then puts your city at a higher level of risk, such as it is. We what we say in the report is you don't necessarily need to add a mechanic. You should look at other options besides this if you don't want to make if you want to don't want to incur the risk. So the the answer is benchmarking is a it's a part a part of the uh analysis but it's not the whole of the analysis. If I compare you uh only to to Minneapolis or some other place I'm not necessarily getting I'm not necessarily getting the whole picture. And what we decided as we went through the study was what we see and in you see this a lot in growth growing communities is that your community is growing by all indicators that we can see from a service level profile at a faster rate than your staff is growing. So therefore it's a pretty simple equation. And that's also why we recommended things like hey uh maybe do two one year see how that works and then if you need to add more staff use it in that but use it in the context of what you're trying to do as a community and everything that we could see sort of spoke to that >> so when you look at like this slide with the sewer FT and you took the FTS from the acter >> okay >> wouldn't it have made sense to have the employees fill a time spent profile how much time do you as employees spend on sewers and you could then come back and say well the acter says 1.9 95, but the employees tell us they actually actually we have 4.2 FTEES and then you'd have a more accurate measure of how many sewer FTEs you have per account than something out of an ACT where that no one knows where the number came from. >> That that's why we also suggested that they implement Beehive as a CMS to better record the activities that they're actually doing >> before you add more staff. >> You you you every indicator right now says you need to add more staff. any >> if you want to add more staff after that you can add more accordingly using that information. All right. So, beehive, let's talk about beehive. Let's talk about then some of the recommendations. So, beehive, what do we need for that process? What I was hearing was the software exists, but it's essentially a t a tablet Kindle thing doohickey for each person, training obviously, and then probably some management thereof. >> Right. So, we've already taken and we move fairly fast with some of the recommendations they've been giving. you know, the um annual plan. We've kind of implementing that already. 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. Um our time card system does track the amount of time that we spend in each area. Sewer, water, storm, sewer, and streets. But Beehive, we are um moving forward with that as fast as we can. And that would include next year a park module um which then we can put park task um assets in there work orders everything would be assigned the parks. That's >> like an add-on within the software. >> It's a layer. Correct. Yep. >> So at this point there wasn't a a need for a budget allocation >> uh not to do what we're improving right now. No. Then in terms of I guess I'll ask the question then. Um 410s two shifts. Um do you see that as something that you can within the department do without consternation or divide or um well I wanted the the Tuesday through Friday. Well, I want it or is that is that something that can reasonably be summer's already here, so that that would be a pretty quick turnaround, >> right? Yeah, I I think we're going to need some buy in or I suggest we get buy in from staff to make sure they want to work the 410s. it would be in the department's best interest because we we do eliminate a lot of those interruptions with the breaks and coming back to the shop taking break and you know um so we the four four 9s and a four are tremendous as far as increasing production and I know the 410s would even be better yet if we get buy in from staff um I think that's something we can implement once we add new staff because I right now we have six staff members showing up every day and if I was to split that team we would have three on Monday, three on Friday, somebody calls in sick, I can't operate with two staff members. So I would not I would not recommend to implement that until after I add additional staff. Um I just want to add too this has been um a great team working together and also with Adam too. And so part of um Marty and Adam while they're um working on implementing the work orders at Beehive is also um us learning what type of data we should be collecting in order to make those educated decisions and to back it up going forward. So and also doing more research with other cities um to make it you know right now um are we going to be tracking everything it becomes administratively cumbersome what is what should we be focusing on they there's a gamut of you know cities are are recording data differently in a on a span so Marty and his team continue to look into that and this is brand new for the workholders >> that I mean that would have been good information in here too. I you know I sorry I'm going to go back to the discussion. I know you were trying to move on from Yes. Sorry bringing it back up for you guys. >> Um you I'll just give my two cents on that. I I agree. I guess it is a little frustrating to be lacking some of the objective um benchmarks you know especially if that was in the proposal if that's something that we were asking for at the presentation. And I think it is worth having. I'll go back to example of we recently conducted a parks study and there was benchmarks in that and I I 100% agree with your point of sometimes these benchmarks can completely muddy the water right you see you know on average cities have one horse polo field it's like well >> do we need a horse pol is there any interest in horse polo fields here and it and there's a high interest of lacrosse and baseball and soccer here and and maybe we're underserved relative to that so I I get that benchmarks can't be the end- all beall, but I do think that they do give you at least a um an idea of where we need to be. And so I think that would be I think that's a really reasonable request to to get some more information on that, especially if that was part of, you know, what we were asking for. >> It was to get a little bit more information. Not that that >> makes the decision for us, but at least it gives us some guidance. And you know, if it says we need to hire based off these benchmarks 10 more people, well, we're probably not going to hire 10 more people next year. We're still going to start with like what you guys said, we're going to get beehive going. We're going to get a better idea of where the resources are going. Get a better idea of well, okay, where do we actually need to get people first? Like you said, they're they're getting this stuff done in and not a sustainable way long term. But the benchmarks again at least give us a rough idea if we're in the ballpark or if we're not. And I so I I personally would prefer to >> not that it's going to make the decision. I still think it's good objective data to have. And I you know I agree that there's a lot of great information that came from this. But again, I think that is one of the big things when we're having this done is like you guys are experts in this area and you're going to be be able to access those benchmarks and understand it where we might be missing those. Right. Let's just talk about this since it's up here and it's a good one. >> You know, in 2023, 134 accounts per FTE and that is way beyond the 75th percentile that AWA surveyed. >> Correct. of 600 accounts. So we could keep in mind well we could bring you in line with the 75th percentile. You'd be more leanly staffed than 25% than 75% of all sewer utilities. >> Except we don't know that the FTE from the ACE is an accurate FTE dedicated to sewer. >> It just we have no way of knowing that. >> They could have put 500 in there. I mean, the number they grab, nobody knows where it came from or how they got to it or if it's accurate. So, it's a meaning that's a meaningless measure. >> No, it's it's I don't think I don't think that came from Beehive >> because those allocations have been going back since well before beehive existed. >> I I just think that um we do need more staff. I don't disagree with that. I I I really believe that in my heart. I I'd like to see a more subjective analysis why we need three. the mechanic issue. I think we shouldn't have unqualified people servicing equip. I agree. But again, is one mechanic enough? I don't know. You know, um if they should hire one mechanic or contract out well, if one mechanic isn't sufficient, we're still not going to be in the right position. And so, that's where I'm coming from. You know, I ran public works departments, too, for 20 years. I I have a little bit of understanding. I'm a professional engineer. I have a little bit of understanding of this and I actually did staffing studies for 22 years. So we all have different approaches to get there. I just was hoping that if it says add three add three because you know you don't have enough staff to maintain this asset this asset and you know most people your peer communities use five people per measure and you only have three and so but none of that was there and so it just makes it harder to go back to the public and say well we need to add three people. Well, why you already started off by saying we're meeting all of our ser we're flushing our sewers, we're operating our valves and all that. Someone well might say, well, if you're doing all that now, why do you need more people? You know, I recognize we have the P the PTO issue, which is, you know, telling us we're stressing our people. That would be an argument, but it'd be nice to say that, you know, your department should be staffed at 22 to um, you know, to be doing everything you're doing and have your staff be able to take their time off and all that. there's just no analytical metric that leads us there. >> I I first of all appreciate all of that. I definitely see your your perspective too and I don't want to I don't want to uh act like it's not uh something I I think the thing that we sort of uh back back to the back to your point as well. Um you have to make choices when you do these studies, right? And one of the things that we noted was um and I want to get to the three FTEEs. I'll use that one as an example. I go, you're So, if we were to look for your peer communities, some communities do like Lake Elmo, their staff does it all. Brian mentioned it. Most of the utilities that you'd be benchmarking against, for example, using utilities as your example. They have com they have separate departments that do the same work that point whatever it is in the afar is in your staff your your so one of the things that we sort of split the difference you might say we said okay we don't have enough information uh to say exactly you need to your point 4 298 on every one of the every one of the services that you that you that you do. But what we do see is ev everyone of the at least the the percentage and the metrics that we did look at which is do you have growth in your community against all of your asset classes. The answer to that is yes you do number one. So that is that is driven totally by quantitative analysis. Number two do based on that and then based on the fact that you are growing continuing to grow and you're going to grow. Okay. What then should you be able to do or should you do based on your level of service? The answer is we're going to continue to do what we're doing right now. Then you at least need to add some level of staff. Our thought was three based on what we saw. So that's again that is that is quantitative in nature. And then finally I would say is I think we feel we're we're a little less um aggressive as a relay as a as a firm. We typically Brian and I do these all over the country. If we don't know, what we say is get the information so you can make the best choice to get yourself to where you need to be staffing-wise. And the way to do that is through things like >> beehive to do things like uh to to really look at that and then evaluate your level of service to say this is what we actually need. We Does that make sense? Hopefully that makes sense. >> I mean, are the benchmarks available? That is that something that you guys have access to? So this those three horizontal lines though those are the national benchmarks. Those are the surveyed samples. >> And so Marty will have access to all of these access >> uh all all of these charts are here in the in we call them our hip pocket slides in the back of the presentation. Again we didn't put them up in the front part of the presentation or include them in the report actually because we don't think they really enlighten anything. And I mean other than the fact that you know service demands are increasing but again we don't want to use some sort of formula to determine uh what sort of staffing and if I could use an two examples. Um I recently worked for a small city in uh Missouri smaller than Lake Elmo. They have 30 something lift stations. Well, you could say, "Well, we should benchmark on the number of list stations." You could use use that to help determine what your staffing should be. My first client doing one of these projects is the city and county of Denver. Probably familiar with how large of a city that is. They have three lift stations. So, you got to be very careful about, you know, the work what you perceive as work demands based on just some formula. Um, the other example I'll give, and we were talking about this, uh, with Nicole and Marty recently, there was a city near where I'm from, city of 10,000, so close to Lake Elmo size. They have a parks department. They have five full-time staff, six part-time staff, and 44 seasonal staff. Well, Lake Glo doesn't have any parks department. They have in the last I think two two or three years been allocated one between one and two FTEEs. What's the difference? The difference is levels of service. They're running a youth center with community meeting rooms. They've got a lake with a swimming beach and a campground. It's all about the levels of service that are being provided. We would not tell you because you're larger than them that you need to hire five full-time staff, six part-time staff, and 44 seasonal staff for your parks facilities. Nor are we even really able to, particularly when it comes to parks, say that parks in and of themselves are understaffed right now because there's no data to really that that exists that backs that up. there's there's not an allocation of uh parks employees per acre that you should take to then decide staffing necessarily. >> So I guess I'm confused with back to my first question about how many accounts per FTE would you recommend and you said it was a trick question. >> Yeah. But you keep pointing to this graph saying that the the graph has gone up and I agree that we do need somebody else but there's no quantitative data of saying it needs to reduce by x% to make it viable for the city. It's more of just like a it feels like trust me, we need three. >> At at the end of the day, I think you can say trust me, you need two. See how that's working for you. See the rate of growth and then you probably our honest guess is that you need a third. >> So you just said there is no quantitative data. It is just trust me, we need two. based on our discussions with staff at all levels and the things that they're trying to do. I mean, we could tell you, yeah, go meet the 75th percentile. You'll be more you'll be more efficient than 75% of or more lightly staffed than 75% of of utilities out there. You would basically need to more than double your allocated sewer FTEEs to meet that. Do I think that's what you need? We don't know that the FDE counts in that act for are accurate. They go keep going back to took a number out of the act for that nobody knows where it came from or how accurate it is and divided it. You might as well have said there are three dogs in the street and two have a bone. So let's use the two that have the bone. It's just that's a completely useless number because we don't know that that that that allocation is accurate and reflects the actual effort in the sewer. We could have found that out by surveying the employees and their time spent, but we chose not to do that. I think you're I think uh two two things on that if I could. Uh number one um okay um let's say we double the staffing number in what what's in the actur. Okay, as as a as a point of reference. Okay, it wouldn't change the trend analysis in any one of the only thing it would do is it may change it may adjust uh your sewer number down customers accounts per allocated FT down slightly. Uh it may it may change the nature of the metrics, but it wouldn't change the recommendation. The recommendation still is is that you would be too uh you would be underst staffed relative to the level of service you keep trying to provide. and whether or not the number is 100% accurate. Look at this trend, sir. I I just I don't know what to tell you other than to say if if if you're if you're discounting the the ACT for number in 2023, you also have to discount the act for number in 2012, 13, 14, 15. >> Pull out of the year. >> So, what is the number telling us? >> But the other number that the AWA is using is all of the employees in the sewer department, the billing, the managers, the accounting and finance, you're taking two from from just one public works department. So you you're not you're not using the total number of employees dedicated to sewer. You're using the two employees dedicated from public works. What about the billing staff? What about the management staff? That's not included in the act for number. >> That's public works. Go back to the chart. That's public works. >> Now these are allocated sewer. So there FTE is allocated to sewer and water. And if you add up all the FTE allocated to sewer, water, streets, parks, I believe it will total more employees than you have in public works because they are allocating some billing andor finance. >> That's typically how it's done. >> Yeah. Marty, do you feel like it would be I mean, do you feel like this is enough if you know what the 75th percentile is that you know it's around 650 allocated or 650 accounts per FTE for sewer? Does that help you enough when you're assigning the operators what they need to be doing when you're trying to staff when you're trying to figure out the schedules? Like if you have these benchmarks, does that provide you with enough to be moving forward? And yeah, of course, like Beehive is going to get operating. We're going to get better data and truly understand how many FTEEs are being allocated to each of these things. >> You know, I how how long is this information or the recommendation good for? Five years and then we kind of reook at it after that. Um, that's kind of my bigger question in in the back of my head is, you know, three recommendations or three FTEEs, is that going to get us until 2027 and then >> So, is your concern that it's not enough? um with the growth the projected growth that we're going to have you know I have some concerns with >> that's where benchmarks could come in nice because then we'd have an idea of >> it it would I kind of agree it would just um give us another option to look at and kind of compare to now are our service level expectations different I think they are right I mean >> if we get another council in two they might really want to focus hard on parks, right? And they want the best of the best in every park for service and ball fields, you know, lined and um and obviously things are going to change drastically. Um right now parks are being maintained as a recreation more than probably anything. Um, so there's there's variables. >> You um just some things that I learned too from Marty is that you do have some um service levels that you do track for like time that takes to complete a um full snow removal. And so with streets added and service levels change, you are already able to gauge how many employees you would need to cover that. We do have some data, but what I learned through this whole process is that we need to collect more data and we need to be consistently collecting it to to tell the story as we continue to grow. >> And then Marty does have these service levels in place which are um currently being met. Um, but that would be another tipping point is if things start to not be able to be met, that's something that would tell us we need to look at additional staff. >> I think maybe a a good thing moving forward because I I think we've we've beat the horse pretty good on this. Um, >> yeah, >> with those service level expectations because again, snow removal is one. removal of trash at parks like there there are so many things that and we don't know what the time frames are for any of those but may maybe we we're getting for the ex I here's a list of tasks Marty here's a whole list of things to add to the pile because you're not busy enough already but some some of that those agreements those understandings what is being met and then what do we know is going to be changing coming up that's going to be impacting that because That's another data point. We know there will be this many additional homes built in the next two years because there's already permits or there's already plats. We know that there's an additional park going here next to Sunfish Lake on the east side. Like things that we know that are going to be impacting those service levels, the additional mileage of road, the additional water lines, the additional sewer lines. Those are things we have internally, but I also don't want to ask for it because that's additional time and that 0.5 is missing. But I I don't think the I don't know if there's another set of questions that we can ask for the two of you who have come here for this. So I >> I I appreciate you you obviously flew in. Um I don't know if there's any value gained for us to continue to have this discussion with Rafelis but um >> well I just one thing we have all that data and we did upload it so >> we get it we we did all you know community development all the um growth projections that have been done you know that they worked on for um the water usage we have all that >> um I don't we have so much data >> that we collect collected. I mean, we we all pulled together and, >> you know, got as much in there. I don't have the whole repository list, but >> I mean, Nick needs a thousand pages to entertain himself, but and because again, I don't want to have this be an additional task for staff. This is why we hired a consultant to do this. But on the flip side, as we move forward, so the beehive thing, awesome to hear that's already being done. I fully agree. The 4 by10s, we all we all know a 10-hour workday, you can get more done with 40 hours in 10our sections than 5 by8s. That's obvious. You're on the job site, you're able to do things more when you have that long amount. I get it. Um access to leadership resources, training for all the leaders in the department. Yes. I don't know what that looks like. I don't know what the resources are within the within your area of lure, within the league of Minnesota cities, whoever it is. I don't know what that looks like. Fully agree. I think that's should be the case no matter what for every one of our leaders. Um but I think we need to have that discussion especially once the mayor is back as to uh the process because it this is about not only just the potential of 3.5 FTEEs. It's also then that discussion for what a parks director does or does not look like and that community conversation. We haven't even talked about that like it's in our parks plan but how we get that ball rolling to the discuss that and analyze that. So I I mean this might be another work session topic. I >> um yeah, sorry to interrupt, but we had discussed that exactly is um something that was missing from that parks master plan was um and I asked this question too is um what what um what was important that we're not that we're not currently providing that the parks commission feels that we're missing and maybe it's I'm guessing service levels um so we can have that discussion with parks commission and council and then council ultimately can decide, >> you know, and so that's that was part of what was not in the parks master plan. So, exactly. I agree that and we talked about scheduling a workshop for parks commission and council at a later date to discuss that. Do you have enough feedback from us for next steps for a any actionable things in terms of obviously beehive is rolling leadership opportunities that conversation about 4x10s but as you said you can't do that until there's additional FTEES anyways so I think maybe the next conversation is we need to talk as a council how do we if we do move forward on FTEES does that sound like a plan and it's just a report discussing that we get access to the data, as much of it as possible, so we can at least add more perspective to that conversation. >> Yes, keep the ball rolling. I >> think a lot of the observations are going to be resolved by uh addressing the underlying issue of not enough FTE. >> Sounds good. Thank you for coming in Lake Elmo. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Have a good evening. UFM test seed plot is our UFM member out there yet? >> Oh, I don't see him. >> He was walking around up there. It's the worst ever. Thank you. >> Good evening. uh council Gary Deeders is with the U ofM and is interested in proposing a research test plot for low input grass seed uh multiple different species. And the one location that interests him um that could potentially be available is the new water tower down on Hudson and Lake Elmo. Um, I can let him go through the slides and then I can kind of help answer questions from there. >> All right. Hey, thanks. Thanks for having me. Um, so, um, Gary Deers, I work for the University of Minnesota. I'm the lawnwater conservation educator and you can see on the slide there that um we work with the Met Council um and we have a grant from them that's basically water conservation and um part of this study is through their grant and it's establishing uh low input mixtures and I'll go through that and so the introduction is we know that lawn seed is available and um we know that there are good mixtures out there but but residents have a hard time finding them. Um we know that too much Kentucky bluegrass is used in sod because it's so easily available. Um but it requires a lot of water to look good and uh but and there are also significant barriers to um using the most well- adapted grass seed in the Twin Cities. So why are there barriers is because of expectations. People like a lush green lawn and but it again it requires a lot of water and that's the Kentucky blueg grass. In order for it to look good it needs water and fertilizer. uh people are just resistant to change. They just don't want to change. They just do what they want to do, which is fine. Um availability. So again, the easy access to the sod. Um and then the limited retail presence of the low input drought tolerant mixtures and then just the lack of public awareness from homeowners who might not know what the benefits are of these low input turfs, turf grasses. And so the project overview uh the plan is we're going to establish multiecies turf grasses at four metro sites in the Twin Cities this summer. Cultivars are spec are for each species are selected based on relevant performance tests. Basically data that has been um been performed over the years. Um, and then we will work with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, Bowser, uh, and Turf Grass Seed Vendors to develop a process to recommend the best seed, um, best lawn, uh, for, I'm sorry, to recommend the best lawn water conservation species mixtures to the Twin Cities. And then seed vendors will be able to use approved cultivars uh, to fulfill the mixture requirements. So, the benefits to Lake Elmo and the Twin Cities. So homeowners will be um more easil easily available to access better turf grass mixtures for their lawns. So like right now I speak to thousands of people a year and we tell you know they visit our site or they visit um the state fair booth and and they're like uh this this low input turf is great. This is awesome. Well, where do I get it? And you know, we're we're not really supposed to say, you know, like, well, go to this place to get, you know, to get this seed because just university, we're not really supposed to do that. and uh just trying to find these mixtures. The right when a homeowner who has no idea what to to buy, they'll go to the store, they'll go to the big box stores, they don't know what to get, and so they buy core turf um varieties or cultivars, perennial ryrass, which usually doesn't survive winters and and summers. Um and so it's just a battle. And so being able to say go to so and so they carry this seed load this drought tolerant mixture and we're hoping to have like places all over the twin cities that we can tell people to go get these mixtures. So that's what the the overall goal is. So um and then cities could recommend new lawns only use these mixtures. Now, of course, that would be, you know, a decision on for each city, but knowing that these would exist, cities would say you can only if you have a new lawn, you can't use just Kentucky bluegrass sod, you must use this mixture. So, possibly, you know, that's something that we get get there, you know, eventually maybe, but it's similar to what the U of M research has done with mindot where that has led to roadside turf grass seed mixture recommendations. So establishing the site um we would pay for the water, the hookups, whatever is needed for the fire hydrant conversion. Um using a seating blanket to help hold moisture and increase establishment rate and prevent wash outs. And so you can see in the photo there, that's that's what a seating blanket looks like. It's basically just erosion control. You see them in ditches, roadsides where they're doing construction and then uh mowing and maintenance. And then again we would try to you know we would talk about like maybe the city takes it over after like that first establishment year. Um how will the site get watered? So you can kind of see the pipes there. Um it's this modular system that we have developed. Um, and it would be complete with a rain sensor, MP rotors, which are EPA Water Sense approved, which um, use lower water. Um, it's a lower water use nozzle. Water several times a day for the initial establishment for optimum seed germination. And then once it's established, like this year, after this year, um, 26 and 27, there will be no water used. And that's part of u discovering which are the best mixture. So if we go through some drought, you're going to see these uh species performing or you know better than others because they're more drought tolerant. And so establishing the research site for the drought tolerant turf grass mixtures, we mentioned the the water tower. Um there's access uh to the site for public viewing if if needed. um access to water to establish the uh the plots. Um Lake Elmo is a city with water concerns, so it would be good to demonstrate the most well adapted turf grasses. So, kind of the the timeline of events, you know, of course, this is with access agreement approved. So, year one, um kind of the the fall, late summer, early fall established the turf grass mixture plots. So like around August 15, you know, around that time. And then year two is just maintenance and data collection. Year three is maintenance and data collection. And then 28 and beyond either, you know, we could return it to the original site or you keep it going for just further discovery. So challenges, watering restrictions, um, and the need for the extension. So like we're requesting the waiver to water the new seed. um beyond the initial 15 days um because establishing uh a lawn from seed often requires more than 15 days because not all seed germinates at the same uh speed. Um it could lead to a failure due to lack of water on a hot windy day like today. If um if there isn't water being put down on new seed um even this earlier this week, it's probably going to fail. you know, you got seedlings, their roots are like this. So, all that work, it fails. So, I I can see like homeowners having a lot of difficulty establishing um a lawn from seed with the with the watering restrictions, and I and I get it. You know, it's it's uh I see a lot of watering restrictions um you know, throughout the Twin Cities. There are a lot of different ones. Yours is very strict, which is what the city decided to do. So, um, once the site is established, no irrigation will be used at all. Um, so if desired, we could use signage, and I just threw that together, that sign. Um, so we could post signage explaining the project to the public and create a landing page for homeowners to learn about drought tolerant grasses and water conservation. And then the expected outcomes. This is what we see the expected outcomes of the because of the research. Um water conservation. So overall less water used with the new mixtures, cost savings for residents and like city infrastructure because less water is potentially being used. Um the environmental impact of less watering, less runoff and pollution, the aesthetic appeal. So attractive lawns with less water. I already know um like tall fescue grass um looks fantastic, very drought tolerant, but most people don't know about it. So, it's just trying to discover these turf grasses for for people and then educational value. So, opportunities for community education and using low input turf. So, um like that photo there, uh what you see that's um tall fescue and Kentucky blueg grass mixture study and um it's amazing to see um how well like the low input turf tall fescue does uh compared to Kentucky bluegrass. Way less water. So, um I do have like a breakdown of what the plot would look like. I have some more handouts. Um and and so basically um like the water use for the research area. Um what what we propose and you know this is totally up to you if you even want to do it because I I get it. water. You uh you you know you you you put these restrictions in place for residents to not use water. And we're proposing um 10 minutes at like 7:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 100 p.m. 400 p.m. 700 p.m. And um with with the nozzles that we use, it's like 12 gallons a minute for 10 minutes. So basically 120 gallons per watering event. So in a day you're going to use about 600 gallons. Um but we would evaluate we would adjust. So you know we don't know how well the soil takes in water whatnot. So then you're thinking well maybe we could go down to five minutes is enough to water. you know, this is all the deeper we want to go is like that quarter inch just to make sure that seeding areas remains moist and um we're protecting the newly developing um grasses, you know, like the roots because there's nothing there. So, on a day like today, like I said, with no water from probably noon to 5:00, it would fry. Um I've seen lots of failures because of that. So, um you know, I I know that the Met Council is very interested in this. Um they've given um like you know the water rebate program with Lake Elmo. I know that that exists because of the Met Council and um they're very excited about this uh just for the the Twin Cities Metro. And so we're just looking to see if you can work with us so that we can try to establish this turf because without the extra watering that we propose, we probably can't do the research because it we know it will fail when you're trying to water um and establish turf mid to late August. And um so any questions? >> I have a couple questions. Um can you explain more about how homeowners will be more easily able to access the better turf? >> Yep. So what the hope is following the research um >> we work with Bowser and we go to the seed vendors and and we create through the research and through the like seeing the research and um like specific uh mixtures that um so we have the super drought tolerant species or um like best uh shade mixture um that we can and the city can say these are the mixtures um and you can go find them here. You can advertise where to buy these mixtures because they're going to be state approved. So um it's not like um I mean it's the availability will be there for anyone to go purchase these mixtures and they'll know what mixtures to buy because still don't know where that would be sold. >> No, it it's one of those things like um >> the the seed vendors around the Twin Cities like and I'm just going to throw some names out there that are seed vendors like Twin City Seed, Grinders, um Girtton, I be able to go to any of these places that want to carry these mixtures. >> Got it. And I think another question slashc comment is would it be a bad look with such strict watering policies here every day they're seeing this lush lawn get watered and they can't water their lawn more than twice >> yep >> a week. >> Understandable. And and you know like the that amount of watering would probably be like 15 days you know for that that initial establishment. And then we get into September where it's cooler, the nights are longer, the days are shorter, where that window of water need is going to be less. So, >> but you're still watering every day. >> But we're still probably watering every day unless it rains, you know, of course. And that is probably the one hold up, you know, with um is it a bad look if the residents aren't allowed to use water? Um I I I guess but you know for the sake of research and and learning these things you know and that's where the communication would come into play and so that's where you know when we was talking to Marty and Nicole about the the water restrictions were like me and my fellow researcher were like whoa that's like that's like very strict and um I think I think we knew that this was probably gonna be trouble um potentially if if you go through with it. But you know, if if you want something done, you have to you have to do it this way. Um like for us, I guess it because we know it will fail if it doesn't get that much water. So, what is the benefit of having it in Lake Elmo since it would be a state approved seed recipe, so to speak? >> Couldn't somebody from Oakdale take advantage of all the study and all the water that was used? >> Absolutely. I it could um the reason like like we were approached from Greg Johnson from the Met Council who approached I think was approached Nicole about trying to get this study here in Lake Elmo. So >> then Nicole reached out to us >> about trying to get it and that's yeah that's kind of where the connection was. >> Okay. Thank you. And and Marty, I presume on your end, since we're at this stage, the water tower site from public works perspective, you're good to go. >> Yeah, I'm not afraid of that. It'd be a decent site. It the grass isn't superly well established there yet. It's fairly new, so I have no issues with that. >> What uh for that specific spot, was there right now like long fescue that was on a net or is it still open dirt? >> Um, no. It was hydro seated. So, I can't tell you the seed mix that the contractor put down. It's a standard mix that we use for construction, but >> did we put down any top soil underneath that? >> There's black dirt. Correct. >> Yep. And I guess on on my end I have so we because we allow hand watering any day at all times for flowers and if a person plants seeds we allow hand watering 247 and we do give two weeks every day for new sod although the hours are still restricted but I love the idea of the signs especially because yeah someone could drive by and be like what the heck is going on so make sure the signs are 50 foot um send a picture to Judge Marinon of that sign and uh I I personally I like the idea of it being here because it's taking the initiative to say we understand there are needs to be done and we have a public plot that's available. So I I think it's an opportunity to to establish that. Um, I also appreciate the irrigation just being that uh above ground pretty simple straightforward one. I thought it was going to be like the the machine that's GPS programmed above ground that I'm starting to see on Facebook every day. Um, yeah, I I have no no issue with it. I guess the only question is be longterm after one year if that's an issue for public works if that transition occurred for labor of mowing. Um, >> I will tell you the the plot. It's it's um you could see it's like 30 by by 90. So, it's about 3,000 600 square feet, something like that. About 3,000 square feet. So, it's not huge. And, you know, when I when I talked to Marty about that too, he's just like, "Oh, maybe, you know, maybe it's just something that we would, you know, uh, schedule with, you know, the with the city or whatever." But it's it's not a very big research area. So, >> will you need to bring in dirt to replicate the exact conditions at each site to make sure every site has the exact same soil conditions? >> Nope. We're not going to do that. We would just take our soil samples and just as is knowing that it was renovated, you know, at one point. But um yeah, we're just trying to uh because some other places we're looking at is like Savage. Um we were looking at Andover um and then our research facility as well. >> And technically, are these all seeds that already exist? It's just now trying to find a combo or a hybrid. >> Yep, they exist. And some of the the mixtures that are are being proposed um are like available already. But again, um you go to the store and you might see, you know, hardy mixture, but the cultivars maybe aren't the best cultivars. They'll throw in a cheap cultivar to bring the price down, to keep the price down. And we um think or know that some of these could get kind of expensive, but if we're talking about um you know, the best of the best, that's kind of what we're looking for, you know, out of this uh research. So, >> Gotcha. >> I'm I'm all for this. I think for a couple reasons, you know, to so to go back to the watering restrictions, you know, and it we do have where they can water for every day kind of like you were saying and even if you were having in the initial 15 days, are you guys watering for you said it and I forgot. I mean, every time six hours a day. >> No, it would be, you know, like five times a day for like five to 10 minutes. So I mean you're meeting our that is within our we allow that for new new plan >> other than from 5 a.m. to 5:00 pm. We wouldn't allow >> if you got the hose on your hand. >> Okay. >> Yeah. if you were >> and I guess where I'm going with this is I actually really I am I'm kind of okay with giving the exception here if I I mean we're we're talking to the the turf pro here and they're saying that this is what needs to be done and and you guys can do this study and show us that yeah, you know, if we have 15 days and we can water for this time period and that really helps us from a council perspective of well what should our policy be? you know, going back to the last situation where we were looking for some data. We didn't get that and now we are, right? Well, hopefully we get this data and, >> you know, and I just think that could be I think that could be very helpful. I think it also really clearly shows that we're um it's just another sign to the DNR that we're taking this very seriously and we're doing everything we can to um to move in the right direction. I think one thing that maybe is a little bit of a I don't know I don't know what the right word is, but I I feel like most of the um the the grass in the developments is sad that's put in from Assad farm. So, I mean, I think we might still be in the issue of well, do the sod farms use this seed? you know, maybe that's a potential business opportunity for somebody to side farm with this mixture uh for these, but um I mean right now I don't think many people do seeds in in Lake Elmo for the most part, at least for the new development where most of the water's being used. So um >> most of the developments require sod >> again. >> Most of the new developments require they won't let you see. >> Yeah. >> HOA, >> correct? So I just I mean I think there's a little bit of a >> maybe a little disconnect there. Um but maybe also somebody starts a sod farm with this. That'd be great. >> Yeah. And you know potentially like I was thinking about this too where you know if you were to approve of this where maybe like to the right of the research plot and I'll have to talk to my uh fellow researcher about this but maybe we have a plot that is not watered from you know five to five and it's watered before five and after five to see how it develops to then you can kind engage. Well, yeah, this this no watering from 5 to 5 5:00 am to 5:00 pm is a complete failure if somebody's trying to establish these new seeds, you know. Um, so yeah, it's and and we're kind of looking like also beyond that first 15 days just to make sure that we can establish. So it's it's almost like a special exemption. Yeah. You know, beyond the 15 days just to make sure. But like I said, we're once you get into September, your watering window needs go down because the intensity of the you might have a 90 degree day, but it's only hot from, you know, uh, one to four. >> And you're more making that determination of do we need to water a 16 day based off of the water level in the soil. So, it's like it may not even go beyond 15. >> Correct. >> But it may. And so, you're just saying, hey, if that happens, >> absolutely. >> Are we good with that? I'm I'm exceeding >> as we look to address you know our water problem here and I know that um clock and I have had a couple of discussions you know and we talked about um the native plants you know and and my suggestion in that discussion was that's an opportunity for us to reduce our irrigation use but I think one of the holdbacks is some what you're seeing here is people are reluctant first what plants where should I put them how would it affect the way people look at my house and >> and I thought was you we get a grant and we use our landscape architect to they just go visit and not drop plant but say well if you put them here and you planted you know timbuktus and and acorns or whatever you know in this area you could reduce your lawn by 30% and save water and will look really nice but because people are trying to find a way to make their houses look nice but still they want to save water and in this case now you're going to provide them with potential for grass that will reduce their water use and help get our water consumption down. And so the fact that we have to make some exception to our irrigation policies and that to achieve a long-term goal that's in our best interest to me is is a no-brainer. I mean, I think this is a great opportunity and because of where it is, people can go up and take a look and say, "Look at the type of grass and what does it look like when I stand and look over it look nice on my lawn and oh by the way, can I just overseed my lawn with this tall fescue and will I take it over?" And I mean, we can provide them with our newsletter with advice about that kind of stuff and drive, you know, our water irrigation water way down. It's a long-term goal, but it's like requiring, you know, storm water reuse for irrigation. There's you got to have a number of fronts to get to where you need to go. >> And if you could get the study to happen in two months and be done, that'd be great. >> I'd volunteer to get my lawn, you know, but >> Yeah. And you know that's unfortunate like with the sod and the Kentucky blueg grass and and the the you know people want it to look nice so they water it and and then you've got people that maybe don't check their rain sensors and then it's raining and then it's irrigating anyways and you you have a lot of issues and I and I I see it all the time unfortunately and but yeah if we could um you know we're we're working on like overseating to rescue and doing all these things and we're we're continually learning and um so yeah, I appreciate the consideration um because I know that this is not necessarily an easy consideration when people might say, "Well, how come I don't?" Well, you actually do get to irrigate, but it's handwatering, which you know, sometimes can take a while when you have a big yard. But um you know like I said with this setup um we you know would use low water use uh nozzles and um and and so you know if you have to decide more if you have any more questions we're free to to answer them. You know, >> the other thing I wanted to point out was approaches like this will become help us get that down faster because unfortunately we have fairly high income area >> and people don't care what it costs. They want green grass, you know, if it's if it's a thousand bucks a month, I don't care. I can afford it. I want a green lawn. >> And if we were a, you know, much less >> affluent community, we have a median household income of like, I don't know, 70,000 bucks or 80,000 bucks or something like that. If it was 30, they'd let their lawn burn because they have to pick between watering their lawn and having supper. Here, people have to pick between watering their lawn and not having green grass. We have your contact and I think we also uh can have an ongoing conversation as well as to other seed information, other other things we could enhance maybe with when we do new developments. Maybe we start talking about >> city standard. >> Yeah. that it's not sad anymore and now it's netted certain seeds that we know already might be better anyways not the best of the best but >> I think that's a worthwhile conversation >> well and we know that a lot of the the like tall fescue and fine fescue the lower use they germinate very quickly so it's like under the seeding blankets you're talking um four or five days where the Kentucky bluegrass um why the sod is so readily available this you know the sod producers produce it. Um it's easy for them like as far as the um the process. You roll it up, throw it out, instant lawn. And but if you're trying to get Kentucky bluegrass from seed, it's usually 14 to 21 days before germination. And it's just such a slow developing um grass in lawn. That's why people saw it. It's because the seed takes a long time. But the like the tall fescue and the fine fescues they germinate quicker. Fine fescue is a slow grower. So it establishes slower but like since it grows slow that's why it uses less water less fertilizer needs things like that. And the tall fescue is just drought tolerant because it's deeply rooted and so it can go deeper to to get the water where the Kentucky bluegrass goes instantly dormant. you know, the roots are short and and so yeah, you know, once some once those Kentucky bluegrass sod um lawns are established, if they don't get water, they go dormant quickly after years. And I see this because of that mat that it comes on, it fails during drought and it's not getting water. I I've seen I see it a lot. So, uh, looks good for a couple years and then people are like, I don't want to pay 300 bucks a month for water or more. They shut off the water and then they're lawn eventually just turned into weeds. So, it's a battle. I get it. And uh but we're here to you know u educate you and and if it's something that you're interested in doing you know I I think I think it'll go a long way into you know the the battle of >> I think it appears the answer is yes and thank you for the opportunity. >> Okay. So um our next step would be to invite um Gary back when we have an access agreement drafted by legal and perhaps um then it would be an opportunity for Gary to present his research project more as u I mean this is publicly recorded but to the public as well. Is there anything that anything else that you can think of that he should address during that? >> I I hate if I'd missed this. I and one of the issues that we dealt with is the developers at first were not putting any um black black dirt down um and then I think I I can't remember did we change >> 4 in 4 in of a specific top soil it do you recall Jack might recall there's a specific like it's 9 CQR TUV top soil >> and and so my thought is not that like that is what has to be, you know, used for the research. But again, just if it's going to be good information if we know what kind of soils then again from when we're making policy decisions of what kind of soil do developers need to put in. I think that would be helpful for us to know too. >> Yeah, I know a lot of the the developers what they'll do is they'll scrape that top that good top soil and use it in other places like for example where I live. I lived um in Oiggo, but um where the developers, they were supposed to give us like a couple inches for sure of nice black soil. They didn't. We're right on top of the clay and then they slap down the Kentucky bluegrass sod. You know, I would have never chosen it, but it was a developer thing. And uh it's it's terrible. Um, and everyone in my neighborhood is in the the same. You should see how terrible the lawns are because of it. So, yeah, that's definitely an an issue. >> So, yeah, I guess if that can be addressed in the study, but obviously there's a lot of things that go into that part of it. >> I guess Nicole, if the question is, are there other things we can probe Gary's brain on when he's here next time? Well, or just that you would like for him to include in his presentation when he comes back for the formal he'll he'll be coming back for the formal request for you to approve an access agreement for him to do the research. >> I mean, I don't have anything for that specific thing. I have ideas to probe his brain on long term. Um, but not for that specific >> do estimated water usage because again, that's going to be if that's the complaint of, well, why does he get to water it for 15 days? Well, hey, if you want to water for 20 days and then not water your yard again for three years, we could probably make that deal with you, too. >> You know, I mean, so >> I don't see that gets us anywhere. I just think we take the position that this is a research study. >> It's in a long-term path except we reduce water use ultimately and they need to do this to do the research and we're going to allow it because it makes sense from a long-term perspective. We get into you can water, you can't, we're going to fight, we can't can't win. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you for coming. >> Okay. Thank you. appreciate it. >> Just say he's from the government and he's here to help. >> You're the only one old enough to know that quote. >> I know it as a social studies teacher, but I >> I was going to say I think you're old enough to know that quote, too. Then >> I I I'm up there. Miss Miller, future agenda items. Anything to mention or we have in our packet anyways. Anyone have any questions for Miss Miller about those future agenda items? Sounds like that's a no. >> Okay. >> Any questions for Miss Johnson? >> One thing future agenda items, one thing I think we should talk about um and I talked a little bit about it is the storm water utility. Uh for we get a budget, we should start thinking about budgeting for a storm water utility study. Um and there's a couple things we want to approach. First is what should the race be? And secondly, we don't have a really a good system for storm water credits. And when we should look at the equity, the charges. So if you're a development and you have a storm water pond and you're paying all the costs of maintaining the pond, you still pay the same storm water rate as someone who doesn't incur any of those expenses. And so you look at what's the system as a whole and what's fair to each customer depending on what cost they pay out of their pocket. That's part of controlling storm water that doesn't fall on the rest of the rate payers. And what should be credits for things like we're going to grass? what kind of credit should you get then you because there's runoff that comes from the lawn too and so it's kind of an all-encompassing thing and Cl and I talked about that and she said what would be good to do for the budget for 2026 include that in there but maybe want to have have some thought about it some ideas I know that the mayor's had some complaints about the storm water charges from someone in his area that has a farm fielder doesn't get the credit I don't know all the exact particulars but it would just seem it would be a good thing to do and what makes sense. And if you remember when we looked at it last time, the current storm water fee doesn't even cover its operating costs. >> And that's something you and the mayor have enough ability to provide feedback to staff to create the item. >> Yes, we can create we can create an RFP. Me and Clarissa or the mayor and >> the the workshop item. >> A workshop. Yeah, we can do that, too. Yep. No problem. >> Yeah. And um Marty or someone can can bring the information about our storm water credit program. Y >> as well. >> Okay. Well, we'll I'll work with Clarissa when she gets back to see when she'd be ready for that. >> Yes. Okay. >> She'll probably want to speak in German when she comes back, but you know, we'll tell her she has to speak English to Germany. figure >> because we're just going to keep going and going. Meeting adjourned